Realism, Fantasy, and the ‘H’ Certificate: Rethinking Horror Cinema in Britain During the 1940S by Paul William Frith
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of East Anglia digital repository Realism, Fantasy, and the ‘H’ Certificate: Rethinking Horror Cinema in Britain during the 1940s by Paul William Frith Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of East Anglia School of Film, Television and Media September 2014 ©This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived there from must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution. Abstract Existing research on British cinema during the 1940s has often assumed an opposition between realism and fantasy or, as it is also known, 'realism and tinsel'. However, through an analysis of contemporary critical reception and censorship discourses, it becomes apparent how this division was nowhere near as clearly defined as is often argued. Discussions surrounding a supposed ‘ban’ on horror during 1942- 45, and the subsequent debates regarding realism in the post-war climate, demonstrate how realism was often associated with fantasy and vice versa. While the ‘quality’ realist film of the 1940s demonstrates a concern with verisimilitude and the reproduction of the surface appearances of reality, when confronting the obscene or the taboo hidden below this surface realism was deemed to be far more closely associated with ‘horrific’ fantasy. This thesis therefore looks beyond common perceptions of British cinema during this period through an analysis of contemporary discussions surrounding the relationship between ‘realism and tinsel’, with a particular emphasis upon the misapprehension that the horror ‘ban’ signified a falling interest in fantasy in favour of the ‘quality’ of realism. By also looking at a number of films not often included within such debates, this approach contributes to the discussion of a period largely unacknowledged in terms of horror in British cinema. 2 | P a g e Contents Page Abstract 2 Acknowledgments 4 Introduction 5 PART ONE 25 Chapter One: “Ghoulish Tales and 0ff-Screen Screams” – Understanding the ‘H’ Ban in Britain 26 Chapter Two: “Dark Patches and Vague Presences” – Val Lewton and the Acceptable Face of ‘Horror’ During the ‘H’ Ban 46 Chapter Three: Prestige, Comedy, and Nations at War – Redefining Horror for the War-Time Audience 66 PART TWO Chapter Four: Homemade Horrors – The Darker Side to British Cinema during World War Two 90 Chapter Five: “Romance and Gaiety” – Escapism and the Costume Melodrama during WWII 110 Chapter Six: Spiritualism and the Supernatural – Realism, Fantasy and Ealing’s Dead of Night 130 PART THREE Chapter Seven: “The Most Objectionable Story I Have Ever Had to Report on” – The Body Snatcher and Depictions of ‘Real Horror’ 151 Chapter Eight: Back to Bedlam – Representations of Mental Illness in Post-war Horror 171 Chapter Nine: “It was good to get out into the fresh air after seeing this film” – The Snake Pit and the End of the ‘H’ Certificate 192 CONCLUSION 214 BIBLIOGRAPHY 221 FILMOGRAPHY 247 3 | P a g e Acknowledgements This thesis would never have come together if it were not for the friends and family who supported me through the whole process, to whom I am eternally grateful. I would also like to thank: My PhD supervisors Professor Mark Jancovich and Dr Melanie Williams for all of the support and encouragement along the way – thanks for persevering! The University of East Anglia for funding this project and making it possible to continue with my research. The British Film Institute, the British Board of Film Classification and the International Federation of Film Archives for the invaluable research material. Finally to Amelia and Jude, the niece and nephew born whilst writing this thesis, for reminding me how time flies! 4 | P a g e Introduction As Tom Johnson highlights in his analysis of the horror film in Britain during the 1930s, between 1932 and 1937 mounting pressure from local watchdogs and the clergy called for the British Board of Film Censors (later changed to Film Classification) to bring in a form of classification for the purpose of protecting children from the type of ‘horrific’ entertainment taking up an increasing amount of screen time in the UK.1 The legal power granted to local authorities, entitling them to further censor any film approved by the Board, came to be the deciding factor in introducing the ‘H’ certificate as this new classification served two purposes. Not only would the ‘H’ keep children away from the exhibition of ‘horrific’ entertainment, thereby appeasing the key concern of local pressure groups, it also presented the possibility of greater uniformity across the country to the benefit of the producers, distributors, exhibitors, and the BBFC themselves who remained under the threat of calls for state censorship. 1 Tom Johnson, Censored Screams (London: McFarland, 1997), p.6. An ‘advisory’ certificate was introduced in 1932, although it wasn’t until June 1937 that The Thirteenth Chair (George B. Seitz; 1937) received the first mandatory ‘H’ classification, restricting patrons to those over sixteen only. Up until this point only two other certificates had been in use, the ‘U’ for universal audiences and the ‘A’ for over-sixteens unless accompanied by an adult. 5 | P a g e However, this victory for the moral guardians may have come too late as, by 1936, only two films of that year would receive the ‘H’ classification. This is further complicated by the fact that while the majority of films represented by the ‘H’ were descendants of the original Universal horror cycle of the 1930s, the new certificate would also be handed to several productions outside of such supernatural realms, illustrating how the BBFC recognised the classification as a way of dealing with unpleasant subject matter as a whole.2 Perceived as a ban on horror in the U.S.A., the inception of the ‘H’ certificate has also been accused of playing an instrumental role in the demise of the first horror cycle although, as Johnson has illustrated, by the mid-Thirties profits for horror were already in decline.3 The reappearance of the genre came in the form of a double bill featuring Universal’s original Dracula (Tod Browning; 1931) and Frankenstein (James Whale; 1931), playing to packed auditoriums throughout 1938 in both London and New York. In spite of attempts made by the Production Code Administration (PCA) to dissuade Hollywood from cashing in on this success4, the rejuvenation of the genre would 2 Including Boy Slaves (P. J. Wolfson; 1939) and Hell’s Kitchen (Lewis Seiler & E. A. DuPont; 1939) both being attempts to highlight the conditions of correctional facilities for young offenders in the United States. Abel Gance’s remake of his own anti-war film J’Accuse (1938) and A Child is Born (Lloyd Bacon; 1939), telling the story of a number of women waiting to give birth in a maternity ward, were both handed the ‘H’ classification also. 3 Johnson, Censored Screams, p.137. Compared with Frankenstein’s profit of $1 million on a $262,000 investment, Mark of the Vampire made $54,000 on a $305,177 investment, while Mad Love lost $39,000 and The Devil Doll made $68,000. 4 Rick Worland, The Horror Film: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007), p.126-7. Joseph Breen, head of the Production Code Administration in the U.S.A., made attempts to dissuade both Universal and Columbia from planning any future ventures into the genre by warning that the position on horror in the UK remained unchanged. In a letter to Joseph Brooke Wilkinson, then Secretary of the BBFC, Breen expressed his concern that horror may nonetheless return to the screens: Joseph Breen to Brooke Wilkinson, 7 November, 1938, Son of Frankenstein Film, MPPA/Production Code Administration Files, Margaret Herrick Library, Beverly Hills, CA. “It just so happens that by one of these curious freakish turns in the field of exhibition, the Universal company have been marketing certain re-issues of these “horror” pictures. Audiences, hereabouts, have turned to laughing at them – “spoofing” them – and refusing to take them seriously. These re-issues have been quite successful and two of our companies have in mind making some “horror” pictures, with the thought that this 6 | P a g e provide Universal with enough incentive to bring back one of its most successful characters. Son of Frankenstein (Rowland V. Lee; 1939) received an ‘H’ certificate in the UK5 although, as the decade came to a close and war in Europe became a reality, the issues surrounding horror and censorship would be further complicated as definitions of the ‘horrific’ became more than merely those films represented by the new certificate. The ‘H’ came under fire once again when any film deemed worthy of the certificate would not be approved for British cinema screens during the final years of WWII. In whatever guise, horror stilled played an instrumental role on British cinema screens throughout the 1940s, although this has not necessarily been a shared opinion within academic writing on the period. 1940s Horror Discussions of horror cinema in the 1940s6 have often focussed upon the Universal franchise where “breaking new ground was not the goal”7, alongside a same curious reaction on the part of audiences may turn them into good box-office successes. It was with this thought in mind that I wired you.” 5 BBFC, (2012). Son of Frankenstein [online]. Available: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AFF197034/ [accessed 23 October 2012]. 6 For summaries of horror in the 1940s see: Rick Atkins Lets Scare ‘em: Grand Interviews and a Filmography of Horrific Proportions; Rhona J.