No title

VOLUME 6

IM *I

E

E

r

E

AUTUMN

1994

HISTOR

M E

NUMBER 3

E

AN

INTERNATIONAL

JOURNAL

m

I

THIS ISSUE

EXPLOITATION

I

JohnLibbey

IEINJ

1511C---

.--

X.r,?-

,.

- -.-.-.--...j". '-,i~......

. ' ......?-'.--,'?...^.

E

FILM I

HISTORY

An International Journal Editor-in-Chief Richard Koszarski Museumof theMovingImage, (American New York,USA) !

Subscriptioninformation

Thejournalis publishedQUARTERLY and back issuesof mostnumbersare available.

I

Institutional Subscriptionrates: 1 All countries (except N. America) Surfacemail ?70 Air mail ?80 N. America Surfacemail US$126 Airmail US$144 PrivateSubscriptionrates (subscriberswarrantthatcopies are for theirPERSONAL use only): All countries (except N. America) Surfacemail ?30 Air mail ?40 N. America Surfacemail US$54 Air mail US$72 BackIssues: Backissues are available- Volumes1 to 4: ?5/US$ 10 each number; Volume5 on: ?10/US$20 Whole back volumesfromthe completionof Volume5 are sold at the currentannual subscriptionrate. Film History is abstracted and/or indexed in: America:Historyand Life;Current Bibliographyin the Historyof Technology; HistoricalAbstracts;International Indexto Film/TelevisionPeriodicals;Media Review Digest;Postscript. _

?I

I I

ri

Associate Editors John Belton (Rutgers USA) University, Paolo Cherchi Usai (GeorgeEastman Museumof House/International Rochester,New York) Photography, Mark Langer (CarletonUniversity, Ottawa,Canada) Kristin Thompson (University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA) EditorialAdvisoryBoard RichardABEL, ErikBARNOUW, KevinBROWNLOW, EdBUSCOMBE, DonaldCRAFTON, Susal,DALTON, JanDEVAAL, WilliamK.EVERSON, JohnFELL, RaymondFIELDING, AndreGAUDREAULT, SumikoHIGASHI, lanJARVIE, GarthJOWETT, HiroshiKOMATSU, AntoniaLANT, DanielJ. LEAB, BrooksMacNAMARA, lb MONTY, CharlesMUSSER, JerzyPLAZEWSKI, AndrewSARRIS, DavidSHEPARD, RobertSKLAR, AnthonySLIDE, PaulSPEHR, JanetSTAIGER i..J

-~r--

-:LII ~

-

I

?-----111?11(

I

Front cover: StripperZoritaand friend ooze sleaze over the previouslypristine coverof FilmHistoryin thisstillfromI Marrieda Savage (1949).

FILM

HISTORY ThisIssue:

An International Journal

FILM EXPLOITATION

II

Volume6, Number3, 1994

i

ExploitationFilm MarkLonger

Editedby MarkLanger 291

I

p

Editorialoffice: RichardKoszarski AmericanMuseumof the MovingImage 36-01 35th Avenue Astoria,NY 11106 USA

theexploitationfilm Resistingrefinement: and self-censorship 293 EricSchaefer Whiteheroinesand heartsof darkness: Race,genderand disguisein 1930s junglefilms 3314 RhonaJ. Berenstein Thewomanon thetable:Moraland medicaldiscoursein theexploitation

Publishing office: JohnLibbey& CompanyLtd 13 SmithsYard SummerleyStreet LondonSW18 4HR UK Telephone:+44 (0)81-947 2777 Fax:+44 (0)81-947 2664 ? 1994 JohnLibbey& CompanyLtd

-I

1

i

cimema

FeliciaFeaster

140

MAKELOVE MAKE WAR:Cultural confusionand the bikerfilmcycle MartinRubin 355 Thetropeof Blaxploitation in critical responsesto Sweetback 382 JonHartmann

Other offices: JohnLibbeyEurotextLtd, 92120 Montrouge,France John Libbey - CIC s.r.l.,

BookReviews

A405

Back issues of FilmHistory

4I11

00161, Rome,Italy I

Printedin GreatBritainby BiddiesLtd,Guildford,UK *

---------------------..

1I

I..--

.-

1

(C

I I 3 )1

I

(CI I C

I 3 )) I I (

CARTOONS hundred

One

of

years

cinema

animation

Bendazzi

Giannalberto

CARTOONS - One hundred years of cinema covers over 80 countries, 2,000 animoalors, 3,000 films, conlains 95 colour, 150 black & white illustrations and a great deal of information which has never before been published.

-?i::i:?

l.animation

.o:'I

Thisbook providesthe firstcomprehensively detailedhistory andcritiqueof cinemaanimationproducedaroundtheworld. Itis the long-awaitedEnglishlanguageeditionof a reference bookwhichhas alreadybeen acclaimedas a classicworkof initsItalianand Frencheditions,on themarvellous _ *^Lsscholarship, ??i^B .and .....: excitingsubjectof animatedcinema. : -... .: Theaccountopens in Francein 1888 when EmileReynaud inventedthe theatreoptiqueand whose work with moving of moving paintedimagespredatesthefirstpublicpresentation imagesby Edisonin the USAin 1894 (Kinetoscopes Edison) and the firstpublic projectionof movingcinematographic brothersin Francein 1895. Thebook imagesby the Lumiere thenmoveson to offeran historicalaccountof all aspectsof |5p ~ .;ir::-A :.: animation - short and full show .e

.

^^r;c;

length films, directors,

1

_c,-'-l. :

&cultural 1

A

A~-s*-k:

business,

s8TV

influences,trends, investments,productioncompanies, series, computer animation and other technical

-:

The book is divided according to the major filmmakersand national cinemas. All regions of the world are covered in this

-;

developments.

fi, ta^! X"~'~ 8ylavishly

authoritative and encyclopaedicaccount. illustrated, Co-publishedwith Universityof Indiana Presswho distributein North America & Canada. I enclose payment of ? ........Please send me a Pro-formainvoice ?........ (add 10% for p&p) Please debit my Access/MasterCard/Visa/American Express/Diner'sClub creditcard Account No ...............................................................................Expiry Date ................

PLEASE SUPPLY:

CARTOONS @ ?45.00

..... copy/ies

Name.......................................................................................................................

Publication Date: August 1994 ISBN: 086196

446 2

Hardback

500pp.

Published by JOHN LIBBEY & CO. LTD, 13 Smiths Y ard, Summerley Street, London SW18 4HR, England. Tel: +44 (0)81 947 2777 Fax: +44 (0)81 947 2664 LONDON. PRSROME

Orders: +44 (0)279 417134

Address .---

..--.-..-.....

................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................. Signature...............................................................................Date ........................... Please returncompleted order formto John Libbey& Co Ltd.

FilmHistory,Volume6, pp. 147-148, 1994. Copyright ?John Libbey&Company ISSN:0892-2160. PrintedinGreatBritain

film Exploitation MarkLanger ^W^iB

AV ith this issue on the Exploitation Film,FilmHistoryinvestigatesone of the more obscure cornersof cinema. If there is a grand narfilmhas nothad rativeof filmhistory,theexploitation itschaptertherein.Thereare manyreasonsforthis. Becauseof censorshipand marginalmeansof productionand distribution, manyexploitationfilmsdid Questionsof tasteand notreceivebroadcirculation. of a filmcanonbased on conventional establishment films notionsof artand qualityhavekeptexploitation out of manyfilmarchivesand well down on listsof preservationpriorities.The intendedaudiences for thatdid thesemoviesformedpartof a social stratum not controlthe academy. Some exploitationfilms, such as LouisGasnier'sReeferMadness (1936), icons worthyof brieflydid become counter-culture the short-lived examination 1960s during scholarly debate over 'camp'.However,the mosttraditional venues for investigationof exploitationfilmshave been fanzinesor non-scholarly suchas publications in de Sadism the Movies. (NY: George Coulteray's MedicalPress,1965) whichthemselvesexploitviolationsof tastenormsas a marketing strategy. While it is unlikelythatthisissueof FilmHistory willappearwithplastic-wrapped at the publications local news stand,untilrecently,few academic journals have chosen to investigatethissubject.Panels or papersdevotedto thesubjectat conferencesover the past couple of years, and the appearanceof a special issueon exploitationfilmsin TheVelvetLight Traptestifyto an emerginginterestin the topic. thatpromisesredlightswillcrowdthe 'Anything box office', observed director Lois Weber in 19181. Many examples supportWeber's claim. Filmsthatexploitedsensationaland forbiddensubjectswere at one timeverymuchin the mainstream of cinema. Weber's own film, The Hypocrites (1915) featuredan unclothedgirlplayingthe figure of Truth.Audiencespacked intotheatresto see the naked truth.Universal'sfirstfeaturefilm, Trafficin

Souls (1913) dealt with the white slave traffic. When itopened in New York,thestreetsoutsidethe theatrewere jammedwith people tryingto get admissionto a screening.Eugene Brieux'splay Les Avari6s(1902), whichdealt withvenerealdisease, opened on the New Yorkstage in 1913, and was adapted intothe filmDamaged Goods two years later. Motion picture depictions of socially-prohibited behaviourwere enormouslypopularwith majorsegmentsof the public,and manyfilmmakers producedfilmsdealingwithsimilartopics. Althoughthese filmswere financialsuccesses, agencies and organsof the induspublicregulatory tryitselfattemptedto controlthedepictionsof forbidden subjectsin film.By 1914, majortradejournals or news aboutsuch refusedto carryadvertisements movies.Variousstate censorshipboards, the NationalBoardof Censorship,the NationalBoardof Review,and the MotionPictureProducersand Distributors Associationwere among the organizations thatsoughtto regulatethe depictionof sensational topics and to suppressfilmsthat soughtto exploit them.Generally,historiesof filmportraytheenforcementof theCode of MotionPictureProduction as the of controlbanningthe depiction ultimateinstrument of forbiddenmatterin the Americancinema. This was not done as a simpleact of acquiescenceto conservativepressuregroups. Janet Staiger has was also profitablein pointedout, 'Self-censorship thatit encourageda productacceptableto all culturalgroups'2. Previousaccounts of the effect of censorship maybe moreor less truein regardto the production of filmfor a mass market.In termsof specialized production,this is less the case. It may be more usefulto thinkof the Americanfilm industryas a series of industries.While the classicalHollywood cinemacateredto a mass market,therewere other filmindustries producingsuchthingsas educational films,picturesfor religiousorganizations,industrial films,exploitationfilms,etc. Therewouldalways be

Editorial Editorial

292 292 money to be made catering to audience needs whichwere not servedby the mainstream industry. between the historyof the The interrelationship classical Hollywoodcinema and the historiesof and specialized cinemasis these parallel,minority itselfa promisingarea of investigation,as manyof the studies contained withinthis numberof Film Historyillustrate. Film'issue demonstratesthe This'Exploitation scholarlyactivitydevoted to this marginalmode of filmproductionand its positionin regardto mainstreamformsof cinematic productionand reprean articlewhich sentation.EricSchaefercontributes and ideological relationexploresthe institutional ships between the productionof exploitationfilms and the mannerin whichthe Hays office attempted to situateitselfas a regulatoryorganization.Rhona of race, gender Berenstein analysesrepresentations and monstrosityin mainstreamand exploitation junglepicturesof the early 1930s. Berensteinfowhite cuses on the central role of an interstitial heroinein depictionsof crossingrace and species. Felicia Feasterinvestigatesthe use of a medical discoursein exploitationfilmsthatprovidesa fetishisticvisionof womenwhich is informedby conventionsof classicalHollywoodcinemaand by cultural representationsof science. Martin Rubinwrites about a more contemporaryformof exploitation film.In his analysisof the bikerfilmcycle, Rubin of thisexploitationgenre outlinesthe characteristics

and situatesit withinthe culturalcontextof America duringthe VietnamWar era. Jon Hartmanndiscusses the criticaldebate in the 1970s concerning filmwith his conthe emergence of Blaxploitation in siderationof the response varioussectionsof the press to MelvinVan Peebles' Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971). Finally,for a complete a book change of pace, SusanOhmercontributes reviewof EricSmoodin'sAnimatingCulture.(New NJ: RutgersUniversity Press,1994). Brunswick, Pictures depictingscenes fromexploitationfilms are particularlydifficultto acquire. FilmHistory wouldliketo thankFilmFavoritesand EricSchaefer for providingmuch of the visual materialin this issue.* Mark Langer Associate Editor Notes 1.

LoisWeber, quoted in MotionPictureMagazine,

Behind the Brownlow, May1918:6, citedinKevin Maskof Innocence.(LA:University of California Press,1990), xxii.

2. JanetStaiger,'Standardization andDifferentiation', in DavidBordwell, ThomJanetStaigerand Kristin pson, TheClassicalHollywoodCinema:FilmStyle to 1960. (NY:Columbia and Mode of Production

Press,1985), 104. University

UPCOMINGISSUES/CALLFOR PAPERS edited byJohnBelton (inpress) edited by Kristin Asian Cinema Thompson (inpress) Film Preservation vs edited by PaoloCherchiUsai (deadlineforsubmissions1 January1995) Scholarship edited by RichardKoszarski Auteurism Revisited (deadlineforsubmissions1 April1995) edited by Marklanger Cinema and Nation (deadlineforsubmissions1 July1995) edited byJohnBelton Films of the 1950s (deadlineforsubmissions1 October 1995) withinthe overallscope of the journal. FILM HISTORY encouragethesubmissionof manuscripts Thesemaycorrespondto theannouncedthemesof futureissuesabove, butmayequallybe on any in contributions topicrelevantto filmhistory.Itis the journal'spolicyto publishnon-thematic futureissues. Audiences and Fans

.

FilmHistory,Volume6, pp. 293-313, 1994. Copyright?John Libbey&Company ISSN:0892-2160. Printedin GreatBritain .... III......... I

Resisting the refinement: film exploitation and self-censor EricSchaefer The Hays Office - they hated us. You see, they couldn'tstop us and thatmade themawfulmad ... they didn'tlike anythingwe were doing. Theonly reasonwe likedit so well is because it was making moneyforus - HildegardEsper1 creenwriterHildegardEsper,along with her producer-directorhusband Dwain Esper,made some of the most notorious exploitationfilmsof the 1930s: Narcotic (1933), Maniac (1934), Marijuana(1936) and How to Undressin Frontof YourHusband(1937) among them.Thefact thatthe HaysOffice- or the MotionPictureProducers and Distributors of America did not like the (MPPDA) anything Esperswere in was summed doing up Joseph I. Breen'sassessmentof the Esper'ssex hygienedrama,TheSeventh Commandment (1933):

ploitationmovies remainedoutside the organization'ssphereof influence- hence Breen'svexation. Most scholarshipon self-censorship in the film has focused on the role of scandal industry (Fatty Arbuckle'strial, the murderof William Desmond Taylor,etc.) and the cycle of Mae West and fallen womenfilmsas the majordeterminants. Butby conthese other incidents, tinuallyre-evoking important factorsin the developmentof the filmindustry's selfhave been aim censorshippractices ignored.My here is to show that exploitationfilms played a and maintenance significantrole in the formulation of self-regulatory At the most policy. conspicuous allowed the mainstream induslevel, self-censorship tryto preventsalacioussubjectsfromappearingin its filmswhile at the same time the on-goingwar against exploitationmovies served to presentthe MPPDAas an active organizationcommittedto Thewhole play is the mostthoroughly vile and keepingall Americanscreens'clean'.3PeterStallydisgustingmotionpicturewhichthe threemem- brass and AllonWhite have theorizedabout the bersof thisstaff,who saw the picturelastnight, recurrent culturalpatternin which'the'top'attempts haveeverseen. Itis thoroughly in to reprehensible rejectand eliminate'the bottom'for reasonsof all itsdetails. prestigeand statusquo, onlyto discoverthat... it is In addition, it is poorlyproducedand poorly in some way frequentlydependent on that lowOther'4.By constructing exploitationmovies as a photographed.The portionof the filmgiven over to the Caesarian operationsuggests a threatto average moviegoers,Hollywoodthrewits foreignpicture,possiblya foreignmedicalpicture. The whole thing is very offensive and Eric Schaefer is a VisitingAssistantProfessorat EmersonCollege. Please address correspondence disgusting2.

TheMPPDAhad been toutingits success with the recentlystrengthenedProduction Code, butex-

to EricSchaefer,EmersonCollege, Divisionof Mass Communication, 100 Beacon St., Boston, MA 02116, USA.

294 294

EricSchaefer Schaefer Eric

motionpicturesand thosemade by the independent I exploiteersinto sharp relief.The Hays Office and otherelementsin the organizedindustry were often able to use exploitationfilms as an antithesisto deflect attentionfrom mainstreammovies which mighthave otherwiseattractednegative criticism. On anotherlevel,theclash betweenthe mainstream and exploitationindustriescreated a series of discourses on sexuality,taste, mores, the natureof and the functionof motionpictures. entertainment, The discourses,in turn,were markedby tensions and fissureswhichwere neitherfixed noruniformwhat Foucaultwould have called the 'tacticalpolyvalence of discourses'5.Some of the same discourses marshalled within sex hygiene films themselves(clean/dirty,wholesome/unwholesome, entertainment/education, etc.) and used in their defence, were also employed by Hollywood against the unorganized exploitationproducers. Largelybecause the mainstreamindustrycould not dominatethe discursiveformationsthat attended renegade exploitationmovies, these films proved beyondthe reachof the HaysOffice.Thiseventually theveryconceptof self-censorhelpedto undermine ship. A rash of sex hygiene filmsreleased immediately afterWorld War I promptedincreasedcalls for censorshipacross the country.Fear of further crackdownon Fig. 1. Theorganizedindustry censorshipled to an industry-wide attemptedto cast sex hygienepicturesby the NationalAssociationof the filmsof independentexploiteers,suchas the MovingPictureIndustry which issueda DwainEsper'sMarihuana(1936), as a threatto (NAMPI) 1919 resolution war on the declaring hygienefilms. the average movie-goer.[? DwainEsper.] Elsewhere,I have detailedhow these earlyattempts by Hollywoodto police itscontentcreateda separ- censorship.TheCommitteeforPublicRelations,and ate industry whichmanufactured exploitationfilms6. later the Public RelationsDepartment,absorbed TheThirteenPointsand Standards,adopted by the many of the criticismsdirectedat motionpictures NAMPIin 1921, codified the exclusionof subject while the Hays Office solidifiedits controlover the mattersuch as sex, drug use, nudity,white slavery organized film industry.The primaryimpulsefor was an economicone as the industry and other'salacious'topics.Theperceivedfailureof self-regulation the ThirteenPointsto take hold, the passage of a hoped to stave off further censorshipand the costly statecensorshiplaw in New Yorkcoupledwiththe necessityof creatingcustomizedprintsforeach area threatof others,and the publicoutcrygeneratedby with a censorship board. Additionally,protests filmsand subjectmatterhad the the scandals of 1921 and 1922 forced the film againstdisreputable in the potentialto erode audiencesand profitsfor all moindustryto vigorouslyembraceself-regulation formof theMotionPictureProducers and Distributors tionpictures. of Americaunderthe leadershipof Will Hays in By 1927 the nation's'movieczar', Will Hays, 1922. The Hays Office broughtabout severalim- had made stridesin repairingHollywood'simage mediatesuccesses, the mostobviousof whichwas but littlehad been done to change the impression the defeat of a Massachusettsreferendum on film that movieswere immoralor unclean.A group of

'::,:it I. uE & 'I m

Resisting refinement:the the exploitation exploitationfilm filmand self-censorship and self-censorship Resisting refinement:

295 295

Millard prolow-budget,buthighmoted Is Your profile, sex hygiene filmsbegan to sweep Daughter Safe? by across the countryin having a girl in a 1927 causing proglass case outside -..NOOV, the theatre. 'It is a tests and prompting Office to flash for the boobs', the Hays nOYs UNDIER14i. its first conVarietychirped.AgiNOT ADMITTED. begin ^ certedeffortto ridthe tating censors from coast to coast, this screenof exploitation moviessince theirin'hot stuff' was banned in New itial expulsion from the mainstream. York, Maryland, Since the early Ohio, Virginia,and _ _ ...t .I ._ 4 _ :m1.. _iI..^. 1 1920s those topics Portland, Oregon. But many comforbiddenby theThirmunitiesdid see the teen Points had film.Fartoo manyto becometheexclusive of the lowsuitthe HaysOffice. province The MPPDA budget,independent exploitation probegan its campaign ducerswho released against hygienefilms inJuneby organizing theirmovies through the state'srightsmara screening of Millard's picture for a ket or travelledfrom venue to venue with group of women. the roadCol. JasonJoy, head on prints of the Studio Relashow circuitof small tions Department, astown theatres and 2. VarietyclaimedthatS.S. Millard'ssex hygienefilm sumed that the Fig. Street' 'Main seedy women would conmovie houses in Is YourDaughterSafe?(1927) wouldbe a 'wow' in communities'wheretheywantto see hotstuff. The films demn the film.Butin cities. larger his reportto CarlMilwere invariably [? S.S. Millard.] the chief of the to 'adults liken, presented he audiences those of school or older Public Relations high age Department, expressed confuonly' - and were oftensegregatedby sex. Inthe summer sion: of 1927 itinerantroadshowmanS.S. MillardreI was somewhat surprised... when they released Is YourDaughterSafe? (Fig. 2). A compilato me a momentago thatthey thinkit ported tionof footage, some up to fifteenyearsold, the film teaches a very splendidlesson and thatevery featuredscenes of white slaveryand venerealdisgirl over sixteen years of age ought to be ease. Variety's reviewercharacterizedthe pictureas for compelledto see it. Of course,the difficulty 'possiblythe strongestand mostdaringof so-called us is the kindof publicitytheyare sendingout hygieneand sex warningpicturesever made'. which leads the people who don't see the pictureto believe thatwe are responsibleand Thisreporterhas seen manyof the Liliesof the have slippedback a long way in ourprogress Field,stage and screen.Butthisone is theprize towardbiggerand betterthings8. pip. If the censorslet it get by in communities wheretheywantto see hotstuff,it is a cinchthis Joy's post-screening analysishad hit upon two willbe a wow7. problemswhich would continuallyconfoundHolly-

RGH"TNOW--

-_r

296Eric 296 wood in itseffortsto deal withexploitationfilms.The firstwas the public'sinabilityto distinguishbetween filmsmade by the organized, mainstreamindustry and those made by independentexploitationproducers. Calls for movie reformwere invariablydirected at Hollywood, but not necessarily at Hollywoodfilms9.Had theseparationbeen as clear to the average movie-goeras it was in the mindsof the representatives of the MPPDA,theirabilityto attackexploitationmighthave been easier. As it was, theywere forcedto call for the eliminationof sex hygienefilmsand other'offensive'movieswhile notappearingto supportcensorship- a verydifficult manoeuvre. Second, exploitation films usually claimed some educationalmerit.The mainstream wouldeventuallymakethisa crucialdistincindustry tionbetweenitsfilmsand thoseof the exploiteers,a pointI willexpandon below. The Association'sattackon Is YourDaughter Safe?was oblique,initially carriedoutthroughother and The MPPDAwas alinstitutions. organizations in its ways circumspect dealingswithindependents for fear that they would level charges of unfair of tradeagainstthe organcompetitionand restraint ization10.Thoughthe attemptto haveJoy'sgroupof women denounce the movie had backfired,the Associationquietly persuaded the corresponding secretaryof the CaliforniaWomen'sChristianTemperance Unionto withdrawher endorsementof Is YourDaughterSafe?' . Othersympatheticorganizationswere ralliedto bringpressureon thefilm.The NationalBetterBusinessBureauissueda noticeto BureauManagersand Chambersof Commerceon 1 August1927, claimingthatcontraryto ads, Will Hays did not approve of Is YourDaughterSafe? 'Shouldthisfilmbe shown in yourcity', the notice how itis read, 'willyou kindlyadvise us immediately of advertisand a advertised forward sample being ing thatmay be used?'.12Localand regionalfilm boardsof tradewere enlistedto pressureexhibitors. The Northwestfilm board of trade succeeded in convincingthe operatorof a theatrechain to withdraw Is YourDaughterSafe? from uptown and suburbanrunsin Seattleand limitthe filmto one 'MainStreet'house which did not advertisein the newspapers.13TheMotionPictureTheatreOwners of Americaissueda 'redflag' alarmto itsmembers, warningthemaboutMillard'spictureand morethan a 'wave' of sex a half-dozenothersthatconstituted

EricSchaefer Schaefer films.The organizationclaimed that playing such filmswould'breed'censorshipl4.Once established, suchcensorshipwouldnotdiscriminate betweensex filmsand moviesmade by the organizedindustry. As noted, the spread of censors, separated both geographically and ideologically, directly threatenedprofitsof the mainstreamcompanies since such censorshipinvariablyled to the added expense of customizedprints.The theatreowners' concernthat'sexfilms'wouldbreedcensorship,and the MPPDA'santagonismtowardexploitation,was rooted in experiencewith state censors for whom exploitationmovieshad always been a primetarget. In 1922 EllisPaxsonOberholtzer,a historian and memberof the PennsylvaniaState Board of Censors,had harshwordsforfilmproducers,buthe reservedparticularanimusfor the makersof 'sex pictures'- exploitationfilms15.The'shabbyfellows' whom Oberholtzerwrote about purveyed films about white slavery,abortion,venereal diseases, and druguse. He held thatsome good mightcome frominstructing the young aboutsuch topics 'under propercircumstances'but castigated 'the general circulationof picturesof this kindfor the profitof 16 speculators' Accordingto Oberholtzerthe promoterof exploitationpictureswas a moralistuntilhe left the censor'soffice,whereuponhe became 'a shameless adventurerwho would prey upon the salacious tastesof the people'. Theaudienceforsuchmotion picturesdid notfareany betterwiththePennsylvania censor: They do not come in a frame of mind for learning.Theyare wroughtup to the pointof believingthat they are to see hithertounseen and to hearhithertountoldthings,havingto do withtheirprocreativeorgans.The lessongoes astray;if it shall ever be taughtthemat all it must be conveyed by wiser teachers under more favourable conditions at some later day17. Oberholtzerbelieved that the motionpicture not educatheatrewas a place for entertainment, tion, a stance that would be embraced by the motionpictureproducers. mainstream In October 1927 the MPPDAendorsed the thelist 'Don'tsand Be Carefuls'. JasonJoyformulated to helpthe industry negotiatethe perilsand pitfallsof

Resisting refinement:the the exploitation exploitationfilm filmand and self-censorship self-censorship Resisting refinement:

297 297

the varyingstateand municipalcensorshipboards. nota randomlistof sensitivesubjects.Anynumberof Joy includedeleven 'Don'ts',thingsgenerallyforbid- other'offensive'topics(explicitviolence,sexualinterden or cut frommoviesby the censor boards,and course,sadomasochism,and necrophilia,to name twenty-five'Be Carefuls',a catalogue of subjects a few)couldconceivablyhave been includedon the that requiredspecial care in presentation.As with lists.Butsince thosesubjectshad notbeen a partof the 'Don'tsand Be the commercialcinema at any time, therewas no priorformsof self-censorship Carefuls'were economicallyinspired,butthe stakes reasonto includethemon any inventoryof forbidwere suddenly higher. Althoughcensorshiphad den topics. The listcreated by Joy arose out of a been expensiveand nettlesometo the majorsduring reactionto real-worldexperience,not on the basis the silent era, a silent picturewith cuts was still of theoryor assumption.The listwas generatedto extentby exploitationmovies.Inplayable.Therisein talkingpicturesposed a poten- an overwhelming the a since tiallydevastatingproblem scissoring talkie, deed, adoptionof the 'Don'tsand Be Carefuls' at the time the MPPDAwas confrontinga a desame sound-on-disk movie, virtually particularly films 'wave' of it. the 'Don'ts' were sound stroyed Byfollowing exploitationmovieswas no mere coinmade moreviablein censorshipstates. but was insteada reactionto a specific cidence, to In a resemblance the NAMPI's threat. Bearing strong manyrespectsthe fieldof exploitationfilm ThirteenPointsand Standards,the 'Don'tsand Be came to be defined by its embrace of tabooed Carefuls'were also largelyinspiredby the desireto topics fromthe 'Don'ts'and, later, the Production restrict exploitationfilms.Indeed,Edwardde Grazia Code.21 and RogerK. Newman have noted thatthe listof The MPPDAdrive to rid America'sscreensof 'Don'tsand Be Carefuls','is perhapsmostinstructive sex hygiene films reached a peak in late 1928 for its evidence of the kindsof subjectswithwhich when Paramount's theatrechain, Publix,announced "renegade" producers were dealing in the that it would no longer play the pictures.Variety 1920s'18. Sevenof theeleven 'Don'ts'were directly reportedthat Publix,and other 'distributor-chain generatedby topics thatwere subjectsof exploita- operators'were motivatedby effortsof the Hays tion films, subjectsthat had consistentlyoffended Office to 'quietly... suppressthe sex films'.Hays Oberholtzerand otherstate censors:nudity;drug attemptedto extractpledges fromexhibitorchain traffic;'sex perversion';white slavery;sex hygiene membersnotto playthe moviesand wentfurther by and venerealdisease; childbirthscenes; children's instructing distributors not to supplyany housewith sex organs(anothercontroloverscenes of childbirth, regularfilmsonce it had opened its screen to 'the among other things).Anotherwould become the obnoxioussex film'22.At the same time a strict subjectof the exploiteersby the early 1930s: mis- proposalforcensorshiphad been introducedin the cegenation'9.Thesetopics providedthe spectacle New Jerseylegislaturebecause the state'stheatre which exploitationproducersreliedon to differen- owners had 'repeatedlybrokenfaith by showing tiatetheirfilmsfromthe mainstream and to drawan obscene sex picturesafterpromisingnot to'23.The audience. Thisdifferentiation was, above all else, majoroffenderswere reportedlychain-ownedand located in the fact that exploitationmovies were operatedtheatresin Newark,JerseyCityand Union about the marginalized,the Other- the diseased, City, ratherthan independentexhibitors.The indethe drugaddict, the prostitute, those who chose an pendentoperatorswho formedthe MotionPicture alternatelifestyle,the pregnantwoman (who was TheatreOwnersof New Jerseyadopted resolutions always constructedas otherthan'normal').Thead- favouringsupportof the censorshipmeasure24. ditionalrestrictions of the 'Don'ts'were on profanity, TheMPPDAhad always takenan anti-censorridiculeof the clergy, and wilfuloffence to any ship stand publicly.However,calls for the eliminanation,race or creed. Thelasttwo were the subject tionof sex hygienefilmsputthe Associationin the of concurrentprotests.20In all, these eleven topics positionof appearing to advocate some formof causedcensorsto ban or cutmovies,drew censorship. For instance, when censorshipwas regularly the ire of protestgroups, and left the entirefilm threatenedover the San Diego screeningof Is Your industryvulnerableto increasedcensorship.Thus, DaughterSafe? (underthe title The Octopus),Joy the 'Don'ts',as the previous'ThirteenPoints',was instructed an employeeto advisetheclubwomenof

298Eric 298 the cityto withdrawtheirsupportforcensorship,but to continueto workagainsthygienepicturesin their Ina letterto CarlMillikenten days later territory.25 Joyconfessed: TheSan Diego episode makesit apparentthat we are dealingwitha verydangerousvehicle, and thatcensorshipis apt to be the resulting remedy.Of course, in settingup a machineto censorthistypeof picture,theyare also putting intooperationsomethingwhich may proveto be embarrassing to us in thefuture26. Such embarrassingcontradictionswere unavoidable. One such instance occurred at an conferencein September1929 MPPDA-sponsored betweenmotionpictureleadersand individuals from a varietyof community and religiousorganizations. Themeetingin New Yorkwas, in part,a response to renewed threatsof federal censorshipand an increasein the numberof deletionsorderedby state and municipalcensors. C.C. Pettijohn,general counsel of the Hays Office, offeredthe organization'sstandardresponseto the issue of censorship by declaring'Ibelievethatcensorshipin any formof humanexpressionis sillyand ridiculousand absoor result'.He lutelydevoid of any accomplishment went on to speak out for diversityon the screen saying, 'A reasonablenumberof picturesshouldbe made each year forchildrenbutwe can't makeall picturesfor children.Adultsstillhave some rights'. The next day, when confrontedwith a question about what the industrywas doing about sex hytoed anotherstockMPPDA giene pictures,Pettijohn lineby replying:'Now you are gettingto a class of pictureswhichshouldneverbe shownin theatres.I would liketo see everyproducerof themputout of does notstandfor business.Theorganizedindustry thosepictures'.CarlMillikenventuredthat"whenthe industryresentscensorshipas it does, it does not mean that no controlby the publicshouldbe permitted'27 Despite the public and privateattemptsthe HaysOfficemade to eliminatesex hygienefilmsthe organizationwas paralysedin itseffortsby a philosophical conundrum.As long as some states and communities did nothave censorshiplaws, exploitation filmshad a venue. Butadvocatingcensorship for certainpicturescould conceivablybe extended to othersand soon impingeon those filmsmade by

EricSchaefer Schaefer mainstream companies.Moreover,by publiclydeclaringthatsome movieswere worthyof censorship, the MPPDAadmittedthatself-regulation of content was not a workablealternativeto state-sponsored censorshipas long as some producerscould operate free of self-censorship's constraints. The internal contradictions within Hollywood's trade body fromdevelopinga preventedtheorganizedindustry for coherent,long-term policy controlling exploitation films.Instead,the skirmishes would continue,especiallyonce the effectsof the stockmarketcrashand the Great Depressionfinallycaught up with the majorstudios. In 1930 the MPPDArefashionedthe 'Don'ts and Be Carefuls'intothe Production Code. Martin a Catholic Quigley, prominent laymanand publisher of theexhibitor-oriented tradeMotionPictureHerald, teamedwithFatherDanielLord, Jesuitpriestand at St. Louis to professor University, expand Hollywood's 'Don'ts'and give them a philosophical base. Underrosierfinancialcircumstances thestudio chiefs mighthave been able to shrugoff the new Code, but anotherbill to establishfederalcensorThe feeble economic ship had been introduced.28 with the situation,coupled supportof distributors, the and investment exhibitors, bankers, all-important meanttheyhad littlechoice butto accept the Code in principle.Hays trumpetedthe Code as a new moral doctrine which would guide Hollywood throughthe bramblesof state censorship.Critics, however,saw itas moreof thesame and producers quicklylearned that they could ignore it with the same impunitywith which they had shirkedthe 'Don'tsand Be Carefuls'29. Ridingon the popularityof talkiesthe major studiosmanagedto coast throughthefirstyearof the depressionwithouttoo much pain. But between 1931 and 1934 the frail economy had left the majorswith only slim profitswhen they were not faced withred ink.Movie housesdarkenedacross the countryand those that remainedopen were forcedto cut back servicesas attendancedropped between 1930 and 1932. Inan effort by one-third to draw patronsback into theatresexhibitorstried ploys rangingfromadmissionprice cuts to double featuresto gimmickslike BankNight, Dish Night and Screeno.Production companiesrespondedby moresex and spice intotheirfilms.Gangsprinkling stersshot theirway across the screen. Mae West

Resistingrefinement: refinement:the the exploitation exploitationfilm filmand and self-censorship self-censorship Resisting

299 299

rolledhercorsetedhips and leeredsuggestively.A tryblamedthe nudistfeaturesfora renewedwave of parade of prostitutes plied theirtrade on back lot stateand municipalcensorshipbillsand yet another versionsof the big city. The exploiteerswere not measureproposinga federal motionpicturecomHayshad hoped thatthe holdingbackeither.Between1931 and 1934 over missionwas introduced34. or National Industrial were new features RecoveryAct (NIRA),signed by produced thirty exploitation 16 June 1933, wouldfinally in Franklin Roosevelt on the United States. for distribution Nudity, imported sex education,drug use, and all mannerof vices bringthe moralstandardsof moviesin lineunderthe Code. The NationalRecoveryAdminiswere profferedin DamagedLives(1933), Narcotic, Production The Road to Ruin(1933), Enlightenthy Daughter tration(NRA),created by the act, was intendedto Child- regulate wages and prices to stimulatethe de(1933), Elysia(1933), Maniac, Tomorrow's wroteitsown code ren(1934) and others,providingthe largestconcen- pressedeconomy.Eachindustry because if they failed to do so the federalgoverntrationof new exploitationfeaturessince 1927-28. Majorcompaniesedged intoexploitationsubjects mentwouldwriteit forthem.DouglasGomeryand as well. In 1933 ColumbiaproducedWhat Price othershave shownthatthe MPPDAlobbiedto have Innocence?,a filmthatadvocated sex education, the film industryincludedin the NIRAbecause it and in defiance of earlierMPPDArulingsthe com- offered the potentialto solidifymonopolycontrol pany's exchanges distributeda venereal disease underthe aegis of the federalgovernment.Infact, the NRAMotionPictureCode had been writtenby picture,DamagedLives. of the MPPDA,who made surethe Thescreenwas not the only place where one representatives could find spicierentertainment. Depression-weary positionof the Hays Office was strengthened.Arto mainAmericanswere momentarilydivertedfrom their ticleVIIof the Code committedthe industry economicwoes in 1933 by newspapercoverage tenanceof 'rightmoralstandards'35. in Europe, of the nudistmovement.Long-established Mary Beth Haralovichhas describedthe moin cultsof sunworshippers were beginningto gain a tionpictureindustry as in a stateof 'near-hysteria' footholdin the UnitedStates. Camps in California its efforts to avoid federal interference36.The and otherstatespopped up and the presscovered strengthened positionof the HaysOfficein the midst the phenomenon,eagerly printingplentyof pictures of thisnear-hysteria mayhavegivenHaysand others to satisfythose for whom words alone would not in the businessan inflatedsense of theirabilityto suffice.Thereturn of newspapercirculation to 1929 controlthecontentof all motionpictures.Ananalysis levelswas directlyattributed to 'theextremelyhotart of the nudistpictureproblemin Varietyduringthe workon the nudes'30.Pressmaterialon Elysiain- firstmonthof 1934 disclosedthe spuriousassumpcluded a still of the alleged crew of the movie tionsunderwhichthe majorshad been operating: and encouragedexhibitorsto 'filming"aunaturel"' Firstof all while the Hays productioncode 'submitthisto yourmostprogressivenewspaper.It specificallyprohibitsnudeposes, and whilethe oughtto be a cinch'.As a resultof the daringnudist as to advertisingcode is being so administered shots in the dailies, Hollywoodstillphotographers excise various limb displays in stills, nudist and press agents began to display more flesh of makersare able to escape all of this because femalestarsin publicityshots.Will Haysputhisfoot are non-Haysites. Henceexhibitors can do they down with anotheredict3l. Butwhile Hays was as they please in the matterof lobbydisplays. occupied with stills, nude figureswere traipsing Therefore,official spokesmen declare, it is across the screen in manytheatres.Elysiaand two abouttimeto get a rulingon all-industry morals, othernudistmovieswere causinga stirat the box notjustthe Hayspercentage,butfromtheNRA. officeand in censor'sscreeningrooms. Thenudistfilmsranintocensorshiptroublein a Hereagain a snag is struck.Thecode does not numberof cities as well as the statesof Maryland, specifyany set rulesfor moralityin eitherproand New York32.BryanFoy,the producerof Elysia, ductionor advertising.Theclause, regardedas was forcedto obtain an injunction againstthe Los ambiguousfromthe start,simplysays thatthe to restrain them with from Angelespolice interfering industryshall pledge itselfto maintainhighest localshowingof his picture33. Theorganizedindusmoralstandards.

300 Itwas assumedin majorcircles,at first,thatthe clause was sufficientto makeit understoodthe businesswould bow to the Hays writings.But heldoutagainst independentshavesuccessfully theseand todayare doing muchas theyplease in the matterof morality. Witha few nudistpicturesholdingthe industry up to a generalattack,as is evidencedin more censor activitythan has been witnessed in years, the moralityissue is admittedcomingto a definitehead37. Hays and the majorshad expected the indeCode when the pendentsto accept the Production NRAwent intoeffect,if onlybecause itwouldmean 'a large financialsaving to them'38.But, as the article indicated, independentshad continuedto pursuetheirown pathwithlittleregardforthe industryas a whole. Theirpictureshad been singledout and placed theentirefilmbusinessundersiege. The had, in turn,singledthemoutfor organizedindustry elimination. the Code mighthave meantsaving Embracing for money exploitationproducersby allowingtheir filmsto play in territories withcensorship,butit also would have strippedthemof that aspect that differentiatedthemfromthe majors.Intime the Hays Officebegan to realizethattheexploiteerswere out to carve theirown niche, regardlessof who might be offended inside or outside the industry.An MPPDAinter-office memoabout BryanFoy demonstratedhisstandas a producerof exploitation: This gentlemanis certain to be increasingly as timegoes on. troublesome He is avowedly out to make picturesoff the beaten track,withthe idea thatin thisway he may be able to make a good living.He has gone on record,repeatedly,as of the opinion thathe cannotcompetewithothercompanies makingthe usualtype of picturesand that he mustresortto the sensational,the shockingand the lurid39. Withoutsuggestivecontent,the moviesmade by Foy and other exploiteerswould have simply been morelow-budgetfare,similarto thatproduced by Chesterfield,Monogram,Tiffanyand otherPoverty Row outfits.Contraryto what the organized

EricSchaefer industrymay have thought,therewas littlefinancial incentiveforthe exploiteersto accept the Production Code. Inthe face of Catholicboycottsand the newly formedLegionof Decency, the ProductionCode Administration was establishedwithintheMPPDAin July1934. JosephI. Breenwas placed in chargeof the office. GeoffreyShurlock,who worked under Breenin the PCAand eventuallyheaded the office, claimed:'we neverrefusedseals. We were in the businessof grantingseals. The whole purposeof [thePCA's]existencewas to arrangepicturesso that we couldgive seals'40.ThePCA,once established, worked in the interestof the majorstakinga proactivepositionof suggestionand negotiationrather thana reactionarystanceof restraint. However,as shown above, considerableconcern about nudist films- existedwithin movies- and otherexploitation the organizedfilmindustry and amongcensors.Just as surelyas 'theBreenOffice'was anotherstrategy to consolidatepower in the handsof the majors,it also functionedto marginalizethe exploiteersby denying MPPDAseals to their pictures.Without Code seals exploitationfilmswere, for all intents and purposes, barred from the lucrativefirst-run housesin largecitieswhichwere runby the majors. also servedto shape TheCode and itsenforcement the dominantimage of what movies should be, vis-a-vis exploitation. Since the time exploitationsubjectswere first producers,state's segregatedfromthe mainstream, and roadshowmen pointedto the educarighters, tional intentof theirfilmsin an effortto lend them meritcould respectability.Claims of instructional with content censorsand reformitigatethe prurient mers.Or so the exploitationproducershad hoped. Whethertheexploiteerswere sincereabouttheeducationalcontentof theirfilmsor not,Hollywoodand the censorsturnedtheirargumentback on themby insistingthatthe role of movieswas entertainment and thateducationdid not have a place on American screens. StephenVaughnhas shown how the majorshad endorsedthe entertainment/education polaritywhen acceptingthe foundationsforthe ProductionCode. Thecompaniescontendedthat'motion pictureswere firstand foremostentertainment and could not be considerededucationor even indirectly as an essentially moral or immoral desireto separate force'41.Theorganizedindustry's

301

Resisting refinement:the the exploitation exploitationfilm filmand and self-censorship selfcensorship Resisting refinement: was codified in the educationand entertainment to the Production Code: preamble ... thoughregardingmotionpicturesprimarily withoutany explicitpurposeof as entertainment or teaching propaganda,thesignatories[tothe Code] know thatthe motionpicturewithinits own field of entertainment may be directlyrefor and moral sponsible spiritual progress,for for muchcorrect of social and life, highertypes ... thinking On theirpart,theyask fromthe publicand from of publicleadersa sympatheticunderstanding their purposesand problemsand a spiritof cooperationthat will allow themthe freedom and opportunity necessaryto bringthe motion pictureto a still higher level of wholesome entertainment forall the people. Inhistreatiseon thesocial construction of taste, writes that Pierre Bourdieu Distinction, principlesof division'functionwithinand forthe purposesof the strugglebetweensocial groups'. What is at stake in the strugglesabout the meaningof the social worldis powerover the classifcatoryschemes and systemswhich are the basis of the representations of the groups and thereforeof theirmobilizationand demobilization:the evocativepowerof an utterance whichputsthingsina differentlight... orwhich modifies the schemes of perception, shows somethingelse, otherproperties,previouslyunnoticedor relegatedto the background...; a separativepower, a distinction,diacrisis,discretio,drawingdiscreteunitsout of indivisible continuity,difference out of the undifferentiated42. Itis clearthatthewritersof theProduction Code to break undifferentiated featheatrical attempted turesintocategoriesalong traditional morallinesof wholesomeand unwholesome(in thiscase as constructedby the Code), as well as by theirfunctionas entertainment or education. Figure3 graphically this represents scheme. Theverticalaxis dividesentertainment and education while the horizontalaxis separateswholesome from unwholesome. The films which the mainstreamindustrytried to create throughself-

WHOLESOME

A Movies

ENTERTAINMENT

ImaginaryIdeal EDUCATION

..

B Movies

Exploitation

UNWHOLESOME

Code broketheatrical Fig.3. TheProduction featuresintocategoriesalong traditionalmoral linesof wholesomeand unwholesome,as wellas or education. by theirfunctionas entertainment regulationfall into the field bound by wholesomewhile the filmscreated by ness and entertainment of unexploiteersfall intothe opposingconjuncture wholesome/education.By suggestingthat education did not have a place on the entertainment screen, Hollywooddrovea majorwedge between theirfilmsand thoseof the exploiteers.Filmsthatfall intothe lowerleftportionof the schematic(unwholecan be seen as manyof the B some/entertainment) moviesmade by the organizedindustry, as well as those pre-PCAentertainments (Mae West, et al.) tagged as unwholesomeby the CatholicChurch and others.LeaJacobs has explainedhow B-films were often labelled'trashy'or 'lurid'by criticsand how Hollywoodmaintainedcertainculturalhierarchies throughitsdistribution and marketing of A and B features43. The upperrightfield (wholesomeeducation) is that ideal that many social and moral reformerssaw as the medium'struefunction.This pairingremainedimaginarysince no groupof theatricalfeaturesever seemed to fall fullywithinthe conjuncture. As Bourdieuhas noted, in mattersof taste, 'all determination is negation'44.Becauseof their'low' categorization(oftenliterallydealingwiththe lower strataof the body in the formof sex, birth,venereal disease) exploitationfilms were the antithesisof what Hollywoodwas constructing as 'betterfilm'. Jacobs has explainedthatthe so-called'betterfilm' movement,which had the supportof the MPPDA, eventuallyformulatedcriteriathat prescribednarrativecoherence, plausibilityand realismas the hallmarks of acceptablescreenfare. Narrativewas

302 302

Eric Schaefer

Once the Breen privilegedover specOffice was in place tacle45. Of course, bexploitation pro*] _~ spectacle was the stock in trade of exducers generally igI noredit, choosingto ploitationfilms.This, release their films coupled with the withoutseals in unafcrude affective refiliated theatres sponse exploitation movies provoked, ratherthan fight for made them diametriapproval. On those occasions when an cally opposed to the definition of what exploitationfilmwas submittedfor a seal constituteda 'better B^ the state's rightsdisfilm'. Censors and I l ' tribution system who held simicritics lar principleshad alworked against the _ ,i ' \ MPPDAin their effways seen their l' a orts to enforce the function as not tei toinB Production Code. merelyone of limiting Since but regional dischoices, through tributors could put in those limitations, scenes or takethem public elevating out- witha largedetaste.MartinQuigley wrote that the funcgree of impunity,the tion of art was to MPPDAwas always at risk when it enoble, or that 'the least thatmay be ex=<s =#/u1 passed a state's it of art is that pected rightsfilm.Theorganshall not debase'46. izationdepended on Allied with the elevreportsfromthe field ation of taste in the 4 cut in excha nge foran MPPDAseal but to convey violations masses was the fear Fig. Angkorwas and those reports it playedunderthe titleForbi'ddlenAdventurein some thatthe spreadof the territories were sporadic at withoutthe required etliminations. unwholesome or [?Warner/Purdon.] best. Some proas such ducers played catdirty, exploitation movies, might and-mousewith the drag down the 'good taste'whichthe morerefined BreenOffice, gettingapprovalfortheirmotionpichad so carefullycultivated.Thusa series of defini- turesbutneveractuallymakingthe cutsdictatedby tions shaped exploitationas unacceptablescreen Code officials.Dwain Esperregularlyengaged in fare. At the same time these negationsserved to thisgame. In 1937 he submittedthe junglepicture reinforcethe conceptionof Hollywoodfilmas some- Angkorto the PCAand agreed to makedeletions, of exposed breasts,in orderto obtain a coherent, primarily thingmorallyunobjectionable,narratively Bourdieu's 17 March1937Joe Breenwroteto Esper and non-educational. seal. On realistic, plausible, observation that 'any legitimate work tends ... to grantingtheseal inview of the producer'sassurance imposethe normsof its own perceptionand tacitly that he would make the requestedcuts. One year defines as the only legitimatemode of perception laterFrancisHarmonin the New YorkMPPDA office the one whichbringsintoplay a certaindisposition wroteto BreenstatingthatAngkorhad been playing and a certaincompetence',wouldseem particularly in some areas underthe titleForbiddenAdventure (Fig.4). Harmontookit uponhimselfto see the film apt in thisinstance47.

Resistingrefinement:the exploitationfilmand self-censorship and reportedthat'a numberof terrible jumpsgave evidence of the censorcuts ... ButI am reasonably sure that in states withoutcensor boards these people are showing thispicturein a formdifferentthan theyagreed to do when the certificate of approval was issued'48. Breen withdrew the certificate49. Duringthe same period the Breen OfficereviewedTheScarletFlower (1937?), originalSwedish titleunknown, aka Man's Way with Women),a filmacquiredby Esper whichcontaineda numberof code violations.The movie was finally certifiedaftermanycuts.Laterin the springHarmoninformedBreenthat the filmwas submittedto the New YorkCensorBoardwithan MPPDA seal butstillcontainingscenes that were to have been scissored50. Breen'sreactionwas as promptas itwas furious:

:

303

i

It is so patent and brazen a :A:^ doublecrossthat,immediately upon receipt of your letter, I Fig.5. HedyLamarr's nuderompthroughthewoods in Ecstasy wrotea formalletterto Esper (1933) drewticketbuyersto the box officefordistributor Samuel also attractedthe ireof the MPPDA. advising him that we have Cummins,buwt withdrawnour approval and [? ElectaFiln n/Eureka.] made a demand upon himto On those occasions when exploitationproreturn ourcertificateof approval51. ducerssoughtan MPPDAseal fora moviein order Some exploitationfeatureswhich received a to gain broad distributionand access to better Code seal had cut materialreinsertedbut were theatres- whichwere generallyowned by members nevercaughtby the BreenOffice. AfricanHoliday of the MPPDAor majorchains thatabided by the (1937) was awardeda seal inJuly1937, yet when Code - they foundthe deck stackedagainstthem. SamuelCumminsrea printwas submittedto the New Yorkcensorsa Exploitation producer/importer of publicitywhen he attemptedto monthlaterit was not the same one thathad been ceived a mountain passed by the PCA. New Yorkrequiredvarious bringthe Czech filmEcstasy(1933) intothe United deletions for nudity. African Holiday probably States in 1934. Initiallybarred by the Customs as 'obsceneand immoral',the filmwas played in its uncutversionin manyareas and there Department is no evidencethatthe BreenOfficeever rescinded finallypermittedto enter the countryin December the nextyear it played to huge theircertificateof approval52.Otherfilmsmay have 1935. Throughout been pairedwithsquare-upreels,leavingthemotion crowdsin some cities, whileothertownsbarredthe withthe Code in theory,if movie.Cumminsfoundthat Ecstasy'snotorietyhad pictureitselfin conformity not in practice53.Exploiteerswere able to under- exhibitorsbeating a path to his door (Fig. 5). He Code seal, but minethe integrity of theseal systembutalso to mock submittedthe filmfor a Production was rejected on 28 May 1937. Cumminsapit in the process.

304

EricSchaefer

pealed the decisionto the MPPDABoardof Directors. In a letterto the Board he complainedthat manytheatrescontrolledeitherdirectlyor indirectly by MPPDAmemberswere anxiousto show Ecstasy, but thatthey could not do so untilthe filmhad a Production Code seal. Therefusalof a seal, according to Cummins,caused 'considerableembarrassmentand loss of revenueand has jeopardizedour businessconsiderably'54.When he met with the Boardat the MPPDA'sNew Yorkoffices he found them waiting with plenty of ammunitionto use againsthim.FrancisHarmonwrotetoJoe Breen: When Cumminssaw the two pages of exhibits takenfromhisown advertisingand heardcommentsby Mr. (Sidney)Kentand othersindicating thathis own advertisingconvictedhim,he hopped to his feet and declared that I had been unfairin selectingthese five ads to use beforethe Board,whereuponI hopped across witha stack the hallto my office and returned of advertisinga foot high, which I placed in frontof Mr. Kentwho thereuponhad a very enjoyable time holding up variousads and forcing admissions from Cumminsthat they were all partof hisexploitationcampaign55. Butsuch appeals were rare and the MPPDA to pass judgement was seldomgiventheopportunity the on exploiteers. Bythe late 1930s the economiccircumstances of censorshipwere changing.The cost of multiple printsto suitvariouscensor boardswas stilla concern, but the organized producerswere equally worriedaboutthetollsimposedby stateswithlicensing procedures.Forinstance,the New Yorkcensor board exacted a $2 fee per reel on every film approvedfor exhibitionin the state except newsreels.Thestatemade a netprofitof $204,202 from censorshipin the fiscalyear thatended on 30 June 1936. Varietyestimatedthatcompaniesreleasing fiftyfeaturesannuallypaid morethan$150,000 to havea year'sproductpassed in Chicagoand states withcensorboards.Therewas a growingsuspicion that'otherstates[were]gettingthe yen to grab off that sort of coin', and most film companies felt powerlessto resistsincetheydid notwantto appear antagonistic56.The producers'fears were justified given the economicclimate.While Loew's/MGM, and WarnerBros.were recover20th Century-Fox

ing theirfinancialhealth,the othermajorswere still was feelingthe effectsof thedepression.Paramount justcoming out of receivershipand RKO,which madea slimprofitin 1937, onlymanagedto break even in 1938. Universal,Columbiaand United Artistswere eitheroperatingin the red or scraping by witha slimnet profit.Additionalcensorshipfees would have been an irritation for all of the comat the but for some they could least, panies very have meantthe differencebetweenprofitand loss. Renewedfears of censorshipcoupled with a risein the numberof exploitationfilmsin circulation, theirsubsequentstateand municipalcensorshipand notoriety,spurredanothermajor'clean-up'effortin 1937 whichcontinuedinto 1938. Bythe springof 1937 'a flood of "sex"pictures'sweptovertheatres in the Chicago territory.That flood found Hedy Lamarfloatingin the nude in Ecstasy,two vice films based on the LuckyLucianocase, Gamblingwith Souls(1936) and Smashingthe ViceTrust(1937), while DamagedGoods (1937) servedup venereal disease (Fig. 6), and Dwain Esper'sManiac had witha moremarketabletitle,Sex Maniac. returned Themovieswere successful.When the MotionPictureHeraldarticleappearedannouncingthe 'flood', Ecstasywas in itsseventeenthweek in the Loopand businessfor all the theatresshowing exploitation featureswas described as 'betterthan average'. Twocensorshipbillsthathad been introducedin the Illinoislegislaturewere directlylinkedby observers to the releaseof the exploitationmovies.Theirsponsorsintended'to pointto the"sexpicture" as necessitatingsuch censorship'57.At the same time Hays and leadersof the mainstream were reassurindustry ing St. Louismembersof the MotionPictureTheatre Ownersof Americathatsex was notreturning to the studios58.Hollywoodonce again was forced to painta sanguine, if deceptive, pictureof the situation since they had been unable to exert any controloverthe movieswhichwere causingthe stir. Over the next year the trade press repeatedlyinvokedthe 'success'of the Production Code while it inveighed against exploitationfilms. MartinQuigley's Motion PictureHeraldlet few such opportunitiespass. When a Denver judge, Philip B. the Gilliam,orderedcutsin Smashingthe ViceTrust Heraldquotedat lengthfroma statementthe judge made. GilliamcongratulatedHollywood'sself-censorshipwhich had resultedin 'picturesof a high

filmand and self-censorship the exploitation self-censorship refinement:the exploitationfilm Resisting Resisting refinement:

305 305

Fig.6. SyphiliticGeorge DuPont(DouglasWalton),right,is lecturedon the damage the disease causes to childrenof the infectedin thisproductionstillfromDamagedGoods(1937). [? CriterionPictures.] moralplane'.He asked, 'Why, then,shouldDenver allow the tearingdown of thiscommendableeffort theshowingof suchsex pictures- films by permitting as a whole is against'59? thatthe industry Creationof the BreenOffice, strictenforcement of the Production Code, and effortsto distinguish and educationhad not sucbetweenentertainment ceeded in curbingproductionof exploitationpictures. Such a conspicuous failure promptedthe to change tacticsagain. Instead mainstream industry of targetingthe productionof exploitationfilms,a concertedcampaignwas initiatedto intimidatethe independenttheatresthatexhibitedthe movies.Articlesappeared in the tradeswithtitleslike'Protests Made on Sex Films','Foreignand "SexHygiene" FilmsInviteNew DecencyOffensive','US IsProbing "Lewd" Pictures','CensorshipActivitiesIncrease', Over Sex Films'60.Eachdeand 'New Arguments tailedprotestsand legal action, not to mentionthe arrestsof theatremanagers.Themessage was indione could reap financialrerectbutunmistakable: wardsfromplayingexploitationbutitwas alwaysat

thewrathof thecommunity, theriskof incurring large and the fees and fines, possibleincarceration, legal disapprovalof the organizedfilmindustry.The exhibitorwho chose to runexploitationmovieswas at riskby invitingincreased puttingtheentireindustry stateand local censorship61. In addition to generalized threats,exhibitors who playedexploitationfoundtheirpatriotism questioned. In 1919 NAMPI'scall for '100 per cent on the screen tacitlyassociated hyAmericanism' In 1937 with movies things'un-American'62. giene the appeal to exhibitor'spatriotismand anxiety aboutthe increasinglytensesituationin Europewas farless subtle.Attheclose of thatyearA.L.Finestone reportedin Boxofficeon the Legionof Decency's new offence against sex hygienefilmsand foreign moviesthathad been deemedfilthy.TheLegionwas 'soundingthe tocsin for a publicoffensiveagainst "the major onslaughtfrom Europe"'.Among the foreign productwhich trespassed the bounds of (1933), decency was ThePrivateLifeof HenryVIII JacquesFeyder'sCarnivalin Flanders11935), and

306 306

EricSchaefer Schaefer Eric

Bryan Foy and other exploitationproducers were linkedwiththe 'new film-devil thatcomes fromforeignstudios'63.Associatingexploitation withthe overseas'film-devil' and characterizing itas an infectionof theclean, wholesomeAmerican screenadded yet anotherelementto exhibitor concerns. The commentsmade by Judge Gilliam and Archbishop McNicholas drew clear distinctionsbetween the 'good' movies made by Hollywoodand the 'bad' filmsmade by independentsand foreignersthatserved to reinforcethe organized industry'sculturaland economicdominance(Fig.7). In additionto the aforementionedtactics, the organizedindustryattemptedto deploy the unwholesome/education characterizationto keep exploitationfilmsoff the nation'sscreens. Butthe timingcould not have been worse. In 1936 Franklin Roosevelt's new surgeon general, ThomasParran,had initiateda major publicinformation campaigndesigned to combat venereal diseases. Articleson the subject appeared in popular publications like the ReadersDigestand Timewhile a Gallup poll found that ninetyper cent of respondentsfavouredgovernment distribution of information on venerealdiseases64.Some of the subjectsforbiddenby the Production Code were receiving wide attentionand could no longerbe deemed inherently objectionable,so muchso thatsome state censor boards began passing hygiene films.In 1937 the previouslyintractableNew Fig.7. Clubde Femmes/GirlsClub(1936) withits themeof lesbianism,was amongthe foreignfilms York board licensed Damaged Goods and attackedfor 'filthinessand perversion'by the Legionof DamagedLives,a filmwhich had been denied Decencyin the late 1930s. permitsforfouryears. Boardsin Ohio, Virginia [? ArthurMayerand JosephBurstyn.] and Kansasalso passed DamagedGoods. Yet the PCArefusedto issuea seal forthe picture.In two moviesplayingthe exploitationcircuit,Ecstasy additionto pointingoutthe technicalviolationto the and Club de Femmes/GirlsClub (1936). Arch- film's producer, Joe Breen added, 'Damaged bishopJohn T. McNicholas of Cincinnati,the Le- Goods is not the kindof picturewhich shouldbe gion's executivesecretary,pointedout thatforeign exhibited publicly, before mixed audiences in The Legionof Decency maintainedthat producerswere not boundby the provisionsof the theatres'65. Production Code, 'Hence, all the filthinessand per- the disease filmsmightbe suitablefor specialized versionthathas been so largelywiped outof Ameri- exhibitionbeforeselectedaudiences,butas 'clinical can picturesis appearingin newly-imported films.' studies'they were not entertainment and thuswere Also under attack was the 'increase in offensive 'impropermaterialfora theatrescreen'66.And Quiproductfromsmall independentproducersand its gley'sMotionPictureDailyadvancedthe same posiexhibitionby independentexhibitorsoverwhom[the tion in its review,claimingthe film's'subjectmatter formula Hays Office exercised] no control'.J.D. Kendis, does not properlyfit intothe entertainment

Resisting exploitation film and self-censorship self-censorship Resisting refinement: the exploitation and thatfilmsof the natureof Damaged Goods, therefore,do not belong in commercial theatres'. Clearly, self-censorshipgenerated by the MPPDAno longerreflected the positionof state and municipal censorshipboards- its originalintent- but had adopted the more reactionarystance of the Legion and Quigley68.InApril1938 Will Hayscalled in heads of the major circuitsand remindedthem not to play pictures without a Code seal69.The organizationestimated that there were thirtyexploitation movies receivingwidespread distribution at thetime70.Itwas becomthat there was littlethe clear ing coulddo to preorganizedindustry vent unaffiliatedexhibitors from playing exploitation movies. The Birthof a Baby (1937), a sober, moviewhichstressed unsensational educationand contained virtually no titillationhad received wide play, garnering the support of numerous organizationsalong with many positivereviewsand editorials71.The filmbecame something of a cause c6elbre for those who supporteda" free, or more liberal, j as a ,concrete screen andi served exampleof the draconianposition of censorship heldby thesupporters and self-regulation (Fig.8). Butdue

307 307

\

\

.

: iiiii.... ...

.

... ...... ............

i ; ll

Fig. Despilte itstamead campaignand widespreadeditorial Fi 8. Despi Birthof a Baby(1937) was stillconsidered unwholesome e by the organizedindustry. [American CommitteeforMaternalWelfare.]

to the very natureof its subject - childbirth- it was

stillconsideredunwholesomeby the organized inseemed to have Pressureand intimidation dustry72. littleeffect- a fact finallybeing acknowledgedby the Hays Office. An MPPDAexecutivedescribed how sex filmswere 'barredin 1,200 to 2,000 houses'thatwere operatedby membersof theAssociationand thatthereare 'about800 theatersaffiliatedwithcircuitsbut in which the circuitsmay not holda controllinginterest'73. Thisstillleftthousands of theatresover which the MPPDAhad no direct and Foxattemptedto dissociinfluence.Paramount ate themselvesfrom the exploiteers by adding clausesor ridersto exhibitioncontractsto forbidthe

dualingof pictureswithCode seals withthose that lacked MPPDAapproval. The companies were moved to action when a ShirleyTemple movie, Wee WillieWinkie(1937), was reportedlypaired with Sex Madness (1929). Those instanceswere undoubtedlyrare,buttheydid makeforgood copy and allowed the organized industryto give the appearance to its criticsthat it was takingaction. Still, other majorsexpressed ambivalenceabout contractualmandates,reasoningthat'sucha clause mightbe construedas dictatingwhat the exhibitor could or could not play' and thusmightbe found illegalif challengedin the courts74. The organized industry'sfear of legal action

308 308

Eric Schaefer

Code workerswere concernedaboutthe Fig.9. Some Production 'definiteshadowsof the nipples'on Zorita'scostumein I Marrieda Films.] Savage (1949). [? Futurity was probablythe single largestreasonforthe sudden suspensionof industry offensivesagainstexploitation films. The Departmentof Justice filed the Paramountcase on 20 July 1938, charging the eight majorswithviolationof the ShermanAntitrust Act75.Amongthe countsin the government's billof complaint were that the majors had shut independentsout of the firstrunmarket76.Thoughthe MPPDAwas not namedin the suit,the actioneffectively ended Hollywood'sorganized attemptsto eliminateexploitationmovies. The United States' entryin WorldWar IIrobbedHollywoodof some of the ammunition it had used against exploitationas the industrybegan to openly producefilmswithan avowed moraland educationalintent.Intheclimate of change that followed World War IIthe mainstreamindustry did not mountany seriouseffortsto

purifythe screen.Thisis notto say thatthe majority of exploitationmoviessubmittedto the Production Code Administration were not rejected.Mostwere stillrefusedseals, but in the increasinglypermissive atmosphereof postwarAmericathe stakesseemed smaller,the issues more picayune. For instance, threeCode workersscreened I Marrieda Savage (1949) whichstarredthe stripperZorita,priorto an expected appeal on the denial of a seal. Gordon Whitewroteto Breen: Miss Young felt that the worst of the breast displays, both in the snake dance and in the apartmentscenes, were 'disgusting'.On the otherhand, Arthur [DeBra]did notseem to be worriedat all aboutthesweatercostume... The costumeis certainlynot good, since it shapes

Resistingrefinement:the exploitationfilmand self-censorship the breasts too definitely,and occasionally shows definiteshadows of the nipples. However, it does not seem to me to be nearlyas bad as the worstof the close-upshots in the dance; and the censor boards make no mentionof it77. Discussionsof nippleshadowswere not in the same league as debates about the natureof entertainmentand the missionof motionpictures(Fig.9). Theroleexploitationfilmplayed in the formulawas complex. The MPPDA tion of self-censorship and otherssuchas MartinQuigleywantedto eliminate exploitationand thusprojectthe image of a clean and responsiblebusiness.At the same time theydid notwantto appearto advocatecensorship whichwas an economicand creativedrag on the was the resultingremedy. industry.Self-censorship created muchsoundand fury Theorganizedindustry aboutvulgarexploitationmoviesand theirattempts to eliminatethem.Byperiodicallyraisinga fussover the exploitationindustry theysucceeded in pointing in bringing'highout Hollywood'saccomplishment to millionsof Americansweek quality'entertainment in and week out. Butas HildegardEspertoldme in 1988, the Hays Office could not stop the exploiteers.Vocalelementsin Americansocietymayhave decriedmoviesaboutvice, nudity,sex hygieneand othercontroversial topics,yet a sizeable contingent of ticketbuyerssupportedexploitationmovies by purchasingtickets.Bythe 1950s changesin morals, the FirstAmendmentstatusof motionpictures,and film businesspracticesled to the reintegration of mostof the traditional topicsof exploitationfilminto the mainstream. Thediscoursesof good and bad taste,acceptable and unacceptablescreenfarecreatedby, and apparentlyso obviousto, Quigley,Breenand comBourpany, were not masteredby them,illustrating dieu's statementthat, 'everyessentialistanalysisof the aestheticdisposition,the onlysociallyaccepted way of approachingthe objectssociallydes"right" ignatedas worksof art,thatis, as bothdemanding and deservingto be approachedwitha specifically aestheticintentioncapable of recognizingand conthemas art, is boundto fail'78.Indeed,the stituting classificationspromotedby the MPPDAand other Hollywood institutionswere either lost on most Americans- or simplymay not have mattered- in

309

the long run.We mustbear in mindthat motion pictureshad theirroots in the low cultureof vaudeville and tent shows and that associationswith 'higher' forms like legitimatetheatre and opera came laterin an attemptto securea 'class' rather effortsto cut than 'mass' audience. The industry's between 'Mr. and Mr. distinctions Nice sharp or and were not low, Nasty'79, high easily -made withinthe broadsphereof massculturein the early decades of the century.Not untila large body of filmscould be widelyand consistently equatedwith of the filmmoveart art high (through popularization the auteur and ment, exploitationfilms theory,etc.) were able to shuckofftheirmantleof educationand remainviable, could contrastsbetween high and low motionpicturespenetratedeeply intotheAmerican culturalfabric. The early 1960s saw a new generationof exploiteersemerge at the marginsof the film businessto push the boundariesof 'bad thanever.Gore movieslikeBloodFeast taste'further (1963), and sexploitationfeaturessuch as TheAdventuresof LuckyPierre(1961) and Lorna(1964) were far bolderthananythingthe exploitationfilmmakersof the 1930s had produced.Those early filmswere justthe beginning.* Theauthorwouldliketo thankHenryJenkins,Eithne on this Johnsonand JanetStaigerfor theircomments andMikeVraneyforsupplying manuscript manyof the ad slicksusedas illustrations. A numberof the filmsmentionedin thisarticlehave becomeavailableonvideotapeforthefirsttime. recently contact:Something Forinformation WeirdVideo,P.O. Box 33664, Seattle,WA 98113, USA.(206) 3613759.

Notes 1. Hidegard withtheauthor, 3 Noveminterview Esper, ber1988. 2. JosephBreen,filememo,9 April1935, TheSeventh Production Code Administration Commandment, ArtsSciencesLifile,Academyof MotionPicture PCAfile). brary,LosAngeles(hereafter, 3. In activating the terms'mainstream and industry' I am notonlyreferring to the major 'Hollywood' butalsoto theMPPDA, adproduction companies, MPPDA ditional andfringecompanies members that inthis abidedbyHaysOfficedictates. Alsoincluded formation wouldbe thetradepressandotherinstitu-

310

EricSchaefer tions that operated in supportof the mainstream 13. industry.

4.

PeterStallybrass and AllonWhite, ThePoliticsand Poeticsof Transgression (Ithaca,New York:Cornell Press,1986), 5. University

5.

MichelFoucault,TheHistoryof Sexuality,VolumeI: An Introduction (New York:VintageBooks,1980), 100.

6.

EricSchaefer,'Of Hygieneand Hollywood:Origins of the Exploitation Film',TheVelvetLightTrap(30), Fall1992: 34-47.

7.

Is YourDaughterSafe? (review).Variety,15 June 1927: n.p.

8.

MemofromJason S. Joy to Gov. Carl E. Milliken, 24 June 1927, Is YourDaughterSafe?PCAfile.

9.

Thispointwas drivenhomea decade laterby an writer- and by articlein Variety.LikeJoy, Variety's that thepublicmind others believed to implication, allmotionpicturesweremadeunderthewatchfuleye about of theMPPDA. Thearticledetailedcomplaints filmsand theiradvertising and said, 'the exploitation average individualblamesthe Hays office for [the films]being shown and the advertisingon same. Despitethe fact thatthe Hays office has no direct supervisionor controlover filmsnot passed by the PCAor showinginaffiliatedmemberhouses,itgets stirredup bythesefew screen blamedfortherumpus subjects.Thispartlydue to the factthatreferenceto the Hays office is takenby the publicto meanthe entirefilmbusiness.'Floodof SalaciousAd ComVariety, plaintsCauses Haysitesto Double-Check', 17 August1938:4.

10.

See: 'PaulSeale, 'A Host of Others':Towardsa NonlinearHistoryof PovertyRowand theComining of Sound,'Wide Angle, 13(1) Uanuary1991): 78. Seale describescomplaintsby independentsand tradepracPovertyRowoutfitsdirectedat restrictive tices of the majorsand detailsactiontakenby the inthesummerand fallof FederalTradeCommission Millard's 1927. Although operationwas so smallas to make manya PovertyRow companylook like was incomparison,theFTCinvestigation Paramount macertainlythe singlelargestreasontheMPPDA's noeuversagainst Is YourDaughterSafe?, and subsequentlyagainst other exploitationfilms, were undertaken quietlyand throughothergroups.

1 1.

MemotofilebyJasonJoy,2 September1927; Letter fromAnnaB. HailtoJasonJoy, 9 March1928, Is YourDaughterSafe? PCAfile.

12.

fromtheNationalBetterBusinessBureauissued Letter to BureauManagersand Chambersof Commerce, 1 August1927, Is YourDaughterSafe? PCAfile.

14.

fromMrs.R.B.Lynch, Letter executivesecretaryof the NorthwestFilmBoard of Trade to Jason Joy, 1 September1927, Is YourDaughterSafe? PCAfile. Theterm'MainStreet'houseswas usedto designate cheap, or 'skidrow',theatresin marginalneighborhoods. 'RedFlagon SexMovies',Variety,24 August1927: 5.

15.

EllisPaxsonOberholtzer,TheMoralsof theMovies, (Philadelphia:The Penn PublishingCompany, 1922). Theterm'sex picture'was used looselyat thetimeand couldhavebeen appliedto almostany filmwith sexual content,rangingfromthemesof of veneraldiseases. adulteryto therawpresentation is referring However,itis quiteclearthatOberholtzer to exploitation moviesfromhisdescriptions. Between pages 3 1 and33 he relatesa standardwhiteslavery filmplot and exhibtiontacticssuch as adults-only shows segregated by sex, and acperformances, companyinglectures,whichwere uniqueto exploitationfilms.

16.

Ibid.,33, 39.

17.

Ibid.,42.

18.

Edwardde Graziaand RogerK.Newman,Banned Films:Movies, Censorsand the FirstAmendment (New York:R.R.Bowker,1982), 31.

19.

I have not locatedany filmsfrom1927 or earlier which dealt with miscegenation.It did, however, become an occasional topic of exploitationfilms startingin the early 1930s with movieslike Blond Captive(1932) and Rama(1932, aka Cain;Rama, TheCannibalGirl;Savage Bride)whichdealtwith mates. caucasiancastawaysfallingfordark-skinned

20.

See: FrancisG. Couvares,'Hollywood,MainStreet and theChurch: Tryingto CensortheMoviesBefore 44 (4) the Production Code', AmericanQuarterly, (December1992): 584-616. Couvaresdiscusses Irish-American and Catholicagitationwhichmetthe releaseof MGM'sTheCallahansand theMurphys (1927) withinthe broadercontextof cooperation betweentheChurchand theMPPDA.

21.

to charges Needless to say, theMPPDA's sensitivity of unfaircompetition of tradeprecludes and restraint that the locationof a 'smokinggun',a proclamation the desireto suppressexploitation filmsdirectlymoof the and implementation tivatedthe formulation of theDon'tswas 'Don'tsandBeCarefuls'.'Adoption butall indicationslead to certainlyover-determined, the conclusionthat the eliminationof exploitation filmsplayeda significantrolein theMPPDA's applicationof the Don'ts'.

22.

'New Driveon Sex Films',Variety,21 November 1928 3 + 59.

filmandself-censorship refinement: theexploitation Resisting

311

23.

andSex Films',Variety, 21 November1928: 'Jersey 59.

39.

MemofromMcKenzieto Breen18 April1934, High SchoolGirl(1934), PCAfile.

24.

'IndieExhibits Sore', Variety,21 November1928: 59.

40.

25.

Memo to file by JasonJoy, 6 September1927, Is YourDaughterSafe? PCAfile.

Quoted in LeaJacobs, Wages of Sin: Censorship and the FallenWoman Film, 1928-1942, (Madison:University of WisconsinPress, 1991), 20.

41.

26.

Letter fromJasonJoyto CarlMilliken,15 September 1927, Is YourDaughterSafe? PCAfile.

27.

TheCommunity and the MotionPicture:Reportof NationalConferenceon MotionPictures heldat the HotelMontclair, New YorkCity,September24-27, 1929 (N.P.: The Motion PictureProducersand Distributors of America,Inc., 1929), 51, 53, 6869.

28.

MaryBethHaralovich,'Mandatesof Good Taste: of FilmAdvertisingin the Thirties', Self-Regulation Wide Angle,6 (2) (1984): 50.

29.

Leonard J. LeffandJeroldSimmons,TheDamein the Kimono(New York:Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), 9-14.

30.

'Nudies Ogle Stage Coin', Variety,24 October 1993: 1 +63.

31.

'Nude Cult Newspaper BreaksPep Up H'wood PictureStillPhotogs",Variety26 December1933: 3.

The StephenVaughn,'Moralityand Entertainment: Code', The Originsof theMotionPictureProduction Journalof AmericanHistoryUune 1990): 54. Vaughnquotesfroma memo, possiblydraftedby IrvingThalberg,which attemptedto de-emphasize themovie'sinfluenceovermoralmatters.Thestance was echoed in MartinQuigley'sbook Decencyin MotionPictures (New York:MacMillan,1937): 'the entertainment motionpictureis notto be considered a deliberateagency of propagandaand reformin any province,includingthat of moralities'(14). had a Quigley held thatthe moviesautomatically moralresponsibility and thusdid nothaveto reform, onlynotto deformideas and ideals.LeaJacobshas shown thatthe one factionof the 'filmeducation movement' of the thirties whichhad the directbackdid notseek to use thetheatreas ing of theMPPDA a venue for education.Instead,the TeachingFilm Custodiansemployed edited segmentsof Hollywood filmsto stimulate discussionin the classroom. Formoreinformation see LeaJacobs,'Reformers and Spectators:The FilmEducationMovementin the CameraObscura22 (January Thirties', 1990): 2949, and especiallypp. 36-37.

32.

42. 'BoringButBanned',Variety,21 November1933, p. 31; 'Ban Nudie Pic', Variety,26 December 1934: 14, 'Chi CensorsPink2 Pix;OthersNix Elysia,Nudie', Variety,9 January1934: 4.

PierreBourdieu,Distinction: A SocialCritiqueof the Judgementof Taste, trans. RichardNice, (Cambridge, Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress, 1984), 479.

33.

'BryanFoy Would EnjoinL.A.Cops Over Nudist Pic', Variety13 February1934: 7.

34.

'Only 3 Nudie Pix on the MarketBut Beaucop Censor Worries', Variety,23 January1934: 3; CongressmanWrightPatmanof Texas introduced thefederalbillin late 1933. See Haralovich, 'Mandates of Good Taste':54.

LeaJacobs, 'TheB Filmand the Problemof Cultural Distinction' Screen 33 (1) (Spring1992): 1-13. AlthoughHollywoodwould not have willinglylabelled any of the moviesit producedas 'unwholecreatedby distribution which some',the hierarchies Jacobshas described,combinedwithotherfactors, allowedcriticsto markthefilmsas such.

35.

44. See:J. DouglasGomery,'Hollywood,TheNational Adminstration and the Question of Monop- 45. Recovery of theUniversity FilmAssocioly Power',TheJournal ation 31 (2) (Spring1979): 47-52; Haralovich, 'Mandatesof Good Taste':53-54; GarthJowett FilmtheDemocratic Art,(Boston:FocalPress,1976), 244-246 and ThomasSchatz, TheGeniusof the System,(New York:Pantheon,1988), 160.

36.

Haralovich,'Mandatesof Good Taste':54.

37.

'Only3 Nudie Pix'.

38.

'A Self-Regulated Clean ScreenWill Eliminate All Censorship,Itis Hoped, byJune:CleanAdv.Too, Variety9 January1934: 3.

43.

Bourdieu,56. and Spectators':36-37, 44. Jacobs, 'Reformers Jacobsspecificallyrefersto thefilmeducationgroup led by EdgarDale at Ohio StateUniversity which preparedstudy guides and course materialsfor motionpictures.TheDalegroupemphasizedfilmas art. Thesame argumentsthatprivilegecoherence, and realismarestillmadetoday.See, for plausibility instance, Neil Postman'sAmusingOurselvesto Death:PublicDiscoursein theAge of ShowBusiness (New York:Viking,1985).

46.

Quigley,DecencyinMotionPictures,10.

47.

Bourdieu,28.

312

EricSchaefer

48.

Letter fromFrancisHarmontoJosephBreen,1 March PCAfile. Adventure, 1938, Forbidden

49.

Letter fromJosephBreento DwainEsper,11 March PCAfile. Adventure, 1938, Forbidden

50.

fromFrancisHarmontoJosephBreen,2 May Letter 1938, TheScarletFlower,PCAfile.

51.

fromJosephBreento FrancisHarmon,7 May Letter 1938, TheScarletFlower,PCAfile.

52.

AfricanHoliday,PCAfile.

53.

Square-upreelswere single reelfilmswhichgenerally featuredfemale nudityor otherformsof spectacle.Theseshortswere shownto angryticket-buyer who felt they had not seen the forbiddensights promisedby the advertisingof an exploitationfea- 62. ture.Suchreelswere shown'squarea beef'withan audience. The termsquare-upalso referredto the thatopened mostexploitamoralstatement prefatory tionmovies. 63. to LetterfromSamuelCummins,Jewel Productions Boardof Directors,MPPDA,15 December1937, Ecstasy,PCAfile. 64. LetterfromFrancisHarmonto Joseph Breen, 22 December1937, Ecstasy,PCAfile. Sidney Kent and an was presidentof TwentiethCentury-Fox, MPPDA boardmember. 65. 'Censoringa Sweet Racket',Variety,24 March 1937 11. 66. WilliamF. Crouch,'ChicagoGoes Sex as New Threatof CensorshipRises',MotionPictureHerald, 67. 24 April1937: 27-28.

54.

55.

56. 57.

58.

to Studio,Hays 'Sex Not Returning DavidF. Barrett, TellSt.LouisMPTO',MotionPicture Herald,24 April 1934: 14,28.

59.

'JudgeSees No 'MoralLesson'in 'Sex' Films,'MotionPictureHerald,25 September1937: 34.

60.

Made on Sex Films',MotionPicture 'Protests Herald, 20 November 1937: 68; 'Foreignand 'Sex Hygiene' FilmInviteNew DecencyOffensive',Boxoffice, 11 December1938: 12; 'U.S. Is Probing MotionPictureHerald,5 February "Lewd" Pictures', ActivitiesIncrease',Motion 1938: 13; 'Censorship PictureHerald5 February1938: 14; 'New Argu- 69. mentsOver Sex Films',MotionPictureHerald,26 March1938: 26. 70. At timesthe articlesseem to have been consciously Picmisleading.Thearticle'U.S. Is Probing"Lewd" 1938: 13) tures'(MotionPicture Herald,5 February films,"clinical" picturesandothertypes 71. begins:"'Sex" of so-called'adultonly'exhibition... whichforyears havefinally have been plaguingthemotionindustry,

61.

68.

becomethetargetof organized,militant opposition'. Itgoes on to claimthat'fightingfortheirlifeforyears in the face of publicprotest'sex' filmsnow are confrontedwiththe oppositionof the UnitedStates Government'. Ecstasy,TheBirthof a Baby,and two foreignfilmswere mentionedas 'the type of films generallycomplainedof'. Infourshortparagraphs the readeris given the impressionthatthe federal was mobilizingto suppressexploitation government product.Butlaterin thearticleit becomesclearthat the targetof the governmentcrackdownwas the 'stag movie', hard core reels which were sold throughthemailforprivateuse, and notexploitation features.Thiscriticaldistinction wouldhavebeen lost on thereaderwho merelyscannedthearticleoronly readthefirstfew paragraphs. 'AmericanScreen for AmericanIdeas', Exhibitor's TradeReview,16 August1919: 874. Thisidea is developed furtherin Schaefer, 'Of Hygiene and Hollywood'. A.L. Finestone,'Foreignand "SexHygiene"Films InviteNew DecencyOffensive',Boxoffice,11 December1938 12. AllanM. Brandt,No Magic Bullet:A SocialHistory of VeneralDiseasein the UnitedStatessince 1880 Revisededition(New York:Oxford,1987), 138142. Joe Breento PhilGoldstone,12 June 1937, Damaged Goods, PCAfile. Finestone. Daily,22 DamagedGoods(review).MotionPicture June 1937: n.p. Hygieneand otherexploitationfilmswere not the only moviesQuigley attackedfroma positionof growingisolation.GarthJowettnotesthatthe campaignwaged againstWalterWanger'spro-Loyalist SpanishCivil War movie Blockade(1938) was spearheadedby Quigleyat a pointwhenresistance in Europeanconflictswas againstU.S. involvement Atleastone criticat thetimeclaimedthe diminshing. object of Quigley'sattackwas not the film'sproLoyalist positionbutthe verynotionof makingfilms on serioussocial or politicaltopics. See Jowett, 298-299. 'WarnsAgainstCodelessFilms',Boxoffice,16 April 1938 4. 'Paramount JoinsFoxin BarringProductFrom"Sex" Herald30 April1938: DoubleBills',MotionPicture 14. New or Educational'? See, for example, 'Immoral YorkTimes,17 March1938: 20.

filmandself-censorship theexploitation refinement: Resisting 72.

Quigleyand the MotionPictureHeraldtreatedThe Birthof a Babyas ifitwere notonlya threatto public morals,but to the very foundationof democratic government.In a snide editorialTerryRamsaye suggested: 73. to theatre screen the amusement public Asking devoteitsplayingtimetosuchproduct,behinda box officewhichexistson amusementpatronage,is the to a familydinner: social equivalentof an invitation 'Do come overand we'll have a lovelytimetalking 74. of childbirth, syphilisand gonorrhoea'.(TerryRam26 Motion Picture Herald, saye, 'Rock-A-Bye Baby', March1938: 7). Severalweeks laterin an unsignededitorial,prob- 75. ablywrittenby Quigley,theHeraldmadethefollowing assertion: Freedomof the screen,and freedomof the press, are rightsonly so long as theyare used withinthe limitsof the moresof society.Thearts,likepeople, are permitted free expressionuntiltheyget too free withtherightsof others.Thentheyare lockedup. For the artsthatis censorship.Forthe nationthatwould be Fascism- societyin a straightjacket. ('Askingfor Fascism',MotionPictureHerald, 16 April1938: n.p.)

313

Xl'sencyclicalcommentedon the 'lamentablestate intheportrayal of themotionpictureartand industry of sin and vice'. See de Grazia and Newman, 45-47. Fox'.Thefigurewas a conservative 'ParamountJoins one. I wouldestimatethatby the end of 1938 at leastfiftyexploitationmovieswere in release,with perhapsas manyas seventyappearingon screen acrossthecountry. With"Sala'SeekToAvoidCouplingMajorProduct cious"FilmViaContracts'. Boxoffice,16 April1938: 4. MichaelConant,Antitrust and the MotionPicture Economicand LegalAnalysis(Ph.D.diss Industry: of California,1960; Reprint, New York: University ArnoPress,1978), 94.

76.

Billof Complaint',Variety,27 'U.S. Government's July1938L 15+.

77.

LetterfromGordonS. White to JosephBreen, 15 November1949, IMarrieda Savage, PCAfile.

78.

thedominant Bourdieu,29. We can easilysubstitute Hollywoodparadigmfor Bourdieu's'art' in this instance.

Quigley was not only publisherof MotionPicture 79. He did notlimithis Herald,butalso itseditor-in-chief. unsignedwritingto editorialsand the Production Code. Quigleyis thoughtto have played a major roleinwritingto editorialsand theProduction Code. Quigleyis thoughtto have played a majorrole in on motion writingthe firstpapal pronouncement pictures,the VigilantiCura ('WithVigilantCare') encyclicalin 1936. Amongotherthings,Pope Pius

CarnivalCulture: TheTrashing of JamesB. Twitchell, TasteinAmerica(New York:Columbia,1992), 55. Twitchellreformulates and White'sconStallybrass tentionthatthe top attemptsto eliminatethe bottom and in the processfindsthat it depends on it by statingthat,'MrNice andMrNastytraveltogether'. Thiscolourfuldescriptionwould, no doubt, have appealed to the exploiteers.

FilmHistory,Volume6, pp. 314-339, 1994. Copyright? JohnLibbey&Company ISSN:0892-2160. PrintedinGreatBritain

White heroines and hearts of darkness: Race, gender and disguise in 1930s

jungle films RhonaJ.Berenstein I. Thewhitegoddess

officialrecordof any scientificexpedition'3.At no timewas theaudienceinformedthatthewoman-ape GenuineMonster-mouthed UbangiSavages encounter, upon which the film'spublicityheavily World'sMost WeirdLivingHumanfrom was entirelymanufactured and depended relied, Africa'sDarkestDepths racial the actresses were in blackupon disguise: - Circusad fromthe early 1930s face. to Hollywood's Ingagi is a usefulintroduction the springof 1930, Congo Pictureshad a ambivalent of representations race, gender and box-officehit with its new release: Ingagi in (1930, Congo Pictures).Billedas a 'sensa- monstrosity the jungleof the early 1930s. This tion'by publicityposters,Ingagipromisedthe articleprovidesan analysis of the cinematicconsacrificeof a blackwoman to a gorilla,and em- structionsof the 'darker'races and white womanhood as monstroustropes in jungle films. The phasized'the perverseunionof woman and jungle animal'.Whilecrowdsstreamedintotheatresto see genericoverlapbetween 1930s jungleand horror cinemawas, infact,assumedby a numberof critics. Ingagi, the Hays office of the Motion PictureProducers and Distributors of America,the office re- Forexample,Kongo,a 1932 jungleproductionset in Africa,was 4xplicitlyaligned with horrorcinema sponsiblefor approvingand censoringfilms,was in a numberof contemporaryreviews.-JohnS. busyinvestigating Ingagiand discoveredthatitwas a cinematicfraud1.Partsof Ingagi were pieced togetherfromold documentary footage and the illicit Rhona J. Berenstein is an Assistant Professor in scenes of black women in the nude were studiothe Programin FilmStudiesat the University of in black-face2. actresses staged performances by Irvine. Sheis theauthorof theforthcomCalifornia, The Hays revelationhad littleimpacton the ing book Attackof the LeadingLadies(Columbia film'spopularity.In fact, in the fall of 1930 The articlesto Press)and has contributed University cineAction!CameraObscura,CanadianJournalof ExhibitorsHerald-Worldannounced that Ingagi Politicaland Social Theory,Frame-work, and Jourpassed the Ohio StateCensorBoardfor a second nal of PopularCulture.Please address correspondand was an extended run in some time, enjoying ence to RhonaJ. Berenstein,Programin Film the regions.Thecensorsimposeda minorlimitation: of California, HH340C, Irvine, Studies,University inclusionof a leader statingthat Ingagi 'is not an CA92717-2435, USA.

In

darkness315 White heroines and hearts of darkness

315

Fig. 1. Ape women demonstratethe 'shrubbery problem'in Ingagi. [01930 Congo Pictures. Frameenlargementcourtesy of EricSchaefer.]

Cohen,Jr. reportedthe followingin the New York Sun:'Thereare horrorpicturesand horrorpictures, but'Kongo'at the Rialtoseems a bit moremeaninglessthanmost'4.Inthe New YorkDailyNews, Kate CameronaddressedKongoas an exampleof failed MissesAs horrorin the titleof herreview:' "Kongo" Good Horror'5. My focus is a selectionof early 1930s jungleand jungle-adventure filmsthatnotonlydepict horror blacksas monstrous,butdo so with the aid of an interstitial white heroine.Despitethe loose generic between jungleand horrorcinema,the relationship of race and the depthsof the jungle representation in many examples of the formergenre bears a to the portrayal of the monsterinthe similarity striking latter6.Thissimilarity is mostapparentin thefilmthat conjoinsthe two genres, KingKong(1933, RKO). Kong'sexploitson his isolatedislandhave muchin commonwiththe representations of the jungleand in less obviouslymonstrous itsinhabitants texts. Moreover,Kong'srapportwith the white heroine, AnnDarrow(FayWray),laysbarethetenuous relationshipbetween race and gender in jungle films.Fornotonlydoes Annserveas Kong'sunwilling victim,the blonde actresswho cowers before hersimiansuitor,butso too is she aligned withthe and darknesshe represents.As I will monstrosity more fully, Ann Darrow, like other white argue servesa contradictory racialfuncheroines, jungle tion. On the one hand, she is an icon of white womanhoodand, on the other,she is a partnerto, and doublefor, junglecreatures.She invokes,and

warnsagainst,the monstrous possibilityof miscegenation. LikeKingKong, Ingagiinvokesthe threatof a cross-speciessexual union,but neverdepicts it. Inthe jungleas a locusof cinemagagi also constructs and racial darkness.Whereasthe lighting tographic in grasslandsequences is sunny and bright,the junglescenes are darkand gloomy. Nude 'black' women in search of theirjungle-lover, the gorilla, amidst shadows and are obstructed appear by shrubsand tree branches.Thequalityof the lighting and camera-work was notedby a numberof critics at the time. While the New YorkTimessimply commentedon the 'extraordinarily bad photography of the film', anotherreviewerexplicitlynoted the shrubbery problem:'Theape womenare seen combutshadowed in a clearing,withthe naked, pletely camera's vision obstructedby thickets'7(Fig. 1). Variationsin lightingcan be explainedby the differentshootingspaces. Thatis, the culleddocumentary footage concentratedon exteriorshots fromtravel moviesand thewoman-apeencounterswere staged expresslyforIngagiinsidea studio. While these cinematographicdifferencesare to limitthisanalnoteworthy,it would be imprudent of to the technical and ysis lighting spatiallimitations associated with the footage. Instead,and in keeping withracistassumptionsof the era, the shadowy and obstructedjunglescenes of femalenudityserve narrativeand visualfunctions:theyembelimportant lishthe risqueand spectacularaspects of the film. For part of Ingagi's draw depends upon only vaguely discerningthe women who travelthrough

316 316

Rhona Rhona J. Berenstein Berenstein

Fig.2. IngagTsfilmmakers maintaina distantcamera positionand obstructedview. [01930 Congo Pictures. Frameenlargementcourtesy of EricSchaefer.]

the jungle, upon not seeing the promisedsexual unionbetween ape and black woman, and upon keepingtheaudience'inthedark'.A distantcamera positionand obstructedview are crucial for the actressesto portrayblacknatives(Fig.2). Inthe contextof Ingagi,the term'darkness'is a brandof racialOtherness. tropeforan inter-species BlackAfricansare conflatedwitha darkanimal:the gorilla.Darknessalso signifiesobstructedvision.The westerneye, via the fake documentaryfilmmaker, providesa blurredview of itscinematicsubject.As a signpostof racialand biologicaldifference(i.e. differencefromwhite humans),and as a metaphor forthe inadequacyof westernprocessesof looking, Ingagi'sversionof darknessrecallsthe horrorfilm. Horrorcinema, too, exploresthe spectacularand of physicaldifferences,and terrifying repercussions the relationshipbetween seeing and not exploits But the seeing. rapportbetweenIngagiand horroris even more direct than the metaphoricsimilarities offeredby the tropeof darkness.Forthe monstrosity of the dark races has a long heritage in white westernhistory.Itis because of thatheritagethatthe images of Ingagi were not viewed as racist by mainstream reviewerswhenfirstscreened,and were deemed spectacular,alluringand culturally acceptable in spiteof theirlackof authenticity. Accordingto a range of racistdiscoursesthat enduredwell intothe twentiethcentury,the darker races are interstitial, able to cross and bridge the distancebetweenspecies withlittleeffort.As Frantz Fanonphrasesit:'Ithas been said thatthe Negro is the linkbetween monkeyand man - meaning,of

of a liminal course, white man'8. The attribution statusto blacksappearedina rangeof discoursesin the UnitedStates, not the least offensiveof which was an exampleof circuspublicitythatputa South Africanman, dubbed 'Clicko',on displayfor predominantlywhite audiences in the 1920s and 1930s. As one ad declared:'He is as nearlikethe ape as he is likethe human... [W]e cannothelpbut wonder if [his captor] Captain Du Barryhas not broughtDarwin'smissinglinkto civilization'9. Clicko's interstitiality correspondedto a link establishedbetween blacks and monstersin the white imaginationfor over two hundredyears. In The BlackImage in the White Mind, George M. Fredrickson describesthe white Americanconstruction of the Negro as a beast in the 1700s and 1800s. Fredrickson linksthatmonstrous tropeto the 'which had conceived of pro-slaveryimagination, the black man as havinga dual nature- he was docile and amiablewhen enslaved, ferociousand murderous when free'10.Theconstruction of African Americansand non-westernblacks as monstrous was notconfinedto writtendiscourse.On circusand sideshow stages from the 1800s through the 1930s, blackswere displayedas exoticattractions, visual spectacles and freaks1. They were consideredappropriatefor publicdisplaysolelyon the basis of race. Therole of blacksin a range of whitewestern discoursesis similarto the positionof monstersin classic horrorcinema. Straddlingthe boundarybetween humannessand that which is not human, blacksland otherpeople of colour)are terrifying to

and hearts heartsof darkness darkness Whiteheroines heroinesand White

317 317

Fig.3. Aggressiveblack malesexualityin the formof the gorillais used as the title art for Ingagi. [?)1930 Congo Pictures. Frameenlargementcourtesy of EricSchaefer.]

theirsimultaneouslikewhitesin theirinterstitiality, ness to and differencefromthe white Anglo-Saxon of monstersas sexually norm.Likethe construction blacks too have been sexualized.Both threatening, discussthis phenomenonin Fanonand Fredrickson termsof black maleness;they describe the links between black male sexualityand fantasizedviolence against white women12.Thisfantasyof viof manyblackmen olenceinforms the representation in junglefilms. Servingas backgroundfiguresin blackmenare depictedas white-focused narratives, inter-racial desires render them whose savages freaks. Thenarrative positionof blacks(andsometimes in Asians) junglefilmsis both like and unlikethe figurationof the monsterin classic horror.Blacks, especiallymen, are constructedas objects of fear and desire,and icons of physicaldifferences(as is the monster).Theyare also often relegatedto secondaryroles.Thus,blacksserveas the junglefilm's brandof fiends in a somewhatabstractsense. In residesless in a singleblack mostcases, monstrosity a fiendish position,than in shafigureoccupying dows and unseenterrain.Connotationsof monstrosity inhere in darkness as a visual trope, an already-codedracialcategory,and a descriptionof the uncivilisedforces thatcrawl throughthe jungle and threatento dislodge whitesupremacy.Themenace of racialOthernessis diffusedbeyond blacks so thatthe jungleitselftakes on a threateningdemeanouras the repositoryforwhite racialand sexualanxieties. Accordingto racistclaims, Ingagi impliesan

aggressive black male sexualityin the formof the gorilla,and a lasciviousblackfemalesexualityrepresentedby the nude women who copulate with theirsimianmate (Fig. 3). However,as the 1930 Hays investigationrevealed,Ingagi'sblackwomen were eitherwhite or light-skinned. They were actressesplayingthe rolesof junglefemalesin blackface. Thelayeringof racialidentitiesinherentin this use of make-uphighlightsa criticalattributeof the junglescenario:at the mostobviouslevel, the ape and black women are icons of sexual depravities associatedwiththeAfricanwilds. On anotherlevel, the film'suse of black-faceintroduceswhiteor lightskinnedwomen intothe racialmix. Unlikethe conventionalfunctionof 'passing', in which a person accesses a culturallyprivilegedsocial, sexual or racialcategoryby pretendingto be someone else, the women in Ingagipass for membersof a darker group, they move down on the ladder of racist racialdemographics. Whereas the racial maskingintroducedin Ingagi is noteworthy,it is more obviousthan in the majorityof junglemoviesfromthe same period. In mostfilmswhiteheroinesare broughtto the narrative and subjectedto the advances and visualforefront, of darkcreaturesof the jungle.Frequently possessing blonde hair, and shot throughfiltersthat enhance the lightness of their skin, heroines are of whitewomanhood,and confirmarepresentatives tions of white manhood.Accordingto PaulHoch, the heroineis an archetypeof white culture:'The conquestof manhoodby the victoryof the white godlikeherooverthe bestialvillainin a lifeor death

318 318 strugglefor possessionof what RobertGraves has called 'The White Goddess' is ... at the heart of

almostall Westernmyth,poetryand literature'13. Hocharguesthatnotonly does the whitegoddess signifythe hero'scalling,she also warnsof the forces of sexualevolution:'Thewhite unrepressible was goddess clearly in danger; her would-beattackerswere super-masculine blackbeasts.Sexuality itselfwas inherentlymale and bestial:a drive always thrustingup fromlower males to higherfemales, and originatingfromthe beasts (or "beast") below'14.Whilethe rapportbetweenthewhitegoddess and blackbeast takesformin junglefilms,the formassumedis inflectedby morethana particular of heritage white(good) vs black(bad)archetypes. Forthe oppressionof blackswithinUnitedStates dimensionto the mythology historylendsa particular in question. This is especially true given the assumptions about uncontrollable blackmale sexualityand pure white female sexualitythat marksocial historiesin theUS. Whitefearsof blackmalesexualaggression manuagainstwhitewomenwere, not surprisingly, facturedby whitesthemselvesin the UnitedStates; first, to justifythe physical and sexual abuse of blacksduringslaveryand, second, to defend lynchto fitthe 'most'heinouscrime5. ing as punishment Accordingto Angela Y. Davis: 'Before lynching could be consolidatedas a popularlyaccepted institution... its savagery and its horrorshad to be

convincinglyjustified.Thesewere the circumstances thatspawned the mythof the Blackrapist- for the rape chargesturnedout to be the mostpowerfulof several attemptsto justifythe lynchingof Black people'16.Althoughresearchby the SouthernComfoundthatof the missionon the Studyof Lynching black menwho were lynchedbetween 1889 and 1929 only a smallpercentagewere even accused of rape, the mythof the blackrapistgroundedand perpetuatedviolenceagainstblackmen7. The mythologicalflip-sideof the black rapist, the white goddess, was also painstakinglyconstructedin discoursesof the era. Forexample, the presidingjudge in the Scottsborotrialof 1931, in which nine black youthswere accused and convictedof rapingtwo whitegirls,had thefollowingto say about the relationshipbetween white women and blackrapists:

Rhona RhonaJ. Berenstein Berenstein 'Where the woman charged to have been raped is, as in thiscase a whitewoman,there is a strongpresumption underthe law thatshe wouldnotand did notyield to intercourse with the defendant,a Negro; and thisis true,whatever the stationin life the prosecutrix may ocwhether the she be most cupy, despised, ignorantand abandoned woman of the community,or the spotlessvirginand daughterof a homeof luxuryand learning'18. prominent Accordingto the white judge, and the dominantvaluesof the period,no whitewoman,regardlessof class, educationor sexualpreferences,would willinglyhave sex witha blackman. As the relationshipbetween black men and whitewomen in US historicaland mythological discoursessuggests,the roleof whiteheroinesin jungle filmsis coded in racial terms- they representthe of theirrace, and theirinteraccivilizing'superiority' tionswithmale nativesand gorillasinvokethewhite black man ravishinga fantasyof an uncontrollable helplesswhitewoman.Thus,the centralpositionof a whiteactressin mostjunglefilmsis farfromneutral in ideologicalterms.Not only does she invokean age-old racistrape fantasy,but her presencealso re-castshistoricalrealities.Inthe historyof American race relations, especially during slavery, black women were victimsof white rapes, attacksthat occurredwellwithinthegeographicalbordersof the UnitedStates.As indicatedby junglemovies,white womenfallpreyto blackcreaturesin thewildsof the thirdworld, far from the racial tensions of their homeland. Fromthisperspective,junglefilmsare products of displacementand projection.Whitemale guiltis conferredupon blacks and white women endure terrorshistoricallyexperienced by black women. Race and biological sex remaincentralnarrative and visualtropes,but theirconfigurations on celluloid are inversionsof historicalevents. Despitethe tenacity of this descriptionof the jungle film, it streamlinesthe complexityof the race and gender of thesetexts.Junglefilmsrelyuponthe permutations of racial differenceas one of their immutability are premises.Blacks,and theirjungleenvironment, threateningto and differentfromwhites. But, the filmsunderconsiderationherealso grapplewiththe dissolutionof that racial and spatial separation,

Whiteheroines heroinesand and hearts of darkness darkness White hearts of especiallyvia whitewomen.Whitecharactersmay sometimespass as white,butoftenpossess heartsof darkness19

While the racialliminality of some whitecharactersdoes not releasethese filmsfromthe constrictionsof 1930s racism,it does throwintoquestion toutedat the time. the claimsof racialdimorphism The racial mobilityin these moviessuggestsa degree of whiteanxiety,at leaston the partof writers, producersand directors,thatblackstereotypes(they are monstersand immutably differentfromwhites) are tenuousat best. These films also suggest a degree of whiteconsciousness,albeit minimal,that the colour line is arbitrary,and that it must be guarded,confirmedand promotedat all costs. Thewhitewomanoccupiesa pivotalrolein the racialcrossingthatcharacterizesa numberof jungle films.Inadditionto herfunctionsas icon of civilizationand victimof blackaggression,she bridgesthe blackand white races, as the case of Ingagiindicates. Thewhiteheroineis a mediatorbetweenthe worldsof the white and black man, withthe latter assumed to include gorillas of all shapes and sizes20.Likethe Negro'sfunctioninwhitediscourses (bridgingsimianswith humans),white women too are interstitial creatures.Theypose a threatof interand inter-racial union- they introducethe species the darkness that which is spatiallyatpossibility tributedto the 'outthere'of the junglealso inhabits the raciallypure'in here'of thewhitedomain. As a recipientof attacks,the whitewoman is thevehiclethroughwhichthreatsof inter-racial union are enactedand displaced.Thedangerand lureof miscegenationare invokedby her sexualizedencounterswith dark males. Often missingfromthis scenario,however,is thatthe heroine'sresponseto these advances is sometimesambiguous,as the discussionof KingKongin SectionIIIwillsuggest,or outrightpositive,as filmslike The BlondeCaptive (1932, Capital Pictures)indicate (Section II).Althoughthreatsof a male/female binaryopposition are invokedvia the heroine'sexchangeswithblack men and monkeys,those encounterscannot be reduced to sexualdifference.Theyare also inflected and species transgression, by racialliminality by the figurationof the heroine as a discursivevehicle throughwhich the conventionalphysicaland psychological distances between white/black, animal/human,and fear/desireare bridged.

319 319 By notingthatthe whiteheroineservesa mediative racialfunction,I riskperforming an important oversightin a significantsegmentof white feminist writings:the conflationof racismwithsexism21.My intentionis notto repeatthatconflation,butto study the convergenceof race and biologicalsex in one textualform.I do notbelievethatwhitewomenand blacksoccupy the same positionin Americanpatriarchyor itsdiscourses,butI do contendthatthey are representedas similarin certainjunglefilms. Moreover,that similarityreinforcesthe ambiguous positionof white women withindiscoursesof race and gender- while theyare subjectto sexismand occupy an inferiorsocial position vis-a-viswhite statusis oftenrecuperated via their men,theirinferior racial when 'superior' membership compared to blacks. Ina piece on cinematicrepresentations of race, Ann Doane describes the similarities between Mary whiteand blackwomenin a slew of westernpatriarchal discourses22.Althoughthe black woman's body, specificallythat of the Hottentot,connoted sexualexcesses in Victorianwritings,whitewomen too were deemed icons of depravityin the formof notesof repressedanimaldesires.As BramDijkstra fin-de-siecle of white women: 'Driven representations as she was by animaldesireand instincts,itwas not surprisingthatwoman foundshe could get along betterwithanimalsthanwithmen'23. The white woman'sdiscursivesimilarity to the blackwomanat particular inwhitewestern junctures historyensuresthatshe occupiesa precariousposition withinpatriarchy.Accordingto Doane, 'what the representationalaffinity[between white and blackwomen]seems to indicateis a strongfearthat whitewomen are always on the verge of 'slipping back' into a blacknesscomparableto prostitution. Thewhitewoman would be the weak pointin the system,the signifierof the always tenuoushold of In many junglefilms,the white hercivilization'24. oine representsthe racial and sexual mobilityremarkedupon by Doane. As a memberof the white race, the heroineis akinto whitemen.As a woman, she is linkedto darkerforcesand is always on the verge of fallingbackwardson a white-biasedevolutionaryscale. Analysingthe white heroine in jungle films necessitatesstudyingthe racialdesignationthathas been constructedas a non-race,as the primary

Berenstein RhonaJ. Rhona J. Berenstein

320 320

racial prototype:the white race. As RichardDyer and they are dark, the intimatecompanionsof notes, the analysisof whitenessis difficultbecause, blacks,animalsand nature. Itfollowsfromtheirambiguousstatusthatwhite 'whiteis not anythingreally,not an identity,not a black fewomen (and theireven-moreunrestrained quality,because it is everythingparticularising are tenderlycourtedby gorillas white is no colourbecause it is all colours'25.Des- male counterparts) pite its prototypicaland unspecifiedstatusin most and darker,primatemales. While the mostwidely of thisattractionis thatthe discourses,a numberof filmssuggestthatwhiteness proclaimedinterpretation is an identityworn by the heroine but it is not heroine'ssimianor blackcourtierstandsin for the necessarily immanentin her. By being simulta- white man, whose animalisticsexualityis safely and/or non-whiteform, neouslyaligned with white men and blacks, the representedin non-human tells only part of this racistand heroine'sracial identityis shaken;whitenessdoes that point-of-view not guaranteea stable racial membership.It is a racial tale. Althoughthis conventionalassumption findssupportin the Tarzanfilms,where the white and disguise. construction cast as an 'ape-man',in otherjungle Ifthe heroine'srace is a construct,itfollowsthat maleis literally the stabilityof white malenessis also throwninto moviesthe heroinetoo is doubled with darkness. question.Many junglefilmsboth invokeand disa- Junglecreaturesdo notalwaysstandin forthewhite vow this horrifying possibilityby placing the white male. Forapes and black men also signifyall the and representing whitemanimagineshe is not,butshouldbe, and all womanat the centreof narratives, a white manwho attemptsto save herfroma 'fate he believesthewhitewomandesiresand resembles. Inracialterms,the heroinehas it bothways. In intotheworldof worsethandeath',i.e. herinitiation blacksand apes. Thus,the heroinefallsfromracial the closing momentsof mostjunglefilms,she takes stability,and male whitenessis left to shore up its her place as the white man'sevolutionarypartner himself and object of desire. Her slippage from white racialgaps. Thewhitemanmustreconstruct as a signifierof the masterrace, usuallyby destroy- humanarms is, however ambiguously,replaced to ing black men and women. Yetthe very revelation withan imageof racialpurity.Thisabilityto return woof white is a trait a and interstitial is whiteness thatfemale position culturally-favoured categorically emasculationof the herohavean manhooddenied blacks. Racismand the stereotheoft-represented unnervingeffecton the positionof the white male. types attributedto blacks are so strongin jungle Forif the heroine'sracialmobilityindicatesthather films,and in the widerhistoricalcontext,thatblacks whitenessis a mask, her white mate is rendered remainlodged withindesignated social positions. As Homi Bhabha argues in anothercontext, no insecure. similarly In describingthe philosophicalunderpinnings matterhow hardpeople of colourtryto mimictheir researchin the UnitedStatesafter colonialmasters,they can, at best, be 'almostthe of primatological the SecondWorldWar, DonnaHarawayargues: same, butnotquite'27. 'The body in western politicaltheory is not capable of citizenship(rationalspeech and

II. The virgin (in the) jungle

'She was discovered,it is recountedand picboy was noto dark mind to tured,when a smallblond-haired (colored) light (man); (woman) the natives. of the black children ticed mind of the to is nature The among (white). body wife of a ship was the his The women white in mother, woman, culture; primitivenarratives, on the was wrecked whose vessel chasm'26. the captain, negotiate the was She before. coast many years rocky Accordingto Haraway,the body is on a par sole survivor,thechildwas by the native'. withdarknessand sexuality,and whitewomenper- Reviewof TheBlondeCaptive28 forma mediativeroleakinto my descriptionof the heroinein junglefilms.Consonantwith Haraway's terms, white heroines exist on both sides of a Inthe early 1930s, the themeof a womanforaging racial/colonial divide: they are white, treasured throughthe depthsof the junglewas a showman's possessionsof white men and the civilisedworld, dream.Thatdreamreachednew heightsinthespring action); the body is merelyparticular... Itis sex

Whiteheroines heroinesand and hearts heartsof darkness darkness White

321 321

of 1932 when TheMotion Picture Heraldprintedreviewsand full-page advertisements announcing The BlondeCaptive.Bankingon the lure of miscegenation,LouisKing'spic- zD]l turepromisedexhibitorsa spectacle of vastproportions. 'TheBlondeCaptiveWho Choseto RemainWithHer Primitive Mate!', heraldedthe publicitylayout in April29(Fig. 4). By May, the postershad become more risque,the lureof sexual depravity moreexplicit.Depictinga drawingof a toplessblondewomanstaringlonginglyat the fierce,war-painted,and black man who drags partially-clad heracross the bottomof the page, the bylinepromised:'AnAbsolutely In AmazingAuthenticAdventure'30. the same ad boasted fine-print, huge audiencesin New York,Chicago, and Washington, DC, drawing 'ravesfromcriticsand crowds'. By 25 June,thecomplicityof theheroine in her captivitywas coupled with veracity:'A White Woman Living With Her Cave Man Mate - And Refusingto Be Rescued!Absolutely Authentic True'31. The Blonde Captive's campaign is a strikingexample of the of the interstitial exploitation qualities outlinedearlier.Playingon a range Fig.4. Connotationsof veracitymarkedthisadvertisement for The of themes,such as the unionof a BlondeCaptive,whichappearedin TheMotionPictureHerald. whitewomanwitha blackmaleand [?)1932 CapitalPictures,Inc.Courtesyof theAcademyof Motion the introduction of the heroine'ssim- PictureArtsand Sciences.] ultaneousattractionto and repulsion from her monstrousprimatelover, King's picture timwas bothhorrifiedand enamouredby the prospromisedto fulfilthe moviegoer'scuriosityabout pect of being held by him.As I willargue laterwith miscegenationand a 'primitive'lifestyle. It also regardsto AnnDarrowin KingKong,the heroineof the mid-pointbevowed to upsetthe narrativeconventionso dear to TheBlondeCaptiveis interstitial, manyotherjunglemovies,namely,the rescueof the tweencivilizationand the primitive. It is importantto address TheBlondeCaptive whitewomanfromher darkermate. In TheBlonde Captive,thepublicitysuggested,the heroinerefused withreferenceto thewiderhistoricalmilieuin which her'proper'racialand sexualrole,and remainedat the movie, and other jungle narratives,emerged. the side of her jungle husband instead. Likethe The 1920s was a contradictory periodin the history infamousKingKongwho appeared the following of white perceptionsof AfricanAmericans.Insome year, the blondewoman'scaptorwas portrayedas sectors,blackswere raisedto the positionof cultural dark,backwards,aggressiveand alluring.His vic- icons:

322

RhonaJ. Berenstein 'Inthe 1920s a revised formof romanticracialism became something of a national fad, resulting in part, curiouslyenough, from patronizing white encouragement of the "New Negro" movementand the "HarlemRenaissance". "The New Negro", as perceived by many whites, was simply a patina of the culturalprimitivism and exoticism fashionable in the 1920s'32.

depicted as a victimizer(he dragged the white womanalong the ground),a racialOther(thedarkness of his skin was visuallycontrastedwith the lightnessof hers),and a site of physicaldifference fromwhites (the skinof his body was elaborately markedin some ads, whilethe woman'sbody was As the second and thirdattributes indiblemish-free). the woman the racial cate, signified whiteness, standardagainstwhichthe blackmanwas judged As George Fredricksonnotes, the 1920s wit- to be different. Theimportance of herwhitenesswas nessed a paternalisticelevation of AfricanAmerican confirmed withinthefilm,as the narrator noted:'She white liberals. is a white of the culture, especially music, by woman', 'daughter AlonglordlyCaucaside this suspect appreciation of blacks, the decade and Neanderthal about sian', '[t]here'snothing also markedthe resurgence of KuKluxKlanmember- her'34 Yet the heroinewas also raciallyunstablein ship, especially in south-and mid-westerncities33. the the of 1930s American sothese ads. Likethe blackmanwhose barechestand By beginning was in a racial battle. were ciety engaged full-fledged legs depicted in full-view,so too was the 1931 marked the year of the Scottsboro case, the blondewoman a spectacle of nudity.Furthermore, rape trial mentioned earlier. The importance of the as the bylinesintoned,she refusedto be rescued, trial within American culture cannot be over-esti- she stayedwithhermatein thewilderness.Thus,the mated. It was widely publicised and debated in whiteheroinewas simultaneously likeand unlikeher newspapers across the country, highlightingthe na- monstrous junglesuitor.She was white(thestandard tion's racial fissures. ForAmericanwhites, the Scotts- of civilization) and not-white (sheslippedbackwards boro trial confirmed that black men coveted white on a racistevolutionary scale).Theblondecaptive's women. ambiguousracialstatuswas suggested in contemThe Blonde Captive inserted its perspective on poraryreviews.The Varietyreviewermade the folrace relations into this setting. By promoting a lowing comment: 'She is undeniably of the skewed version of the Scottsboro case - the ads Caucasian race in face and physicalcontour... promised the story of a white woman who was thougha heavytan causes herto resemblea native willingly ravaged by a black man - the picture's as to color'35.MordauntHall,writingfor the New YorkTimes,noted:'[Her]skinis relatively white'36. publicity rode on the racial currentof the day and constructedthe black man as monstrous.Yet the film TheBlondeCaptiveis fascinatingnotonly beis not a simple reflectionof the Scottsboro trial, nor cause of theexplicitness of itsadvertising campaign, of race relationsduringthe early 1930s. TheBlonde butalso because its publicisednarrative was fabriCaptive is in tension and complicity with historical cated. The film's promotionalefforts made The events, pointing both away fromand towards racial BlondeCaptivethe storyof a whitewoman found issues. The filmis but one historicaldiscourse among shipwreckedamongAustralian aborigines.Thesenmany in which racist assumptions emerged, but sational promotionand reception(it was a boxremained in tension with the popular version of office hit)may have been a productof whatJohn whiteness, white femaleness in particular.Tempered Elliscalls a movie's'narrativeimage': 'the direct and proby the movie's internationalscope (it is set in Austra- publicitycreated by the film'sdistributors lia and surroundingislands), The Blonde Captive's ducers;[and] the generalpublicknowledgeof ingproducers exploited contemporary racial issues in redientsinvolvedinthefilm...'37. Forwhatis striking theiraddress to white America. uponviewingTheBlondeCaptiveis it is notprimarBy explicitly painting the heroine's relationship ily about eithermiscegenationor a whitewoman's to her jungle-loveras ambiguous, the publicityunder- refusalto leave the jungleand return to civilization. scored an element only implied in other movies; Instead,TheBlondeCaptiveis a staid and predictnamely, the woman's similarityto her jungle partner. able travelogue,one thatexoticisesnon-whiteculIn the ads that surrounded the film, the chief was turesin Hawaii, Bali, Samoa, Fiji,New Zealand,

Whiteheroines heroinesand and hearts heartsof darkness White darkness and Australia.The inhabitantsof these locales are reduced to ethnocentricstereotypesvia the pronouncements of a racistmalevoice-over38. The film opens on a group of men at 'The ExplorersClub'. Flippingthrougha book entitled Men of the Stone Age, one of the explorersdemale who possesses ridges scribes a pre-historic overhiseyes reminiscent of apes. 'Thisis whatMrs. Neanderthalhad oppositeherat the breakfasttable every morning',the man intones,as an insertof a male fillsthe frame.When the men depre-historic cide to pursuethe rumourthata Neanderthalstill lives in contemporary Australia,the settingshiftsto Hawaiiand thetravelogueportionbegins.Although the posterspromiseda narrativeof spectacularproportions,that story was only marginallytold. Instead, the viewer was treated to documentary footage of nativepeopleson the islandsmentioned, and presentedwith a smatteringof animal tales, suchas a turtlehunt. The closest the film gets to a tale of white female captivityfollows the late and unlikelydiscovery of a blonde boy amidsta group of black children.Afterthe boy is singledout, an Aboriginal man is shown wearing women's underwear.The narrator (LowellThomas)gingerlyinformsus thatthe inquisitiveexplorersfollowedthe man only to discovera womanwithlighthairstandinginfrontof his cave. Despitethe narrator's claimsthatthewomanis between the ages of thirtyand thirty-five, and that she is white,the mopof gray hairon herhead and thedarknessof herskinsuggestthatshe mightbe an older black woman posing as white. While the narrator tellsus thatshe has blueeyes, no close-ups confirmthisclaim.Thoughwe are informedthatshe does notwantto return to herwhitehome,we never hearheruttera word.Thefilmends withthisanti-climacticscenario,and the narrator's pronouncement thatthewhitewoman'seemsalmostas primitive and as theAborigines'. simple-minded Despite the claims to truthsuggested by the film'sposters,thestorymetwithscepticismin 1932. The Libertyreviewer noted that 'you get a few glimpsesof a middle-agedand farfromprepossessing woman with bushy white hair ... Is all this authentic'39? MordauntHallwas so perplexedby thesegmentin questionthathe includeda quotation froma cable sentto the Liberty Theatrein New York City by the head of the filmexpedition:'I hereby

323 323 whitewoman rescertifythatstoryof ship-wrecked cued or adoptedby blacksis based on facts'40.The TheBlondeCapprecisecircumstances surrounding tive will never be known. UnlikeIngagi, the film avoided an official inquiry,perhapsbecause the themeof a whitewoman matingwitha blackman was so embeddedin thewhiteAmericanpsycheas to be completelybelievable(despiteindicatorsthat thesegmentwas constructed)41. TheBlondeCaptiveis an excellentexampleof a filmthattrades in the rhetoricof junglemovies, invokesthe risqu6and monstrous luresof miscegenation,places a whitewomanbetweenthe blackand white worlds,and revelsin promisedrewardsthat are neverfulfilled.It is unclearto what extentthe film's'narrative image', itspublicisedsubject-matter, accounted for its popularitywith audiences. Uninsomefashionto doubtedly,thatimagecontributed the film'sinterestamongwhiteviewers. The same interstitialand masquerade-like qualitieswere heavilyexploitedin anotherfilmof the early 1930s, which appeared only a year before TheBlondeCaptive,and mightwell have influenced LouisKingto promotehis pictureon the basis of the whitewomantheme.Whereas TheBlondeCaptive presentedratherunconvincing documentary images of a white woman amidstAustralianAborigines, MGM's very successfulTraderHorn,directedby W.S. Van Dyke,fictionalizedthe storyof a white womanadopted by a blackjungletribe.Basedon the reminiscencesof jungle-adventurer AlfredAloysius Horn,whose storywas told in a much-read book by EthelredaLewispublishedin 192742, the and film,like TheBlondeCaptive,had the structure contentof a travelogue. TraderHorn'spromotionalcampaignboasted a wildernesssettingwithwhitehuntersin pursuit of a junglewoman43.As one posterfromLosAngeles noted:'Tonight YouMeet theCruelestWomaninAll Africa'44[Fig. 5]. Thefilm'sPressbookis filledwith postersthat proclaimedthe vicious white woman theme:'See the WhiteGoddess of theJungle- as she ruleswiththewhipoverpagan tribes';and 'She Ruleda Nation of Savages'. The 'Catchlines'section of the Pressbookexpanded the promotional angles: e.g. 'Africain hergrimmestmomentsin this astoundingdrama';'Thedramaof white men battling the savage elementsof the DarkContinent'; 'Romancein spots where no white man ever trod

324

RhonaJ. Berenstein

effeminate perbefore';and 'Two sona and becomes and a traders heroic. Thus, the white jungle goddess in an adventurethatwill leave you breathless'45. Trader Horn details the advendures Nina's returesof the intrepid peated slaps after Horn explorer he touches her his (HarryCarey), Ni we Hr a persvin cwithout black servantRenmission.The newchero (Mutia Peru i c1 Omoolu)and Peru improved doesn't nor wince, (DuncanRenaldo), does he runaway a young manwho from Nina. Inhas neverventured to Africa before. stead, the mere The men, accomsight of a young a white woman, alpaniedby group beit an aggressive of servants,travel one, brings out throughthe jungle Peru'smachoside. inviewing From a conwildlife digenous ventional perspecand confronting Peru's untamed beasts. tive, is the 'CruelestWomanin All renunciation of Well into the Fig.5. Nina (EdwinaBooth) Trn s y cowardiceand hotravelogueportion Africa'in thispublicitystillfor iderHormnw. s or.Courtesyof theAcademyof mosexual procliof the film, the [?1931 Metro-Goldwyn-MayE MotionPictureArtsand Sciences vities meets a corresponds group to Nina's loss of Missionary Lady (Olive Golden) searchingfor her daughter,Nina jungle life. Peru'sheroismdepends not only on (EdwinaBooth),who was stolen from her when rescuinga white woman (he is given the task of savages attackedherand killedherhusbandtwenty saving Nina while Hornand Rencherodistractthe years before.Thewomanasks Hornto vow thathe savages), but also on the woman's transformation will locate Nina if she cannot. When the Mission- from'thecruelestwoman in Africa'to the prototypi(Fig. 6). Althoughboth transary's dead body is found by Horn,he, Peruand cal heroine-in-distress formations theirentourageset out to locate Nina. appear completeby the conclusion(the One of the moststrikingaspects of thisfilmis couple is, apparently,in love and destinedto travel the transformation thatoccursin Peruonce he meets to the white westernworld),the ending is far from Nina. Beforehisencounterwiththewhitewomanof reassuring.As JohnS. Cohen, Jr. phrasedit in his the jungle,Peruis naive, frightened,and an outright review of the picture:'[A]s a finale, there is a coward (he climbs up a tree when a rhinoceros close-upof the Tradergazing rathernostalgicallyat attacks the group, while Horn bravelyfaces the the steamerthatis carryingaway his young friend, felt, beast). Moreover, his relationshipwith Horn is and his bride- his bridewho, one instinctively a problemforcivilization homoerotic(as Hornnotes early in the film:'some- was going to be as difficult times,of course, it's betterif two fellas runaway as any currenteconomicone'46. ThatNina will not fare well in the white civitogether').Once Nina appears, eventuallyrescuing Hornand Perufromtribalsacrifice,Perudrops his lized world was suggested by the claims of sav-

White heroinesand and hearts heartsof darkness darkness White heroines

325 325

While Tarzan agery that punctuated reviewsof the has endured in film:'thewhitegirl contemporary who had become Americanpopular the ferociousgodculture, the white dess of the savjunglewomenwho ages'47, 'she had ha unted the cinema in the grownintoa tribal chieftainess who 1930s have all i4FL was more cannibut disappeared. balishthanthe fesAlthough Trader tooned cannibals Horn was a boxaroundher'48,'she office success and is quite as ferThe Savage Girl ocious as any of depicteda femalethe blacks'49,and versionof the ape'Edwina Booth man, Edwina Booth and Rofa i rly exudes chelle Hudson's cruelty as "the cruelestwoman in starring roles did Itis hard Africa"50. not spawn seto believe that quels, nordid they Nina's coupling lodge themselves with Peruand her in Americanverna. from the .....I ..eS cular for decades. departure in which their jungle, Despite ru(DuncanRenaldo)whose Pe behind relative she livedherentire Fig.6. , Nina. cowers . . obscurity intoa braveheiro precipitatesherembodiment exe transformation next to Johnny * * j couldexorcise r i life, ,' . ot a heroine-mn-distress. ll Weissmuller's sufficentlythe bes- [1931 er.Courtesyof theAcademyof Metro-Goldwyn-MayE and savage MotionPicture films, TraderHorn Artsand Sciences.] qtial and The Savage remarked qualities reviewers. Girl are important uponby likeness to blacks is the consideration of whit te in the Nina's to womanhood Thus,although savage with her romance Peru and depar- jungle. recuperatedby turefromAfrica,she takes her interstitial qualities HarryFraser'sTheSavage Girlsimultaneously withherto hernew whitehome (Fig.7). figuresthe heroineas an object of desire for the on the success of Trader 1932 white heroand a characteralignedwithforcesthat Horn, Following and racialstabilityof white was a banner year for large- and small-budget threatenthe masculinity In addition to The Blonde men53. The films. Captive, Although Savage Girldoes notconstruct jungle MGMreleasedthefirstof a seriesof Tarzanmovies, blacksas eviluntiltheclosingscenes, itdoes elaborrole and portrays which accordingto the tradeswere most popular ate upon the heroine'sinterstitial Pictures and Monarch released the her from (black)savageryto (white)civilizajourney among teens, With film: The Girl. Each of these tion. its less somberapproachthanmostother Savage fantasy-jungle focused on the converlike Trader Horn, movies, junglenarratives,TheSavage Girl both reinforces white with black races via an intermeand streamlinesthe terrorof the black race and of the gence in and takes white Trader Horn The thewhiteheroineto her'proper' Savage painsto return diary figure Girlthatfigureis a womanat home in the jungle51 racialand sexualdomain. The plotof TheSavage Girlis as follows:like and in Tarzan,the Ape Man it is a man raised by the whitegoddess of TraderHorn,the heroinewas his primateancestors:the apes52.

s

-, ^:x.R #_

1

....

,

326 326

RhonaJ. Berenstein

.

L ;X_rr'

Nin' Fig7

F

||

k

E

doesiato

8

1Ks

9

.

|

;

_

_ x.:??!

.-,..?

a

_

=

J

as Per an

copee

_

_

.': ? ::

::. _M_

1.:. '' i..

_,'.: ~j

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i-1, '

i

aper

_

| gS J::.:

tiri

!

.r j x,~

_;_rs