sign in sign up
<<
Home , Richard Schickel, Walter Wanger

Dickinson College Dickinson Scholar

Faculty and Staff Publications By Year Faculty and Staff Publications

2005

Joe Breen's Oscar

Stephen Weinberger Dickinson College

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications

Part of the Production Commons

Recommended Citation Weinberger, Stephen. "Joe Breen's Oscar." Film History 17, no. 4 (2005), 380-391.

This article is brought to you for free and open access by Dickinson Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Film History, Volume 17, pp. 380–391, 2005. Copyright © John Libbey Publishing ISSN: 0892-2160. Printed in of America

Joe Breen’s Oscar

Joe Breen’s Oscar

Stephen Weinberger

t the twenty-sixth ceremo- A raconteur par excellance, Breen delighted in nies held on the evening of 25 March 1954, relating, often to people who had heard the stories Asomething quite remarkable occurred, al- before, and in various forms, how he had bested the though it attracted little attention at the time. moguls. How, for example, at a meeting As often happens at this event, one film swept most with to discuss the Catholic boycott of ofthe awards. From HeretoEternity won eightOscars, Warner theaters in Philadelphia, the stressed-out including those for best picture, best supporting actor president of Warner Brothers began ‘shedding tears and actress, best director, and best screenplay. the size of horse turds and pleading for someone to In addition to the usual categories, there were get him off the hook’.2 Or how, at his first meeting four honorary Oscars awarded that night. One went with , ‘the Ogre of Gower Street’, he went to Pete Smith for his series ‘Pete Smith’s Speciali- toe to toe with the fearsome head of Columbia Pic- ties’; another to 20th Century-Fox for introducing tures. After glancing at Breen’s portfolio, Cohn, per- CinemaScope; and a third to Bell and Howell for its haps to take the measure of the man said, ‘What’s numerous achievements. The fourth award went to this shit?’ To which Breen responded, ‘Mr. Cohn, I Joseph Ignatius Breen ‘for his conscientious, open- take that as a compliment ... My friends inform me ... minded, and dignified management of the Motion that if there’s any expert in this town on shit – it’s you Picture Production Code’. Breen, who was about to ... So if I have to be judged, I’m glad it’s by profes- retire, had served almost twenty-one years as the sionals’.3 head of the Production Code Administration, the As chief enforcer and interpreter of the Produc- body that censored virtually all shown in Ameri- tion Code, Breen was certainly capable of being high can theaters. That the film industry was now bestow- handed and capricious. This document, which as of ing its highest honor on its chief censor must have 1930 served as the Ten Commandments of the film caused many writers, producers, and directors in the industry, was the creation of Daniel Lord, a Jesuit audience to roll their eyes at what seemed like the and professor at St. Louis University, and Martin latest and not least of Tinsel Town’s hypocracies. Quigley, a prominent Catholic layman and publisher During his time as the head of the PCA, Breen of the Motion Picture Herald. Its stated purpose was had cultivated a reputation that bore little resem- to ensure that ‘No picture should lower the moral blance to ‘open-minded and dignified’. This was a standards of those who see it’.4 It then provided a man who rarely missed an opportunity to impress detailed list of what could not appear on screen, upon his listeners that before them stood someone such as detailed depictions of seduction, rape, mur- who loved a good brawl. On 22 June 1934 when Will der, complete nudity, etc. Not only was Breen totally Hays, the head of the Motion Picture Producers and dedicated to enforcing both the spirit and the letter Distributors of America, introduced Breen to the of the Code, but, according to Vizzard, he was quite directors of that body as his choice to head the capable of quoting passages in the Code that did censorship office, the new appointee began, ‘Very well, gentlemen. I accept the job. But on one condi- Stephen Weinberger is a professor of history and tion. And the condition is that you understand that I film studies at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsyl- come from a race of people who have a long history vania, whose primary scholarly interest is film censor- of committing suicide – on the other guy.’1 Jack ship. He has written on Quentin Tarantino for Vizzard, who relates this story in his memoir about Literature/Film Quarterly and his article on Mohsen Makhmalbaf’s The Cyclist appears in an upcoming his ten years working for Breen, added, ‘Joe never issue of Film Quarterly. did disappoint them’. Correspondence to Weinberg@Dickinson,edu.

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 380 Joe Breen’s Oscar 381 not exist. ‘The conspicuous example was, with that Later that year, he expressed the very same Old Testament figure up in the air again, “Remem- sentiments to Wilfrid Parsons, S.J., the editor of ber, the Code forbids nudity, or the suggestion of America, with whom he had worked closely on im- nudity – in fact or in silhouette!”’5 This, of course, plementing the Code. ‘It may be that Hays thought went well beyond the Code, which merely addressed these lousy Jews out here would abide by the Code’s actual nudity, and made no mention of suggestions provisions but if he did then he should be censured of nudity. for his lack of proper knowledge of the breed. These However, to those who had the temerity to Jews seem to think of nothing but money making and challenge Breen’s reading of the Code, wrath was sexual indulgence. They and they alone make the their reward. Joe would fire back, ‘I don’t give a decisions. Ninety-five per cent of these folks are fiddler’s fuck [a favorite] whether it’s in the Code or Jews of Eastern European lineage. They are prob- not. I won’t pass your scene.’6 ably the scum of the earth.’13 Breen would not only see himself above the In that same letter, Breen presented a way to Code, but on at least one occasion informed a new force the studio heads to conform to the Code. subordinate who was studying the regulations, Maintaining his stream of anti-semitic invective, he ‘Don’t pay any attention to that thing. Just you listen proposed that ‘We shall have to get next to the men to me. I am the Code!’7 who have their money tied up in these producing Certainly, Breen had his supporters. This im- companies. It can’t be that the bankers, once their age of him riding into town like a U.S. marshall, attention is drawn to the situation, will stand idly by determined to rid it of violence and sin, resonated and allow our people throughout the nation to be well with many American communities. Shortly after debauched by the Jews. Some bankers may – some his appointment, the Terre Haute (Indiana) Star an- Jew bankers. But you can’t make me believe that our nounced that, ‘Joe Breen, the two fisted assistant to American bankers ... have fallen so low that they will Mr. Hays ... now has his coat off and what he is permit their money to be used to paganize this saying about what is fit and what is right for the nation.’14 screen carries a terrific punch to the cowering, Although it would take pressures from various found-out direction and script writing ilk. Smut, sources to eventually force Hollywood’s adherence glossed vice, faked romance, unhealthy sex appeal, to the Code, one of these turned out to be exactly will not pass Joe Breen if he can spot it. He is that what Breen proposed. Less than ten months after his kind of an editor.’8 letter, an article entitled ‘Clean Scripts or No Cash Not surprisingly, what Thomas Doherty calls Says Giannini’ appeared in the Hollywood Re- ‘Breen’s severe brand of Irish Catholicism’9 also porter.15 It explained that A.P. Giannini, the president earned him considerable hostility, and this extended of the Bank of America and one of Hollywood’s major well beyond the borders of America. In a particularly sources of financing announced that he would sup- caustic article that appeared in the British Film port only those films that the PCA had cleared. Weekly, Glyn Roberts dubbed him ‘the Hitler of Hol- It is therefore not surprising that for many film lywood’.10 historians, the image of Joe Breen is that of a bellig- Aside from Breen’s public image as a feisty erent, profane, and sanctimonious bigot. Yet, there and profane defender of conventional morality, there is considerably more to his story. Although he pre- is also the bigoted side of the man that appeared in sented himself to Hollywood as a self-confident and his private correspondence. Particularly during his indefatigable defender of the Code, Breen’s private early years in the Hays office, he made numerous correspondence reveals a very different picture. and, at times, scathing anti-Semitic comments.11 In Less than a year after assuming office, he began 1932 a frustrated Breen complained to Martin questioning whether he was up to the demands of Quigley that, ‘I hate like hell to admit it, but really the the job. In April 1935, he wrote to Maurice McKenzie Code, to which you and I have given so much, is of ‘Seriously, I feel for the first time in my life that I really no consequence whatever ... But the fact is these need a vacation. I’m really ‘all-in’ – the going in the dam [sic] Jews are a dirty filthy lot. Their only stand- past year has been tough (underlined) – these ba- ard is the standard of the box office. To attempt to bies out here are difficult people to deal with – I don’t talk ethical values to them is time worse than sleep – up every morning at dawn (underlined).16 wasted.’12 This obviously caused concern, if not panic,

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 381 382 Stephen Weinberger

Fig. 1. Joe Breen attending a 1935 Hollywood premiere accompanied by his wife and actress Una O’Connor (left). [Marc Wanamaker/Bison Archives.]

among Code supporters. In the winter of 1936, Fa- towards Jews. Although he certainly continued his ther Gerard Donnelly wrote to Parsons of his visit with criticisms of the studio heads, he did so without Breen. He explained that at first Breen made it clear reference to their being Jewish. Instead, they appear ‘that he was sick of it all ... that somebody else could here as ‘tough babies’ and ‘these people’. carry on the job ... that he was through’.17 Jack Vizzard also noted this change in Breen. Yet, over the next few days, Donnelly observed Before coming to the PCA in 1944, Vizzard had been Breen’s mood changes. ‘He certainly isn’t sick of his a Jesuit priest, and regarded Hollywood and its job. He is enthusiastic about it. He talks about noth- creators, the Jews, as ‘the Deceivers. It was their role ing else. He told story after story of his fights with to carry on in the mode of the Temptor ... and to producers and writers and quite obviously took huge present a glittering and seductive picture of the cities delight in the yells and threats and cursing. He was of this earth ...’20 Reflecting on how his own attitudes jamming unpleasant news down the throats of the had changed during his years at the PCA, he noted studios – and loved it ... I could see that he still got in an interview shortly before his death, ‘I think the a big thrill out of enforcing his decrees.’18 same thing happened to him (Breen) as happened Breen’s mood, however, continued to vacil- to me. I came running out of the theological hills late. In September 1937, he wrote to Martin Quigley where I was studying for the priesthood to save the saying ‘I am convinced that unless I find some mi- world from the Jews. They reciprocated by saving raculous way to completely change these people out me from myself.’21 here – or get out of the job (underlined in red) – I am Moreover, Breen’s relations with the Holly- due for a nervous breakdown and an early grave’.19 wood moguls were not only adversarial. After their Aside from revealing Breen’s inner turmoil, initial confrontation, he and Harry Cohn developed a these letters also suggest a change in his attitude mutual respect and perhaps even a genuine fond-

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 382 Joe Breen’s Oscar 383 ness for one another. This, of course, did not end Oscar, Vizzard suggests that this was not widely their battles. These were not only in the nature of the popular, and that it occurred largely through the relationship between studio heads and censors, but influence of producer Walter Wanger, a member of also because Cohn and Breen were natural brawlers the Academy’s board of governors.27 Yet, regardless who needed and respected worthy opponents. Viz- of how this award came about, whether through arm zard relates that ‘In his declining years, Joe used to twisting or as a reward for long and valued service, seize a tuft of his pure silver hair in the tips of his the question might nonetheless be asked whether fingers. “You see this?” he would querry. “You know Breen actually deserved an Oscar. Could a censor, how it got this way? Not from early piety. From Harry and especially one with Breen’s personality, improve Cohn.’ ’22 the movie industry? And, if so, did Hollywood benefit And after his short-lived departure from the as much from his contributions as it did from those PCA in 1941 to try his hand making films at RKO of Pete Smith, Bell and Howell, and Fox’s Cinema- turned out to be a disaster, it was the Jewish heads Scope? of the studios who unanimously urged his reinstate- In terms of his services to the business side of ment at the PCA as chief censor. Ironically, his former the industry, there is little question about the signifi- comrade in arms, Martin Quigley, was the one who cance of his accomplishments. Numerous studies most strongly opposed his reinstatement. The film- have shown that by diligently enforcing the principles makers fully appreciated Breen’s worth. Despite the of the Production Code, Breen fully satisfied the inevitable wrangling that would occur before he major goals behind the creation of the Production awarded their film the PCA’s seal of approval, they Code Administration. Hollywood’s decision to com- knew that once this occurred, they could rely on his mit itself to making ‘moral films’ had little to do with office to effectively represent them when ecclesias- morality and everything to do with business. Accord- tical or state and local censorship boards raised ing to Shurlock, ‘First, our purpose was to preserve objections.23 proper standards in making motion pictures. That’s After Breen had retired, Jack Vizzard asked if a nice, round fat phrase that means not very much, he would write about his years at the PCA. ‘He waved if you want to pin me down. If you want to know what off the suggestion with a touch of irritation. “Jack”, the primary purpose was, it was to stop the prolifera- he said, “I have too many friends in the industry, and tion of state censor boards.’28 I wouldn’t want to say anything to embarrass In this regard, Breen succeeded admirably in them”.’24 significantly reducing the costs of satisfying local Insofar as Breen’s profane side is concerned, and foreign censors. After just six months with Breen here too the issue seems more complicated than it at the helm of the PCA, the studios claimed to have first appeared. According to those who worked saved over a million dollars.29 Indeed, the PCA func- closely with him, it was often out of necessity that tioned so well that the continued need for state and Breen resorted to profanity. Geoffrey Sherlock, who local censorship boards was in question. The head- succeeded Breen as head of the PCA in 1954, ex- line story in the 30 September 1936 Variety was plained that ‘He would only be profane for a purpose, ‘Picture Censors Jittery. Joebreening to Kayo Their when he was talking to producers trying to give him Jobs. Self-Regulation by Hollywood at the Source a snow job ... He was very blunt when he wanted to Leaves Little or Nothing for Sunday Censor Bodies be. He was a very capable man. He could be delib- to Do’.30 erate and charming when he wanted to be, and he It is really when considering Breen’s effects on could switch in a minute.’25 the artistic side of that historians are Jack Vizzard confirms this impression. ‘In the much more critical of his influence. This issue is autumn of his years, I once asked Breen about the especially important because it goes beyond the ease with which he reverted to sulphurous language, case of a particular individual, and addresses the and he replied without ruffle that he had used polite general problem of censorship and the arts. Cer- language when he first came to Hollywood, but it was tainly, there is every reason to be critical of censor- not the idiom of the time or the place, ‘and they ship, particularly the type that Breen oversaw. To thought I was a sissy. I had to show them I meant allow some to decide what all other adults should what I said.’’26 and should not see is inimical to the fundamental Regarding the decision to award Joe Breen an ideals of a liberal democracy. And yet, while prior

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 383 384 Stephen Weinberger

Fig. 2. Donna Reed and Montgomery Clift in From Here to Eternity (1953). A good film, but better without Breen?

restraint certainly merits condemnation, the question so many memorable movies were produced within still remains as to whether this is necessarily harmful the suffocating restraints of movie censorship ... Like to art. Does the environment for the artist improve as the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, who, despite domi- censorship lessens, and deteriorate as censorship nation and humiliation, managed to ... create “a intensifies? And, in the case of this study, did the theater in a graveyard”, Hollywood filmmakers quality of films decline while Breen headed the PCA? turned out a succession of films that belie the condi- While scholars have grudgingly acknow- tions of their creation ...’.33 Still others, such as Mark ledged that some truly fine films appeared during Viera, claim that the real and lasting damage Breen Breen’s tenure, they have quickly qualified this by caused was not so much to new films, but to those pointing out that his overall effect was harmful. Frank made before the Code. If studios wished to reissue Walsh, for example, argues that ‘for every Citizen them, Breen insisted that they fully meet the current Kane there were hundreds of films that would not moral standards. As a result, the studios compro- have challenged the intelligence of a twelve-year- mised by cutting the original negatives, in many old.31 Leonard Leff and Jerold Simmons acknow- cases permanently damaging these works.34 And ledge that From Here to Eternity and A Streetcar while Richard Schickel praises the outstanding films Named Desire were outstanding films, but ask how that appeared during Breen’s tenure, he also won- much better they would have been without Breen’s ders about the many other fine films that might have influence.32 Gerald Gardner points out, with obvious appeared if Breen and the Code had not discour- hyperbole, that Breen created truly oppressive con- aged their making. ‘Being happy with some of what ditions for filmmakers, and that ‘One of the major we have is not the same as being pleased about miracles of the twentieth century, to stand beside the everything we missed.’35 Salk vaccine and the election of Harry Truman, is that There is little question that in 1934 Breen came

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 384 Joe Breen’s Oscar 385

Fig. 3. John Huston, the writer/director of The Maltese Falcon (1941), directs his father Walter in the cameo role of Captain Jacobi. Lee Patrick and behind the camera. George Eastman House.

to his position ready and willing to ‘knock heads’ with ished the Producer’s Appeals Board. In place of this filmmakers. While he was not a radical departure body, which had a history of reversing decisions by from previous censors, he was certainly the most the censors, it established a new appeals board rigorous and independent.36 This was not only due located in New York, which in virtually every instance to a pugnacious character, but to developments that would support the censors over the filmmakers. strengthened the office in the months just before and If Breen enjoyed a level of authority and inde- after his arrival. First, in March 1933, Will Hays had pendence that others lacked, he also differed in already instructed James Wingate, Breen’s prede- another important aspect. While he could be frustrat- cessor, to be more rigorous in implementing the ing in pointing out where scripts ran afoul of the Code. Second, in April of the following year, the Code, unlike Wingate, who merely identified prob- Catholic Bishops Committee announced the crea- lems, Breen regularly went beyond this, offering tion of the Legion of Decency. This body would serve creative suggestions to satisfy both the filmmakers as an effective pressure group, threatening to boy- and the Code. In the introduction to his book on cott those films the bishops deemed morally danger- American censorship of British films, Anthony Slide ous for Catholics. Rather than regard this as an expressed surprise at how, after reading through the unwanted intrusion, both Breen and Hays saw it as files of the PCA, his opinion of Breen and his staff a way to pressure the studios to work within the changed. While initially thinking of them as ‘puritani- Code. Indeed, Will Hays welcomed the Legion ‘as cal reactionaries hindering and frustrating creative the moral force from the Catholic Church that gave talent’, in the end he came to regard them as ‘the the coup de grace to Code breakers ... I saw it as a equal of that found among many British and Ameri- “defense” of the moral standards we had ourselves can filmmakers. Their understanding of the filmmak- adopted’.37 And third, in July, as the result of consid- ing process was extraordinary ... . Joseph I. Breen erable pressure, the MPPA’s board of directors abol- and his associates contributed as much to world

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 385 386 Stephen Weinberger

cinema as did Hollywood’s leading producers, direc- was working with, the requested changes were sur- tors, and screen writers.’38 Just as opinions about prisingly few and minor. Breen asked that the vio- Breen ran the gamut from praise and admiration to lence and drinking be toned down; that the Armenian criticism and bitterness, the same is true of the films appear less obviously a ‘pansy’; and that he not put made during his tenure. Some were truly outstanding his arm around the young killer. Spade’s ‘illicit sex and are among the very best American films ever affair’ with both his partner’s wife and the ruthless made. Others were totally devoid of artistic worth. heroine must not be expressed. Breen was also Under strictly enforced censorship one would cer- bothered by the fat man’s constant use of the expres- tainly expect the latter, but probably not the former. sion, ‘By Gad’, probably because it sounded vaguely Great cinematic art during ‘the Breen period’ seems sacrilegious.40 an anomaly. Yet, remarkably, many of Hollywood’s Huston made most of the changes Breen had greatest directors made some of their finest films and requested yet managed to retain the unsettling and established their reputations while Joe Breen held murky atmosphere Hammett had created. While sway at the P.C.A. working within the Code, and never being overt, In this regard, John Huston, , and Huston provided sufficient material so that the more are of particular importance. They are not sophisticated viewers would have no doubts about only among America’s finest and most acclaimed Spade’s sexual activities or the Armenian’s homo- filmmakers, but they often chose materials or sub- sexuality. Huston did limit Sidney Greenstreet to jects that were in clear violation of the Production three ‘By Gads’. Code. Yet, time and again, these men demonstrated The film, of course, was an immediate and that one could create works of real artistic merit and enormous success in America and abroad, and is a still receive the PCA’s seal of approval. Moreover, well-established Hollywood classic. It received each of these men has commented in some detail Academy Award nominations, for Best Picture, Best on censorship and its effect on his work. Supporting Actor, and Best Adapted Screenplay, In the case of John Huston, it was his success- although it failed to win an Oscar. When the Ameri- ful screen writing career at Warner Bros. that led to can Film Institute compiled its list of the best 100 an opportunity to direct. His choice was to film American films, The Maltese Falcon placed twenty- Dashiell Hammett’s The Maltese Falcon. This deci- third. sion surprised Warner executives because the studio In his autobiography, An Open Book, John had already filmed it twice, first in 1931 and then in Huston made a number of interesting observations 1936. However, neither of these versions had been about the censorship system. While absolutely op- an artistic or commercial success, nor, Huston felt, posed to it, he also acknowledged that ‘no picture of did they bear much faithfulness to the novel.39 mine was ever really damaged by the censors. There It was obvious, though, that if he followed the was usually a way around them.’41 The Maltese Fal- novel too closely, Huston would run afoul of the con certainly confirms Huston’s judgement. censors. Hammett had created a dark and disturbing He also noted that at times censorship could world for his hero, Sam Spade, to negotiate. Spade actually force screen writers to do better work than himself was a ‘hard-boiled’ detective who was hav- they might have done otherwise. He discussed a ing an affair with his partner’s wife. Hammett popu- scene in The Asphalt Jungle in which a corrupt lawyer lated this world with a heroine who used her committed suicide. Since the Code forbade suicide, considerable sexual charms to manipulate men. the censors duly rejected the scene. No man in his There was also an effeminate Armenian, and a cor- right mind, they maintained, takes his own life. The pulent and ruthless villain with impeccable manners scene, however, was essential to the film. ‘So I came who employed a young psychotic killer. The story up with an idea to which they agreed. I had him write also abounded in violence and alcohol. the note [to his wife] and – like a writer who is Being faithful to Hammett and satisfying Joe dissatisfied with what he’s done – crumples it up ... Breen must have been an enormous challenge. And He tries again and crumples another sheet of paper; yet, Huston’s considerable literary abilities and his he’s incapable of lucid thought. He just shoots him- familiarity with the censorship system served him self. This was enough to indicate, for the censor’s well. On 16 May 1941, Breen sent his reaction to the purposes, that he was not in his right mind. It turned script. Considering the nature of the material Huston out to be a better scene for the changes.’42

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 386 Joe Breen’s Oscar 387

What Huston described is something that his life insurance. The issue of adultery, the fact that many others have pointed to as the unintended and the crime is presented in great detail, and that the counterintuitive ‘benefits’ of censorship. Rather than murderers commit suicide in the end rather than necessarily crushing creativity, censors can have the being punished by the state were among the more opposite effect of forcing creative people to become serious problems. Moreover, the insurance agent more creative. Years before the Production Code, revealed some noble qualities, and this also was when Hollywood was experimenting with other forms unacceptable. Criminals could not possess redeem- of censorship, the much admired screenwriter, Paul ing qualities. Bern made this very observation. He noted that, ‘The Despite the obvious problems, Paramount restraints it imposes are not necessarily harmful. The moved ahead, hiring Billy Wilder as screen writer and fade out is often much more effective and naughtier director. For this project, Wilder teamed with Ray- than the full scene would be if played through.’43 mond Chandler to write the script. Despite their Although this was the case with his two predeces- eventual dislike of one another, they produced a sors, it was particularly true during the Breen admini- brilliant screenplay that Breen eventually accepted. stration that screen writers wrote with greater In the ongoing process of submitting and revising the sophistication. Out of necessity they learned the art script, the fact that Breen had surprisingly few criti- of indirection, successfully appealing to the audi- cisms is a testament to Wilder’s skill.47 ence’s imagination.44 Just as Huston described how the Code Interestingly, Huston concluded his com- forced him to become more creative and improve a ments about censors not by encouraging writers to key scene from The Asphalt Jungle, the same ap- do as he did, and regard the prohibitions as oppor- pears to have occurred with Wilder’s Double Indem- tunities to improve their work, but to do the very nity. Perhaps the most powerful scene in the film opposite. He wrote that, ‘... I wouldn’t recommend occurs when Fred McMurray kills his lover’s hus- trying to outfox the motion picture code as a way to band. Since the Code forbade the graphic depiction achieve storytelling success. The censors were re- of murder, Wilder focused on ’s sponsible for doing grievous damage to many malevolent smirk and glowing eyes as she listens to films.’45 Unless he was implying that other writers her husband struggle before his neck is broken. The were simply not up to his abilities, this seems very effect is probably far more chilling for the audience odd advice from a man who successfully and con- than if it had viewed the actual murder. sistently ‘outfoxed the motion picture code’. Indeed, Upon its release, earned if some films did suffer from the restrictions of the universal accolades. An article in The Times de- code, the blame perhaps should rest at least as scribed producers hailing the script as ‘an emanci- much with the shortcomings of the writers or direc- pation for Hollywood writing’. It then went on to tors as with the rigidity of the censors. explain that films like Double Indemnity were possi- If Breen saw problems turning Hammett’s ble not because of an easing of censorship, but work into a film, he regarded the novels of James M. because ‘Hollywood is learning to use finesse in Cain as so fundamentally incompatible with the dealing with a variety of different plot situations, Code as to be unfilmable. Although Paramount had which if treated objectively or obviously would be acquired the rights to Double Indemnity in 1935, unsuitable’.48 Even the Catholic newspaper, The Tid- Breen had successfully blocked its filming until 1943, ings, praised Indemnity for proving that ‘there is no when the studio decided to proceed with a script. perfect crime ... and that those of criminal tendencies Breen, of course, did his best to discourage the ... now may reflect [on] what happened to the char- enterprise. In his letter of 15 March 1943, in which he acters who perpetrated this one’.49 listed the many problems the novel posed, he began Double Indemnity went on to receive seven by warning ‘... because of the number of elements, Academy Award nominations, including those for the story is in violation of the provisions of the Pro- Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Director, and Best duction Code and, as such, is almost certain to result Screenplay, although like The Maltese Falcon, it won in a picture which we would be compelled to reject’.46 no Oscars. It is thirty-eighth on the American Film On the face of it, there is much to support Breen’s Institute’s list. evaluation. The story dealt with a woman and her Although he must have chafed under the con- insurance agent lover who murder her husband for stant scrutiny of the censors, Wilder regarded cen-

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 387 388 Stephen Weinberger

sorship as merely part of the process of filmmaking. work being more overtly in violation of the Code. Like Huston, he learned to work around the censors, Indeed, it might even seem as if Warner and Feldman and found that using humor with sensitive subjects were thumbing their noses at the entire censorship often achieved good results. In discussing Some apparatus. Like It Hot, he explained that ‘... the scene between Elia Kazan had directed the play on Broadway, Marilyn Monroe and Tony Curtis on the boat. That is but had little desire to do a film version. It was just one laugh after another. That, the censors for- Williams, fearing that Hollywood would mangle his gave me because it was funny ... I was fair with them work, who convinced Kazan to take on the project. [the censors] and they were fair with me, except one At this point in his career, Kazan was the most or two exceptions ...’.50 admired and successful director in America, with a However great the risks Paramount took that reputation for toughness and integrity. Double Indemnity might never receive a PCA seal of By 1950, the PCA, with Breen at its head, had approval, these paled in comparison to those Warner been functioning for over fifteen years, and the cen- Bros. assumed in deciding to bring A Streetcar sorship process was quite familiar to all concerned. Named Desire to the screen. On the face of it, one It was clear to all that problems existed with Streetcar, might wonder just what posessed Charles Feldman, and hard negotiations lay ahead, along with rewrit- the independent producer, to purchase the screen ing, adjustments, and deletions. Breen’s memo of rights to Tennessee Williams’ play, and Jack Warner April 1950 to Jack Warner identified the major prob- to finance and distribute the movie. Although Street- lem areas, but also offered suggestions to make car was hailed as one of the great monuments of the these acceptable. Geoffrey Shurlock, who would American theater, Broadway did not have to deal succeed Breen as head of the PCA in 1954, and Jack with the Code, the PCA, or Joe Breen. With its Vizzard were the PCA officials who negotiated violence, smoldering sexuality, nymphomania, changes with the studio. homosexuality, and rape, it is difficult to imagine a Breen’s memo identified three difficulties: First

Fig. 4. Fred MacMurray in Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity (1944). A risky proposition improved by the Code?

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 388 Joe Breen’s Oscar 389 was the fact that Blanche’s husband, Alan Grey, was Having reached agreement with the censors a homosexual and that he had committed suicide. on all the key issues, Kazan proceeded with the film. Second was Blanche’s obsession with sex, ‘and On its completion, he confidently reassured a jittery particularly to sex attraction for young boys that Jack Warner that the film would receive a seal of seems to verge on perversion of a sort’.51 Breen also approval. ‘I do not really think we will have much presented solutions to these problems which Warner trouble with Joe Breen ... The picture is good! ... We and Kazan eventually accepted. All direct references can have a perfectly clean conscience about the to Alan’s homosexuality were eliminated, and he was ‘sensationalism in the picture – for absolutely none merely presented as sensitive and ineffectual. And of it is for its own sake. And, I really think the picture’s Blanche, distraught over the tragedy of her hus- theme is deeply moral ...’57 band’s death, would be presented as obsessed with Kazan, it turned out, was absolutely correct. ‘searching for romance and security not gross sex’.52 Yet, if Breen had loosened up, the Legion of Decency It was the third problem, Stanley’s rape of had not. While the PCA awarded Streetcar a seal of Blanche, that proved most difficult. The censors approval, the Legion awarded it a rating of ‘C’ for suggested either that the rape be handled as Condemned. The irony of the situation was not lost Blanche’s delusion or else that Stanley stopped his on ever observant Jack Vizzard. He noted that ‘The attack when he realized Blanche had gone insane. instrumentality [i.e. the Legion] which Joe had While Warner and Feldman were amenable, Kazan helped invent in order to validate his job was now was not. If the rape was removed, he threatened to beginning to assume a proprietorship over it, and the leave the project, which, in turn, meant that Williams “child” was clearly beginning to talk like the father of would also leave, and the entire project would col- the man’.58 lapse. In the end, under heavy pressure from Warner The prospect of Catholics boycotting his film and Feldman, Breen relented, but insisted that the sent Jack Warner into a panic. Without informing rape must be handled ‘by suggestion and delicacy’ Kazan who was away on another project, Warner and the ending be changed so that Stanley be pun- delayed the film’s opening and brought in Martin ished for this act.53 Quigley to make whatever changes he deemed nec- This was a significant concession from Breen. essary to satisfy the Legion. In the end, after a dozen Up to this point, he had maintained that rape was cuts that amounted to approximately three and a half absolutely incompatible with the Code, and could minutes of film, the Legion awarded Streetcar a‘B’ not appear in any form. Some have suggested that (morally objectionable) rating. Breen feared that if he did not give in, Warner would What seems especially significant and cer- go ahead and distribute the film anyway.54 The play’s tainly ironic about this entire situation is the relation- reputation and the notoriety that would inevitably ship that Kazan developed with Breen and his staff, result from a censorship squabble could attract huge and with Jack Warner. The correspondence reveals audiences. It was only four months earlier that Vittorio that the artist and the censors developed mutual De Sica had refused to make the cuts in The Bicycle respect as they labored together to make a film within Thief that Breen had demanded, and the film none- the Code that was true to the specifics of Williams’ theless played in art houses and independent thea- work. Indeed, in a letter to Breen, Kazan acknow- ters and did quite well. Furthermore, as Geoffrey ledged that removing the issue of Alan’s homosexu- Shurlock pointed out, the very reason for the PCA’s ality improved the film, and that ‘I wouldn’t put the creation was to smooth the way for Hollywood’s homosexuality back in the picture if ... it was now product not to block it. ‘We were in the business of permissible. I don’t want it. I prefer debility and granting seals. The whole purpose of our existence weakness ...’59 He also praised Shurlock and Vizzard was to arrange pictures so we could give seals. You for their flexibility and for suggesting ways to make had to give a seal.’55 Faced with an intransigent Blanche’s sexual obsessions clear to adults while director, and pressured by a determined producer leaving them vague to children.60 and studio head, Breen really had little choice. Also, Kazan saved his wrath not for the censors, but by this point, Breen himself seems to have mellowed, for Jack Warner, his employer. When they finally met, and as Jack Vizzard observed, he ‘was beginning to Warner presented himself as ‘a victim of the Catholic get good natured’.56 He was approving films that he hierarchy’, and turned a deaf ear to Kazan’s counter would have rejected earlier. proposals.61 Realizing that he had no say in the

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 389 390 Stephen Weinberger

To conclude about Joe Breen’s Oscar, there is certainly good reason to wince at the dedicatory statement accompanying his statue. ‘Open-minded and dignified’ might well apply to Geoffrey Shurlock; hardly to Joe Breen. He could be arrogant and abrasive, and early on, at least, he revealed a dis- turbing bigotry. He upheld the Code that Quigley and Lord created not only because it was his job, but because he fervently believed in it. He was the prod- uct of the very same cultural background that pro- duced Quigley, Lord, Parsons, and Vizzard. Moreover, he caused some films to be delayed by many years and probably prevented some fine films from ever appearing. At the same time, there is little question that he took his work seriously, and this meant not only upholding the Code, but conscientiously and crea- tively working with filmmakers to achieve their goals. Fig. 5. Cut to fit outcome, Kazan vented his anger in The New York During his two decades at the PCA with the Code the Code: Kim Times, complaining that, ‘My picture had been cut to being more rigorously enforced, there is a good deal Hunter and fit a code that is not my code, is not the recognized of evidence to suggest that films actually improved. in code of the industry, and is not the code of the great Directors and writers such as Huston, Wilder, and Elia Kazan’s A 62 Kazan had few complaints, and freely acknowledged Streetcar Named majority of the audience’. that censorship on occasion had actually improved Desire (1951). To Kazan’s surprise, going public with this issue did not turn Warner against him. ‘The next time their films. Indeed, the gret irony of censorship is that I ran into Jack, he was as friendly as ever. I realized it forces creative people to become even more crea- that you can’t insult these people; there’s no concern tive. In reading through the AFI’s top 100 list, thirty- with morality there; only business’.63 Streetcar turned four of these films, including eight of the first twelve, out to be a commercial and artistic success. It re- appeared between 1934 and 1954. The Breen years ceived twelve Academy nominations and won four roughly coincide with Hollywood’s ‘Golden Age’. Oscars. It also ranks forty-fifth on the American Film Did Joe Breen deserve the Oscar? The facts Institute’s list. speak for themselves.

Notes

1. J. Vizzard, See No Evil. Life Inside a Hollywood Censor 11. Several scholars have commented on Breen’s anti- (New York, 1970), 51. semitism. Gregory Black referred to him as ‘a rabid 2. Ibid., 50. anti-Semite’. G. Black, Hollywood Censored. Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies (Cambridge, 3. Ibid., 51. 1994), 170. Mark Vieira argues that he was not 4. R. Moley, The Hays Office (New York, 1945), 241. anti-Semitic. Vieira, Sin, 210. The entire document appears as Appendix E. 12. Joe Breen letter to Martin Quigley, 1 May 1932. 5. Vizzard, See No Evil, 102. Quigley Papers, box 1, folder 3, Georgetown Univer- 6. Ibid. sity Manuscripts Collection. 7. Ibid., 103. 13. Joe Breen letter to Wilifred Parsons, 10 October 1932. 8. Terre Haute Star (17 July 1934), 4. Parsons Papers, box 3, folder 41, Georgetown. 9. T. Doherty, Pre-Code Hollywood. Sex, Immorality, 14. Ibid. and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930–1934 (New York, 1999), 327. 15. The Hollywood Reporter, 27 July 1934. 10. M. Vierira, Sin in Soft Focus; Precode Hollywood (New 16. Joe Breen letter to Maurice McKenzie, 12 April 1935, York, 1999), 195. Quigley Papers, box 1, folder 3, Georgetown.

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 390 Joe Breen’s Oscar 391

17. Gerard Donnelly letter to Wilifred Parsons, Winter, 37. W. Hays, The Memoirs of Will Hays (New York, 1955), 1936, Parsons Papers, box 3, folder 41, Georgetown. 450. 18. Ibid. 38. A Slide, Banned in the U.S.A. British Films in the United States and their Censorship, 1933–1960 (Lon- 19. Joe Breen letter to Martin Quigley, 25 September don, 1998), x–xi. 1937, Quigley Papers, box 1, folders, Georgetown. 39. J. Huston, An Open Book (New York, 1980), 78. 20. Vizzard, See No Evil, 20. 40. Gardner, Papers, 39. 21. Vieira, Sin, 210. 41. Huston, Open Book, 83. 22. Vizzard, See No Evil, 51–52. 42. Ibid., 84. 23. Several authors discuss the benefits of having Breen heading the PCA. See, for example, R. Malby, ‘Baby 43. Paul Bern, ‘Theory of the Silent Motion Picture’, in Face or How Joe Breen Made Barbara Stanwyck J.C. Tibbets (ed.), Introduction to the Photoplay 1929: Atone for Causing the Wall Street Crash’ Screen A Contemporary Account of the Transition to Sound (1986), 22–45; Doherty, Pre-Code, 27; Black, Holly- in Film (Shawnee Mission, KS), 76. wood, 239; F. Miller, Censored Hollywood. Sex, Sin, 44. Several scholars have made this observation. See and Violence on Screen (Atlanta, 1994), 86. for example, Leff, The Dame, xiii; Schickel, Matinee Idylls, 113; Vasey, The World, 126. 24. Vieira, Sin, 210. 45. Huston, Open Book, 84. 25. G. Shurlock, Oral History with Geoffrey Shurlock, Interviewed by James M. Wall (Louis B. Mayer/Ameri- 46. Gardner, Papers, 45. can Film Institute Film History Program, 1970), 47. Ibid., 46–47. 105–106. 48. New York Times, 19 November 1944. 26. Vizzard, See No Evil, 64. 49. Tidings, 11August 1944, 9. 27. Ibid., 157. 50. C. Crowe, Conversations with Wilder (New York, 28. G. Shurlock, Oral History, 210. 2001), 156. 29. Doherty, Pre-Code, 335–336. 51. Behlmer, Warner Brothers, 323. 30. Variety (30 September 1936), 1. 52. Ibid. 31. F. Walsh, Sin and Censorship. The Catholic Church 53. Ibid., 326–327. In this letter to Warner, Kazan re- and the Motion Picture Industry (New Haven, CT, counts the details both of their meeting with Breen 1996), 334. and the compromise they reached. 32. L. Leff and J. Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono 54. Leff, The Dame, 175. (New York: Grove Press): 212. 55. Shurlock, Oral History, 254. 33. G. Gardner, The Censorship Papers. Movie Censor- 56. Vizzard, See No Evil, 137. ship Letters from the Hays Office, 1934 to 1968 (New 57. Behlmer, Warner Brothers, 327. York, 1987), xxiii-xxiv. 58. Vizzard, See No Evil, 138. 34. Vieira, Sin, 210; M. La Salle, Complicated Women. 59. M. Schumach, The Face on the Cutting Room Floor Sex and Power in Pre-Code Hollywood (New York, (New York, 1964), 74. 2000), 207. 60. Leff, The Dame, 175. 35. R. Schickel, Matinee Idylls. Reflections on the Movies (Chicago, 1999), 113. 61. E. Kazan, A Life (New York, 1997), 436. 36. R. Vasey, The World According to Hollywood, 62. New York Times, 23 October 1950. 1918–1939 (Madison, WI, 1997), 131–132. 63. Kazan, A Life, 437.

FILM HISTORY: Volume 17, Number 4, 2005 – p. 391