The Movie Whitewashed the Novel - Kings Row (1942) Discussion

[–] mcdoodad49 20 years ago

This doesn't surprise me. I grew up in the 50's and 60's, and this type of censorship was very prevalent. I've seen a lot of films in my lifetime, and I didn't see the realities of life show up in movies until the 70's, and it has expanded since that time. I saw this movie on TV when I was 12, and was so intrigued, I've seen it every chance I've gotten. I'm now curious to read the book and will try to acquire it. Thanks for the post.

I don't kick people in the shins. I aim higher.

reply

[–] usnjohn62 20 years ago

Like yourself I grew up in the 50's and 60's when films dealing with "adult" subject matter were still "veiled". My question is "Is this so bad?". Is it really necessary to go into detail about the "sordid" side of life, to make a film good? Kings Row, to be sure, had its list of adult material, but because of the times, it was greatly veiled, and it has survived the test of time. I am not saying that adult matter shouldn't be shown or used at all in films. In films like "The Midnight Cowboy" and "The Graduate", it is most important to the story.

reply

[–] cool_splash1 19 years ago

If this movie had been made prior to the 1930's Hayes Production code then it wouldn't have been as you say whitewashed. But then you have to look at the era in which these films came. people a decade earlier were so sick of seeing innuendo and near obscene movies after a while they stopped going. The movies was still a new medium and people still didn't know the impact. It got so bad people started boycotting. Well what were the studios to do, but follow the production code. I've read it and it's not that bad, now there are some extremes, but mostly just common sense stuff. Like don't disrespect other peoples beliefs, religions etc. Plus many filmmakers didn't really listen to it until around 1935. They used to just say that the movie was made before the code was inacted. I've also seen some pre-code movies and all though they used innuendo, some had skimpy clad women etc. and loads about sex (which suprised me because these are old movies right). Well believe it or not those old movies used to talk about some freaky stuff. Things like the white slave trade, which was a problem where immigrant women would be tricked into the sex slave trade. The Divorce had loads about sex even though it wasn't just out there like today. Now that might not seem like nothing to us compared to what we see today, but think about what it was like back then. I mean yeah, people wanted to see people like themselves doing and feeling like they would, but not all the time and not to the point of nearly being obscene. Who knows what it would have been like if they hadn't have done it. Frankly I do like that they did the production code. I mean yeah the restrictions sucked, but then again it made them write better stories, dialog etc. to get around it. The characters can't have sex well make a love scene that shows you how they feel about each other instead of showing them doing the bowl.

Movies like Ocean's Eleven mos def wouldn't have been made. It shows how they are going to rob the casino and they get away. Notice that old movies didn't show you they did and at the end they died or went to jail. That's because no outlaw or anyone who committed a crime were to get away with it. If a character murdered someone they were probably going to die or have a crappy like.

reply

[–] jfreund 18 years ago

The Code had nothing to with respecting other people's beliefs or religions. It did not address the extreme racism of the movies of the time -- in fact, it specifically banned portrayals of miscegenation -- relationships between whites and non-whites. Many of the films made after the Code is put in place are as racist, or more so, than films made before. The Code also prohibited the protrayal of "ministers of religion" as either comic characters or villains. It prohibited any references to homosexuality, and any depiction of childbirth.

If you view some of the pre-Code stuff, such as Mae West's early films, you'll see that they are fun and sexy. And in the late 1950s, when television was starting to eat into movies' profits and filmmakers began to release movies without approval, we got such films as Some Like It Hot and Psycho. Would either of these have been improved by following the Code?

reply

[–] Zando777 17 years ago

What does racism, homosexuality, childbirth have to do with beliefs and religions?

Many people believed miscegenation was wrong, and that was respected by not displaying it.

Not showing ministers in a bad light was also about respecting beliefs/religions.

Same with homosexuality, etc.

He's already said some pre-code stuff was sexy.

In other words, you haven't really refuted most of his points. You simply believe the code was unhelpful, while he (apparently) feels it had some good points.

reply

[–] Death_to_Pan_and_Scan 16 years ago

Ah, the same old argument and I can see where people come up with it, but they're deluding themselves. I watch a lot of TCM and really love quite a few of those classics from the 1930s, 40s and 50s, but I won't buy into this nonsense argument that the code 'made movies better'. What it did do is made movies dumber. I refuse to turn a blind eye to parts of these films where this bland sanitization harmed otherwise very good films.

Well what were the studios to do, but follow the production code. I've read it and it's not that bad, now there are some extremes, but mostly just common sense stuff. Like don't disrespect other peoples beliefs, religions etc.

Life don't show characters to be nuanced or don't even suggest that opposing political viewpoints exist. Nice job for a country always patted on the back for the notion of 'free speech'. The code really did a lot to suppress free speech in the cinema. I'm glad our forefathers fought and died so that we could have a small (and small-minded) group of people tell us what we were allowed to watch on the silver screen.

Well believe it or not those old movies used to talk about some freaky stuff. Things like the white slave trade, which was a problem where immigrant women would be tricked into the sex slave trade.

While they may have used such storylines as cheap exploitation to sell tickets, we're worse off having a cinema that can't even touch on some important social problems, just in order to keep some people's feathers from getting ruffled. Just try making a film like 'I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang' after the code was enacted. We can't dare to suggest that someone could be wrongfully imprisoned and/or abused by the almighty wonderful 'system'. I'd agree there should be a graduated rating system (preferrably less flawed than the currect MPAA system) in place to differentiate between films everyone can see and films with content that kids weren't ready for yet, but to make it so adults couldn't watch more intelligent nuanced films was just idiotic. The code was about maintaining the status quo and not letting movies really question anything.

This is one of the things that is improved nowadays. There is a forum to make stories showing complex situations that real people might have in their lives, unfortunately (as has been said by Ebert many times) the rating system doesn't truly have an adult rating where films can get screened in the big multiplexes and be advertised to people who may want to know that they exist. Instead, films made for grown-ups and containing adult issues get penalized by being lumped together with pornography because even the NC-17 thing didn't change the difficulty of advertising and booking films with more mature themes. Assuming a film gets bought by a home video division, the DVD market exists for people to see these movies, but first they must learn the films even exist -- something a good movie critic can do for people that tv commercials for the blockbuster du jour cannot.

I'm going to quote Glenn 'DVD Savant' Erickson's reviews on the TCM Forbidden Hollywood boxsets, since he has a far better overview of cinema history than I do:

from DVD Savant's "Forbidden Hollywood Collection
Volume One" review:

The facts about Hollywood censorship in the pre-code era have been established: By pressuring the major studios, a small group of lobbyists, political appointees and church ideologues seized control of what the motion picture industry could and couldn't portray on the screen. Twenty years later, political opportunists would claim that a cadre of intellectual Communists was attempting to subvert motion picture content, but the evidence of any such plot having an effect on what was produced is negligible. Meanwhile, every major release in this country was already tightly controlled by the stringent puritan views of a real cadre of power brokers. Saying that movies were 'better' for this is like excusing Mussolini because he made the trains run on time (an untruth!).

In 1934, the freedom of the screen was surrendered into the hands of the self-appointed moral watchdogs. For the next thirty-four years, every film seeking a circuit release had to be cleared by this non-elected, highly prejudiced group. This indeed meant the end of nudity and sex jokes, but it also made it impossible for movies to present rounded characters. Adult themes were frequently reduced to simplistic oppositions of Good and Bad. The puritanical tone limited women to a narrow range of acceptable conduct. Independent women in films almost always voluntarily gave up their career ambitions and found happiness as housewives.

from DVD Savant's "Forbidden Hollywood Collection
Volume Two" review:

Listed as an extra on disc three is Thou Shalt Not: Sex, Sin and Censorship in Pre-Code Hollywood. The entertaining docu chronicles the story of the Production Code administered by Hays and Breen and influenced by the Catholic Legion of Decency. Made by Trailer Park, the show concentrates on the salacious extremes of Pre-code movie content while only touching upon the real effect of the Code: for over twenty years, a small body of overseers was able to control the content of everything shown on American screens, enforcing a narrow range of behaviors and attitudes. Anything critical of institutions or 'accepted' values was disallowed. Defenders claim that the Code say is responsible for charming movies that present sexuality indirectly, like Casablanca. Baloney. The Code wasn't primarily about Sex; it was about political repression. The Code helped keep American culture safely in Kindergarten

from DVD Savant's "Forbidden Hollywood Collection
Volume Three" review:

The Forbidden Hollywood Collection Volume 3 takes a break from "Oo-la-lah" racy dialogue & sexy lingerie pictures to bring forward six tough-minded films from one very tough-minded director, William A. Wellman. Our interest in the Pre-Code era isn't just nostalgia for naughty double-entendres and jiggling flesh. When the Production Code was finally enforced in 1934, American movies were forced to sanitize their movies to a grade-school level.

Don't be fooled by bluenoses telling you that the movies were improved because filmmakers wanting to present adult themes were forced to be creative; that's an evasion, pure and simple. When the Code was enforced, movies could no longer address social or political issues directly, or tell the full truth about how ordinary Americans lived. Stories about disadvantaged people had to have uplifting messages about pulling one's self up by one's bootstraps, or finding that faith and love cured all problems. Institutions were no longer criticized. Frank Capra's celebrated movies conceived of American life as a feel-good Fairy Tale; when he tried to get serious in Meet John Doe, his "Capracorn" philosophy turned into incoherent mush.

The films in The Forbidden Hollywood Collection Volume 3 collection are just the sort that were withdrawn from circulation when the Code came in. Some were pulled from so far down in the vault that they have barely been seen in decades. The collection gives us a real appreciation of William Wellman's special gift: they're all plainspoken tales, and even when the stories are predictable the emotions are real. These pictures are almost in the spirit of the 1970s, but more honest overall. The story conflicts invariably involve content that the Hays and Breen office would declare unfit for the "decent" screen -- and every one brings up harsh realities that needed public expression.

I definitely agree with Erickson on this issue.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] justaudrey 14 years ago

There are a few things (such as forbidding the showing of miscegenation) that were wrong with the Code, but I am in the camp that thinks it was actually a good things. It wasn't government imposed censorship; the studios set up this system themselves. I think that some things should not be shown and do not need to be seen. The Code was not perfect, but I think it made better movies--both morally and artistically.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 3 years ago

I hate censorship, loathe the Code , and would like to.use today's technology to remake the old movies with "unCode" endings. What's wrong with disrespect for authority or religion?

reply

[–] justaudrey 14 years ago

I don't think this film needed a lot of that extra baggage to make a good story. I still found the film to be really good how it was made. One element that I do think could've been fleshed out more was what happened with Cassandra and her fathers. It just was not satisfactorily resolved in the film--I felt. I think the original intent of incest and nymphomania makes more sense.

reply

[–] justaudrey 14 years ago

I don't think this film needed a lot of that extra baggage to make a quality story. I still found the film to be really good how it was made. One element that I do think could've been fleshed out more was what happened with Cassandra and her father. It just was not satisfactorily resolved in the film--I felt. I think the original intent of incest and nymphomania makes more sense.

reply

[–] quildarener 19 years ago

It was a weird, unique, arresting movie nonetheless, full of antiseptic sweetness and dark, chilling overtones together; the acting IMO made you accept the melodrama, and the score and the dramatic lighting and photography certainly helped.

reply

[–] jhb-4 19 years ago

... Hi from Joe-- aka jhb-4

Please let me refer you to my article below-- "The Book Tells All-- and so did a producer."
You wrote: "Presumably the homosexuality was between Parris & Drake, hinted at in the scene in which Parris lovingly embraces the bed-bound Drake, at which point Randy leaves the room & invokes the Virgin Mary."
Not an unreasonable assumption but it just isn't true. See the article which refers to the character of Jamie Wakefield. That's the "gay" connection in "Kings Row."
All my best,

Joe

reply

[–] aroth15 18 years ago

Yes. I've seen the film and read the book, and I think the movie did indeed suffer because plot elements had to be re-written or written-out. There is something about the film that seems to me disconnected. It's hard for me to express. But the film just seems to have a wierd atmosphere; partly the town is portrayed as evil, and partly good and nostalgic. I think this is because certain themes and elements of other themes were deleted or changed, and what was originally a reasonably seamless yarn became disconnected and schizoid. I remember thanking, the first time I saw the film, that something about the whole story just didn't gel. The film itself didn't seem either a drama or a melodrama. And I think this was because things that were explained in the book (like the incest or the homosexuality) were only explained partially in the film, leading to a feeling of "What was that again?" Meaning---the plot was sometimes not dark, so much as wierd, or unexplainable. Anyway, my thoughts, FWTW.

Allen Roth
"I look up, I look down..."

reply

[–] Harold_Robbins 18 years ago

It's kind of interesting that films were even attempted of novels such as KING'S ROW, THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY (M-G-M, 1945) or PEYTON PLACE (20th Century Fox, 1957), stories that dealt with any number of topics (incest, insanity, illegitimacy, sexual depravity, etc.) which were absolutely taboo in the movies thanks to the restrictions of the Production Code (which didn't even allow toilets to be shown in bathrooms!). The Code required altered endings for such works as THE LETTER (Warner Bros. 1940) and THE BAD SEED (Warner Bros. 1956). THE LETTER managed to surmount the change and retain its integrity, THE BAD SEED didn't.
"I don't use a pen: I write with a goose quill dipped in venom!"---W. Lydecker

reply

[–] aroth15 18 years ago

I haven't thought of that quote from Waldo Lydecker in ages! Talk about a restrained plot element because of Code. First time I saw "Laura," I couldn't stop laughing whenever Cliff Webb came on the screen. Sitting in his bathtub, attended by his houseboy (so I recall), he was typing his daily column, in his magnificently appointed apartment. Then I saw "The Razor's Edge," with Eliot Templeton, with his immaculate wardrobe, including spats, white tie, and tailcoat, with kid gloves. Did anyone really dress like that? (Yes, people did.) And I had recently posted a thought about Alan in "The Long Hot Summer." A "Mama's Boy" who never married, and whose only relationship besides his mother was with the Joanne Woodward character. How SHE never figured it out while waiting 10 years for him to kiss her is beyond me..lol. But Waldo Lydecker takes the cake. "I write with a goose quill dipped in venom!" lol. Makes me think of Gigi's comment to Gaston Lachaille about Mme. Dunand's pearls:

"Dipped."

Thank goodness for the movies, in a world like ours.

Allen Roth
"I look up, I look down..."

reply

[–] Harold_Robbins 18 years ago

There's an interesting moment during that "bathtub" scene which I never noticed until I watched LAURA with the Audio Commentary - When Lydecker stands up (off-camera, obviously) and asks MacPherson (Dana Andrews) to hand him his robe, the briefest of disparaging looks crosses Andrews' face, apparently when he glimpses Waldo's - um, "quill."

"I don't use a pen: I write with a goose quill dipped in venom!"---W. Lydecker

reply

[–] mlumiere 16 years ago

It wasn't just the The Production Code that censored subjects such as homosexuality, pre-marital sex, women's sexual desire (more than the romantic kind), incest, etc., etc. It certainly contributed to the climate of repression, but it also reflected the repression of these subjects in the culture at large. One must not forget this, and blame the code alone for the represssion of the subjects in the movies. Although it's true that pre-code movies dealt with women's sexual desire as desire and with divorce as a rational judgement-free choice (before the code imposed its judgmental censorship on these subjects, the subject of homosexuality was strictly verboten in pre-code Hollywwood. The only side reference was the professional "sissies" employed in the movies like Franlin Pangborn and many others - they were called "sissies" at that time instead of "homosexuals", which was barely acknowledged as a separate reality (much less legitimate one) in those days. That liberating event didn't happen until the late 60s, to be honest.

I am now determined to read the novel of "Kings Row", just to see what was realy left in or strongly implied that was changed/glossed over in the film.

reply

[–] whimsical5 16 years ago

I am glad this was discussed, because I was I having trouble understanding the plot. I really like the movie, but I hate when you watch a scene (like when cassie wanted to run away then changed her mind) and never get an explanation. It is hard to see why they bothered to make movies from books when they felt it must be sanitized. How frustrating for the film makers

nice socks, man.....

reply

[–] mikasparky 14 years ago

What cracked me up is that Parris holds the doctor up to be a bit of a hero after he reads his papers, who "sacrificed" and buried himself in a "backwater town" owing to the supposed illness of the WOMEN in the family--when he was in fact the pervert of the novel! I suppose it was all too easy to blame stuff on women back in those days and not have anyone look askance at the blatant sexism!

reply

[–] angelofvic 13 years ago

Hi Joe -- where is the article you mention?
.

reply

[–] octoberbest 17 years ago

It isn't explicitly said or even explicitly hinted at in the movie or book that Cassie was pregnant-- that's opinion. She might have been, but I think it is just as likely that she panicked because Parris would be leaving soon and she wanted more than an incestuous relationship with her father for the rest of her life. It also isn't said for sure why he Dr. Tower killed his daughter and himself. He may have been trying to set Parris, who wanted to marry Cassie, at least eventually, free, as the movie states. Or he may have killed her because she was going to leave. Maybe he had studied the psychological effects enough. The book/movie are hardly omniscient.

Jesus loves me, this I know...

reply

[–] macguffinlassie 16 years ago

The novel was VERY complicated and quite long, with a slew of sub-plots, virtually all of which were sordid. I think, given the times, that the producers did a good job, considering. And at least it has SOME upbeat scenes (and a great score by Korngold!)--the book had virtually none.
Don't "presumably" without reading the novel. As is cited earlier in the thread, the homosexuality involves a young boy whose character doesn't appear in the film and in fact, he only makes a pass (I think at Drake). We're never treated to the gory details.
I also didn't get the vibe that Cassie was pregnant.

reply

[–] PecksBadGirl 16 years ago

I never have read the book though I would like to. In seeing the movie at one point I had the impression Cassie was pregnant. Three things made me believe this.

The scene with Drake at the pond where she sneaks out to see him just before dark. She has something to tell him. She says "It's....I'm....." then goes on to say she doesn't think they are treating him right by keeping his grandmother's condition from him. I am certain she was trying to tell him she was pregnant and couldn't.

When Drake goes to Dr. Tower's home Dr. Gordon walks in and the sheriff asks him if anything is new. Gordon answers "Just something about the girl." He says he will tell the sheriff later not wishing to speak in front of Drake.

Cassie asked to go with Parris. She seemed desperate to get away. Her bags were packed. To me that indicates she was pregnant.

I Gregory Peck
~Amanda~

reply

[–] mojo2004 16 years ago

I just saw the film on tv. The first thing I thought was she's pregnant.

reach out and grab Life before Death grabs you!

reply

[–] arcturus6 15 years ago

Oh Big Surprise! The film "whitewashed the book" eh! Wow! And to think this was done in Hollywood...Tinsel Town!!! Hollywood has been whitewashing books for a long time pal, you need to wake up and smell the tea! So what that some of the darker aspects of the novel were left out, probably made for a better film in this case. Realism can be good in its rightful place and naturalism only in extreme cases. Frankly I thought it was a good film, but you can disagree with that position. I am tired of films that bare it all and are only one step removed from pornography. Of course there are some who consider pornography an art form and not the filth that it really is.

reply

[–] ghostfan 14 years ago

Not only were books changed when made into films, but short stories were also changed when adapted for shows like "Alfred Hitchcock Presents." (Though come to think of it, a lot of Hitch's movies were book adaptations that were changed for the silver screen...)

Without posting spoilers, the one I remember from his TV show is a little masterpiece called "Lamb to the Slaughter." His shows usually contained little afterthoughts, and PS lines about the original story. And in that one he had to put on a moral ending. But the actual episode is a very close adaptation of the original story.

I adore King's Row - but I did find the book later and was amazed at what all got left out, and sanitized and changed. But the ending actually made me rather sad. Never did get around to reading the book sequel "Parris Mitchell of King's Row."

reply

[–] justaudrey 14 years ago

Frankly I thought it was a good film, but you can disagree with that position. I am tired of films that bare it all and are only one step removed from pornography.

I agree.

reply

[–] castiggy-89163 9 years ago

I disagree. A true story is not "pornography". A woman in a movie telling a man that she loves that her father rapes her is hardly pornography. It doesn't have to be shown to prove a plot point. Cassie's hysteria regarding Parris' leaving could be taken in several ways, but if it had been spelled out, the audience would know the author's intention, without a naked body being shown.

If this movie were re-made now (God forbid!).....I think you WOULD see pornography.

Keep passing the open windows
John Irving
Hotel New Hampshire

reply

[–] yoda87960 14 years ago

Wow, never thought I'd see so many arguments on a message board for films from people who are PRO censorship. Kings Row reeks of being watered down, altered, and sanitized to the point it detracts from the movie. I'm not arguing that book has to be better (I haven't read it and I don't intend to - it does indeed sound trashy), but there are so many odd hanging plot threads, forced resolutions, and a bizarre cliched happy ending that I can't say I'd recommend the movie to anybody, even though I enjoyed some of it.

Some of the greatest filmmakers who ever lived had their only opportunity to make films during this time period and to think they had to do so with tied hands and a light touch is truly saddening. I know this has always been a part of the film business, even today, but rigidly structuring the rules the way they did was undoubtedly damaging to the medium. But yes, we should still be thankful the government didn't step in. We'd still be suffering under the weight of it.

reply

[–] introibo2000 14 years ago

The homosexuality in the book is NOT between Parris and Drake...there is a character named Jamie (I forget his last name) who is effeminate and who wants to be a poet. He makes an attempt to kiss Parris when they are teenagers..which Parris rebuffs. Jamie also hangs around with an older guy who encourages his poetry..there is not necessarily any sexual contact between them..if there is then the older guy is a bisexual as he frequents the house of a married woman for her favors...
Also later on in the book, Drake is talking to Jamie, telling him he should try to change because things can get nasty if he starts going after young boys, etc.

reply

[–] route47 14 years ago

I am so glad I read these postings. I watched King's Row yesterday and so much of it made no sense. The Cassie situation was either really dumb or too enigmatic. I thought perhaps she was bi-polar, the way she was so manic, then so sad. So many side stories I wished they would have gone into, even if just a little bit. Dr. Tower's wife, for one. Was she insane or just agoraphobic? And of course, the big question - why did Dr. Towers kill Cassie and then himself? Zero explanation. I want to read the book now, also.

reply