“AMBASSADORS OF MORALS” FROM THE U.S.A.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 July 1935, Page 10 (Supplement)

“AMBASSADORS OF MORALS” FROM THE U.S.A.

Immodesty In Films As Seen By “Cleavage” Expert

'PWO ambassadors of morals from x the United States held, their first reception in a mansion in Mayfair, London, recently. They were Mr Martin Quigley and Mr Carl Milliken, a former State Governor, who had come to Great Britain as representatives of the Hollywood “film Czar,” Mr Will E. Hays, to instruct British film producers on the exact meaning of “cleavage” (lownecked dresses) and C.E.V. (compensating end value, which means that evil is always punished). It will be recalled that Mr Hays protested against the “Cleavage” shown by Miss Merle Oberon in the British film, “The Scarlet Pimpernel,” which was exhibited in the United States (says a writer in the “Daily Mail”). “This term,” said Mr Quigley, discussing the matter with me, “was evolved by Mr Will Hays as a delicate phrase to express a somewhat indelicate subject.* The word itself does not appear in the cinema production code.” When I asked Mr Quigley whether the code allowed a film to be presented' showing a partly-dressed woman—which has been such a feature of American films in the past—-he replied: “These matters must be considered from the point of view of their implication. ' $ “A picture of a woman dressed in this way might not in itself cause any objection, but if she was shown in this costume with several cigar ends, a silk hat, and an overturned bottle of spirits beside her, it might be open to very grave criticism.” I asked Mr Quigley why it was that since 1930, when the code came into force, there .had been so many American films in which the feminine form was displayed with the greatest effect. “The code, which was drawn up by myself,” he answered, “represented a standard toward which the producers should aim. Last July the application of the censorship became more strict. ' “There is no idea of forbidding films in which the beauty of the feminine form is displayed. It is a question of stopping anything which may offend public taste.” Mr Milliken, a tall, lean, spectacled,

clean-shaven man, who reminds one of the late President Wilson, stated: “Now that more and more British films are being shown in the United States we have come over, at the invitation of the British producers, so that we can help you to avoid making a film which * ay cause objection in the United States.” British film producers are chuckling at the fantastic situation which has been brought to a head by the ambassadors of morality from Hollywood.

Mr Alexander Korda, who produced “The Scarlet Pimpernel,” said to me:

“In late Victorian and early Edwardian days the sight of a woman’s ankle was considered to be immodest. To-day, apparently, while you can show a film with a tennis girl in brief shorts, the representation of a bishop’s wife in the low-necked evening dress of Victorian days would be banned by the American censors. “It is almost impossible to show any costume play, with the dresses historically accurate, without infringing the, code ■against cleavage.” The comment of Miss Maude Churchill, the wardrobe mistress of the British and Dominion Film Corporation, which proauced “Nell Gwyn,” a picture similarly criticised, was:

“The average evening frock of today is much more revealing than the Victorian one.”