Sign in to follow this  
johnbabe

uncensored mata hari - what is wrong with it

23 posts in this topic

happy birthday hays code, you managed to destroy Garbo's Mata Hari, Susan Lenox, and Two Faced Woman, the code was just hypocrital, what responsible parent would take or allow an underage child (under 17) to even see these films....yes, they are full of sex and inuendos, but look at your TV commercials today for films, etc., they are just so explicit...besides Garbo's movies and her style was sublte sex you either got her meaning or it went over your head....the hays code was out to destroy realistic film making, like Baby Face, people will continue to do those things to get ahead, and Mata Hari was no school teacher, she was a spy who used sex to get secrets, how can you candy coat that? Give us this film UNCUT, PLEASE, TCM, your viewers, believe me, are mature enough to see the entire film!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dream on, johnbabe, dream on. If TCM ever shows the restored version I'll eat my hat. :)

 

We've had this discussion before but I just don't accept the notion that the Code came into being to destroy films. It's totally bogus. Many of the best films of all time were made during the Code years and when the Code ended in 1968 almost overnight many films became crass and ugly and a waste of time, at least to my mind.

 

That's why I love classic films over modern films. They have far more to offer in terms of enjoyment and inspiration. Not everyone wants to see the inside of a toilet bowl because it's "realistic". Some of us want to see beauty instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=goldensilents wrote:}{quote}

> Dream on, johnbabe, dream on. If TCM ever shows the restored version I'll eat my hat. :)

>

> We've had this discussion before but I just don't accept the notion that the Code came into being to destroy films. It's totally bogus. Many of the best films of all time were made during the Code years and when the Code ended in 1968 almost overnight many films became crass and ugly and a waste of time, at least to my mind.

>

> That's why I love classic films over modern films. They have far more to offer in terms of enjoyment and inspiration. Not everyone wants to see the inside of a toilet bowl because it's "realistic". Some of us want to see beauty instead.

Please list some pre-Codes that showed the inside of a toilet bowl. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of any pre-code that even had a toilet in a scene. The only film that I can think of that even uses a toilet in it is THE WIND (1928) which is not a pre-code, and that was used to show that it was malfunctioning and became part of argument that John & Mary were already having in the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you aren't too up to date with the concept of SYMBOLISM, Prince.

 

Toilet bowls are SYMBOLIC of dirt and filth. I'm simply not into that kind of thing no matter what era of film we are talking about, silent, precode, Code, or modern day films.

 

When you get older and realize you are nearer the end of your life, rather than nearer the beginning, your priorities change. I'm like Rhett Butler at the end of Gone With The Wind: I want to see if somewhere in life there isn't some beauty and charm left in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. I grew up watching Code films. As the ?60s came on, more films began to violate the Code, and by the late ?60s I no longer liked modern movies, and I began to stop going to them. Luckily, I lived in San Francisco at that time, and we had a lot of classic-movie theaters back then, so I began going only to them. Ted Turner made his first millions by showing Code movies on his WTBS on cable back in the ?70s, and he became quite famous by putting that channel on satellite and cable and showing old movies on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>We've had this discussion before but I just don't accept the notion that the Code came into being to destroy films. It's totally bogus. Many of the best films of all time were made during the Code years and when the Code ended in 1968 almost overnight many films became crass and ugly and a waste of time, at least to my mind. <<

 

I've often thought that myself. Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, Sunset Boulevard, etc -- all of these classic movies were released *after* the Code was enforced, and they are enduring cinematic greats. So perhaps this "I hate the Code" stuff is a bit unjustified.

 

But then...the other half of me wonders how much better some of those movies could've been if the Code *hadn't* been enforced...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> But then...the other half of me wonders how much better some of those movies could've been if the Code hadn't been enforced...

 

It's my personal belief that they might not have been made at all. With loose standards you would have seen films get worse year by year, decade by decade, similar to how bad they've become since 1968. It's far easier and cheaper to make a superficial little sex comedy with scantily clad girls rather than make a cinematic classic that inspires you, makes you think, or teaches you something worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not yet had the opportunity to see the very rare NIGHT LIFE OF THE GODS (Universal, 1935). I've read Thorne Smith's novel and there is no doubt in my mind it would have been a better pic (based on contemporary reviews) had it been made before the code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right, it's impossible to say for sure. A lot of precodes were still tame by today's standards, and most of them had very conservative endings, even if what came before depicted anti-social behaviors. So if the script was mediocre for the Code picture chances are it still would have been mediocre for a precode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They destroyed the film but not the trailer. Don't ask me why. They also destroyed most of their silent films at the same time.

I don't expect you to know why they did what they did. On the matter, one could speculate based on how much Joseph Breen was morally opposed to this films that he might be behind these incidents. One could also speculate him behind why there was box office poison list made in the late 1930s featuring box-office attractive actors and actresses who saved their studios from bankruptcy because they got their start in precode films. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect you to know why they did what they did. On the matter, one could speculate based on how much Joseph Breen was morally opposed to this films that he might be behind these incidents. One could also speculate him behind why there was box office poison list made in the late 1930s featuring box-office attractive actors and actresses who saved their studios from bankruptcy because they got their start in precode films. 

 

The production code could have been a reason why the studio decided to destroy the film since they couldn't re-release the flim without some major editing and determine that the film just didn't have enough of a potential market to justify a re-release.  So there was more value in getting the silver nitrate.      

 

The production code and the re-release of Mata Hari explains why the most common version of Mata Hari is the re-released version re-editted to pass the code.    Sadly this is the case for many pre-code movies.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Converting Convention City's take into today's dollars, it took about today's  equivalent of $18,000,000 at the box office...which made it a modest success for the time. The question is why was this one destroyed while others were not that were just as risqué? A possible reason is that Jack Warner did not particularly like the film.

Jack Warner liked anything that could make money, and $18 mill in 1933 is not bad considering Depression economy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The production code could have been a reason why the studio decided to destroy the film since they couldn't re-release the flim without some major editing and determine that the film just didn't have enough of a potential market to justify a re-release.  So there was more value in getting the silver nitrate.      

 

 

 

But, herein lies the question, James, why would anyone want to destroy something that made them money to make more money? I mean, MGM almost destroyed the 1940 film Gaslight with Anton Walbrook because of reputation and competition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, herein lies the question, James, why would anyone want to destroy something that made them money to make more money? I mean, MGM almost destroyed the 1940 film Gaslight with Anton Walbrook because of reputation and competition. 

 

Well there was a guy that had a great collection of 'old' guitars.   Say, he had 6 guitars of a certain very rare guitar year and model.   How rare (hard to obtain), a guitar is, is a key driver of a guitar's value.    The guy determined that the total value of 3 guitars was worth more then the total value of 6 guitars.   So he started to destroy guitars.    

 

I know that this true guitar story doesn't relate to destroying movies.   I assume studios destroyed movies because they felt it was cost effective.    e.g.  free up room to store movies they felt had more potential for future profit.    Note that with remakes a studio will try to gain the rights to the prior versions and than refuse to lease them.   They feel this somehow increases the value of the current release. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there was a guy that had a great collection of 'old' guitars.   Say, he had 6 guitars of a certain very rare guitar year and model.   How rare (hard to obtain), a guitar is, is a key driver of a guitar's value.    The guy determined that the total value of 3 guitars was worth more then the total value of 6 guitars.   So he started to destroy guitars.    

 

I know that this true guitar story doesn't relate to destroying movies.   I assume studios destroyed movies because they felt it was cost effective.    e.g.  free up room to store movies they felt had more potential for future profit.    Note that with remakes a studio will try to gain the rights to the prior versions and than refuse to lease them.   They feel this somehow increases the value of the current release. 

 

I don't think Jack Warner and Louis B. Mayer were conscientious businessmen to think about that in that sense. Even so, I do believe that there is a Convention City film reel somewhere in the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different economies though- and these were ruthless businessmen, Obrien. You might as well say that a Production Code film like Bringing Up Baby which didn't do well at the box office deserves to be destroyed because it didn't make a lot for RKO. But, pickers can't be choosers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not trying to say unsuccessful films should be destroyed. 

Please clarify what exactly you meant to say then, because maybe I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different economies though- and these were ruthless businessmen, Obrien. You might as well say that a Production Code film like Bringing Up Baby which didn't do well at the box office deserves to be destroyed because it didn't make a lot for RKO. But, pickers can't be choosers. 

 

From a business POV, yes,  movies that studio heads believe have little to no estimated future profits should be destroyed.    Racy pre-codes had the additional burden that they have to be edited to pass the code.   

 

Studios were in the business of making money not 'art'.   Frankly I'm surprised more movies weren't destroyed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a business POV, yes,  movies that studio heads believe have little to no estimated future profits should be destroyed.    Racy pre-codes had the additional burden that they have to be edited to pass the code.   

 

Studios were in the business of making money not 'art'.   Frankly I'm surprised more movies weren't destroyed. 

This goes back to my speculation about the "moral" crusaders of the Production Code office and Joseph Breen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us