Annals of Censorship #1
Mr. J. L. Warner,
Warner Bros. Studios,
Burbank, California
Dear Mr. Warner:
We have read the final script of your production, WILD BOYS OF THE ROAD, and have given it very careful consideration. It seems to us that it contains several major problems to which some further consideration should be given both from the standpoint of the Code and censorship.
First we feel that the characterization of Aunt Carrie's residence as a house of prostitution is very questionable under the Code and dangerous with regard to official censorship. Consequently, it would be wise to change the nature of these scenes radically and indicate, if possible, that Aunt Carrie runs a speakeasy or that she is implicated in any other kind of a racket which might make her liable to arrest. If such a change were made, all the story necessities would be saved and, at the same time, a very dangerous situation would be avoided.
Second, we believe that the scenes in which it is indicated that Lola is raped by the brakeman, Red, are so bluntly explicit as to make them unacceptable under the Code. If this situation is to be retained, it seems to us that it will have to be handled in such a way as to remove any definite indication of a rape, showing it to be rather an attack in which Lola has been rather badly beaten.
Lola should not remove her sweater, so that when discovered by Red, she is clad only in the riding breeches and a very skimpy brassiere. And when she is discovered by the kids, who have returned to the car, there should be no indication of "a tear in her riding breeches" and the imprint of the greasy hand ought not to be on her bare shoulder, but on the sweater, which she has never removed. Also, the line in which the young kid says, "What happened to her", and the reply by the older boy, "Aw don't be so dumb", ought to be eliminated.
The third point is more a matter of policy than of Code and concerns itself with the characterization of the doctor, and the fact that he has to be coerced to go with the boys to help Tommy when he is not sure he will be paid for his services. This element, we believe, would be very much resented by the medical profession and we believe that you should seriously consider changing the doctor's characterization so as to show him in a kindly and sympathetic light and not concerned about his remuneration.
In general, we feel that as a matter of policy, as well as censorship, you should be careful to distinguish between the railroad detectives and the various police departments. Also, it would be wise, whenever it is possible to do so, to avoid any overly brutal acts on the part of either the detectives or the police. Specifically in this connection, we believe that the police chief in his lines on page 98 ought to be made to seem more sympathetic in his attitude toward these unfortunate children and not refer to them in a derogatory fashion as "young hoodlums".
Another part which we believe ought to be handled as carefully as possible in order to avoid, insofar as possible its gruesomeness, is the scene in the dago "jungle" where Tommy's leg is amputated. As it reads, these scenes are so harrowing and gruesome as to make their acceptability doubtful. We realize, of course, that you want to retain as much punch as possible but we feel that it would be unwise to obtain such dramatic quality at the cost of too much horror. Also, from a standpoint of censorship, extreme care should be exercised in handling the hypodermic needle with which the anaesthetic is administered, since the censors have always been very careful to eliminate any scenes in which such a needle is used.
With all good wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
James Wingate