I don't remember my original source, where I found out about deaf people complaining, and I can't answer your second question. However, here's a quote from a Literary Digest article from 1927:
How to get around the problem of saving "What Price Glory?" from being a mere repetition of any war screen was solved by one of the leading American film producers who has laid upon the audience the necessity of acquiring facility in lip reading. "Profanity, blasphemy or obscenity would not be permitted in subtitling," writes Mr. G. A. Atkinson in the Daily Express (London), "but there is nothing to prevent the actor from saying what he is obviously thinking, and experienced lip-readers are frequently aware of strange screen confidences." The writer furnishes a little passage in our own journalistic style; and this is what The Daily Express provides for prospective patrons of the much discust film-play in London:
"In 'What Price Glory?' McLaglen and the others have been made carefully to articulate and emphasize the full vocabulary of the profession of arms, especially that of the American soldier, which is rather richer and rounder than the rest, and this aspect of the film is affording censors much anxious thought.
'"They who see this picture,' says Variety, 'are going to start tipping off on the cuss words used, words that can only be gotten by lip-reading, but the bunch that goes to see the picture will watch for that rough stuff.'
http://www.1920-30.com/movies/bad-language.html
I also seem to remember that the Laurence Stallings/Maxwell Anderson play, even on stage, had a lot of cussing, though I'm sure there were obscenities it didn't employ.
The Republican Plan: repeal all reform; collect payoffs; go yachting (but not in the Gulf).
reply
share