MovieChat Forums > One Week (1920) Discussion > Anyone else surprised by.. (spoiler?)

Anyone else surprised by.. (spoiler?)


The one scene of the wife in the bath? Wasn't that pretty taboo for its time?! I mean, considering how conservative the movies were back then, they showed as much as they could. Even the gag with the hand covering the camera lens was a little risque to my surprise!

"I talk to god but the sky is empty"
SP

reply

Yes, I found it very surprising as well. The Balloonatic (1923) also shows a bit more skin than expected (if I recall correctly).

Prog.

reply

Movies didn't become the 'conservative' you're thinking of until the enforcement of the Hays Code in June 1934. There were many many risque films with nudity until then.

reply

very interesting. Thanks for the info



//Add me to your netflix friends list!

reply

Considering some of the themes and bits in Arbuckle shorts, the bathtub scene is pretty tame. Also, note the modesty -- She's in the shower rinsing off when Buster falls into the (way overfull) bathtub, and she shoes him out of the bathroom. Sorry, I'd have jumped into the tub on top of him and gotten him out of his wet clothes, myself.

reply

I'd have jumped into the tub on top of him and gotten him out of his wet clothes, myself.


Well, she would have, but the cameraman said he wasn't willing to put his hand on the lens and risk getting it all smudged up for her anymore.

reply

Oh, and if you want something a bit more daring in a Keaton movie, watch "The Cameraman". Marceline Day's bathing suit isn't completely opaque when it's wet, and Buster is pretty clearly naked in the pool, despite being surrounded by young women.

reply

Now even for this being precode, is it me, or when Sybil is in the tub, do we see a bit more of her than we're supposed to?

reply

Hey, Chrissie, with "Sorry, I'd have jumped into the tub on top of him and gotten him out of his wet clothes, myself," you are reading the mind of more than one female viewer!

Novastar, you and me seem to have seen the same thing. I think that's really her and not something pasted on.

For these being precode, one thing which surprised me--I forget which one it was on as we watched about four in a row--but one of them had at the beginning a notice about passing the board of review so apparently there was some censorship before the Hays code.

reply

I don't recall any of Buster's shorts having a board of review notice at the beginning, though there are still a couple I haven't seen.

reply

Many states had their own censor boards at least into the 1970s. John Waters had written about all the problems he had with some of his early movies getting approval to show in Maryland.

reply

According to Robert Osborne on TCM, the code existed in the 20's but wasn't much enforced.

In the 1926 Ben Hur you can briefly see bare-breasted maidens throwing rose petals in the hero's parade --not to mention the real violence (accidental but not edited out) in the battle at sea and the chariot race scenes.

And omg the costumes on Claudette Colbert in Cleopatra 1934 (pre-code) leave almost nothing to the imagination...

reply

Although the Code was adopted in 1930, oversight was poor and it did not become rigorously enforced until July 1, 1934


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Code_Hollywood

reply

Movies in the '20s were much less conservative then they were post-1934, when the "production code" began to be seriously self-enforced.

People hungry for the voice of god
Hear lunatics and liars

reply

This is 1920 Hollywood, before the morals panic began to set in.

Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools.

reply