Forbidden Images: Movie Montage Of Censored Images From 1920s And 30s

[Story]

Tame, by today's standards.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/forbidden-images-movie-mo_n_527458.html

Neatorama, via Andrew Sullivan, shows us just how picky the censors were back in the 1920s and 30s. This montage, called "Forbidden images," is a collection of scenes and stills that were forced out of movies for their scandalous content. As the montage asks, in a 100 years will people think we're as ridiculous as we think the censors of the 20s and 30s were?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I see a woman's bare ankle! No wonder it was censored. If people back then saw what is rated PG-13 today, everyone in the theatre would die of shock or heart attack.

 

[Ledfeather]

how odd that they chose to remove so many shots of women's feet and toes. i wonder if there was a big fear of foot fetishists, or, if they were more aware of that, back then, and thought it was a perversion.

 

[Chainsaw]

It's kind of erie..... society was better in those times perhaps.

When Last Tango in Paris first came out, my Uncle and Aunt went to see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Tango_in_Paris

My Aunt thought it was so racy, that she walked out, half way through.

 

[scottyrocks]

Yep. I was never able to again look a stick of butter straight in the eye.

 

[Atomic Age]

I see a woman's bare ankle! No wonder it was censored. If people back then saw what is rated PG-13 today, everyone in the theatre would die of shock or heart attack.

Not really. The 1925 version of Ben-Hur has fully visible topless women in the parade scene. Before the production code was enforced movies were pretty racy. Check out the fully nude swimming scene in Tarzan and his Mate (1934). And this was presumably a movie that would appeal to kids. In fact it was one of the movies that lead to the creation of the Motion Picture Association and the enforcement of the production code.

Doug

 

[Stearmen]

Mae West

Did it get any better then this?

 

[*Schatzi*]

Not really. The 1925 version of Ben-Hur has fully visible topless women in the parade scene. Before the production code was enforced movies were pretty racy. Check out the fully nude swimming scene in Tarzan and his Mate (1934). And this was presumably a movie that would appeal to kids. In fact it was one of the movies that lead to the creation of the Motion Picture Association and the enforcement of the production code.

Doug

You're totally right. Pre-1934 movies had lots of violence and nudity. It was only when the Hay's Administration stepped in after some religious groups thought that movies were profane. Movies like the original Scarface and other movies like Ben Hur and Tarzan were making a lot of powerful religious groups upset and were threatening to boycott films. They even started censoring cartoons!

I just think it is cute that movies pre-1934 were a lot more like our movies today. In a way "before their time".

Here are some links explaining:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG02/gangsters/censorship.html violence

http://www.pictureshowman.com/articles_genhist_censorship.cfm This one has some good pictures.

http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Academy-Awards-Crime-Films/Censorship-AMERICAN-FILM-CENSORSHIP.html

 

[scotrace]

Tramps! Fallen Women!!

 

[Atinkerer]

If I remember correctly, a lot of the motivation for movie censorship was to stop glorifying gangsters (i.e. Dillinger, etc). There was a strong anti-government sentiment because of the depression, and people were siding with the bank robbers against the banks and the government. To stop this growing anti-government uprising, movie standards were enacted, and movie makes started showing the robber as an unmistakable bad guy.

 

[Widebrim]

Not really. The 1925 version of Ben-Hur has fully visible topless women in the parade scene. Before the production code was enforced movies were pretty racy. Check out the fully nude swimming scene in Tarzan and his Mate (1934). And this was presumably a movie that would appeal to kids. In fact it was one of the movies that lead to the creation of the Motion Picture Association and the enforcement of the production code.

Doug

Exactly. These clips seem to be mostly from movies from before the late-'20s, after which there was quite a bit of nudity and violence. Besides the examples already given, the silent films of Lon Chaney had many grisly scenes and scantily-clad women. (For more semi-nude women, see D.W. Griffith.) The notorius "Ecstasy" has Hedy Lamarr revealing her backside as she descends into the surf, which, although considered controversial at the time, was shown in U.S. theaters. Of course, some distributors evaded the cutting-room scissors by avoiding the censors altogether, hence Wayne Esper's "Maniac," which contains not only very bizarre scenes, but a quick view of a woman's bosom.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There were a lot of motivations all coming into play at the same time, but the biggest push for film censorship came from one single very powerful religious organization, the Catholic Legion of Decency, and one of their officials, Joseph Breen, was appointed to head the Production Code Administration in 1934 -- the Code as such had been in effect since 1930, but it was under Breen's administration -- which continued until 1953 -- that it was strictly enforced.

Breen was truly a one-man show, too -- he had the final say on everything, and producers were terrified of him, because by withholding the MPPDA seal, he could prevent any film from being distributed by any MPPDA member organization, which included all legitimate film distributors in the US. So it wasn't even the sensibilities of religious groups or activists in general that were concerned when the Code was being enforced, it was the sensibilities of one, single very conservative man, Joseph Ignaitus Breen, that determined what would or wouldn't be seen on American screens.

For all that, Breen is almost completely forgotten today, which is in itself a fascinating phenomenon. He is without doubt the most culturally-important unknown figure of the twentieth century.

 

[Fletch]

i wonder if there was a big fear of foot fetishists, or, if they were more aware of that, back then, and thought it was a perversion.

They were surely recognized as a displacement zone - kind of the next frontier after the ankle Not surprisingly, they were played up during the 50s and early 60s, before women could do frank nudity.

Marilyn Monroe's feet were two of her best features. Her glam shots used them to nice effect - as they couldn't do with other parts of her.

When Doris Day indulged some leg and foot play in the Rock Hudson films, that was considered quite titillating indeed.

I don't think there was any particular vendetta against the foot fetish, though. It was just another flavor of deviation, maybe more innocuous than others.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

The Four Horsemen of The Apocalypse (1921) has prominent bare breasts in it. Valentino is an artist and these are the women he is painting.

You can see Jean Harlow's bare breast for a split second in Red Headed Woman (1932)

There's a topless woman in Maniac (1934)

Some pre-Code movies even make *me* blush and think "that's so wrong!" (but that only makes me love them more! ) Coke use, bloody, gorey violence, violence against women, cheating, jealousy, heroine use, opium use, nudity, kidnapping, drinking (which was ILLEGAL at the time)....I've seen these all in pre-Code movies.

When people bemoan the movies of today compared to yesterday I often wonder if they know about the pre-Code era....

...or Exploitation Films. Child Bride (1938 -- which shows a NUDE 12 year old swimming in a lake being ogled by a pervy old "hillbilly") still gives me shivers.

 

[Atomic Age]

There were a lot of motivations all coming into play at the same time, but the biggest push for film censorship came from one single very powerful religious organization, the Catholic Legion of Decency, and one of their officials, Joseph Breen, was appointed to head the Production Code Administration in 1934 -- the Code as such had been in effect since 1930, but it was under Breen's administration -- which continued until 1953 -- that it was strictly enforced.

Breen was truly a one-man show, too -- he had the final say on everything, and producers were terrified of him, because by withholding the MPPDA seal, he could prevent any film from being distributed by any MPPDA member organization, which included all legitimate film distributors in the US. So it wasn't even the sensibilities of religious groups or activists in general that were concerned when the Code was being enforced, it was the sensibilities of one, single very conservative man, Joseph Ignaitus Breen, that determined what would or wouldn't be seen on American screens.

For all that, Breen is almost completely forgotten today, which is in itself a fascinating phenomenon. He is without doubt the most culturally-important unknown figure of the twentieth century.

This is absolutely true, but you did forget one thing, the federal government was making noises about about censoring movies nationally. Rather than submit to government rules, the film industry decided to police themselves. I have to admit however that I agree with director Edward Dmytryk. The code forced filmmakers to be much more creative, and I think in general the movies were better for it.

Also it wasn't just the movies. There was a sense in the country that Hollywood its self was wicked. After the trials of Fatty Arbuckle, Jean Harlow's antics off screen, the murder of William Desmond Taylor, among others, there was the perception out in middle America that Hollywood needed to be policed.

Doug

 

[skyvue]

There was a sense in the country that Hollywood its self was wicked. After the trials of Fatty Arbuckle, Jean Harlow's antics off screen, the murder of William Desmond Taylor, among others, there was the perception out in middle America that Hollywood needed to be policed.

It's been argued convincingly that, in fact, Middle America wasn't particularly riled up about the behavior of Hollywood's denizens (and Clara Bow outdid Jean Harlow by a mile), that it really was, as Lizzie points out above, one group, the Catholic Legion of Decency, being afforded undue influence.

To anyone interested in the Pre-Code era and the impact of Breen's clamp-down, I recommend Nick LaSalle's Complicated Women: Sex and Power in Pre-Code Hollywood and, to a lesser degree, Dangerous Men: Pre-Code Hollywood and the Birth of the Modern Man. The former makes a convincing argument that Breen's efforts significantly hindered the careers of women in Hollywood -- not just the actresses, but those working behind the scenes, that Hollywood wasn't really a boy's club until the Code was strictly enforced.

Edit: Mick LaSalle is the author of the books I cited above, not Nick.

 

[Fletch]

AIUI, there was some stereotypical belief in those days - IDK whether it had any basis in reality, let alone any research behind it - that more Catholics went to the movies than Protestants (the so-called "Middle American" majority), or went more often, or were more likely to get their ideas about real life and "Americanism" from the screen.

It seems prejudiced thinking on the face of it, starting from assumptions about Catholics being more urban, foreign-born, less educated, etc. But who knows, perhaps even an Irish Catholic like Joe Breen was prey to such assumptions.

What we do know is that they were a big chunk of the paying public. And that the clergy's authority in Catholic life in that day went all but unchallenged. So the parishes were very easy to organize into a movement.

It would be telling to learn where all the animus against "modern" women was coming from - the congregations? the priesthood? Joe Breen and his inner circle? Was this a case of the few manipulating the many?

 

[Silver Dollar]

This movie is horribly, disgustingly scandalous---NOT !lol True, they were suggestive of---dare I say--sex but did the censors think that most people didn't know where babies came from. Oh the shame of it. BTW, scroll down a bit and see what's there. Ironic.

I thought the video was great. You really get the feel of the times.

 

[Story]

Matthew Hoffman was pleased to hear the gasp from the audience at the Park Ridge Public Library when they saw the ending of the film "Three on a Match," which involves drug addiction, child abuse, kidnapping and bedroom scenes.
"To have this effect is really amazing," he said.
Amazing because the film was released in 1932 and it goes against a popular belief that movies in the 1930s were all Shirley Temple and Fred Astaire, singing and dancing.

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/parkrid...rtainment-cook-forbiddencin-050610-s1.article

 

[Miss Golightly]

I was watching The Third Man a few months ago and was quite surprised to see a scene with Joseph Cotton that featured an exotic dancer clearly wearing only tassles and flimsy skirt. I'm not sure if this was in the original cut that showed in the cinema though....