10 February 2018

The censorship of advertising

During the heydey of Hollywood, film studios were required to submit all film advertising (publicity stills, posters, press books, trade paper material, trailers etc.) to the Advertising Advisory Council for approval. The AAC, created in November 1933 as a division of the MPDDA (aka the Hays Office), reviewed the submitted material and rejected anything which was considered objectionable. Publicity agent Jeff McCarthy was the AAC's first chief, in charge of AAC operations at the New York headquarters. (McCarthy died in 1937 and was succeeded by his assistant Lester Thompson.) There was also a subdivision of the Council in Hollywood which was headed by Joseph Breen, future head of the PCA.

Seen below are four letters concerning the censorship of advertising material, taken from the wonderful MPPDA Digital Archive of the Flinders University, Australia.  

First up is a letter dated 6 December 1933 (less than a month after the creation of the AAC), written by Robert Gillham (Head of Publicity at Paramount Pictures) to Jeff McCarthy, following the rejection of several film stills. Gillham protests the decision as he doesn't believe that "stills of girls showing their legs are salacious" nor that "girls photographed in underwear, in certain instances, is salacious or objectionable". He also feels that there's a need for clearer guidelines in order to keep the still departments from taking objectionable stills in the future. 


December 6, 1933.

Mr. J.J. McCarthy,
Motion Picture Producers &
Distributors of America, Inc.
28 West 44th St.,
New York City.

Dear Mr. McCarthy:-

I am returning the attached stills which have been rejected by the Hays Office. These have been shown to Mr. Shaefer and he does not believe they are objectionable, as neither do I. Therefore, this matter has to be arbitrated or settled in some way because we refuse to accept these rejections. In Mr. Shaefer's opinion, you are drawing the line a little close, and I also believe this is being done. If I may suggest it, I think you will have to be careful in drawing too close a distinction in what is salacious and what is not, otherwise you will kill the whole matter of censorship as it will fall down by its own weight.

I want you to bear in mind that I am 100% for censorship, and I am for censorship of stills and material which is definitely salacious. However, I do not believe that stills of girls showing their legs are salacious and I do not believe that girls photographed in underwear, in certain instances, is salacious or objectionable. I would like to call your attention to the countless ads in all magazines, showing women in all forms, kinds and conditions of underwear, none of which is objectionable to the public.

I understand that there has been some objection from the advertising heads of other companies in regard to the censorship of stills. It might be wise to have a meeting and try to thrash out some definite points on censorship of stills in order that we can prevent our still departments from taking stills of this nature.

Let me say, however, that I am certainly not going to ask our still department to refrain from taking the type of stills I am returning to you herewith.

Bearing in mind the fact that we have leeway to take this matter up with the head of our company in case we believe that the stills should not be rejected, I now have Mr. Shaefer's authority to say, as I stated before, that he does not want these stills rejected. Where do we go from here?

With best regards, I am

'signed Robert Gillham'

The following two letters concern advertising material for Men in White (1934), starring Clark Gable and Myrna Loy. In a letter to MGM's Frank Whitbeck, dated 16 January 1934,  John  Lewis (assistant to Joseph Breen at the Hollywood branch of the AAC) gives approval for two art displays to be used in billboard posters. In another letter to Whitbeck written a week later, Lewis withdraws his approval, having decided that the two sketches were in violation of the advertising code after all. 


January 16, 1934.

Mr. Frank Whitbeck
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
Culver City, California.

Dear Mr. Whitbeck:

We have inspected and approved two art displays to be used in 24-sheets in the advertising of MEN IN WHITE with Clark Gable, Myrna Loy and Elizabeth Allan.

We have taken into consideration that Myrna Loy is portrayed in an horizontal position in these displays, although fully clothed, but that the character of the art is passable, inasmuch as Clark Gable is clothed in his doctor's uniform, wears a stethoscope and obviously is performing the duties of a doctor.

We also approve the eleven advertising lay-outs on MEN IN WHITE after having inspected the three changes which you made in this office at our request.


John B. Lewis  



January 23, 1934.

Mr. Frank Whitbeck
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
Culver City, California.

Dear Mr. Whitbeck:

This is to confirm our conversation via the telephone in which I informed you that it would be necessary to withdraw approval of two sketches for use in 24-sheets on MEN IN WHITE, which were submitted to this office on January 16th.

These two sketches portrayed Myrna Loy in an horizontal position with Clark Gable leaning over her. These sketches are violations of the advertising code under the heading pertaining to horizontal stills, and, therefore, rejectionable.

Would you be kind enough to acknowledge this letter?

With all good wishes, I am,


John B. Lewis 


The final letter was written by Lester Thompson, assistant to Jeff McCarthy in New York, to John Lewis in Hollywood. The letter deals with the advertising of two films, Guilty Parents (1934) and Thirty Day Princess (1934). Thompson had been alerted to a large ad of Guilty Parents a few days earlier, showing risqué taglines like: "Did you ever see a strip-poker party?", "Exposes the crime horror of illicit love" and "What goes on in parked cars?" Trying to find more information on who was responsible for the ad, Thompson asks for Lewis' assistance. As to Thirty Day Princess, Thompson was at first hesitant about whether to approve a still of a "petting scene with the girl's arm up around the man's neck" but eventually gave his OK.

This is possibly the publicity still referenced in Thompson's letter which was okayed by him.
[Note: As is apparent from the letter by Thompson and the letters above by Lewis, it wasn't always easy to determine whether advertising material should be rejected or not (certainly in the early days of the AAC). Also, the two AAC branches didn't always see eye to eye on these matters. Material approved by Lewis was sometimes rejected by Thompson, and the other way around. (The still of Thirty Day Princess was probably first rejected by Lewis.) For further reading on the inconsistency of the AAC decisions, click here.]


March 16th, 1934.

Mr. John B. Lewis,
Motion Picture Producers and
Distributors of America, Inc.,
5504 Hollywood Blvd.,
Hollywood, California.

Dear Mr. Lewis:

I wrote you a day or so ago regarding an "indie" picture, GUILTY PARENTS. We are checking up on this and any information which you can give us by return airmail will be appreciated. All our records show is that it was produced by a Ben S. Cohen and submitted to the New York Censorship Board on October 3, 1933, at which time it was turned down.

At the continued insistence of Robert M. Gillham of Paramount, we reviewed a still on THIRTY DAY PRINCESS, key number 990-26. Personally, I did not think it warranted a rejection. However, that might have been my private opinion. In the absence of Mr. McCarthy, I took this still to Mr. McKenzie and our joint verdict was that it would just slip by. We, therefore, okayed it and notified Gillham, and I promised him that I would write you to this effect. If you do not recall the still, it is a petting scene with the girl's arm up around the man's neck. As Mr. McKenzie pointed out, if they were in a hot embrace it would be highly objectionable, but in the circumstances, we thought it okay.

Your still report and letter of March 12th just received. I am glad to note that you are straightening things out with Paramount.

Under separate cover, I am mailing you today the following completed and okayed books:

Warners: "Jimmy the Gent", "Journal of a Crime"
Paramount: "Wharf Angel", "Come on, Marines"
Fox: "Stand Up and Cheer", "Constant Nymph", "Three on a Honeymoon"

With all best regards, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Assistant to J.J. McCarthy

31 January 2018

Dear Miss Shearer

Canadian-born Norma Shearer arrived in New York in 1920 aged 17, hoping to become one of Florenz Ziegfeld's new 'Follies'. Ziegfeld, however, rejected her after which Shearer, determined to make it in America, sought and found work as an extra in several films. A year later, Shearer got a bigger break, landing a minor role in a B-film called The Stealers. Irving Thalberg, vice-president of Louis B. Mayer Pictures (later Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer), was impressed with Shearer's work and eventually signed her to a contract in November 1923. Shearer's first contract was a six-month contract with options for renewal, her first salary being $250 per week.

On 6 May 1924, Irving Thalberg wrote the following letter to Norma Shearer regarding the renewal of her contract. Thalberg informed Shearer that her contract would be extended for one year and her salary raised to $450 per week. By the end of 1925, Shearer had signed a new contract with MGM at $1,000 per week, to be increased to $5,000 over the next five years. Shearer would be at the height of her career in the 1930s when she was known as the 'Queen of MGM'. In 1937, she signed her last contract with MGM, which was a six-picture deal at $150,000 per film (the deal included Marie Antoinette (1938), The Women (1939) and Escape (1940)). 

Thalberg's letter was written 3 years before he and Shearer would be married. The couple remained married until Thalberg's untimely death in 1936. They had two children.



Miss Norma Shearer
C/o Louis B. Mayer Studios, Inc.,
43800 Mission Road,
Los Angeles, California.

Dear Miss Shearer:

Referring to your contract of employment with us, dated November 14th., 1923, and particularly to paragraph Twenty-two (b) 22 (b) thereof, you are hereby notified that the undersigned elects to and does hereby exercise the option provided for in said paragraph Twenty-two (b) 22 (b), namely, of extending the term of your employment for an additional period of twelve (12) months, commencing June 14th., 1924, upon the terms and conditions contained in said contract, and that the compensation to be paid to you for a period of not less than forty (40) weeks during said period shall be Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($450.00) per week. 

Yours very truly,
BY "signed Irving Thalberg"

27 January 2018

We have simply got to do something about the Cukor situation

In 1936, George Cukor was hired by producer David O. Selznick to direct his next project Gone with the Wind (1939). Principal photography on GWTW, however, would not start until years later (in January 1939), mainly because of the long search for the perfect Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara. Between his GWTW pre-production duties, Cukor was involved in other projects like MGM's The Wizard of Oz (1939), where he briefly replaced Richard Thorpe after he was fired, and Selznick's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1938)*. As to the latter film, Cukor had declined Selznick's directing assignment but agreed to work on a couple of scenes (uncredited).

By the fall of 1938, Cukor had declined several other directing jobs offered to him by Selznick, including Intermezzo (1939). Having paid Cukor's salary since early 1937 without getting much in return, Selznick was beginning to see Cukor as "a very expensive luxury". On 21 September 1938, Selznick wrote to Daniel O'Shea (one of his associates at Selznick International Pictures) that something should be done about "the Cukor situation". In his memo (as seen below in transcript), Selznick expresses his annoyance to O'Shea over Cukor's refusal to accept any of his assignments, stating that they could no longer be "sentimental about it" since they were "a business concern and not patrons of the arts". 

In the end, Cukor was kept on Selznick's payroll for several months longer. On 26 January 1939, he began filming GWTW, but was fired from the project within three weeks and replaced with Victor Fleming. Cited as reasons for Cukor's dismissal were (among others) his slow work pace and disagreement with Selznick about the script.

George Cukor (above) and David Selznick (below) had been friends since the early 1930s. After Selznick had fired Cukor from Gone with the Wind the men remained friends, although it is said that Cukor never forgave Selznick for being removed from the film.

September 21, 1938
To: Mr. Dan O'Shea
I have reluctantly, and at long last, come to the conclusion that we have simply got to do something, and promptly, about the Cukor situation. I have thought that George was a great asset to the company, but I am fearful that he is, on the contrary, a very expensive luxury... regardless of his great abilities...
George has been with us now for a long time and we have yet to get a picture out of him. We are in danger actually of winding up paying him about $300,000 for his services on Gone With the Wind. 
There is a large measure of justice in George's statement that this is not his fault-- and that he could have done pictures; and this is because we have not forced him to do pictures. But it is also because we have deferred to his own wishes-- and we have got to make our position clear so that the same thing does not occur in the future....
When I first tackled A Star Is Born I spoke to George about doing it and he didn't feel that he wanted to do a Hollywood picture. When we took [director H.C.] Potter off Tom Sawyer I spoke to George about doing it, and he didn't want to. When we needed him for another picture, he preferred to direct Garbo. Probably when we need him for another picture later, he will prefer to do another Garbo....
Let's take the immediate situation: We have quite a period of time before George will be requiered on Gone With the Wind-- time for any director in the business to make a picture. We have only one picture for him to direct, and that is Intermezzo. George doesn't like it....
But let's say that we are nice enough not to force him to direct it. Then we offer him an outside picture with [Claudette] Colbert: he doesn't like it. We offer to try to get him a picture at Columbia: he doesn't want to work for Columbia...
As to Gone With the Wind, I would be willing to negotiate a new deal with him for this particular picture, without, however, the obligation to make such a deal if his terms are exorbitant. We must bear in mind that we could get great benefits for the future in the way of a contract director of importance if we were able to offer Gone With the Wind-- by contrast with George, who is willing to do Gone With the Wind for us but isn't willing to take our other pictures. For instance, I am confident that we could sign Victor Fleming if we would give him Gone With the Wind as his first picture-- and if we wanted him instead of borrowing [Jack] Conway from MGM. I am sure that we could even sign Frank Capra, who is dying to do Gone With the Wind-- although offhand I don't think I would want him to do it as I don't think we need him on it, and I mention this only to show the buying power of a directorial assignment on Gone With the Wind.
In any event, I think the biggest black mark against our management to date is the Cukor situation and we can no longer be sentimental about it.... We are a business concern and not patrons of the arts....
Source: Memo from David O. Selznick (1972); selected and edited by Rudy Behlmer.

David Selznick and George Cukor pictured above in 1934 and below in January 1939 (at the contract signing for Gone with the Wind with Leslie Howard, Vivien Leigh and Olivia de Havilland).

Note: *The Wizard of Oz was eventually directed by Victor Fleming; when Fleming replaced Cukor on Gone with the Wind, King Vidor finished the filming of The Wizard of Oz. And Norman Taurog directed The Adventures of Tom Sawyer replacing H.C. Potter who was fired; like Cukor, William Wellman also made uncredited contributions to the film.

18 January 2018

How to write a gift note- by Bette Davis

On 6 February 1950, Bette Davis wrote this very funny note to director Bretaigne Windust, with whom she had worked on June Bride (1948) and Winter Meeting (1948). Bette, known for her wicked sense of humour, wrote the note as an accompaniment to her gift to "Windy", which was a thermos-bottle case.

There are no initials on this thermos-bottle case (which can also be used as a golf-ball carrier, footstool, paperweight for blueprints, umbrella stand, something to accidentally drop on the toes of unpleasant people during arguments, something to hide behind while searching for the names of people you are about to introduce, superb storage place for scarves, tennis socks, useful rags, rain hats, gardening gloves, all kinds of mittens, potatoes, sockies, bulbs, and marshmallows) because I wasn’t certain you wanted one of these things for yourself, or for someone else, or whether or not you admired my case simply to endear yourself to me before launching into a trying afternoon’s work. I shall perfectly understand if you return it (Bon Voyage Shop, Beverly Hills). For one thing, it is apt to stretch the area above the hand you carry it with several inches, flatten your head if you like to carry things on your head, and it will certainly make your car lean slightly to the right, wearing down the tires on that side, heaven only knows what would happen if you and the case are on the same side of the car. It is not beautifully wrapped because I was afraid that if I gave it to you in the box it came in you would think that I had given you an electric quilt, or a portable television set, both of which might have had a disastrous effect upon your ulcer. 

Bette Davis with John Hoyt, Bretaigne Windust (with glasses), Jim Davis and Janis Paige discussing Winter Meeting.

11 January 2018

Steinbeck's complaints about Lifeboat

After Ernest Hemingway had turned down Alfred Hitchcock's offer to write the story for Lifeboat (1944)Hitchcock approached another novelist, John Steinbeck. Steinbeck accepted the offer and eventually gave Hitch a novella. Hitchcock then had several writers turn Steinbeck's novella into a workable screenplay, among them MacKinlay Kantor, Ben Hecht, Jo Swerling and Hitchcock's own wife Alma Reville. In the end, Swerling was the only one credited for the screenplay, while Steinbeck was credited for having written the original story.

In January 1944, John Steinbeck saw Lifeboat in its finished form, and he didn't exactly like what he saw. He was especially appalled by the way one of his characters, the African American 'Joe' (played by Canada Lee), had been portrayed. In a letter to 20th Century-Fox, Steinbeck said that he had created a "Negro of dignity, purpose and personality" but that Hitchcock had turned him into a "stock comedy Negro". So appalled was Steinbeck that he wrote to his agent a month later to have 20th Century-Fox remove his name from "any connection with any showing of this film". Despite Steinbeck's protests, his name was not removed.

John Steinbeck (above), and Canada Lee and William Bendix in a scene from Lifeboat (below).
New York 
January 10, 1944 
Dear Sirs: 
I have just seen the film Lifeboat, directed by Alfred Hitchcock and billed as written by me. While in many ways the film is excellent there are one or two complaints I would like to make. While it is certainly true that I wrote a script for Lifeboat, it is not true that in that script as in the film there were any slurs against organized labor nor was there a stock comedy Negro. On the contrary there was an intelligent and thoughtful seaman who knew realistically what he was about. And instead of the usual colored travesty of the half comic and half pathetic Negro there was a Negro of dignity, purpose and personality. Since this film occurs over my name, it is painful to me that these strange, sly obliquities should be ascribed to me. 
John Steinbeck

A month later,  Steinbeck sent a telegram to his agent, Annie Laurie Williams:
FEBRUARY 19, 1944 

On 21 February 1944, Steinbeck wrote to his agent again, referring to his telegram sent two days earlier:
It does not seem right that knowing the effect of the picture on many people, the studio still lets it go. As for Hitchcock, I think his reasons were very simple. 1. He has been doing stories of international spies and master minds for so long that it has become a habit. And second, he is one of those incredible English middle class snobs who really and truly despise working people. As you know, there were other things that bothered me-- technical things. I know that one man can't row a boat of that size and in my story, no one touched an oar except to steer."

Source: Steinbeck: A Life in Letters (1975), edited by Elaine Steinbeck and Robert Wallsten

Alfred Hitchcock and his leading lady Tallulah Bankhead on the set of Lifeboat.

3 January 2018

Projects that never happened

We all know the finished projects, the films that made it to the big screen. But of course, there were also plenty of projects that, for whatever reason, never came about. Interesting collaborations that never happened. 

Here are three letters that speak of such projects.

The first letter is dated 26 February 1963 and is from director George Cukor to Bette Davis. Cukor wrote to Bette because a friend of his, screenwriter DeWitt Bodeen, had plans for a film adaptation of Edith Wharton's novella My Son. Bodeen wanted Cukor to direct the film and Bette and Olivia de Havilland to star in it. The film was never made but the two actresses did eventually play together in Robert Aldrich's Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964)

Cukor and Davis would never make a film together, although they did work together in the theatre in the 1920s. In 1926, Bette joined Cukor's stock company in Rochester, New York, and stayed with the group for only one season. Cukor later remembered: "Her talent was apparent, but she did buck at direction. She had her own ideas, and though she only did bits and ingenue roles, she didn't hesitate to express them." Bette kept insisting for years that Cukor had fired her even though Cukor kept saying that he hadn't. In the letter below, Cukor's remark about the 'Rochester Method' is an obvious reference to his theatre days with Bette. 

Via: we love bette davis (instagram)



February 26, 1963

Congratulations on your nomination- your tenth, no less*. It certainly proves that the Rochester Method pays off.

I am functioning as a Friend of Friends. One friend, DeWitt Bodeen, is a very nice man and a good screenwriter, whose last effort was "Billy Budd". He is presently negotiating for the rights of a novella by Edith Wharton called "Her Son". I must confess I'd never heard of it before. He has asked me to send it to you, which I am doing under separate cover. He thinks it would make a bangup picture for you and Olivia DeHavilland. The switch is that you would be the Good Woman and Olivia the Doxie.

I called your house yesterday and was told by your sister that you were in New York. Then I spoke to Olivia. She said that no time be wasted in getting the book to you because you were presently making Big Decisions in New York. So here the matter rests.

Every good wish and kindest regards.

signed 'George'

Note* The Oscar nomination was for Bette's role in Robert Aldrich's Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? Anne Bancroft would eventually win the Oscar for her leading role in The Miracle Worker.

Written on 16 January 1957, the second letter is from Kirk Douglas to Gary Cooper. The letter shows that Douglas was quite excited about a film he was planning to make based on the television show The Silent Gun. Douglas wanted to make the film with Gary Cooper and director Charles Vidor and to produce it through his own production company Bryna Productions. Eventually, the film was never made, and Douglas and Cooper would never work together. 

Source: live auctioneers


January 16, 1957

Mr. Gary Cooper
200 Baroda Drive
Los Angeles, California

Dear Gary:

This is the television show, THE SILENT GUN, I spoke to you about on the phone. I'd like you to see it just as a basis for a discussion that we can have when I get back from New York.

We have been in touch with the Colt people, and have worked out wonderful arrangements to use all their museum pieces of guns and old machinery used in the manufacturing of guns, to make this a completely documentary background.

As I told you, Charles Vidor is awfully anxious to do it. From my point of view, I'm completely wide open. I think this film can be made on a surprisingly reasonable budget. And, by the way, I just checked the records and I don't have $30,000 in the story in rough treatment but approximately $22,000.

I think this could be a really exciting one. I hope you think so, too. I'll call you when I get back.

Best regards,
(signed 'Kirk') 
Kirk Douglas

Rare photo of Kirk Douglas and Gary Cooper together, here pictured with Patricia Neal. (Cooper and Neal had an intense love affair while Cooper was marriedDouglas had also once dated Neal.)


The third and final letter comes from Cary Grant and is addressed to 'Dick', an associate of silent comedian Harold Lloyd. Grant had just received a script, meant as a possible vehicle for him and a potential new project for Harold Lloyd's production company. After reading it, Grant was not overly enthusiastic; he couldn't picture himself in the story and besides, a similar script had been offered to him once before (which he talks about in an amusing way). 

Grant's letter was written in January 1943, at a time when Harold Lloyd's Hollywood career was practically over. Lloyd would star in only one more film, in Preston Sturges' The Sin of Harold Diddlebock (1947), which became a big flop. As a producer, Lloyd had made two films for RKO in the early 1940s, i.e. A Girl, a Guy, and a Gob (1941) and My Favorite Spy (1942), which had proven unsuccessful too. A deal with Columbia to produce another film was signed in February 1943 but that film was never made. In the end, Lloyd would never produce again and a collaboration between him and Cary Grant never happened.

(Incidentally, while I have tried to find more information on 'Dick', unfortunately I could find nothing.)

Source: leading lights autographs


Jan. 16, 1943
1515 N. Amalfi Dr.
Pacific Palisades

Dear Dick:

Many thanks for letting me read this---- I had a most enjoyable evening. It is undoubtedly a very funny and different idea, but with the script in it's [sic] present rough form I find it difficult to visualize completely it's [sic] possibilities as a vehicle for me. Incidentally, if Harold and yourself are keen to put this type of story into production, I think I should tell you that there is a synopsis lying around town, and which was submitted to me some time ago, embodying a similar idea-- though in that story the dog was the supposed reincarnation of the first husband who came back to worry the second husband and his former spouse--- it made for fun in a bed-room on a wedding night for two people and a dog-- you get the idea. I thought you both should know of it's [sic] existence although I have forgotten whether it is owned by a studio.

Hope to see you soon, Dick, and perhaps then we can discuss this story more fully, but in any case I'd be grateful if you would let me know what happens to it and the manner in which it is to be finally developed. Too, if we cannot get together on this one, I do hope I shall have the pleasure and the good fortune to work with you in the near future. Best personal wishes, and regards to Harold.

signed 'Cary'

While Cary Grant and Harold Lloyd never worked together, Grant's comedic performance in Howard Hawks' Bringing Up Baby (1938) was influenced by Lloyd. When Grant didn't know how to play his character (the nerdy paleontologist David Huxley) Hawks suggested Grant look at the films of Harold Lloyd. Grant did, and in Bringing Up Baby he imitates Lloyd's acting style and even wears his trademark black horn-rimmed glasses and ill-fitting suit.

30 November 2017

Consoling Audrey Hepburn

When Audrey Hepburn failed to receive an Oscar nomination for her leading role in George Cukor's My Fair Lady (1964), she was quite devastated. The fact that she had not done her own singing is regarded as one of the main reasons for the Oscar snub. While Audrey had been allowed to do her own singing on Funny Face (1957) and Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), her vocal range was too limited for the more demanding songs of My Fair Lady. Despite her hard work on the songs with a vocal coach, halfway through production Audrey was told by Cukor that her singing wasn't good enough. (Unlike Audrey, Julie Andrews who had successfully played the role of Eliza Doolittle on the stage was an experienced soprano; she was, however, passed over for the film adaptation because she had no film experience whereas Audrey was already a star.)

Above and below: Audrey Hepburn and director George Cukor on the set of My Fair Lady.
Marni Nixon had previously dubbed Deborah Kerr in The King and I (1956) and Natalie Wood in West Side Story (1961) and was hired to also dub Audrey's singing voice. When word got out about Nixon's singing and just how little Audrey herself had sung --Audrey can be heard half-talking half-singing in a couple of songs-- it led to negative reactions in the gossip columnsInfluential columnist Hedda Hopper, for example, wrote: "With Marni Nixon doing the singing, Audrey gives only half a performance". The bad publicity very likely prevented Audrey from getting her Oscar nomination. 

In an attempt to cheer up Audrey for not being nominated, director and good friend George Cukor wrote her a brief letter on 26 February 1965. In it, Cukor gives Audrey an encouraging message from a fellow actress and a dear friend of his, i.e. "the other actress of the Clan Hepburn" who had been through "this kind of thing" herself.  Katharine Hepburn's words to Audrey are quite sweet and must have given Audrey's self-confidence at least a little boost. (Incidentally, Cukor and Katharine had been close friends ever since they started working together in the 1930s; Cukor and Audrey became close during the filming of My Fair Lady and remained friends until Cukor's death in 1983.)


Source: Bonhams


Enclosed you will find a letter written by the other actress of the Clan Hepburn. She asked me to read it. I was to decide whether to send it to you or not. Here it is.

It's bound to tickle you. (Lest her handwriting drive you up the wall, Irene has deciphered it.) Here is the Voice of Experience. She's been through this kind of thing. It touched me because it's shot through with such warmth of feeling for you, and such high regard.

Dearest, dearest Audrey, you're lovely, talented, intelligent, distinguished, capable only of beautiful behaviour. You're possessed of all the graces and virtues including the rarest of all- simple kindness and plain goodness.

I hope all this praise doesn't make you become insufferable.

My loving regards, to you, Mel and Sean.

(signed) George

Mrs. Mel Ferrer
La Retama
La Morelaja

Friends for life: Katharine Hepburn and George Cukor on the set of The Philadelphia Story (1940).

My Fair Lady was thé winner at the 37th Academy Awards (held on 5 April 1965) with 8 Oscars, including awards for Jack Warner (Best Picture), George Cukor (Best Director) and Rex Harrison (Best Actor); the three men are pictured above with Audrey Hepburn. At the Oscar Ceremony, Audrey was gracious enough to present the Best Actor award to Rex Harrison, even though it must have been difficult for her. If you click here, you can watch Audrey present the Oscar and see how clearly emotional she was.

Audrey Hepburn with Julie Andrews at the Academy Awards. Julie won the Best Actress award for Mary Poppins which was her first feature film after having been passed over by Jack Warner for My Fair Lady.  There was no personal animosity between Audrey and Julieon the contrary, the two actresses became good friends.

19 November 2017

Lucille Ball's brush with the blacklist

In the early 1950's, Lucille Ball was under investigation by the HUAC, the notorious committee that investigated Communism in Hollywood. The evidence against her consisted, among others, of a 1936 affidavit of registration saying she would vote for the Communist Party, an affidavit revealing she had been a delegate of the State Committee of the Communist Party, her membership of the Committee for the First Amendment and the fact that a communist meeting was held at her home in 1937 (although Ball herself had not been present). With all the evidence against her, Ball was questioned by the HUAC during secret meetings in April 1952 and September 1953. Regarding the 1936 affidavit, Ball said that she had only registered to please her grandfather Fred Hunt, a life-long socialist. The other accusations she denied too, firmly stating that she was no communist and had no ties with the Communist Party.

A few days after Ball's second HUAC interview, well-known radio commentator Walter Winchell made the accusations against Ball public. At the time, Ball's television show I Love Lucy (launched in 1951) was extremely popular, with very high ratings and sponsor Philip Morris having invested $8 million in the show. Despite the considerable evidence against Ball, fans stood by her as did her sponsor, and even FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (a big fan of the show) supported her.

It is generally believed that the show's huge popularity played a decisive role in determining Ball's fate. While a lot of Ball's fellow actors, screenwriters etc. got blacklisted, Ball herself was cleared of the charges. The HUAC accepted her story about her grandfather as well as her explanation regarding the other accusations. In the end, the HUAC investigation had done nothing to dent Ball's popularity. On the contrary-- Ball was more popular than ever, about 50 million people tuned in each week to watch her show. Ball would later acknowledge that she had been very lucky. If the HUAC affair had happened several years earlier, it might have very well ruined her career.

Sept. 1953, Lucille Ball and husband Desi Arnaz give a press conference at their home following the HUAC hearing. Arnaz jokingly said: "The only thing Red about Lucy is her hair. And that's not real either!"


While Lucille Ball enjoyed the support from the majority of the American public, there were also those who didn't believe her explanations. The letters below, written by two angry US citizens to resp. radio commentator Walter Winchell and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, show just that. The first letter was written in September 1953 and the second letter in December 1955, long after Ball had already been cleared. 

Apart from the letters, also seen below is a FBI document regarding Ball's 1953 testimony before the HUAC. The document shows what Ball had to say in her defense against the accusations. (For the full text of Ball's testimony, click here.)


Dear Winchell;

What are these bums trying to prove? Lucille Ball defended the UNFRIENDLY TEN as late as 1948 and Granpop was not around to guide her at that time.

Clyne of the Blow Agency knew this dame was on the Pinko side when he signed her for Morris Cigarettes. Now Metro and the Morris people are trying to save what they can out off the mess by pushing aside Winchell and others who had the guts to PORVE [sic] THAT THIS DAME SIGNED WITH THE COMMY PARTY.

Ball is 42 now. In 1936 she was 29-- well over the 21 year old mark and should have had all of her marbles regarding political parties. FIVE YEARS AGO 1948, she STILL SHOULD HAVE HAD ENOUGH BRAINS TO KNOW THAT THE UNFRIENDLY TEN OF HOLLYWOOD WERE STILL COMMY BUMS..... But no she went along with them.

If Walter Winchell had bothered to call Dizzy [Desi Arnaz] he would have handed Winchell the same lies he handed the Herald Express the other day---- namely she never registered as a member of the Communist Party.... WHEN THE HERALD HAD THE SIGNED PROOF RUNNING IN THE PAPER AS DEZIE DENIED IT. I still think the show should be called I LOATHE LUCY and every real American feels that way too. 


Transcript :

Mr. J. Edgar Hoover
Washington 25, D.C.

Dear Mr. Hoover:

I read your interview with Vincent X. Flaherty published in the Los Angeles Examiner, October 22 and 23, (copies enclosed) and I am wondering if there is not a mistake or misquote of some kind since it lists Lucy and Desi among your favorite entertainers who you think set a good example for the youth of America.

Lucille Ball voted for the Communist Party and was appointed as a member of the Central Committee for the Communist Party. She insisted that she did this because her poor old grandfather was ill and that she had no dealings with communists on her own. Yet, ten years later-- with no contact of any kind-- grandpa had passed on-- when a communist speaker who is to make a radio broadcast falls ill-- the communist know exactly where to reach her and that she would be their willing stooge and she takes off from her job to broadcast for them. Again, she says, "I certainly was never in sympathy with the ' Dmytrks', I can't remember any of the other names." Well, in the library there was a book by one of the Hollywood ten-- and it has forewords of sympathy and support by movie stars-- and there is Lucille Ball with her words of sympathy and support.

She has never said she was sorry nor ashamed of these actions.

Since I'm one of the 98% of Americans who think Mr. J. Edgar Hoover is the greatest-- would you mind clarifying this for me.




DIRECTOR, FBI  (100-400465)
SAC, LOS ANGELES (100-41702)


ReBulet dated 1/18/52 captioned "C.P, U.S.A., DISTRICT 13, Los Angeles Division, IS-C"  and remy-Air-Tel to Bureau 9/11/53 captioned "HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES".

The subject furnished an executive statement to WILLIAM A. WHEELER, West Coast Representative, House Committee on Un-American Activities, on September 4, 1953, at Hollywood, California. BALL stated that in 1936 she registered to vote as a Communist or intended to vote the Communist Party ticket because her grandfather, FRED HUNT, now deceased, wanted her to register as such.  She stated that FRED HUNT had been a Socialist all his life and she had registered as a Communist to make him happy and to do him a favor. She stated she at no time intended to vote as a Communist.

BALL stated she has never been a member of the Communist Party to "her knowledge"; had never been asked to become a Communist Party member; did not ever attend any meetings which she later discovered were Communist Party meetings;  did not know whether or not any meetings were ever held at her home at 1344 North Ogden Drive;  stated she did not know EMIL FREED and if he had appointed her as a delegate to the State Central Committee of the Communist Party in 1936 it was done without her knowledge or consent; did not recall signing the document sponsoring EMIL FREED for the Communist Party nomination to the office of member of the assembly of the 57th District; and has never heard of the California Conference for Repeal of the Criminal Syndicalism Act, the Southern California Council for Constitutional Rights, or the Committee for the 1st Amendment.

A review of the subject's file reflects no activity that would warrant her inclusion on the Security Index. The subject's file is being maintained in a closed status. On October 30, 1953, the Washington Field Office furnished the Los Angeles Office with a copy of the subject's executive statement which is located in Los Angeles file 100-41702-lal.


Source of all documents: vault.fbi.gov

This post is my contribution to CMBA's Fall Blogathon Banned and Blacklisted. For a list of all the other entries, please click here.