Mollie Gregory
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780813166223
- eISBN:
- 9780813166759
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University Press of Kentucky
- DOI:
- 10.5810/kentucky/9780813166223.003.0003
- Subject:
- Film, Television and Radio, Film
Movies projected women’s “proper place”: they did not come to anyone’s rescue; they were wives and mothers. Stuntwomen’s work decreased. Labor unions and guilds were formed—the Screen Actors Guild, ...
More
Movies projected women’s “proper place”: they did not come to anyone’s rescue; they were wives and mothers. Stuntwomen’s work decreased. Labor unions and guilds were formed—the Screen Actors Guild, the Writers Guild, the Directors Guild. White men managed the studios and the guilds, controlled the work, ran the stunts, doubled for women, and, in blackface, doubled for minority actors. To enhance their stars’ profiles, studios demanded secrecy regarding stunt players who doubled them in action scenes. The Motion Picture Production Code delivered “morals” to movies. A few stuntwomen, such as Helen Thurston, succeeded in action roles (Destry Rides Again, 1939).Less
Movies projected women’s “proper place”: they did not come to anyone’s rescue; they were wives and mothers. Stuntwomen’s work decreased. Labor unions and guilds were formed—the Screen Actors Guild, the Writers Guild, the Directors Guild. White men managed the studios and the guilds, controlled the work, ran the stunts, doubled for women, and, in blackface, doubled for minority actors. To enhance their stars’ profiles, studios demanded secrecy regarding stunt players who doubled them in action scenes. The Motion Picture Production Code delivered “morals” to movies. A few stuntwomen, such as Helen Thurston, succeeded in action roles (Destry Rides Again, 1939).
Brian Taves
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- May 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780813134222
- eISBN:
- 9780813135939
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University Press of Kentucky
- DOI:
- 10.5810/kentucky/9780813134222.003.0004
- Subject:
- Film, Television and Radio, Film
Ince was unique among producers for his reputation in collaborating on every script, with a scenario department of only five individuals, unlike other companies employing dozens of scenarists and ...
More
Ince was unique among producers for his reputation in collaborating on every script, with a scenario department of only five individuals, unlike other companies employing dozens of scenarists and continuity specialists. The use of spectacle, genre, and other types of popular appeal defined the corporate image Ince presented to audiences, and he described the process as similar to baking a cake, knowing how to blend certain ingredients. He became known for the typical “Ince punch”—“a by-word in motion picturedom,” according to studio publicity, and this was no exaggeration. The “punch” was the showman's touch, a spectacular, big scene, like a flood, cyclone, or horse race, leaving the audience awestruck with the physical scope, but appealing simultaneously to the audience's emotions and moral sense because of the scene's impact on the characters.Less
Ince was unique among producers for his reputation in collaborating on every script, with a scenario department of only five individuals, unlike other companies employing dozens of scenarists and continuity specialists. The use of spectacle, genre, and other types of popular appeal defined the corporate image Ince presented to audiences, and he described the process as similar to baking a cake, knowing how to blend certain ingredients. He became known for the typical “Ince punch”—“a by-word in motion picturedom,” according to studio publicity, and this was no exaggeration. The “punch” was the showman's touch, a spectacular, big scene, like a flood, cyclone, or horse race, leaving the audience awestruck with the physical scope, but appealing simultaneously to the audience's emotions and moral sense because of the scene's impact on the characters.
John Billheimer
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- January 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780813177427
- eISBN:
- 9780813177441
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University Press of Kentucky
- DOI:
- 10.5810/kentucky/9780813177427.003.0002
- Subject:
- Film, Television and Radio, Film
This chapter traces the origins of film censorship in the US from 1910 onward. It documents the rise of public concern over movie sex and violence and traces the manner in which pressures from ...
More
This chapter traces the origins of film censorship in the US from 1910 onward. It documents the rise of public concern over movie sex and violence and traces the manner in which pressures from religious and social groups led to the formation of individual censorship entities in various states and municipalities. The motion picture industry tried to counter these pressures by forming the Motion Picture Production and Distribution Association under Will Hays and promising to police itself, an effort that proved ineffectual until 1934, when government pressure, the Legion of Decency, and Catholic boycotts led to the requirement that any motion picture produced in the US had to earn the Seal of Approval of the Production Code Administration under Joe Breen.Less
This chapter traces the origins of film censorship in the US from 1910 onward. It documents the rise of public concern over movie sex and violence and traces the manner in which pressures from religious and social groups led to the formation of individual censorship entities in various states and municipalities. The motion picture industry tried to counter these pressures by forming the Motion Picture Production and Distribution Association under Will Hays and promising to police itself, an effort that proved ineffectual until 1934, when government pressure, the Legion of Decency, and Catholic boycotts led to the requirement that any motion picture produced in the US had to earn the Seal of Approval of the Production Code Administration under Joe Breen.
John Billheimer
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- January 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780813177427
- eISBN:
- 9780813177441
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University Press of Kentucky
- DOI:
- 10.5810/kentucky/9780813177427.001.0001
- Subject:
- Film, Television and Radio, Film
The Motion Picture Production Code controlled the content and final cut on all films made and distributed in the US from 1934 to 1968. Code officials protected sensitive ears from the standard ...
More
The Motion Picture Production Code controlled the content and final cut on all films made and distributed in the US from 1934 to 1968. Code officials protected sensitive ears from the standard four-letter words as well as a few five-letter words like tramp and six-letter words like cripes. They also scrubbed ‘excessively lustful’ kissing from the screen, and ensured that no criminal went unpunished. Censors demanded an average of twenty changes, ranging from trivial to mind-boggling, on each of Alfred Hitchcock’s films during his most productive years. No production escaped these changes, which rarely improved the finished film. Code reviewers dictated the ending of’ Rebecca, shortened the shower scene in’ Psycho, absolved Cary Grant of guilt in’ Suspicion, edited Cole Porter’s lyrics in’ Stage Fright, and decided which shades should be drawn in’ Rear Window. Nevertheless, Hitchcock still managed to push the boundaries of sex and violence permitted in films by charming (and occasionally tricking) the censors and by swapping off bits of dialogue, plot points, and individual shots (some of which had been deliberately inserted as trading chips) to protect cherished scenes and images. The director’s priorities in dealing with the censors highlight both his theories of suspense and the single-mindedness of Code officials. Hitchcock and the Censors’ traces the forces that led to the Production Code and describes Hitchcock’s interactions with Code officials on a film-by-film basis as he fought to protect his creations, bargaining with Code reviewers and sidestepping censorship to produce a lifetime of memorable films.Less
The Motion Picture Production Code controlled the content and final cut on all films made and distributed in the US from 1934 to 1968. Code officials protected sensitive ears from the standard four-letter words as well as a few five-letter words like tramp and six-letter words like cripes. They also scrubbed ‘excessively lustful’ kissing from the screen, and ensured that no criminal went unpunished. Censors demanded an average of twenty changes, ranging from trivial to mind-boggling, on each of Alfred Hitchcock’s films during his most productive years. No production escaped these changes, which rarely improved the finished film. Code reviewers dictated the ending of’ Rebecca, shortened the shower scene in’ Psycho, absolved Cary Grant of guilt in’ Suspicion, edited Cole Porter’s lyrics in’ Stage Fright, and decided which shades should be drawn in’ Rear Window. Nevertheless, Hitchcock still managed to push the boundaries of sex and violence permitted in films by charming (and occasionally tricking) the censors and by swapping off bits of dialogue, plot points, and individual shots (some of which had been deliberately inserted as trading chips) to protect cherished scenes and images. The director’s priorities in dealing with the censors highlight both his theories of suspense and the single-mindedness of Code officials. Hitchcock and the Censors’ traces the forces that led to the Production Code and describes Hitchcock’s interactions with Code officials on a film-by-film basis as he fought to protect his creations, bargaining with Code reviewers and sidestepping censorship to produce a lifetime of memorable films.
