Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:23:24.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Struggle to Fashion the NRA Code: The Triumph of Studio Power in 1933 Hollywood

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2015

HARVEY G. COHEN
HARVEY G. COHEN*
Affiliation:
Culture, Media & Creative Industries Department, King's College London. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article traces the long and antagonistic fashioning of the National Recovery Adminstration's code of practice for the film industry during 1933. The NRA code process publicly exposed resentful fissions within Hollywood, and the oligarchic, if not monopolistic, way in which the major film studios had set up their vertically integrated consolidation of the motion-picture industry in terms of production, distribution and exhibition on a national scale. A media spotlight flooded onto their soundstages and executive suites, and many, including President Franklin Roosevelt, were not pleased with what they saw. The NRA, signed into law in 1933 by Roosevelt, implemented an unprecedented reorganization of the American economy to restore employment to combat the Great Depression. Perhaps most controversially, especially for the union-averse film industry, the NRA established collective bargaining. Though they supported it initially, the major studios would not long abide by the NRA. Throughout 1933, they violated the spirit and letter of the code, ensuring as much as possible that the economic pain and sacrifice of the Great Depression in Hollywood was visited upon artists and technicians, not studio heads and executives. They used the making of the code to attempt to cement and further the advantages they enjoyed while offering little to other interests in the film industry.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , November 2016 , pp. 1039 - 1066
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and British Association for American Studies 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For more on the 1934 California gubernatorial election consult Ronald Brownstein, The Power and the Glitter: The Hollywood–Washington Connection (New York: Vintage Books, 1990), 40–47; Greg Mitchell, The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair's Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics (New York: Random House, 1992), Preface, 20–23, 31–32, 62–69, 207, 421–24, 530–36; Leo Rosten, Hollywood: The Movie Colony, The Movie Makers (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1941), 133–39.

2 Brownstein, chapter 1; John Morello, “Selling the ‘Available Man’: Albert D. Lasker, Advertising and the Election of Warren G. Harding,” paper given at the Historians of 20th Century United States (HOTCUS) Conference, Middelberg, the Netherlands, June 2012.

3 Sources concerning the background and general intent of the National Recovery Administration: David Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 151–52, 177–89; Arthur Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal (London: Heinemann, 1960), chapter 7; Jean Edward Smith, FDR (New York: Random House, 2008), 343–44.

4 The 8 Aug. 1933 issue of Variety and the 12 Aug. 1933 issue of Motion Picture Herald feature several of these ads from various Hollywood major studios. Other issues of these trade publications in the summer of 1933 feature similar imagery and messages.

5 Thomas Doherty, Pre-code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema 1930–1934 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 82–85; “Allied Suggests Trailers Urging Faith in Roosevelt,” Film Daily, 11 March 1933; “Warner's Semi-official ‘New Deal’ NRA Short,” and “Harry Warner as NIRA Propagandist,” Variety, 1 Aug. 1933; “NRA Trailers Ready for 6000 Houses August 20,” Hollywood Reporter, 9 Aug. 1933; “64,000 Showings per NRA Short Scheduled,” Variety, 29 Aug. 1933; “Film Shorts for NRA Shown: Few Previewed on Coast; 1,000 Prints For Each,” Variety, 5 Sept. 1933; “Eight NRA Films Made; One Release a Week,” Motion Picture Herald, 16 Sept. 1933. The “big eight” major Hollywood studios in 1933 were (in alphabetical order) Columbia, Fox, MGM, Paramount, RKO, United Artists, Universal, Warner Bros.

6 “Must Jell 50 Codes Into 1; Films' Formula Ready by Aug.,” Variety, 4 July 1933; “Working Faster on Codes; Want to Be the First for Roosevelt” and “Studios' Code Maybe Ready by July 31,” Variety, 25 July 1933; “Must Have a Uniform Code; All Branches Concur, Edict,” Variety, 1 Aug. 1933; “Permanent Code This Week? But Meetings Are Scheduled,” Variety, 8 Aug. 1933; “Teeth and Penalties in Code, Says Rosenblatt: Theatres Must Get Away from the Red,” Hollywood Reporter, 9 Aug. 1933; Tom Waller, “That Film Code – Wot Grief; They're Working on It, And How,” Variety, 15 Aug. 1933. It should be noted here that the National Recovery Administration's Code of Practice for the motion picture industry, finally completed and approved by the Roosevelt administration, as this article will later show, in autumn 1933, is completely different from the strengthening of the Production Code in mid-1934, which tightened censorship of Hollywood films and gave the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America enforcement powers to penalize Hollywood studios that did not meet its exacting standards, especially on issues of sex, violence, morality, religion and more. The best source for the history and ramifications of the institution of the more strict Production Code during 1934 is Doherty, chapter 12.

7 Schlesinger, 110–12.

8 Doherty; “Academy Code Seeks to Protect the Individual: Would Eliminate Unfair Practices,” Hollywood Reporter, 20 July 1933; “30,000 Ushers Averaging $6 Wkly [sic] and Other Minor Trade Employes [sic] Now Figured for Minimum Wage,” and “Upping Scales Allowable Is Claim,” Variety, 25 July 1933; “NRA Is in Action Today: All Studios with Exception of Fox and Paramount Put Office Workers on Forty-Hour Plan,” Hollywood Reporter, 31 July 1933; “More Employes [sic] with NRA Deal,” Variety, 1 Aug. 1933; “NRA Confuses Studios, But 400 Added 1st Week,” Variety, 8 Aug. 1933; “NRA Effect in Far West; Theatres Operate under Eagle, Except Union Men with Contract,” Variety, 8 Aug. 1933; “NRA Flags Waving: Nearly All Theatres on B'way in Times Sq. Show Emblem,” Variety, 8 Aug. 1933; “Some of the Better Paid Employes [sic] Feel That Blue Bird Is Agin 'Em,” Variety, 15 Aug. 33; “Manager's Round Table” (column), Motion Picture Herald, 26 Aug. 1933; “30,000 More Now in Picture Industry,” Variety, 29 Aug 1933; “Flinn Submits His C. A. Report; 389,000 Wage Earners in Pictures,” Variety, 6 March 1934.

9 This section on Roosevelt and the film industry is based on the following sources: “Why F.D. R. Is a Film Fan: Sees More Pix Than any President,” Variety, 21 April 1934; Brownstein; Paul Buhle and Dave Wagner, Radical Hollywood: The Untold Story behind America's Favorite Movies (New York: The New Press, 2002), 60.

10 William E. Leuchtenburg, Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932–1940 (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 64–70; Schlesinger, 145; “Dictator for Industry Selected by Roosevelt: H. S. Johnson, Ex-general, Honored; Budget Chief Lists Tax Plans to Finance Public Works,” Los Angeles Times, 19 May 33.

11 “Rosy Knows Too Much: His Inside Stuff Kayos Hollywood,” Variety, 30 Jan. 1934; “Permanent Code This Week?”; “Teeth and Penalties in Code.”

12 “Teeth and Penalties in Code.”

13 “Academy Code Seeks to Protect the Individual”; “All Branches of Industry Will Get Chance at Code Framing,” Variety, 25 July 1933; “Code to Bring Changes: NRA Document Provides for Central Booking Office and Rehashed Old Arbitration Pact,” Hollywood Reporter, 14 Aug. 1933.

14 Larry Ceplair and Steven Englund, The Inquisition in Hollywood: Politics in the Film Community 1930–1960 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1980), 1–3.

15 Tino Balio, Grand Design: Hollywood as a Modern Business Enterprise 1930–1939 (New York: Scribner, 1993), 153–55; Laurence W. Beilenson, “NRA: Blue Eagles, Sick Chickens,” Variety, 25 Oct 1983; Buhle and Wagner, 44–45; Nancy Lynn Schwartz, The Hollywood Writers' Wars (New York: Knopf, 1982), 28–31; Code of Fair Competition for the Motion Picture Industry (US Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1933), 236–42; “Talk Hollywood Walkout: But Stars Won't Ignore Contract,” and “Studio Players Plenty Het Up Over the Code—Make Sweeping Changes Vs. Producers' Methods,” Variety, 17 Oct. 1933; “Film Code Problems Aired at White House,” Los Angeles Times, 24 Oct. 1933; “Code to Bring Changes”; “Studios Divide on Code: September 12th Hearing Will Bring Widely Differing Views; Acad. – Writers – Agents Active,” Hollywood Reporter, 24 Aug. 1933.

16 Sources for this discussion on the “loaning out” of screen actors: Inter-office Communication, Mr. Dover to R. J. Obringer, 17 Sept. 1932; L. B. Mayer to WB Pictures Inc. contract, 24 Sept. 1932; Inter-office Communication, R. J. Obringer to J. L. Warner, 30 Sept. 1932; Inter-office Communication, R. J. Obringer to J. L. Warner, 1 Oct. 1932. All documents from 42nd Street Picture file (2872), Warner Bros. Archive, University of Southern California (henceforth WBA/USC). A. Scott Berg, Goldwyn (London: Riverhead, 1989), 327; Kobal, John, “Joan Blondell,” Focus on Film, 24 (1 April 1976), 15–16 Google Scholar, 15; Edward G. Robinson with Leonard Spigelgass, All My Yesterdays: An Autobiography (New York: Penguin, 1973), 150–51; “Too Many Talent ‘Loans’ at Metro,” Variety, 20 June 1933.

17 Evidence of 13½–14½-hour working days during the filming of Footlight: Footlight Parade Picture file (2872, 1 of 2), Footlight Parade Production – Daily Progress Reports file (1448), WBA/USC. For more evidence of extreme work schedules of motion picture production employees, especially at Warner Bros., consult Jeanine Basinger, A Woman's View: How Hollywood Spoke to Women, 1930–1960 (London: Chatto & Windus, 1993), 186–87; James Cagney, Cagney (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1976), 56, 63–64; Bette Davis, The Lonely Life (New York: Berkley Books, 1962), 141; Gerald Horne, Class Struggle in Hollywood: Moguls, Mobsters, Stars, Reds & Trade Unionists (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001), 45; John Kobal, Gotta Dance Gotta Sing: A Pictorial History of Film Musicals (London: Hamlyn, 1971), 40–41; Kobal, “Joan Blondell”; Rosten, Hollywood, 123–24; Tony Thomas and Jim Terry, with Busby Berkeley, The Busby Berkeley Book (London, 1973), 27.

18 Robert Sklar, Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies (New York: Random House, 1994), 170–72; “Washington Scans High Salaries: Maximum Money as Well as Min.,” Variety, 1 Aug. 1933; “30,000 Ushers”; “Rosy Knows.”

19 Sources concerning the March and April 1933 major studio wage cuts: Rudy Behlmer, Inside Warner Bros. (1935–1951) (New York: Viking, 1985), 10–11, 53; Beilenson; Ceplair and Englund, 1–3, chapter 2; James P. Cunningham, “Theatre Receipts Swing Upward as Public's Confidence Returns,” Motion Picture Herald, 25 March 1933; Michael Freedland, The Warner Brothers (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), 58–59; Neal Gabler, Walt Disney: The Triumph of American Imagination (New York: Vintage, 2006), 184–86; Giuliana Muscio, Hollywood's New Deal (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997), 129–30; Rosten, 65, chapter 4; Edwin Schallert, “Studios Taking it Standing up,” Los Angeles Times, 9 March 1933; Edwin Schallert, “Will the Money Crisis Make or Break Hollywood?”, Los Angeles Times, 12 March 1933 (front page, top story of the day); Schwartz, 10–13; “Cagney Takes WB Cut; Chatterton Gives Free Film,” Variety, 7 Feb. 1933; “Film Workers Accept Pay Cut,” Los Angeles Times, 8 March 1933; “Film Pay Cut May Hit Snag,” Los Angeles Times (front-page article), 10 March 1933; “Industry Meets Dollar Crisis with 25 And 50% Salary Cuts,” Motion Picture Herald, 11 March 1933.

20 “Warners Pretty Grouchy Nowadays; May Prefer It Altogether Alone unless Merger with WE Eventuates,” Variety, 4 July 1933; “Goldwyn Scores Warner: ‘Reckless Star Raiding’ Charged in Statement as to Why He Quits Hays Org,” Los Angeles Times (front-page story), 31 Oct 1933; Waller, “That Film Code”; “Permanent Code This Week?”; “Teeth and Penalties in Code.”

21 For more information on Cagney's 1931 and 1932 strikes against Warner Bros. consult “Films' Erratic Salaries: Standardizing All but Checks,” Variety, 6 Oct. 1931; “Cagney in Town,” Variety, 5 July 1933; “Cagney Sees Warner Out, May Produce,” Variety, 23 Aug. 1932; “Cagney-Dvorak's Contract Breach Scored by Coast Producers' Ass'n, Which Votes ‘Hands Off’ Policy,” Variety, 30 Aug. 1932; “Cagney–Warner Tiff May Go to Academy for Final Arbitration,” Variety, 6 Sept. 1932; “Academy Insisting on WB–Cagney Mediation as Obligation to Industry,” Variety, 13 Sept. 1932; Cagney, 46–51; Patrick McGilligan, Cagney: The Actor as Auteur (San Diego, CA: A. S. Barnes, 1982), chapter 3; James Robert Parish, The Tough Guys (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1976), 29–32; 15; Robinson and Spigelgass, 306; Robert Sklar, City Boys: Cagney, Bogart, Garfield (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 35–42; Doug Warren and James Cagney, Cagney: The Authorized Biography (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1986), 79–90; “Warner Bros.,” Fortune, Dec. 1937, 218.

22 “Code to Bring Changes”; “Teeth and Penalties in Code.”

23 Sources for this paragraph: Arthur W. Eddy, “A Summary of Events Leading up to the Motion Picture Code,” Film Daily Year Book 1934 (no publishing data, c. early 1934), 596–97; “Studios Divide on Code: Sept. 12th Hearing Will Bring Widely Differing Views; Acad. – Writers – Agents Active,” Hollywood Reporter, 24 Aug. 1933; W. B. Francis, “Finale Nears on Film Code,” Los Angeles Times, 24 Sept. 1933; “Hopes for Film Pact Set Back,” Los Angeles Times, 26 Sept. 1933; W. B. Francis, “Film Industry Splits on Code,” Los Angeles Times, 6 Oct. 1933.

24 This section on the independents' complaints concerning the NRA code is based on the following sources: Francis, “Finale”; Francis, “Film Industry Splits on Code”; “Indies Booted Their Chances at Code Hearings; Told All,” Variety, 17 Oct. 1933.

25 Examples of the independent exhibitors' problems in dealing with the major studios are detailed in these accounts of the spring 1934 NRA Review Board investigations: “Clarence Darrow's NRA Review Bd.'s Power Has Film Codism Nettled,” and “Darrow Assails Pic Code: Rosy in Battle with Review Bd.,” Variety, 27 March 1934; “Calls Coders in Quiz to Answer Charges or Face Roosevelt,” Daily Variety, 27 March 1934; “Indie Exhibs Charge Rosenblatt Ignored Them, Code Gives ‘Big 8’ Stronger-Than-Ever Dominance,” Variety, 3 April 1934. Independent film producers also had the disadvantage of paying large license payments for sound recording and reproducing devices that the majors and their affiliated corporations had control over. What Variety called the “sound monopoly … has killed indie producers … 10 years ago there were 18 to 20 and now there are only three or four.” See “Code Splits Review Bd.; Darrow's Comm. in Two Factions,” Variety, 10 April 1934.

26 Five of those ten on the Code Authority panel would always be affiliated with the major studios, whether in production, distribution or exhibition fields. The other five were “unaffiliated producers, distributors, and exhibitors,” one of which would be a representative from Universal Pictures. It meant that at least six of the ten members were part of the big eight studios. A spring 1934 report by a government review board argued that, when taking into account the distributors and exhibitors serving on the authority who did most or all of their business with the major studios through block-booking arrangements, the number of members of the authority affiliated with the major studios was actually eight. No industry workers or creatives were part of the ten-person membership. “Clarence Darrow's NRA Review Bd.'s Power Has Film Codism Nettled”; “Darrow Assails Pic Code”; “Calls Coders in Quiz to Answer Charges”; “Indie Exhibs Charge Rosenblatt Ignored Them”; “Despite Producers' Opposition, Judge Lindsey Hears Code Wails,” Variety, 10 April 1934.

27 “Code Splits Review Bd”; “MPTO Blast Allied as Film Code Obstructor; Flay Group in Letter Broadcast to Exhibs,” Daily Variety, 12 March 1934; “Clarence Darrow's NRA Review Bd.'s Power Has Film Codism Nettled”: and “Darrow Assails Pic Code”; “Calls Coders in Quiz To Answer Charges”; “Indie Exhibs Charge Rosenblatt Ignored Them.”

28 This section on the NRA film code's provisions, especially their significance to actors and screenwriters, is based on the following sources: Balio, Grand Design, 153–55; Beilenson; Buhle and Wagner, Radical Hollywood, 44–45; Rosten, 65, chapter 4; Schwartz, The Hollywood Writers' Wars, 28–31; Code of Fair Competition, 236–42; “Talk Hollywood Walkout”; “Studio Players Plenty Het up”; “Film Code Problems Aired at White House”; “Code to Make Changes”; “Studios Divide.” Earlier drafts of the NRA code were even more restrictive to agents. In August 1933 the Hollywood Reporter wrote about a plan considered for the code that would establish “a central booking office [for all the major studios] with the salary of every individual in the business ticketed and with all buying of talent done from that office,” an excellent way for the major studios to keep an eye on and (probably) intimidate all their creatives' agents. Also, if all studios negotiated contracts for contracted employees in the same building, it would make collusion between them much easier. “Code to Bring Changes.”

29 As has been well documented, “racketeering” by barely disguised gangsters was not uncommon in Hollywood during this general period. In the words of scholars Paul Buhle and Dave Wagner, the “barely disguised Jewish mobsters” William Browne and Willie Bioff took over as IATSE president and international representative respectively in 1934 with the help of Al Capone and assorted henchmen, taking millions in large yearly payments from major and independent studios, basically in exchange for guaranteeing (often with muscle) labour peace in Hollywood. A surprising amount of hobnobbing between studio moguls (including Harry Cohn at Columbia, Joseph Schenck at Fox, Harry Warner and, later, Lew Wasserman at MCA) and mob men ensued for decades afterward; evidently, such associations and the backdoor payments that followed from them were preferred to awarding their workers fairer pay or conditions. Some sources concerning these relationships: Buhle and Wagner, 43–44, 69–71; Horne, Class Struggle in Hollywood, chapter 1; George Murphy, “A Strike against Gangsters,” in Christopher Silvester, The Penguin Book Of Hollywood (London, 1998), 274–77; Louis B. Perry and Richard S. Perry, A History of the Los Angeles Labor Movement 1911–1941 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963), 327–332; Sklar, Movie-Made America, chapter 5, 171–73; “Producers Defy IATSE: Aim to Secure Replacements for Strikers and Keep Plants Open – Men Quit at Midnight,” Hollywood Reporter, 25 July 1933; “IATSE Strike Folding up; Green and Casey to Meet in Hope of Settling Differences – Men Claim Promises Broken,” and W. R. Wilkerson, “Tradeviews” (column), Hollywood Reporter, 27 July 1933.

30 W. B. Francis, “Film Salaries Cub Plan under NRA Disclosed; Code Authority Would Hold Reins; with a $10,000 Penalty Provided for Excessive Payments,” Los Angeles Times, 14 Oct. 1933; Edwin Schallert, “Filmdom in Revolt against Proposed NRA Code; Regulation of Stars' Salaries Denounced,” Los Angeles Times, 15 Oct. 1933; John Scott, “Film Stars Fight for Each Other's Servants: ‘Faithful Retainers’ Scarce in Hollywood,” Los Angeles Times, 29 Oct. 1933; “High Salary Curb Seen; Fed Inquiry Hints Move,” Los Angeles Times, 19 Oct. 1933; “Stars' Huge Salaries Explained, Defended: Actor's Day Is Short and Money Soon Spent; Players Popular a Few Years Ago Now Living on Charity,” Los Angeles Times, 22 Oct. 1933; “Cinema Code Draft Ready,” Los Angeles Times, 22 Oct. 1933.

31 “Path Cleared for Code: Code Still Unsigned Formally but Industry Can't Treat It Lightly,” Variety, 7 Nov. 1933; Code of Fair Competition, 221–22. Note that, in the previous quote, it is assumed that only “actors or exhibitors” would challenge the code in a hearing – under the lopsided code being created at this time, the major studios were in such firm control that they could not imagine someone from their group ever needing to go before the Code Authority.

32 W. B. Francis, “Johnson Given Code on Films,” Los Angeles Times, 28 Oct. 1933; “Work Finished on Film Code,” Los Angeles Times, 5 Nov. 1933; “Film Code Splits N.R. A. Officials,” Los Angeles Times, 8 Nov. 1933; “Pay Scale Snag for Film Code,” Los Angeles Times, 11 Nov. 1933.

33 Edwin Schallert, “New Control May Come from Films' Civil War: Hollywood Split by Factionalism; Hays Group vs. Academy; What Future Holds for Pictures,” Los Angeles Times, 27 Oct. 1933; “Path Cleared for Code”; “Code Delay Is Costly: Wait Wasting Millions for Pix,” Variety, 14 Nov. 1933.

34 “Code Delay Is Costly”; “Calling Mr. Cantor” (probably the work of editor Martin Quigby), Motion Picture Herald, 18 Nov. 1933; “Code Wait Jumps,” Variety, 21 Nov. 1933; “Johnson Turns Sphinx on Code Delay; Squawks, Pleas Ignored; Hint Action within Week; Rosenblatt Chafing,” Variety, 21 Nov. 1933; “NRA Enforcement as Seen,” Variety, 21 Nov. 1933.

35 Beilenson, “NRA”; Schwartz; “Schenck–Cantor See F.D. R.: Visit Warm Springs, Ga., to Present Hollywood's Side,” Variety, 21 Nov. 1933.

36 “Film Code Approved: Surprise Sprung by Roosevelt,” Los Angeles Times, 28 Nov. 1933; “Pix’ [sic] Legislation Worry: NRA Can't Halt Congress' O. O.,” “No Biz Will Receive Such Careful Scrutiny on NRA Code Enforcement as Will Pictures – Gen. Johnson,” and “Rosy Lauds NRA to Wisc. MPTOA,” Variety, 28 Nov. 1933; “Analysis of the Picture Code Discloses That the Govt. Hasn't Missed a Thing to Insure Effect,” and “Setting the Machinery of the Picture Code; Alternates OK Industry's Pro and Con on Lowell,” Variety, 5 Dec. 1933.

37 Ceplair and Englund, The Inquisition in Hollywood, 30; W. B. Francis, “Film Magnates Lose Code Plea,” Los Angeles Times, 9 Dec. 1933; “Film Legal NRA Test? May Yet Be the First to Do So,” Variety, 5 Dec. 1933; “Johnson's Film Powers Curbed,” Los Angeles Times, 10 Dec. 1933; “Pix Wins Points from U. S.; Gov't Gives in a Bit over Code,” Variety, 12 Dec. 1933; “Forecast for 1934 – By Industry Leaders,” 1934 Film Daily Year Book (no publisher or date specified, probably early 1934), 87–111.

38 Edwin Schallert, “Hollywood Growls at NRA ‘Censorship’: Appt of Dr Lowell as Code ‘Czar’ Regarded as Unwarranted Attempt to ‘Clean up the Movies,’” Los Angeles Times, 3 Dec. 1933; Code of Fair Competition, 255; “Pictures Deems Itself the Winnah in Film-Crime Commission's Probe,” Variety, 28 Nov. 1933; “Film Code Approved”; “Analysis of the Picture Code.”

39 Kennedy, Freedom from Fear, 184–85; Leuchtenburg, Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal; Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal.

40 Leuchtenburg, 68; “Picture Codists Return from Capital Further Puzzled by Board – Committee Additions,” Variety, 13 March 1934; “Blue Eagle Readying for Active Motion Picture Code Enforcement,” Variety, 10 April 1934.