{"id":32005,"date":"2015-08-18T13:30:56","date_gmt":"2015-08-18T18:30:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=32005"},"modified":"2016-09-02T17:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-02T22:27:00","slug":"how-he-mostly-got-away-with-it-matthew-h-bernstein-on-preston-sturges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2015\/08\/18\/how-he-mostly-got-away-with-it-matthew-h-bernstein-on-preston-sturges\/","title":{"rendered":"How he (mostly) got away with it: Matthew H. Bernstein on Preston Sturges"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Lady<\/a><\/p>\n

DB here:<\/p>\n

Matthew H. Bernstein is \u00a0a long-time friend and a superb scholar. His biography of Walter Wanger<\/a> has become a classic of Hollywood business history, and his many books and articles have refined our sense of American cinema. When we learned of his research into Sturges (a favorite<\/a> of this blog), we were happy to propose that he do a guest entry. Here’s the lively, trailblazing result.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

How should films portray sex and marriage? Hollywood\u2019s Production Code, established in 1930, set forth some definite ideas.<\/p>\n

Sex<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing. . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n

Scenes of Passion<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

They should not be introduced when not essential to the plot.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n

Seduction or Rape<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

They should never be more than suggested, and only when essential for the plot, and even then never shown by explicit method.<\/strong><\/p>\n

They are never the proper subject for comedy.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Those of us who savor Preston Sturges\u2019s great romantic comedies of the 1940s\u2014The Lady Eve <\/em>(1940), The Palm Beach Story<\/em> (1942) and The Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek <\/em>(1944)\u2014admire them in part for their violation of just about all these tenets. They are full of \u201csuggestive postures\u201d like the lengthy chaise longue scene in The Lady Eve<\/em>. Their central topic is often the seduction of men by women (The Lady Eve<\/em>, The Palm Beach Story <\/em>and arguably Miracle<\/em>). References to extra-marital sex, contemplated or accomplished, abound. And all three films ridicule \u201cthe sanctity of the institution of marriage\u201d into the ground. Film critic Elliot Rubinstein once observed, \u201cIf Sturges\u2019s scenarios don\u2019t quite invade the province of the flatly censorable, they surely assault the border outposts, and some of the lines escalate the assault into bombardment.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Production Code Administration, on paper and in practice, was particularly obsessed with regulating the depiction of female sexuality on screen. Yet Sturges\u2019 attacks on conventional morality are launched by heroines: con artist\/card sharp Jean\/Eve (Barbara Stanwyck) in The Lady Eve<\/em>, the hard-headed Gerry Jeffers (Claudette Colbert) in The Palm Beach Story<\/em> and the na\u00efve man-bait Trudy Kockenlocker (Betty Hutton) in The Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek<\/em>. \u00a0They are all variants of what Kathleen Rowe has called the \u201cunruly woman,\u201d characters who create \u201cdisorder by dominating, or trying to dominate, men,\u201d and being \u201cunable or unwilling\u201d to stay in a woman\u2019s traditional place. Mary Astor\u2019s much-married Princess Centimilia\/Maude in The Palm Beach Story <\/em>deserves an honorable mention here too.<\/p>\n

True, by each film\u2019s conclusion, the Sturges heroine agrees to get or stay married. She fulfills the conventions of romantic comedy and the stipulations of the PCA. Yet in each film the path to a proper end looks so much like a roller-coaster ride that the significance and sanctity of marriage come to seem ridiculous.<\/p>\n

How did Sturges get away with so much? A look behind the scenes at the negotiations around The Lady Eve<\/em> can help us understand his strategies. It also shows that the Code was more flexible and fallible than we often realize.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Convolutions in the Code<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Snake<\/a><\/p>\n

Sturges had one advantage at the outset. He worked in a genre that was already testing the limits of the Code. Granted, the PCA in 1934 aimed to regulate film content in every genre. None, however, flaunted, even parodied, the strictures of the Code more thoroughly than screwball comedy did. Rubinstein puts it well: \u201cThe very style of screwball, the complexity and inventiveness and wit of its detours around certain facts of certain lives, the force of its attack on the very pieties it is pledged to sustain, cannot be explained without recognition of the censors. Screwball comedy is censored comedy.\u201c<\/p>\n

By the end of the 1930s, filmmakers were pushing hard against censorship. Romantic comedies were growing more risqu\u00e9 by the month, as shown by 1940 releases like My Little Chickadee<\/em>, The Philadelphia Story<\/em>, The Road to Singapore<\/em>, Too Many Husbands<\/em>, The Primrose Path, Strange Cargo<\/em>, and most especially, This Thing Called Love.<\/em> A sort of arms race took place, and Sturges, emerging as a writer-director in 1940, benefited from this escalation.<\/p>\n

Just as important is a fact that many fans of Hollywood still don\u2019t realize. We like to think that daring filmmakers were charging boldly against an iron wall, with chief censor Joseph Breen and his associates setting forth implacable demands. But the administration of the Code was not a mechanical, totalitarian affair. It was most often a matter of negotiation.<\/p>\n

Releasing Hollywood\u2019s product, even risqu\u00e9 films, benefited all parties involved. If the Code were enforced with absolute rigidity, the industry would suffer. Some films would have to be abandoned. Then urban audiences would have found the safely released product pallid, and critics would have complained about bland output. Then as now, edginess sold, and at least some audiences were eager for it.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, Breen and co. recognized that the Code could not be applied ruthlessly. Indeed, historians Lea Jacobs, Richard Maltby and Ruth Vasey have shown that the PCA, like its forerunner the Studio Relations Committee, often helped<\/em> filmmakers find ways around the most stringent policy demands. Through a give-and-take, censors and filmmakers could settle on scenes and lines of dialogue that could avoid public outcry. No one flaunted and taunted the PCA as well as Sturges, yet Breen and co. often helped him find ways of rendering suggestive situations without baldly transgressing the Code.<\/p>\n

One typical filmmaker\/<\/strong>PCA tactic that favored Sturges was an appeal to ambiguity. Far from being inflexible, the staff recognized that not every viewer picked up on a lewd line or suggestive situation. Some viewers would find no innuendo in a sexually-charged scene. (The 1940s critic Parker Tyler referred to this as \u201cthe Morality of the Single Instance.\u201d) For example, in The Lady Eve<\/em>, there\u2019s a fade-out from Charles\u2019s and Jean\u2019s passionate embrace in the bow of the ship at night to the fade in of the ship\u2019s prow slicing through the ocean the next morning.<\/p>\n

\"bow\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"ocean<\/a><\/p>\n

That passage would suggest to the na\u00efve viewer that they kissed for a while and went to their cabins separately. After all, in the morning we find Jean getting dressed in her stateroom and talking with her father. Then we see Charles on deck alone, waiting for Jean.<\/p>\n

\"Jean<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"Charles<\/a><\/p>\n

But the sophisticated viewer would understand that the earlier fade-out indicated what Joseph Breen routinely called \u201ca sex affair.” (The ocean spray on the fade-in could be seen as a very subtle extra touch.) Crucially, Jean\u2019s later statement to Hopsy after she is unmasked as a cardsharp sustains both <\/em>readings. \u201cI\u2019m glad you got the picture this morning instead of last night, if that means anything to you . . . it should.\u201d When self-regulation was well-calibrated\u2014and this was a moment-to- moment, scene-by-sceene, film-by-film achievement\u2014there was wiggle-room that would let innocent viewers remain innocent while letting sophisticated viewers feel sophisticated.<\/p>\n

Apart from the increasing eroticism in screwball comedy and the willingness of the PCA to work with filmmakers to allow double layers of meaning, Sturges benefited from good timing. During this period, Breen grew more permissive in his application of the Code. He never explained why, but the late-1930s bombardment of questionable material was probably one cause. Breen was pretty\u00a0exhausted after seven years of trying to accommodate the filmmakers\u2019 increasingly outr\u00e9 ideas. He was so tired that he temporarily resigned in Spring 1941.<\/p>\n

Sturges\u2019 circumvention of the Code also depended on his personal qualities. Clearly he was a persuasive negotiator. The PCA correspondence shows Breen and his successor, Geoffrey Shurlock, rescinding countless directives they initially gave him to eliminate dialogue lines or bits of action. It\u2019s likely that the PCA admired Sturges\u2019 comic gifts and thus gave him greater room to maneuver than other directors enjoyed. (Much the same thing happened when the Studio Relations Committee had given leeway to Ernst Lubitsch prior to 1934.) Sturges also employed a tactic of overkill. In his scripts and in the scenes as finally staged and shot, he created so many potential infractions of the Code that to challenge each one would reduce the film to rubble, or reduce Breen and co. to stress-induced madness.<\/p>\n

Still, Sturges played the PCA game. His convoluted plots stuck to the letter of the Code, always finally coming down on the side of pure romance and happy marriage. But they wreaked havoc with its spirit\u2014often with the PCA\u2019s sanction. By the premiere of The Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek<\/em>, Sturges was relentlessly mocking the PCA\u2019s regulations. It’s likely, I think, that the PCA was for the most part in on the joke.<\/p>\n

After negotiations, which grew more elaborate with each title, each Sturges romantic comedy received a seal. The films made it through partly because of the PCA\u2019s quixotic mandate, partly because the Code\u2019s requirements had been loosened, and partly because of Sturges\u2019 extraordinary skill in exploiting the Code. These are the crucial reasons Sturges got away with it. Along with his prolific comedic imagination, he was often aided by the very body that was supposed to be censoring him.<\/p>\n

Once the Sturges film was released, the PCA staffers could wearily pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Yet critics\u2019 reviews, complaints from state censor boards, and letters of protest from ordinary viewers indicate that the agency often badly misjudged\u00a0how the films\u2019 moral tone would be received. The PCA\u2019s dual mandate\u2014to try to give filmmakers the maximum freedom to create risqu\u00e9 situations but at the same time to uphold the Code–was a tightrope walk. With Sturges and other filmmakers, the agency lost its balance. Sometimes the PCA didn\u2019t diminish the sexual dimensions enough, and sometimes the agency did not even notice elements that could give offense.<\/p>\n

There were signs already, in the reaction to the 1940 burst of sexier films like The Primrose Path<\/em> and This Thing Called Love<\/em>. Local informants had asked MPPDA attorney Charles C. Pettijohn, \u201cDoesn\u2019t Mr. Hays have any influence with the producers any more, and has that fellow Breen out there killed himself or has he just been compelled to walk the gangplank?\u201d Unlike the PCA staff, who had worked day by day to tone down an audacious script and had faced the charms of a persuasive filmmaker, local censorship boards reacted solely to a finished Sturges film. They merely saw what was on the screen. Many did not like what they saw.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Up the Amazon for a year<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Snake<\/a><\/p>\n

The PCA correspondence concerning The Lady Eve <\/em>is surprisingly brief. Before the film was completed and a seal was granted, Breen sent only two letters to Luigi Luraschi, Paramount\u2019s liaison on censorship. They strikingly illustrate how cooperative Breen could be when it came to scenes regarding illicit sex.<\/p>\n

When he read Sturges\u2019s first complete script of 7 October 1940, Breen had objections to many \u201cquestionable lines of dialogue.\u201d Breen warned Sturges and Luraschi against anything \u201csuggestive\u201d in the scene between Muggsy and Lulu as they say their farewells before departing the expedition. In this brief exchange, Mugsy stiffly tells her \u201cSo long, Lulu\u2026I\u2019ll send you a post card\u201d as she demurely (looking down) places a lei over his neck. This brief exchange directly undercuts Hopsy\u2019s just-spoken, high-minded farewell to the Professor: \u201cThis is the way I\u2019d like to spend all<\/em> my time\u2026in the company of men like yourselves\u2026in the pursuit of knowledge.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Muggsy<\/a><\/p>\n

While it\u2019s difficult to imagine Muggsy as a sexual partner to anyone, the woman\u2019s downcast face and her gift of a lei could be seen to suggest her heartbreak.<\/p>\n

Jean\u2019s later, rapid-fire description of Hopsy\u2019s many female admirers in the Main Dining Room of the S.S. Southern Queen<\/em> originally contained comments about women who were \u201ca little flat in the front\u201d or \u201ca little flat behind. ” These were cut because they were too physiologically specific about the female form. We hardly miss them, as Jean was permitted to deliver plenty of color commentary, as she detailed the women’s futile attempts to attract Hopsy’s attention.<\/p>\n

However, Breen wrote the word \u201cin\u201d alongside certain demands he had made for eliminations in his 9 October letter, indicating that Sturges and Luraschi had persuaded him to relent. For example, Breen eventually accepted this exchange from Jean and Charles\u2019s first evening together. Charles has suggested they go dancing:<\/p>\n

Jean: Don\u2019t you think we ought to go to bed?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Charles (after a pause): You\u2019re certainly a funny girl for anyone to meet who\u2019s just been up the Amazon for a year.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jean: (after a pause): Good thing you weren\u2019t up there two years.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Breen\u2019s next letter (21 October) on Sturges\u2019s revised script expressed satisfaction with all the changes made, noting that Jean\u2019s line about heading to bed \u201cwill be delivered without any suggestive inference, or reaction.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"go<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"go<\/a><\/p>\n

In the finished film, there is nothing arch about Stanwyck\u2019s thoughtful, almost parental delivery of the first line, spoken as she looks straight ahead and then looks down to stub out her cigarette before she turns to face Charles. Likewise, her delivery of the second line is wry and mildly mocking yet almost compassionate. Still, the connotation remains that Jean is suggesting they sleep together. Instead, the couple proceeds to Charles\u2019s cabin to meet his snake Emma.<\/p>\n

Breen was particularly concerned about other allusive dialogue. At the Pikes\u2019 party, Sir Alfred (Eric Blore) explains to Charles a fictionalized version of Jean\u2019s family history which resulted in the existence of two sisters, one a lady, one a cardsharp. (Sir Alfred will later describe this as \u201cCecilia or the Coachman\u2019s daughter, a gaslight melodrama.\u201d) Breen insisted<\/em> that Sir Alfred\u2019s tale include a line indicating that Jean\u2019s mother divorced her elderly earl before taking up with the groom \u201cHandsome Harry\u201d and giving birth to Jean. That way Jean\u2019s birth would not seem illegitimate. Sturges obliged. Yet he somehow persuaded Breen to retain this later portion of the Alfred-Charles exchange, also alluding to an adulterous affair.<\/p>\n

Charles: They [Jean and Eve] look exactly <\/em>alike!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sir Alfred: We must close our minds to that fact…as it brings up the dreadful <\/em>and thoroughly unfounded suspicion that we must carry to our tombs, you understand…as it is absolutely untenable…that the coachman, in both instances\u2026need I say more?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Why did Breen let Sturges keep in this suggestion that Handsome Harry was the biological father of both sisters, perhaps as the result of adulterous affairs? It is hard to say. True, the offending line concerns a \u201csuspicion\u201d voiced by Sir Alfred, rather than a fact. But Charles immediately affirms its likelihood: \u201cBut he did<\/em>, I mean, he was<\/em>, I mean…” before being shushed for the nth time by Sir Alfred. Here again, Breen consented to Sturges\u2019s use of questionable material.<\/p>\n

\"I<\/a><\/p>\n

Breen\u2019s greatest objection in his initial letter concerned pp. 70-74 of the first submitted script, which suggested \u201ca sex affair.\u201d \u201cInasmuch as this is treated without the proper compensating moral values, it is in violation of the Production Code, and will have to be eliminated entirely from your finished picture.\u201d<\/p>\n

The offending pages outlined a scene between Charles and Jean set on the deck of Jean\u2019s cabin at the end of their first evening together. Just previously, Jean has caught Charles and her father the Colonel (Charles Coburn) playing double or nothing. Charles would then be called away to receive from the ship\u2019s purser the incriminating photo of Jean, the Colonel and Gerald. Charles would then return to the gaming room table and the dialogue exchange with Jean about all women being adventuresses. Then Charles would ask Jean if they can go down to her cabin. There, Charles lights Jean\u2019s cigarette; he \u201cstruggles to say something\u201d but Jean tells him, \u201cKiss me,\u201d and he obeys. (\u201cHe crushes her in his arms\u201d as she \u201csinks back against the chaise longue.\u201d) The film would then cut to a shot of the rail of Jean\u2019s deck and of \u201cthe moonlit water beyond. A lighted cigarette arcs over the rail and down into the water. FADE OUT.\u201d<\/p>\n

This version presents Charles sleeping with Jean even though he knows from the purser\u2019s photograph that she\u2019s a cardsharp. As Brian Henderson notes, this arrangement of events would make Charles a cad, far worse than the hypocritical prig that he is in the finished film. Sturges eventually solved the problem by having Charles learn of Jean\u2019s duplicity on the morning of their third day together at sea. But before Sturges made this change, Breen\u2019s October 9 letter directed that Charles could not speak the line about going down to her cabin; that the scene could not play out on Jean\u2019s private deck; and that \u201cit would be better to have the embrace with the couple standing up.\u201d The shot of the cigarette thrown over the railing also \u201cshould be omitted, on account of its connotations.\u201d<\/p>\n

In response, Sturges watered down the offending scene of passion and relocated it to the bow of the ship, where (in a reworking of a scene he\u00a0had always envisioned) Charles recites his \u201cI\u2019ve always loved you\u201d speech and they eventually embrace as the scene fades out. This created the PCA-approved ambiguity about what transpired sexually between them.<\/p>\n

Here, Sturges\u2019s solution to a problem of plot and characterization went hand in hand with the double-meaning practices of the Production Code. Sturges must have written the passionate private deck scene knowing full well that Breen would demand its elimination or transposition. His immediate agreement to revise it was likely a bargaining ploy to earn Breen\u2019s goodwill to bank against other PCA objections.<\/p>\n

When Sturges cut the cabin deck setting and the prone postures of pp. 70-74 from the first submitted script, he also saved a crucial part of Jean and Charles\u2019s penultimate exchange as they enter Jean\u2019s cabin.<\/p>\n

Charles: Will you forgive me?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jean: For what? Oh, you mean…on the boat…the question is, will you forgive me?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although Breen accurately predicted that this bit of dialogue would \u201cprobably be acceptable\u201d if the earlier scene \u201cis cleaned up,\u201d for now, Breen stated that their exchange had to be cut \u201cby reason of its reference to the aforementioned sex affair.\u201d In other words, Breen, not unreasonably, read Jean and Charles\u2019s dialogue as referring only<\/em> to their sleeping together, rather than to everything that transpired between them on the S.S. Southern Queen<\/em>, including Jean\u2019s duplicity and Charles\u2019s narrow-mindedness. Forgiveness is of course a key issue in the drama of The Lady Eve<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Hix Nix Sexy Pix<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Lady<\/a><\/p>\n

The MPPDA issued its seal on 26 December\u00a01940. Released in mid-March 1941, The Lady Eve <\/em>passed the censors without cuts in Chicago and the states of Massachusetts, New York and Virginia. However, Kansas, Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania were a completely different story.<\/p>\n

Some local censors demanded deletions of elements Breen had highlighted. Ohio and other localities objected to Sir Alfred\u2019s dialogue about the fantasy fatherhood of Jean and Eve (\u201cas it is utterly untenable that the coachman in both instances. . . .\u201d). But most of the eliminations concerned elements Breen and his team had not<\/em> commented upon. Among these were (again for Ohio, initially) Sir Alfred\u2019s summary recap of the tale to Jean the next morning: \u201cSo I filled him full of handsome coachmen, elderly Earls, — young wives, and the two little girls who looked exactly alike.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other targets were Jean\u2019s wisecracks. When Jean and Charles return from her stateroom after changing her shoes, the Colonel archly comments, \u201cWell, you certainly took long enough to come back in the same outfit.\u201d Jean\u2019s reply–\u201cI\u2019m lucky to have this on. Mr. Pike has been up a river for a year\u201d\u2014offended Pennsylvania. Ohio objected to Jean\u2019s comment, \u201cThat\u2019s a new one, isn\u2019t it?\u201d, when Charles invites her into his cabin to see Emma.<\/p>\n

Yet another instance concerned Charles\u2019s exchange with Eve during their wedding night train ride. He is asking about her previous marriage to Angus.<\/p>\n

Charles: When they brought you back, it was before nightfall, I trust.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jean: Oh, no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Charles: You were out all night?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jean: Oh, my dear, it took them weeks to find us. You see, we\u2019d make up different names at the different inns we stayed at.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Though Jean and Angus were <\/em>married, the implication of using false names at a hotel (which Sturges would recycle for Trudy and her unknown husband in The Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek<\/em>) was the deal-breaker for Ohio. Of course, one possible connotation of Eve\u2019s many pre-Charles couplings is that not all of them were marriages. (If they were, this imaginary Eve is an early version of the Princess in The Palm Beach Story<\/em>, another figure who satirizes conventional marriage.) Yet Breen\u2019s only comments on this scene concerned Eve\u2019s nightgown and particularly the scene\u2019s blocking\u2014that Eve\u2019s revelations of her previous marriages occur away from the bed and that the bed be deemphasized throughout the scene.<\/p>\n

\"honeymoon<\/a><\/p>\n

Sturges must have made the case that there was no room to have the actors sit elsewhere. Meanwhile, Breen was distracted from what Jean was saying by where she was when she said it.<\/p>\n

Local censors were most keenly opposed to two other scenes that Breen had ignored. Both take place in Jean’s stateroom.<\/p>\n

In the first, Charles replaces Jean’s broken shoe. In one twenty-second two-shot, he kneels down to slip the shoe on her foot; looks over her foot and slowly looks up her leg all the way to her face; expresses his hope that he didn’t hurt her when she tripped him in the dining room; and then on his way to looking down at her leg and foot again, pauses momentarily but very definitely, on her d\u00e9colletage. Then he looks back up at her again. There is no dialogue to distract the viewer from what Charles is looking at.<\/p>\n

\"looking<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"looking<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"Figure<\/a><\/p>\n

Oddly, no censors objected to this very suggestive shot; instead they focused on what ensued. Ohio, Kansas, and Maryland joined Pennsylvania in demanding the elimination of what the last described as the “semi close-up view where [Charles] allows his eyes to pass up and down over her.” This was a quick POV series of shots in which (1) Charles struggles to look at Jean; (2) Jean appears blurry and asks Charles if he’s all right; and (3) Charles, after swallowing, struggles to reply in the affirmative.<\/p>\n

\"semi-close-up<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"Jean<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"I'm<\/a><\/p>\n

Charles is so \u201ccockeyed\u201d from Jean\u2019s perfume that when they eventually stand up, he can make only the weakest attempt to kiss her, which Jean easily repulses. To the censors, however, the combination of close shot scale, physical intimacy, and intoxication (even from perfume) was intolerable–too expressive of Charles’ rising desire. I suspect they actually conflated the lengthy take and the medium close-ups (no “looking over” occurs in the point of view sequence). In any case, censors had seldom seen such \u201clooking over\u201d shots since the early 1930s.<\/p>\n

In addition, all four offended states were roused by the famous chaise longue scene. As Charles tries to apologize for scaring Jean with his snake Emma, she holds him close, runs her hands through his hair, tickles his ear, and breathes heavily in his face. Taking the key elements of the shoe-replacement business to another level, the erotic hilarity of this scene arises from the complete power of Jean\u2019s spell over Charles and their sheer proximity, in two long takes (one lasting 36 seconds, and then a closer, three-minute and fourteen-second shot). During all this time, Jean won\u2019t let Charles kiss her, but their faces are close together and their lips are never far apart. For some censors, the most provocative elements of the scene resided in the dialogue that begins with Charles\u2019s fall to the ground ands run through his \u201caccompanying indecent action\u201d (Pennsylvania again) of pulling down Jean\u2019s skirt.<\/p>\n

\"indecent<\/a><\/p>\n

Pennsylvania also cut Jean\u2019s sigh of anticipatory orgasmic release after describing her first encounter with her future husband: \u201cAnd the night will be heavy with perfume and I\u2019ll hear a step behind me and somebody breathing heavily and then \u2013 Ohhhhh!\u201d<\/p>\n

\"and<\/a><\/p>\n

Ohio originally wanted the entire scene deleted, starting with Jean\u2019s command \u201cOh, come over here and sit down beside me\u201d through their final exchange:<\/p>\n

Jean: Oh, you\u2019d better go to bed, Hopsy. I think I can sleep peacefully now.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Charles (adjusting his bow tie): Well, I wish I could say the same.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jean: Why, Hopsy!<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Wish<\/a><\/p>\n

Industry representatives negotiated with the Ohio and Pennsylvania boards to try to reduce their demands; Pennsylvania was unmoved, but Ohio was persuaded to let all but their final exchange remain in the film. An outraged San Antonio Amusement Inspector articulated the boards\u2019 thinking when she cut what she called the film\u2019s two \u201cprolonged scenes of passion\u201d in Jean\u2019s stateroom. These, she pointed out to Breen, violated Section 2 of the Code, about \u201csuggestive postures and gestures\u201d and seduction being used for comedy. So in San Antonio, as in Pennsylvania and Kansas, viewers missed the bulk of two of the most celebrated comic scenes in American film history.<\/p>\n

With The Lady Eve<\/em>, Breen\u2019s instincts were generally astute. He had advised against Sir Alfred\u2019s sketch of the Handsome Harry plot. He had eliminated the overt sex affair scene in Jean\u2019s cabin. Yet he missed many elements as well. Besides those stateroom scenes cut by state and city censors, there were ostensibly innocent lines. As Charles searched for a new pair of shoes, Jean says, \u201cSee anything you like?\u201d and leans back with a bare midriff.<\/p>\n

\"See<\/a><\/p>\n

The constantly repeated phrase \u201cbeen up the Amazon for a year\u201d references Charles\u2019s extended sexual privation and naivete, which make him susceptible to Jean\u2019s wiles. But the phrase can also be taken as evoking female anatomy itself. The neglect of these details resulted from Breen\u2019s increasing tolerance and his equally increasing tiredness. We\u2019re lucky he left them in.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Upping the ante<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Palm<\/a><\/p>\n

The negotiations over The Palm Beach Story <\/em>and The Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek <\/em>followed the pattern set by The Lady Eve<\/em>. The writer-director proposed increasingly outlandish scenarios; Geoffrey Shurlock and Breen again demanded an increasinglyu longer list of changes across a longer series of letters. Sturges alternately made cuts or assured them he could handle the material.<\/p>\n

Once more, certain moments wound up offending local censors. For The Palm Beach Story<\/em>, released in late 1942, only New York and Kansas passed the film without eliminations. Elsewhere, many of the suggestive elements that Shurlock had criticized were cut. One was Gerry\u2019s line\u2014describing how Tom sees her after many years of marriage–as \u201cjust something to snuggle up to and keep you warm at night, like a blanket\u201d (Pennsylvania). Another was the first vertebrae-kissing scene in which a very drunk Tom breaks down a very drunk Gerry\u2019s resistance to having sex.<\/p>\n

\"Figure<\/a><\/p>\n

Other deletions concerned details that had escaped Shurlock\u2019s notice: Pennsylvania removed the underlined portion of Gerry\u2019s explanation to Tom, after the Wienie King\u2019s visit and munificence, of \u201cthe look\u201d women get from men: \u201cFrom the time you\u2019re about so big, and wondering why your girl friends\u2019 fathers are getting so arch all of a sudden \u2013 nothing wrong \u2013 just an overture to the opera that\u2019s coming.<\/u>\u201d Even after many changes to her dialogue, scenes with Princess Centimilia could have provoked bans or major cuts. After all, she is followed around by her gigolo Toto (Sig Arno) and (in an ironic adherence to the Code\u2019s demands) marries purely to legitimize her sexual impulses. Yet in part because of Mary Astor\u2019s frantic line delivery, her scenes were retained. Overall, relative to its many potential offenses, The Palm Beach Story<\/em> faced surprisingly minimal objections.<\/p>\n

\"Toto\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The entire premise of Miracle <\/em>and the ensuing action mock the notion of marriage\u2019s sanctity from multiple angles. Breen, the American military, and the Legion of Decency examined the film minutely before it was issued a seal, and many changes were made. For this reason, only one state board (Kansas) cut one line of dialogue: Trudy\u2019s comment that \u201cSome sort of fun lasts longer than others.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Miracle<\/p>\n

Still, there was much to offend audiences and censors in the completed film. For example, the MPPDA and Sturges received numerous letters of complaint linking\u00a0the film to the growing problem of juvenile delinquency. One viewer in Minneapolis wrote that the film showed it to be \u201ca subject for slapstick and high comedy, especially if the delinquent is unusually fruitful. . . . My boy thought she must have passed the night with 6 soldiers or sailors. . . . In Hollywood I understand you can get away with despoiling young girls and morals don\u2019t exist except for yokels. Do you have to spread that poison?\u201d Given the growing panic over what was seen as a national JD epidemic, Paramount\u2019s delay in distributing Miracle<\/em>\u2014it was completed in Spring 1943 but released in January 1944\u2014exacerbated the controversy.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Upon reviewing The Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek<\/em>, James Agee famously stated that \u201cthe Hays office has been either hypnotized \u2026or raped in its sleep.\u201d The same might seem to be true of The Lady Eve <\/em>and The Palm Beach Story<\/em>, but this was manifestly not the case. There were <\/em>elements that the PCA didn\u2019t catch–suggestive postures and dialogue, scenes of seduction–because Sturges created so many and whisked them by so swiftly. But he\u00a0got away with it for other reasons as well. The PCA helped steer Sturges to finding ways of modifying the most brazenly unacceptable material. The standards of acceptability were expanding, controversially, and they would continue to do so. Meanwhile, the response of local censor boards and individual audience members provides crucial evidence of how at times the PCA succeeded and at other times it failed to suppress\u00a0material that might offend. Knowing this history can only deepen our appreciation of what the Sturges comedies achieved.<\/p>\n

\n

This entry is a revised version of a portion of an article that appears as \u201cThe edge of unacceptability: Preston Sturges and the PCA\u201d in Refocus: The Films of Preston Sturges<\/a><\/em>, editors Jeff Jaeckle and Sarah Kozloff, forthcoming from Edinburgh University Press. Primary sources include Sturges\u2019 correspondence and the PCA files housed at the Margaret Herrick Library of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in Beverly Hills. The Lady Eve <\/em>and The Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek <\/em>files are available on microfilm in\u00a0MLA, History of Cinema: Selected Files from the Motion Picture Association of America Production Code Administration Collection<\/em> (Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Microfilm, 2006).<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve also drawn on these published sources: David Bordwell, \u201cParker Tyler: A suave and wary guest\u201d<\/a>;\u00a0Brian Henderson, Five Screenplays by Preston Sturges<\/a><\/em> (1986); Diane Jacobs, Christmas in July: The Life and Work of Preston Sturges<\/a> <\/em>(1994); Lea Jacobs, The Wages of Sin: Censorship and the Fallen Woman Film<\/a> <\/em>(1997); \u00a0Kathleen Rowe, The Unruly Woman: Gender and the Genres of Laughter<\/a> <\/em>(1995); and Elliot Rubenstein, \u201cThe End of Screwball Comedy: The Lady Eve<\/em> and The Palm Beach Story<\/em>,\u201d Post Script <\/em>1, no. 3 (Spring-Summer 1982), 33-47.<\/p>\n

\"Lady<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

DB here: Matthew H. Bernstein is \u00a0a long-time friend and a superb scholar. His biography of Walter Wanger has become a classic of Hollywood business history, and his many books and articles have refined our sense of American cinema. When we learned of his research into Sturges (a favorite of this blog), we were happy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[224,188,6,57,40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1940s-hollywood","category-directors-sturges","category-film-industry","category-hollywood-aesthetic-traditions","category-hollywood-the-business"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32005"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32005\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32183,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32005\/revisions\/32183"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}