Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts

Friday, January 12, 2024

The Troubled History of Pandora’s Box, a review of the new Blu-ray release starring Louise Brooks

Pop Matters has just published my new piece on Pandora's Box, the once controversial 1929 film starring Louise Brooks. My article is a review of the recent Eureka Entertainment release of the film on Blu-ray in the UK. My article can be found HERE.


Pandora’s Box has long had a troubled history. There have been controversies, censorship, and critical disdain, as well as the loss of the original negative. The film that has come down to us today is only an approximation of the film G.W. Pabst made in Germany during the silent era. Yet still, it remains a powerful piece of early cinema. Over the years, versions of the film have been released on VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray all around the world. The best of them, up until now, may well have been the Criterion Collection release from 2006. 

As I mention near the beginning of my article, "This release is notable on a couple of accounts. It marks the film’s first-ever release on Blu-ray in England, and it marks the first-ever release anywhere of the Hugh Hefner-funded Martin Kroeber-Deutsche Kinemathek restoration completed in 2009. In all likelihood, this 133-minute, 2K digital restoration is the best version of the film we may see in our lifetime." 

As a silent film buff, as Louise Brooks fan, and as an admirer of G.W. Pabst's film, I am very glad that Eureka released the film on Blu-ray; however, I am just as disappointed in some of the bonus material included in this limited edition release. To learn exactly what disappointed me, and what I had to say about it, you will have to read my article, "The Troubled History of Silent Film Pandora’s Box."

In short, I point to factual errors and the inclusion of images that are 1) not from Pandora's Box, and 2) not Louise Brooks. 

Regarding my first point, the use of images from Diary of a Lost Girl in a booklet about Pandora's Box; I should mention something I didn't mention in my that article -- that Eureka is not alone in this blunder. Criterion beat them too it years ago in the booklet which accompanied their 2006 release of an earlier restoration of the film. See page 48 of "Reflections on Pandora's Box", the booklet which accompanies the Criterion box set. 

Regarding my second point, the use of images in a video essay about Louise Brooks which do not actually depict Louise Brooks; I don't know why, but Pop Matters didn't run the images in question, which I submitted to them along with my article. Nevertheless, here they are -- two images of two girls, both of whom happen to have bobbed hair and resemble, in a general way, the future actress. I would guess both images date from the 1920s.Both are anonymous images from the time, one a studio portrait, the other a snapshot.

Despite my reservations regarding some of the bonus material, this Eureka release is something special – and is recommended. It is worth noting that it is a limited-edition release numbering only 3,000 copies. If you’re thinking of purchasing a copy of this silent film masterpiece, don’t hesitate – even if that means purchasing a multi-region Blu-ray player to view it, as I did.

As I allude to in my Pop Matters article, I was fortunate enough to have seen this version of Pandora's Box on the BIG screen of the Castro theater as part of the 2012 San Francisco Silent Film Festival. Read more about that historic screening in "The Preservationist and the Playboy: Restoring Pandora’s Box," an article in the 2012 SFSFF program. I remember sitting next to Brooksie (fellow Louise Brooks devotee and Camille Scaysbrook.), and both of us being thrilled at this print of the film -- as if we were seeing it anew. By the way, I wrote an essay on the film for that year's SFSFF program, which you can read HERE.

You can see the look of awe on my face when I met the production team behind the Hugh Hefner-funded Martin Kroeber-Deutsche Kinemathek restoration of Pandora's Box, David Ferguson (left) and Angela Holm (right). That's me in the middle looking gobsmacked. I thanked them for their great work, and we spoke a little about what went into this restoration. I recall David called me "the keeper of the flame."

We all make mistakes. I know, I make plenty of them. I hope I don't come off too complainy, either in my Pop Matters article or in this follow-up blog, but the inaccurate stuff I see online -- not to mention all of the clickbait, fake news, and sloppy reporting -- irritate me. In this day and age, getting it right is important. Facts matter. And getting it wrong has repercussions, as when a seller lists a picture of Louise Brooks on eBay which isn't Louise Brooks, and then it gets retweeted or posted on Facebook, or when the London Times reviewed the Eureka release of Pandora's Box and ran a scene still from Diary of a Lost Girl.

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original contents copyright © 2024. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Film Censorship in America, including the silent era

There are a couple of new books out on film censorship. Both look at the history of film censorship in the United States, including the silent era. (Read more about film censorship at Wikipedia)

Monitoring the Movies: The Fight over Film Censorship in Early Twentieth-Century Urban America by Jennifer Fronc
University of Texas Press


From the publisher: "As movies took the country by storm in the early twentieth century, Americans argued fiercely about whether municipal or state authorities should step in to control what people could watch when they went to movie theaters, which seemed to be springing up on every corner. Many who opposed the governmental regulation of film conceded that some entity—boards populated by trusted civic leaders, for example—needed to safeguard the public good. The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures (NB), a civic group founded in New York City in 1909, emerged as a national cultural chaperon well suited to protect this emerging form of expression from state incursions.

Using the National Board's extensive files, Monitoring the Movies offers the first full-length study of the NB and its campaign against motion-picture censorship. Jennifer Fronc traces the NB's Progressive-era founding in New York; its evolving set of "standards" for directors, producers, municipal officers, and citizens; its "city plan," which called on citizens to report screenings of condemned movies to local officials; and the spread of the NB's influence into the urban South. Ultimately, Monitoring the Movies shows how Americans grappled with the issues that arose alongside the powerful new medium of film: the extent of the right to produce and consume images and the proper scope of government control over what citizens can see and show."

Reviews: "This is an extremely important book, a major, highly readable, well-researched contribution to the scholarship on the history of movie censorship and regulation in the Progressive era. Fronc provides a rich and diverse portrait of the social matrix that informed the shape, success, and limits of the National Board of Review’s efforts to encourage better films and defeat censorship laws." — Matthew H. Bernstein, Emory University, author of Screening a Lynching: The Leo Frank Case on Film and Television

"A terrific, well-argued, and engaging book that will appeal to readers in American history and film history. By mining primary sources from institutional records, Jennifer Fronc is able to provide the first account that really gets inside the workings of the National Board of Review." — Kathryn Fuller-Seeley, University of Texas at Austin, author of At the Picture Show: Small Town Audiences and the Creation of Movie Fan Culture

===================

Film Censorship in America: A State-by-State History
by Jeremy Geltzer
McFarland


I am currently reading this book, and find it to be an interesting, anecdotal account. When I am done, I hope to read Monitoring the Movies.

From the publisher: "Since the first films played in nickelodeons, controversial movies have been cut or banned across the United States. Far from Hollywood, regional productions such as Oscar Micheaux's provocative race films and Nell Shipman's wildlife adventures were censored by men like Major M.L.C. Funkhouser, the terror of Chicago s cinemas, and Myrtelle Snell, the Alabama administrator who made the slogan Banned in Birmingham famous. Censorship continues today, with Utah's case against Deadpool (2016) pending in federal court and Robert Rodriguez's Machete Kills (2013) versus the Texas Film Commission. This authoritative state-by-state account covers the history of film censorship and the battle for free speech in America.

Reviews: "The result of formidable research, this book traces the way each state in the union dealt with censorship from the earliest days of silent films to the present day...in tracking down these particulars, author Geltzer unearthed interesting details about regional film production around the country...this book should prove useful." — Leonard Maltin.

=================== 

Another related book which I've read and which should prove of interest is this 2007 title. I sure which there was a book like it for each state!


From the publisher: "If you caught a movie in Kansas through much of the past century, you’re likely to have seen a different version than did the rest of America. Theda Bara’s depictions of wicked sexuality were off-limits, and a film such as the 1932 Scarface showed far too much violence for decent folk—a threat to Protestant culture and to the morals of the general population.

 In 1915, Kansas became one of only a handful of states to establish its own film censorship board. The Kansas board controlled screen content in the state for more than fifty years, yet little is known about its activities. This first book-length study of state film censorship examines the unique political, social, and economic factors that led to its implementation in Kansas, examining why censorship legislation was enacted, what the attitudes of Kansans were toward censorship, and why it lasted for half a century.

Cinema historian Gerald Butters places the Kansas Board of Review’s attempts to control screen content in the context of nationwide censorship efforts during the early part of the twentieth century. He tells how factors such as Progressivism, concern over child rearing, and a supportive press contributed to censorship, and he traces the board’s history from the problems posed by the emergence of “talkies” through changing sexual mores in the 1920s to challenges to its power in the 1950s.

In addition to revealing the fine points of film content deemed too sensitive for screening, Butters describes the daily operations of the board, illustrating the difficulties it encountered as it wrestled not only with constantly shifting definitions of morality but also with the vagaries of the political and legal systems. Stills from motion pictures illustrate the type of screen content the board attempted to censor.

As Kansas faced the march of modernity, even state politicians began to criticize film censorship, and Butters tells how by the 1960s the board was fighting to remain relevant as film companies increasingly challenged its attempts to control screen content. Banned in Kansas weaves a fascinating tale of the enforcement of public morality, making it a definitive study for cinema scholars and an entertaining read for film buffs."
Reviews: “I believe that Banned in Kansas will (and should) become a classic in the field of the social history of the motion picture in America. This book makes a very significant contribution and fills a very large void in our understanding of the forces behind the issue of social control of this important medium in the twentieth century.” — Garth Jowett, author of Film: The Democratic Art

===================  

It is well known that Brooks two German made films were heavily censored in Europe, while Pandora's Box was further censored when it was first shown in the United States in 1929. 

What is less know is that a handful of Brooks' American silent films were also censored in the United States. I have gotten at some of the remaining censorship records, and have found that the two Brooks' films which suffered the most censorship were The American Venus (1926), due to it's revealing costumes, and The City Gone Wild (1927), because of its violence. 


Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The Diary of a Lost Girl: A brief history of a banned book

Every year since 1982, the American reading public observes Banned Books Week. This year, as in the past, hundreds of libraries and bookstores draw attention to the ongoing problem of censorship by hosting events and by creating displays of challenged works. It’s all about creating awareness.

In 2010, the Louise Brooks Society did it's part by helping bring a once censored work back into print. The book is The Diary of a Lost Girl. It's by a turn of the last century German writer few today have heard of, Margarete Böhme. Her book, a once-controversial bestseller, had been out of print in the United States for more than 100 years.

Though little known today, The Diary of a Lost Girl was a literary phenomenon in the early 20th century. It is considered by scholars of German literature to be one of the best-selling books of its time.

The Diary of a Lost Girl is an unlikely work of social protest. It’s also a tragedy – in 1909, a newspaper in New Zealand called it “the saddest of modern books.” In 1907, the English writer Hall Caine described it as the "poignant story of a great-hearted girl who kept her soul alive amidst all the mire that surrounded her poor body." Many years later, a contemporary scholar called it “Perhaps the most notorious and certainly the commercially most successful autobiographical narrative of the early twentieth century.”

The book tells the story of Thymian, a young woman forced by circumstance into a life of prostitution. Her story goes something like this. Seduced by her Father’s business associate, the teenage Thymian conceives a child which she is forced to give up; she is then cast out of her home, scorned by society, and ends up in a reform school – from which she escapes and by twists of fate hesitantly turns to life as a high-class escort. Prostitution is the only means of survival available to her. If its story sounds familiar, it likely because the book was the basis for the 1929 German movie of the same name. That silent film, still shown in theaters around the world, stars Louise Brooks.

The Diary of a Lost Girl, editions then and now

The author of The Diary of a Lost Girl, Margarete Böhme (1867-1939), was a progressive minded writer who meant to expose the hypocrisy of society and the very un-Christian behavior of some of its leading members. She also meant to show-up the double standards by which women of all ages suffer. Böhme’s frank treatment of sexuality (by the standards of the day) only added fuel to the fire of outrage which greeted the book in some quarters.

First published in Germany in 1905 as Tagebuch einer Verlorenen, Böhme’s book proved an enduring work – at least for a while and despite attacks by critics and social groups. The book was translated into 14 languages, and was reviewed and discussed across Europe. It inspired a popular sequel brought about by a flood of letters to the author, a controversial stage play banned in some German cities, a parody, lawsuits, two silent films - each of which were in turn censored, and a score of imitators.

The book confronts readers with the story of a likeable young women forced into a life of degradation. The complicity of her family – and by extension society – in her downward turn is provocative. However, Thymian – a truly endearing character and a heroine till the end, refuses to be coarsened by her experiences. She also refuses to let others define her - she defines herself. At the time, Böhme’s book helped open a dialogue on issues around the treatment of women.

In 1907, when the book was translated into English, its British publisher placed an advertisement in newspapers. The ads proclaimed Böhme’s work “The Book that Has Stirred the Hearts of the German People,” but somewhat defensively added “It is outspoken to a degree, but the great moral lesson it conveys is the publishers’ apology for venturing to reproduce this human document.”

In response to a review of the book in the Manchester Guardian, the Rev. J.K. Maconachie of the Manchester Association Against State Regulation of Vice wrote a surprising letter to the editor. He stated, “The appearance in Germany of this remarkable book, together with the stir it has made there and the fact that its author is a woman, betoken the uprising which has taken place in recent years amongst German women against the evils and injustice which the book reveals. . . . It may be hoped that discriminating circulation of The Diary of a Lost One will help many here to realize, in the forceful words of your reviewer, ‘the horror of setting aside one section of human beings for the use of another.’”

Back in Germany, the same sorts of groups which objected to the book also objected to the two films made from it. The first, from 1918, is considered lost, but we know from articles of the time that it was withdrawn from circulation because of its controversial story. The second film, which starred Louise Brooks, has come down in censored form.

As records from 1929 show, various groups including a German morality association, a national organization for young women, a national organization of Protestant girl’s boarding schools, and even the governor in Lower Silesia all voiced their objections to aspects of the film. As with the book, these groups objected to various key scenes. Each found the work to be demoralizing.

At the end of the Twenties, The Diary of a Lost Girl was still in print and was still being reissued in countries across Europe. It had by then sold more than 1,200,000 copies – ranking it among the 15 bestselling books of the era. Twenty five years after it was first published, however, Böhme's “terribly impressive book, full of accusations against society” was still considered a provocation. That’s why, just a very few years later at the beginning of the Nazi era, conservative groups still unsettled by its damning indictment of society deliberately drove it out-of-print.

In 1988, after decades of obscurity, a facsimile of the special 1907 edition was published in Germany. It was followed in 1995 by a small paperback which featured Louise Brooks on the cover. The recent "Louise Brooks edition" reprint of the original English language translation, also with Brooks on the cover and with some 40 pages of introductory and related material, appeared in 2010.

The impetus behind publishing a new edition of The Diary of a Lost Girl was about creating awareness. More importantly, it gives voice to a story which critics had long tried to silence. For additional background, check out these articles on Deutsche Welle and RTV Slovenia.


The 2012 Banned Books Week runs through October 6. The Diary of a Lost Girl is available through Indiebound and Amazon.com and other select bookstores and libraries.

Friday, May 25, 2012

Louise Brooks - Sexuality and Censorship in Early Cinema

Some excerpts featuring Louise Brooks from the documentary Why Be Good? Sexuality and Censorship in Early Cinema (2008). These clips features biographer Barry Paris and William Wellman Jr, the son of the director of Beggars of Life. This excellent documentary can be found on Amazon or rented from Netflix.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Italian censorship of Louise Brooks' films during the Fascist era

I have spent nearly 15 years looking into and researching various aspects of Louise Brooks life and career. One of the most fascinating though obscure aspects is the censorship of her films both in the United States and abroad.

Both Pandora's Box and Diary of a Lost Girl were censored in Germany - the country were they were made. This is documented in the biography by Barry Paris. What's less known is that a number of her other films were also censored in other parts of Europe as well in the United States.

My great good friend Gianluca Chiovelli, Italy's best Louise Brooks fan and her number one researcher there, has uncovered Italian censorship of Brooks' films during the Fascist era. He emailed me with what he found. Gianluca wrote, "Go to http://www.italiataglia.it/search and type the Italian title of Brooks' films."

Trionfo di Venere (American Venus)
Un barbiere di qualità (A Social Celebrity)
Signore della notte (Evening Clothes)
Aviatori per forza (Now We're in the Air)
Capitan Barbableu (A Girl in Every Port)
Miss Europa (Prix de Beaute)
Amanti di domani (When You’re in Love)

In the results, you'll see very brief notes regarding censorship at the time of the Fascist government. Gianluca noted that both American Venus and A Girl in Every Port ran into a bit of trouble.

-----------

In the past, I have been able to gain access to the state censorship records of Kansas and New York State. (In the 1920's, many states and some cities had their own censorship boards.) And as with Italy, a few of Brooks' films were edited to conform to local standards.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

No wonder they complained about nudity

The 1926 film, The American Venus, was the subject of complaints from various state and local censorship boards. The complaints, which often demanded cuts in the film, usually centered around "nudity." While I don't think there was actual nudity in the film (as the film is lost, we shall never know for certain), there does seem to have been a fair number of scantily clad bodies. And among them was Louise Brooks', as can be seen in this image currently for sale on eBay.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Newspapers reject Lulu ad

According to a report in today's Hartford Courant, two newspapers have rejected a newspaper advertisement for an upcoming production of "Lulu." The Courant article stated "An advertisement promoting the upcoming play "Lulu" at Yale Repertory Theatre in New Haven was rejected last week by The New York Times and the New Haven Register as not meeting advertising standards." This LiveJournal had blogged about the production a few days ago. Here is a copy of the offending advertisement.



The article went on to note, "Frank Wedekind's 'Lulu' plays were banned when they published in the late 19th and early 20th centuries," says Jacques Lemarre, associate marketing director for Yale Rep. "As a result, we knew that the image created for our upcoming production needed to be provocative. Director Mark Lamos has said that his production will contain nudity and sexual situations, and Yale Rep's advertisements reflect that content. While we are disappointed that some newspapers are rejecting our ads, we believe they are tasteful, yet indicative of the mature content of the Yale Rep production. . . ."

The Courant article also added, "Lulu" centers on a charismatic yet innocent temptress who seduces men, causing their doom. Wedekind's two plays -- titled "Earth Spirit" and "Pandora's Box" -- collectively make up "Lulu" and were made into a celebrated German silent film calledPandora's Box starring Louise Brooks. It was also the basis of an Alban Berg opera of the same name."

I think the ad is tasteful. And I wish I lived nearby and could attend the production. I hope all Lulu / Louise Brooks fans in the New Haven area turn out to show their support. More about the production can be found at  www.yalerep.org/lulu.html

Sunday, May 8, 2005

Censorship of films

One of my areas of interest regarding Louise Brooks (and silent film) is censorship. Anyone who has read the Barry Paris biography knows that her two German films were subject to censorship in Europe. As well, Pandora's Box was heavily censored when shown in the New York City in 1929. 

What few people know is that some of Brooks' American films were also censored. The American Venus (1926) was criticized in Chicago because of "nudity." The City Gone Wild (1927) andKing of Gamblers (1937) were cut because of violence. God's Gift to Women (1931) was reproached because of its suggestive nature. During the 1920's and 1930's, some cities and states had their own censorship boards - and each ruled over the exhibition of motion pictures.

Some time ago, I came across a massive bibliography devoted to freedom of the press. This online bibliography, by Ralph E. McCoy, was published in 1967 and covered censorship of ideas in all forms - including books, newspapers, radio, television and film. I have gone through it and extracted (for my own reference)  the many citations pertaining to film censorship in the United States during the teens, twenties and thirties. Here are a few articles and books that stand out:

Abbott, Clarence M. "How They 'Censor' the Films at the National Board of Censorship." Motion Picture Magazine,  September 1917.
Ames, Hector. "Censoring the Film Kiss." Motion Picture Magazine, December 1916.
Beman, Lemar TSelected Articles on Censorship of the Theater and Motion PicturesNew York, Wilson, 1931. 

Chase, William S. The Case for the Federal Supervision of Motion PicturesWashington, D.C., International Reform Federation, 1927.
Clements, Traverse. "Censoring the Talkies." New Republic, 5 June 1929.
De Mille, William C. "Bigoted and Bettered Pictures." Scribner's Magazine, September 1924.
Ernst, Morris L., and Pare Lorentz. Censored: The Private Life of the Movies. New York, Cape & Smith, 1930.
Howe, Frederic C. "What To Do With the Motion-Picture Show; Shall It Be Censored?" Outlook,  20 June 1914.
Inglis, William. "Morals and Moving Pictures." Harper's Weekly,  30 July 1910.
Lawson, W. P. "How the Censor Works." Harper's Weekly, 9 January 1915.
MacCulloch, Campbell. "How Free Is Speech?" Motion Picture Classic, September 1920.
 
McGuire, W. D., Jr. "Censoring Motion Pictures." New Republic, 10 April 1915.
McKeown, E. J. "Censoring the Moving Picture." Common Cause, July 1913.
McMahon, Charles A. "Inviting Motion Picture Censorship." Child Welfare Magazine, September 1924.
Oberholtzer, Ellis P. "Censor and the 'Movie Menace.'" North American Review, November 1920.
Peet, Creighton. "Our Lady Censors." Outlook, 25 December 1929.
Poffenberger, A. T. "Motion Pictures and Crime." Scientific Monthly, April 1921.
Quirk, James R. "The Wowsers Tackle the Movies." American Mercury, July 1927.
Rorty, James. "It Ain't No Sin!" Nation, 1 August 1934.

Thursday, December 2, 2004

Portland Film Censors Busy


Yesterday at the library, I found this interesting wire-service article, which is subtitled "Fans Driven to Suburban Houses by Official Cutters." It is interesting in that it details censorship practices of the time, practices which were certainly applied to the films of Louise Brooks when they were shown in Portland, Oregon. The article dates from December, 1927.
Portland Film Censors Busy
Spicy bits on the legitimate stage are quite all right, but the same scene in the movies in Portland constitutes a grave error and calls for drastic scissor action. Portlanders must not look upon movie kisses which are too long. Similar restriction, however, is not placed on movie fans of villages of the "back country."
Such is the status of censorship in Oregon.
There is no state censorship law, so the villagers escape the penalty of seeing only that which censors rule is nice. Portland, the one large city in the state, has a censor board which leaves no doubt as to its willingness to function.
But, strangely enough, the powers of the Portland Board of Motion Picture Censors appears to be limited to the silver screen. Ten nude girls may not appear in films exhibited here. But 10 nude girls could appear on the stage and never a word would the board say, although the police might say and do considerable. Not that 10 undressed bits of femininity have ever appeared on a local stage, but 40 one-quarter clad girls have, and any mathematician knows that they are equivalent to10 entirely disrobed flappers.
Portland is only one of several large cities having a picture censor board, but perhaps no similar group has commanded the same degree of publicity.
For example, there is the time the board ruled that a drawing of a nude girl on a theater program was improper and ordered the management to cover her rawness before circulating the programs.
Vainly theater men protested that she was a reproduction of Spanish art, but they were told no bull fighters were in Portland. And so the entrancing curves of Spain's best was wasted behind the blankness of thick bond paper which was pasted over all but the figure's head.
The censor board is composed of three members, one of whom represents the movies. The other two do not. They are appointed by the mayor and are assisted by a staff of 70, mostly women, viewers. These viewers are given monthly assignments and scan every picture before it is exhibited. Presumably they say: "Cut that kiss by eight feet," or "undressed chickens are limited to fowls."
And that is the reason why, as frequently happens, a rabid fan will journey to Gresham or other nearby village when the film makes what apparently is a broad jump.
But the cutting board and its viewers go on cutting and in most instances a cut stays out. The city council, however, is the board of appeal, and upholding the censors is infrequent. As a rule, however, the cutting goes on without interference, for it is easier for an exchange man to cut out footage than to wade through an official council hearing.
I did a quick Google search on the Portland Board of Motion Picture Censors and found this link, their annual report from 1921.
Powered By Blogger