This and That and Maybe a Change or Two

First, I've just finished watching Turner Classic Movies' documentary on the Pre-Code Era entitled Thou Shalt Not Sin. If you've been reading Cinema Styles for a while you may remember that the Pre-Code era (as well as the Production Code era through 1968) was covered here in November so I was excited to see the documentary. Coming in at a little over an hour it just had time to cover the basics but even so I was a little disappointed. I thought it was a good introduction to the Pre-Code Era and for the novice very informative. And I love TCM and all of it's documentaries so I'm not giving it a negative review, just wishing they had provided a little more depth.

One thing that stuck out for me was the omission of any mention of Clara Bow. As documented here on Cinema Styles in November, Clara Bow was to Pre-Code as carbonation is to soda: You can have one without the other but without the one it's just flat and fizzles. Surely, I thought, given the amount of nude appearances of Clara (either suggested by showing her bare back in Wings or all out frontal as in Hula) they would mention her in the nudity section. Nope. Nothing.

They also glossed over the language bans of the code and completely ignored the fact that "willful offense" to race was included in the original 1927 guidelines, then ominously dropped for the full 1930 Production Code, also covered here.

Ah well, it was still an enjoyable hour and a well-done documentary with plenty of great clips from the early thirties, a period regular readers know I love. So for anyone interested in the period I recommend giving it a look the next time it airs (and if you're so inclined afterwards, please peruse the November 2007 archives here).

*************

Secondly, with so much talk of acting in the air lately I just wanted to say a quick word in defense of actors. Now I know this may seem a little odd but reading all the different posts on acting recently on Scanners, The Siren's site and here (as well as voting on the Best and Worst Best Actor Oscars over at Ed Copeland's site) got my acting ire up. I got my degree in Theatre specifically, not film (although I studied it and have a few old textbooks) and spent a great deal of time on stage before and after. As such I have a defense mechanism that kicks in when I see too many people being overly critical of actors.

So I just wanted to say this: While there are cases of actors and actresses making it in Hollywood and Beyond based on looks or luck most of the ones there really, truly can act. I don't even know why I'm writing this but it's been bugging me so I'll continue. When I read that Jack Nicholson or Al Pacino deserved Best Actor for Chinatown or The Godfather, Part II respectively I am in complete agreement. What I don't like is reading the comments that then go further to say that Art Carney was a joke in Harry and Tonto. He wasn't. He was excellent. And, honestly, how many of the people griping over Carney winning in 1974 have even seen Harry and Tonto? I would have gone with Nicholson, but Carney was a damn fine actor and I'm not going to disrespect him for winning.

Or the year before? I love Marlon Brando in Last Tango In Paris. I think it's a great personal performance. Okay, great, but why is Jack Lemmon's win for Save the Tiger considered so weak? I would have gone with Brando yes but I think Lemmon was at the top of his game as a dramatic actor in Save the Tiger.

Now I know, I submitted my own list for the Worst Best Actors and had some choice words for Roberto Benigni and his win for Life is Beautiful. But... But... I think Benigni, especially in the films of Jim Jarmusch, is a good actor. He's not great (although in Jarmusch's work he's pretty close) but he's good. I have more problems with the film and his choices as an actor in that film than anything else.

I guess that's all I wanted to say there. I think the Art Carney stuff (which I believe but can't say now for sure came from a commenter on Scanners) is what set me off. It's one thing to say someone else should have won, quite another to write off a fine actor with a quip about Norton stealing the Oscar. And check out The Late Show for further evidence of Carney's terrific abilities as an actor.

********

And thirdly, from now on when I do Acting Up posts (where I focus on a particular performance by an actor or actress) they will not be written. They will be (gasp) video posts instead. My apologies to all who will not be able to watch them at work (admit it, it's where most of us do our surfing) but I've decided to jump into the game of video posting (for the acting posts only though). Several blogs now video post and while I prefer writing a post over recording one, for acting it's simply easier to show the parts of the performance I'm talking about. It just makes more sense. Plus it would be nice to use my voice for something in this damn world after sinking tens of thousands of dollars into four years of college majoring in Theatre - I'm sure as hell not using it to pay the bills. The first will be making its appearance next week (and no, it's not going to be Art Carney - but maybe in the future).

********

And fourth and finally, thanks for stopping by.

Wrong Entertainment

From Reasons Supporting the Preamble of the Code from the Production Code of 1930:

I. So correct entertainment raises the whole standard of a nation. Wrong entertainment lowers the whole living conditions and
moral ideals of a race.

Note, for example, the healthy reactions to
healthful sports, like baseball, golf; the unhealthy reactions to sports
like cockfighting, bullfighting, bear baiting, etc.

Note, too, the effect on ancient nations of gladiatorial combats, the obscene plays of Roman times, etc.
___________________

Now god knows I do love the occasional bear baiting (I probably engage in it every other Saturday at least) but I have noticed it produces an "unhealthy" reaction in me.

Hollywood would also notice the "unhealthy' (and profitable) reaction produced by "wrong entertainment" and respond to the code in the forties and fifties with two genres that would hit their respective strides in those two decades: Film Noir and Biblical Epics. They both allowed things "disallowed" by the code due to their settings and narratives, and Hollywood was ripe to exploit any loophole it could find. Call it Code Baiting.

Up next, Cinema Styles will strive to "lower the whole living conditions and moral ideals" of the masses as we venture into - Wrong Entertainment!

I Am Curious Mellow

VI. Costume

1. Complete nudity is never permitted. This includes nudity in fact or in silhouette, or any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture.

Part one of article six of the Production Code (that would be the ominous Costume section) states unambiguously that nudity is out. So don't get curious yellow, blue or any other colors of the spectrum. But before the Production Code nudity was most decidedly in. It wasn't rampant (hell it isn't now) so don't go expecting to find nests of naked bodies in pre-code cinema but it was shown occasionally and many movies even shot scenes twice, once with nudity, once without, depending on where in the country or the world the movie was being shown. The great documentary The Love Goddesses (1965) shows several scenes from films in the twenties that were shot this way, allowing the viewer glimpses at rare stills of stars such as Adolphe Menjou surrounded by topless waitresses in a casino.

In researching nudity in film one is well advised to take the entries of Wikipedia and IMDB with a grain of salt as both are slightly misleading with their information. The film most often given credit for being the first to show female nudity (that wasn't pornographic) is Inspiration, released in 1915. Oh I almost forgot - released November 18, 1915. Running a little under an hour in length and concerning the story of a sculptor seeking the ideal subject to model for him, it featured star Audrey Munson in the nude as that ideal model (she would go nude again as a model the following year in Purity). Wikipedia states, "It is notable for being the first American film to feature nudity" and IMDB tells us in the trivia section for Inspiration, "Generally cited as the first non-pornographic American film to feature nudity." There's just one problem with this. It wasn't. In another section of Wikipedia, dealing with the subject of nudity on film in general they get it right by stating, "Audrey Munson appeared in the first American film to feature nudity by a leading actor, Inspiration." The key word there being "leading." However, Wikipedia then fails to state (and IMDB too for that matter) what is the first non-pornographic film to feature female nudity period, whether by a lead or not. Don't worry, that's why I'm here. The first non-pornographic film to feature nudity was The Hypocrites, also released in 1915 but in January of that year, beating out Inspiration by a good ten months. It also ran for five reels and oddly enough also featured nudity in a sexless way - in the form of a nude used as a transitional motif within the film.

But no film of the period could beat an epic of nudity released in 1916, Daughter of the Gods. It used 20,000 extras, 220,000 feet of film and took eight months to shoot. It ran for over three hours and featured star Annette Kellerman (who Esther Williams would later play in Million Dollar Mermaid) in the nude during a waterfall scene. And it is now completely lost. Not partially lost like large segments of Greed (1924). Completely lost. There is no known print in existence. How the hell does something that big, that expensive, that notorious get lost? But I digress. In this case, IMDB's trivia page outdoes itself for inaccurate information with this doozy: The scene on the waterfall was the first in movie history to be done completely in the nude. The following year nudity in film was banned in the united states.

Why it's a veritable cornucopia of wrongness. Let's take it in two parts.

One, the nude scene was not the first in history to be done completely in the nude. If you can find any articles of clothing on the models in The Hypocrites and Inspiration please let me know. I must not be seeing them.

Two, nudity was not banned a year later. In fact, it was never banned. The Production Code was a self-imposed, self-enforced set of guidelines that the studios went along with starting in 1934. And the government certainly never banned it. Not even for pornography. The Supreme Court and Lower Court rulings that have stood on pornography in the twentieth century centered on distribution of obscene items through the mail and sales to minors - not the outlawing of pornography itself. So whoever wrote that little line of trivia is definitely someone you do not want on your team at the next All-Star Movie Trivia Challenge.

Later, stars like Clara Bow would appear nude in films (Hula 1927) and Hedy Kiesler, who would move to Hollywood and become Hedy Lamarr, would bare her breasts in Ekstase (1933) before Joseph Breen actually convinced the studios to start following the production code whereby it all came to a screeching halt.

Now I know what you're thinking. All this talk of nudity seems a bit gender biased. When was the first male nudity shown on the screen? To that I would answer, "You are aware that men ran Hollywood right? So lots of naked ladies, no naked men." Many films from the period featured the buttocks of actors (notably Lew Ayres diving into a lake in All Quiet on the Western Front) but there doesn't appear to be (outside of pornographic film, documented as far back as 1900) any full frontal shots of a lead actor or otherwise in a mainstream Hollywood production in the pre-code era. Sort of the opposite of a "members only" club. In fact, no members at all. I guess you could say the penis got the shaft (okay, I'll stop). After the code we would get male nudity in Women in Love (1969), Medium Cool (1969) and Zabriskie Point (1970) but during and before the code it just wasn't there.

So there you have it. The sexless, bland history of nudity in pre-code mainstream Hollywood productions. If you haven't seen any of the films I'm discussing, trust me when I tell you there is little that is titillating in pre-code nudity. It was always presented in tasteful and tactful ways. However, violence was presented then and now with an unbridled passion. But that never seemed to bother the censors as much. Mainstream Middle-America has always believed that showing a woman's vagina or a man's penis signals the end of the world for our wholesome family values while violence makes for pure red-blooded entertainment. There's a whole post that could be done on that alone. Is it because of repression, denial or just good old fashioned cowardice? Probably a little of all three but I'm with the group that thinks they're more afraid than anything else.

Curious. Yellow.

_

-

Cinema Still Life: Thou Shalt Not

Let's go through the list shall we?

According to the poster, thou shalt not show:

* Law defeated - check

* Inside of thigh - check

* Lace lingerie - check

* Dead man - check

* Narcotics (syringe on table) - check

* Drinking (booze on table) - check

* Gambling (strewn cards on floor) - check

* Pointing gun - check

* Tommy gun - check

*Exposed Bosom - ch... hey, wait a minute. A shoulder strap hanging down over the right shoulder does not count as an exposed bosom. Rip-off!

So apparently not even posters mocking the Hays Code could show a nipple or two (and never three until Total Recall). Well, I guess we better explore sex and nudity next, as we wind our way through the Production Code years here at Cinema Styles.

Click photo to enlarge

What the f...?

V. Profanity, Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ - unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.

That's article five of the 1930 Production Code. The full code is located here for the curious. Article V makes it clear that profanity is off-limits. Unless it's used in a big production by a powerful studio in which case the code doesn't really apply. Such was the fickle state of things in the Production Code Era. Before the Production Code profanity had been seen in intertitles in silent films with many films using the words "damn" and "hell." In other cases much harsher language was used. In 1924 Maxwell Anderson penned his play What Price Glory, a war drama. When it was made into a film in 1926 by Raoul Walsh it contained a scene in which Victor McLaglen and Edmund Lowe get into a shouting match. During this argument they spew profanity at each other, and not just "damn" and "hell." That rarely used, kindly and genteel word beginning with an "F" also got thrown about. None of it was put in the intertitles of course, but plenty of people could read the lips (and let's face it, it's a pretty easy word to lip read). The result was a deluge of letters from furious moviegoers shocked - SHOCKED(!) - that such language would be used in a movie.

The March 5, 1927 issue of The Literary Digest reported on the film and here are reproduced some of the article's most entertaining highlights:

The British censor ruled out the play for London; but the screen version of this drama, it appears, says quite as much in the way of rough talk, and every theater in London, we are told, is clamoring to secure it.

"In 'What Price Glory?' McLaglen and the others have been made carefully to articulate and emphasize the full vocabulary of the profession of arms, especially that of the American soldier, which is rather richer and rounder than the rest, and this aspect of the film is affording censors much anxious thought.

'"They who see this picture,' says Variety, 'are going to start tipping off on the cuss words used, words that can only be gotten by lip-reading, but the bunch that goes to see the picture will watch for that rough stuff.' "

'Victor McLaglen takes the honors in acting and unbridled profanity,' says the San Francisco Herald, 'and the film leaves no doubt as to what words are being used.' "'Wherein does it profit us,' asks the Hollywood Spectator, 'to photograph a man's lips so that the audience knows that he is uttering profanity not uttered in the presence of women?'

You read it here first: The vocabulary of the American soldier is "rather richer and rounder than the rest." I suspected as much.

Silent profanity spewing tirades aside, the film world didn't say much more than damn and hell after that for quite a few years. In 1935, Fred Stone as Mr. Adams said "Damn you!" in Alice Adams (1935) and a few British productions used the word as well. Pygmalion (1938) even used the word "bloody" and from a female character no less. And of course in 1939 Rhett Butler showed his tender side in Gone With the Wind, letting Scarlett know just how much he cared.

By the fifties the "damns" and "hells" were becoming more common with censors even allowing the character of Terry Malloy to tell a priest to "go to hell" in On the Waterfront (1954). By the mid-sixties the profanity really starting ramping up. In Cold Blood (1965) contained the line, "On what? $43 and a smile and bullshit." Even more notably in 1965 critic Kenneth Tynan remarked on the television show BBC3, "I doubt if there are any rational people to whom the word 'fuck' would be particularly diabolical, revolting or totally forbidden." It was the first time the word "fuck" had been uttered on television or film (who would've guessed television would get there first?). The date was November 13, 1965 (but you're not really surprised to find that out are you?). The movies would be next. For years an old outtake from Design for Living (1933) had circulated in which Miriam Hopkins utters, "Oh, those fucking Egelbauers", referring to the stuffy guests her character entertains. It was clearly ad-libbed and not intended for printing and inclusion in the finished film, which it wasn't. But in 1967, the last year of the Production Code, the "F" word finally made it's way into a film intentionally when in I'll Never Forget What's'isname Marianne Faithful yelled, "Get out of here, you fucking bastard!"

From that moment on there was no going back. The Production Code was dead.

The ratings system officially kicked off in November of 1968 and assigned ratings to films dependant upon their content. It took a couple of years for screenwriters to get used to the idea that they were now allowed to write any words they wanted into a screenplay. In films like M.A.S.H. (1970) the "F" word was used only once while in the gritty crime drama The French Connection (1971) it was used many times. By the early seventies profanity was becoming commonplace in movies but there remained one last hurdle: Titles. In 1976 Australian Bert Deling released his comedy Pure Shit but was forced to change it to Pure S in order to get distribution. And in 2005 Steve Anderson released his documentary Fuck, finally breaking the ultimate title taboo, although for ads and posters the "u" was replaced by a star (that way no one could possibly figure out what the title was. Really, do you have any idea what this word is: F*ck? I didn't think so).

And so the language barrier has been obliterated. From the silents to sound every possible permutation of profanity has been used, re-used and abused from top to bottom. They've even been used in titles. At this point the only debate left is whether profanity should be used as often as it is in post-code films and how many times certain words must be used before affecting their rating. I could go into that in this space now. I could.

But frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

*****ARCHIVED HALOSCAN COMMENTS FOR THIS POST HERE*****

The "It" Girl: Clara Bow

Before moving on to further posts on censorship in the Production Code era (1933-1968) a final quickie tribute to Clara Bow, the original "It" Girl. She of course starred in the smash hit silent It (1927), hence the nickname. According to the Wikipedia entry on "It" Girls, the most recent "It" Girls have been Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton?!? Lordy lord we've come a long way from Clara.

Clara Bow retired from acting in 1933, her last feature being Hoop-La of that year. Her penultimate feature, Call Her Savage, featured here recently, was her true swan song though, providing us with the types of films Clara Bow became known for. By retiring in 1933 at the tender age of 28 she ensured she would never have to make movies under the strictures of the code. And of course, she would never grow old on-screen.

She spent a lot of her life in and out of hospitals. She was diagnosed as a schizophrenic in 1949 but whether the diagnosis was accurate is anybody's guess. According to Bow, her mother, Sarah Gordon, threatened to kill her regularly and even woke her up one night with a knife against her throat. She also revealed later that her father had raped her. So basically, if you're complaining about how dysfunctional your family life is, you've probably got nothing on Clara. But despite this it was said by friends and family that she was happy in her quiet life out of the spotlight. She died of a heart attack on September 27, 1965 at the too young age of 60.

One of her first films after the success of It was Hula (1927). If you want a classic example of just how different films were in the pre-code era look no further than Hula. In it Bow plays "Hula" Calhoun, the daughter of a Hawaiian planter. She wants to live "naturally," not tied down by societal norms. When a handsome young engineer, Anthony Haldane, comes to build a dam on the estate she seduces him with a hula dance. He tells her he's married but then he figures "what the hell" and tells her he'll get a divorce. Then his wife shows up.

Now, this is the point in the Production Code era when the two have to let their love go unrequited as he goes back to his wife. And most likely, Hula would be punished in some way for her sins of seduction. But this is pre-code, and it's Clara Bow. Here's what actually happens:

Hula pays a foreman at the construction site to plant dynamite by the dam and blow it up, which he does. This convinces Haldane's wife that he is a failure as an engineer and can no longer provide for her so she agrees to a divorce. And then Hula and Haldane hook up. The End.

Damn! No wonder her films had a reputation! Not all pre-code movies were like this, but most Clara Bow films were. She was one of a kind. In many ways, every article on pre- and post-code movies I do on this site will be haunted by Clara because she was the original article herself. Ah hell, I'll say it: She was IT!

Cinema Still Life: The Unkindest Cut

In 1907 Chicago's City Council passed an ordinance "prohibiting the exhibition of obscene and immoral pictures" It became the world's first regulated film censorship. The ordinance ordered that the Chief of Police (no I'm not making this up) watch every movie before its release and either give it an "exhibition permit" or not. If you dared showed your movie without a permit you would be fined $50 to $100 for every day it was shown without it. The first film to be outright banned was Macbeth (1908) by the Vitagraph company. Shown above, it starred William V. Ranous as that Scottish fellow with a thirst for power fueled by his even more power hungry wife. The reasoning provided by the Police was this: "Shakespeare is art, but it's not adapted altogether for the five cent style of art. The stabbing scene in the play is not predominant. But in the picture show it is the feature." * I've personally never seen it but I would be curious how the play was done in one reel (roughly twenty minutes) anyway. Maybe someone with more experience in that area could explain it to me.

Meanwhile, another Vitagraph Shakespeare production, Julius Caesar (1908), got off scott-free despite having as its centerpiece a gang stabbing. The Chicago Police are a fickle bunch indeed.

Oh, and when was the ordinance passed? Do I really have to tell you? November 4th.

So what is it about November? Why does November play so prominently in the history of film censorship? Is it because October, with its ghouls and goblins and celebration of sorcery and witchcraft, jades everyone so much that those in authority feel they have to clean everyone up once it's over? I don't have the answers myself. But if anyone has any working theories let me know. I'll be right here. As long as the web authorities don't censor my blog. It is November after all.

*Robertson, Patrick, Film Facts (Watson-Guptill, 2001), p. 193.

The Don'ts and Be Carefuls

The Don'ts List below was put together by the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America in October of 1927 to be implemented for productions starting in November (and I bet you thought my piece on Call Her Savage, released in November of 1932 was just random - Not at all - November is Sex, Drugs and all things Pre and Post Code here on Cinema Styles, or haven't you noticed from the sidebar). This list (which preceded the much more stringent Production Code, adopted in 1930 but not enforced until 1934) included both things forbidden and things to be careful about. Here I'll just show the Don'ts with commentary in italics but if you'd like to check out the Be Carefuls too go here for the full list taken from The Movies in our Midst: Documents in the Cultural History of Film in America, edited by Gerald Mast. This list was only barely followed by the industry which is why the Production Code was devised and then, finally, enforced.
_________________________________________

The Don'ts

Resolved, That those things which are included in the following list shall not appear in pictures produced by the members of this Association, irrespective of the manner in which they are treated:

1. Pointed profanity-by either title or lip-this includes the words "God," "Lord," "Jesus" "Christ" (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), "hell," "damn," "Gawd," and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled;

"By either title or lip" - This would explain the infamous title change of Chaplin's Modern F***ing Times to Modern Times. Really, even today, how often is profanity in the title? To be fair, they were primarily referring to inter-titles in silent films as well, as sound productions had just barely begun.

2. Any licentious or suggestive nudity-in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;

Yeah, we wouldn't want anybody to notice nudity now would we? It might mean the characters are human beings.

3. The illegal traffic in drugs;

Now this is curious. Are they against it because it's a crime? Because if so then you can't show people robbing banks or shooting someone which was common in crime dramas of the time. And what if you showed it to make the point that it was damaging to the characters involved?

4. Any inference of sex perversion;

So basically, except for a man kissing a woman (who he's married to) on the cheek, don't show anything.

5. White slavery;

White slavery?!? Are you serious? This is number five? First of all, who the hell cares if you put this in a movie? Are you afraid it's going to increase the incidence of it? Do you not want to offend the White Slavers? It's a crime. Let people show it if they want to. Christ! (oops, I think I just broke rule number 1.)

6. Miscegenation (sex relationship between the white and black races);

Now the list is really showing its age. A nice mix of puritanism and Jim Crow laws rolled into one. The same idiots who supported rules like this have simply moved on to hating gays and barring them from getting married. And they'll look just as foolish when the history books are written.

7. Sex hygiene and venereal diseases;

So how do you show a venereal disease? And sex hygiene? Were douche scenes so common that they had to make a rule eliminating them. Personally, I can't recall seeing any. Maybe I just blocked it out.

8. Scenes of actual childbirth-in fact or in silhouette;

You mean babies don't come from storks??!!!!? Goddamn you Dumbo! Goddamn you to hell! (oops, broke number 1 again.)

9. Children's sex organs;

Okay I really don't have a problem with this rule but if they're talking about not showing a baby in a bathtub or something like that then it's a little stupid. Outside of that though I have to admit, filming a child naked just doesn't need to happen. However, I think Donner's Superman broke this one if I recall correctly.

10. Ridicule of the clergy;

So much for troupe Monty Python's career. And Peter Cook? He would've been burned at the stake. Good thing Bunuel wasn't making movies in America.

11. Willful offence to any nation, race or creed;

Wouldn't rule number six itself be a willful offence to race? And how about Stepin Fetchit? Gone with the Wind? Buckwheat? I think by "nation, race or creed" they meant "America, whites and christians."

_________________________________________

So there it is - what a load of garbage. Filmmakers ignored most of it as well as its offshoot, the Production Code, for years until Joseph Breen took over the Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association in 1934. After problems with the distribution in America of the Czech film Ecstasy with the future Hedy Lamarr (born November 9th) he came up with the idea of Production Certificates that films were required to have before gaining distribution. The studios agreed, preferring self-censorship to the slash and burn censorship of local censorship boards. The code became known as the Hays Code simply because Will Hays, former Postmaster General, was the Head of the Production Office when it was adopted. As a result he's earned a bad name in the industry but the truth is Hays didn't care. While he was president from 1922 to 1933 very little censorship occurred. He preferred to wag his finger and say, "Watch yourself" rather than actually enforce anything. Breen was the one that took it seriously and effectively puritanized American film for the next twenty to thirty years. Fortunately, there was an abundance of talent in the country that found a way to produce great art without it, or found ways to work it in that puritanical blockheads like Breen were too dense to notice.

By the time the country had made it through a depression and a World War of immense proportions back to back, people were weary of the movies not reflecting what they knew to be reality. The restrictions started to loosen. Mild profanity could be heard from time to time. By 1954 Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) could tell a priest (Karl Malden) to "go to hell" and not be cut (On the Waterfront). Eventually the restrictions were so loose as to be non-existent. The Pawnbroker (1965) showed female frontal nudity, used profanity and even hinted at a homosexual relationship between a black man and a white man. With films like this, as well as The Leather Boys (1963), Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966), Blow-Up (1966) and The Graduate (1967) it was clear a new plan was needed. Upon taking office in 1966 Jack Valenti began working on a ratings system. The idea was simple: Put whatever the hell you want in your movie and we will rate it so moviegoers know what's in it. It wasn't perfect (and has itself been the subject of controversy for decades) but it allowed filmmakers more freedom than they had ever had before. And when was it officially adopted? November 1st, 1968.

Unseen Images: Call Her Savage (1932)

Okay, now try and follow this:

Indians attack a wagon train. One of the guys on the wagon train blames the leader Silas Jennings because Silas is an adulterer and God is mad. Silas kills said guy. Some old guy tells Silas the sins of the fathers are visited upon their children, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Okay, now it's eighteen years later. Silas' daughter Ruth falls for an Indian. His name is Ronasa. That's important. Remember it for later. Now Ruth is married to another guy. His name is Pete. That's not really important. Pete's away on business a lot and Ruth and Ronasa get down and dirty when he's away. Okay, so Ronasa obeys the elders of his tribe, stops fooling around with Ruth and marries another Indian instead. Ah, but Ruth is pregnant and it didn't come from Pete. She gives birth to a daughter and names her Nasa, just like the Space Agency only Ruth doesn't know about that. She's just naming her daughter after the real father (see that's why the name was important).

Now Nasa, she's a wild child and grows up to be quite the rebel. With the adult Nasa we're finally to Clara Bow's part in the movie. One day Nasa gets mad at Moonglow, a kind part Indian, part Caucasian or as they say in the movie, much to Cher's approval, half-breed (I'm sure that's all he ever heard). So Nasa starts whipping Moonglow. Yes, you read that correctly, she starts whipping him. Faux dad Pete is upset by this and sends her to a private school. In Chicago. There she quickly earns a rep.

Faux dad has decided to hook up Nasa with a proper gentleman in Texas named Charlie. He even announces it in the paper. Nasa is not happy about this. Nasa then invites playboy Larry Crosby to the party. Larry's mistress shows up to the party. Her name is Sunny DuLane (that's not important, I just had to tell you that name). Sunny's got another man that she's cheating on Larry with and brings him with her. Sunny, having no capacity for self-reflection whatsoever, gets mad at Larry for being with Nasa. She and Nasa then get into a hair-pulling fight. No, seriously. They do. Larry then proposes to Nasa and she says yes. Once they're married, faux dad won't speak with Nasa.

Larry gets drunk much of the time and gambles. Nasa asks him why he even married her and he says he was just mad at Sunny and wanted to get back at her. Nasa gets mad and goes on a spree of gambling and shopping with Larry's credit. Now Larry's lawyer comes into the picture. He tells Nasa that Larry's really sick in New Orleans and she should go see him. When she does Larry goes nuts and tries to rape her. She knocks him out with a stool and then finds out from a doctor that Larry is crazy (that's a technical term). Now she's worried because she's pregnant with his child.

Okay. So, she gives birth two months early but the baby's okay. She's broke now (so is Larry and he's crazy) so she sets up shop in a rundown boarding house. She needs money for medicine for the baby and decides to turn tricks. She gets money for the baby but when she returns she finds out a drunk was in the boarding house, dropped a match, started a fire and the baby died from smoke inhalation.

Moonglow's back! He tells Nasa that her granddad died and she's rich! He left her somewhere around a hundred grand. She divorces loser Larry and goes to New York and puts out an ad for a gigolo (I swear I'm not making this plot up).

Jay Randall is a millionaire's son. He likes Nasa and applies for the job, but doesn't tell her he's rich. Then Jay gets into a fight in a restaurant with some guy who identifies him as a rich brat. Nasa loves seeing him fight and later tells him she knew he was rich all along. Now Jay tells his dad that he wants to marry Nasa. Dad says he's crazy because Nasa has a violent temper and she's uncontrollable. Dad invites her anyway to a dinner party and she and Jay attend. But guess who else shows up? Loser Larry and Sunny the Harlot. Larry says rude things about Nasa's dead baby and another fight erupts between Nasa and Larry. Jay is disillusioned with Nasa and... here it is... it's the moment we've all been waiting for... He calls her "savage!"

So now Nasa is alone and she's drunk. She finds out her mom's ill back in Texas and goes to see her. When mom dies she utter's the name, "Ronasa." Moonglow tells Nasa that Ronasa was an Indian and that he killed himself because he couldn't be with the woman he loved. Nasa puts two and two together and realizes that Ronasa was her father. She takes Moonglow's hand and says she's proud to be a half-breed. The End. *

Whew! I'm out of breath and I wasn't even talking.

And here's what I left out: You see Clara Bows nipples through a sheer dress. You see transvestites. You see a gay bar. You see sex and violence and debauchery and Nasa doesn't even get punished in the end. She's rich and happy.

It was released in November of 1932, 75 years ago. Movies like this wouldn't exist again for decades once the Production Code (later to become known as the Hays Code) started being enforced in 1933. It was a wild ride before it all came screeching to a halt. Movies like Call Her Savage couldn't even get re-releases because post-1933 they were no longer up to code and so couldn't get passed. Too bad. It's not as famous as some other pre-code wonders like Babyface or Ecstasy but well worth a look, if only to see images most people didn't think existed in the movies until the sixties. It's not on video or dvd but it does run on TCM from time to time.

It's racy! It's wildly overplotted! It's SAVAGE! **

_____________________________________________

*I saw this a while ago and with a plot like this I am indebted to Turner Classic Movies website for refreshing my memory with its very long synopsis - There's simply no other way to summerize this film than in very long fashion. And simply impossible to remember every twist and turn. Thanks TCM.

** I realize this Unseen Images is almost all plot synopsis but that's the point. It's the pre-code plot that separates it, not the direction, writing or acting (although Clara Bow is perfectly suitable in her role).