DRASTIC FILM REFORMS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20381, 11 August 1934, Page 24 (Supplement)

DRASTIC FILM REFORMS.

Scenarios and Stars on the Shelf. Alarmed at the sudden onslaught on undesirable films, Hollywood has launched a big drive to sweep from the screen every trace of sex, sin, moral turpitude and glorification of law-breaking, writes Paul Holt in the London “ Daily Express.” Stars whose private lives have recently had unfavourable publicity are finding unexpected snags in their contracts, and difficulties put in the way of their careers. Films in which they had been announced to shine are being shelved. Films they have recently made are being held up for cuts, alterations and retakes. Major studios have purchased, for sums approaching and ‘topping £IO,OOO, “ best sellers ” and plays by famous authors which have been mysteriously struck from the production schedules during the past few weeks. Stars idle, stories abandoned, films expensively remade—this clean-up campaign is going to cost Hollywood a sum which can be easily estimated at £5,000,000. They think it worth it. A committee of censorship, to which heads of all the major studios have elected themselves, has been sitting in judgment for many" weeks now on all pictures produced which may conceivably incur the displeasure of official boards. These great producers have been voting fortunes away. X has demanded the deletion of a costly, but daring, scene, from a new film made by L. Y has retaliated with equal vigour. There are, in the libraries of Hollywood, film stories worth, with all copyright considerations, more than £10,000,000. Some of the most valuable properties in this vast store are being written off—to depreciation of stock. Another film was abandoned half-way through, after £20,000 had been spent on it. The censorship committee has taken considerable pains to check every foot of Mae West’s “ It’s No Sin.” The

film was finally passed after heavy deletions had been made, which led to terse comment from Mae West. It is reported that Garbo’s last picture, “ Queen Chrsitina,” was wholly banned by the' Hays Board, but finally reprieved, mainly on the ground of its artistic merit, and from the -fact that £240,000 was involved. Kay Francis’s “ Dr Monica ” came in for heavy criticism and as heavy cutting. It was maintained that the picture as it stood constituted a condonation of misconduct. A committee of studio heads voted for the deletion of a scene in “ Tarzan and Ilis Mate ” which showed Maureen P’Sullivan swimming apparently naked under water with Johnny Weissmuller. The scene was very beautiful, but was held to be offensive. The whole thinj was finally re-shot at a cost of £SOOO and five shillings. The five shillings represented the cost of a pair of Peter Pan pants for Maureen O’Sullivan. Gloria Swanson's new film under her contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Maver—-a new, version of Mrs Elinor Glyn’s famous book “ Three Weeks ” —has been put back in the company’s schedule. No reason has been advanced. Production has been announced, and stopped, on the following stories, among many in 1934: D. H. Lawrence’s “ Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” James Joyce’s “ Ulysses,” Eugene O’Neill’s “ Desire Under the Elms,” Mae West’s “ Diamond Lil,” Robert Sherwood’s “ The Road to Rome,” “Shanghai Gesture,” “Simon Called Peter,” “ Lulu Belle.” “ Pleasure Girl,” “ Thy Neighbour’s Wife.” The film finance wizards are resigned to such wholesale losses, because Hollywood has suddenly become conscious of the feeling of sitting in a crazy palace on top of a rumbling volcano. They realise, too, that this great purity campaign stands a good chance of reviving, in the difficult months ahead, a new world-interest in films—a revival urgently needed. Tops the Poll. Although she has only been in Hollywood for a few months Margaret Sulla van has had more written about her and is receiving more mail than any other person in the film centre. That includes stars, directors, executives or anyone else connected with pictures. “ Fan-mail ” is the surest indication of popularity.