Record #868

Date:
06/12/1933
Record Type:
Letter
Reel:
Reel 10
Frame Start:
10-0084
Frame End:
10-0085
Legacy ID:
876
Legacy Year:
1933
Legacy Index:
Advertising Code
Comments:
Additional text in Transcription.

The censorship of film stills. Disagreeing with McCarthy's claims that certain still photographs are too risqu. Notes that McCarthy might be going too far. Gilhamdoes not accept McCarthy rejection of stills of girls in underwear, nor does Schaefer - they need some definite guidance about what is censorable

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:

Gillham, Paramount, to McCarthy, disputing that a group of stills should have been rejected: "In Mr. Schaefer's opinion, you are drawing the line a little close, and I also believe this is being done. If I may suggest it, I think you will have to be careful in drawing too close a distinction in what is salacious and what is not otherwise you will kill the whole matter of censorship as it will fall down by its own weight."I want you to bear in mind that I am 100% for censorship, and I am for censorship of stills and material which is definitely salacious. However, I do not believe that stills of girls showing their legs are salacious and I do not believe that girls photographed in underwear, in certain instances, is salacious or objectionable. I would like to call your attention to the countless ads in all magazines, showing women in all forms, kinds and conditions of underwear, none of which is objectionable to the public."

Linked People