Record #1075

Date:
21/08/1934
Record Type:
Letter
From/By:
Earl E. Bright
Motion Picture Herald
To:
Maurice McKenzie, Executive Assistant
Reel:
Reel 10
Frame Start:
10-1765
Frame End:
10-1766
Legacy ID:
1085
Legacy Year:
1934
Legacy Index:
Production Code
Comments:
Additional text in Transcription.

Wants to reprint copies of Ramsaye article "What the Production Code really Says" from Motion Picture Herald, to send them to 1000 writers, directors, producers, etc., but wants to change phrasing on adultery, which PCA men say is most argued over. Explanations of the Code are to be sent directly to production staff: writers directors supervisors associate producers etc. The term "adultery" is causing problems in technical enforcement.

Keywords

There are no keywords associated with this record. Show all keywords…

Scans

Documents

Please log in to view documents associated to this record.

Long Description:

21 August 1934, Bright to McKenzie on the definition of adultery, which might be clarified in a reprint of the Code: "They tell me that the one contention most frequently made is that the picture under discussion does not indicate 'adultery' because neither of the characters is married. Joe's idea as to that is set out in the attached letter to Vince [Vincent Hart] which you may or may not have seen. Could we, therefore, in any reprint which we used for the purpose say 'Adultery (including illicit sex relationships) ...' or something of that nature? I am not unmindful that we may not feel justified in adding any words to the Code as singed and as approved by Resolutions by the Boards here and there, but on the other hand we say that this is a 'working abstract' and therefore it may not necessarily be the exact wording." Hess approved, McKenzie and Milliken did not.

Linked Organisations

Linked People