<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: How censorship REALLY worked
Review: If you're going to criticize a book, it is helpful if you 1)understand the argument of the book; and 2) understand how the author goes about making that argument. Every critcism that the reader from LA makes about this book reveals the reader's own ignorance. LA Reader either ignores the fact that Jacobs has consulted over 100 censorship case files or does not know what these are (I am guessing the latter). Ignorance may also explain why LA reader attacks Jacobs for not having watched a film that no longer exists, and then ignores the fact that she painstakingly reconstructs the film as accurately as possible from available evidence (screenplays, studio memoranda, case files). Again, perhaps LA reader does not know what these are. While one might not agree with Jacobs' conclusions, one can certainly not call them baseless. Jacobs may, at times, overstate continuities between the early 30s and later 30s, but at least she is aware of the fact that the Code existed and was enforced before 1934, unlike other books on the era (see Complicated Women, Sin in Soft Focus, for example). This simplistic (and erroneous) view of censorship seems to have clouded LA Reader's judgement. Unfortunately, this view is one that is embraced by too many popular books on the subject (again, see Complicated Women and Sin in Soft Focus). LA Reader's apparent defense of this view, ignorance of the facts, and eagerness to attack a book that attempts to paint a more accurate picture of the way self-censorship worked in Hollywood, indicates that her/his views should be taken with a large grain of salt. On second thought, they should be ignored entirely.
Rating: 
Summary: A TRAVESTY
Review: This book analyses the censorship histories of a small handful of films, one of which the author admits to not having seen. She writes from an ignorance of the era and comes to conclusions about censorship that are wrong and conclusions about women's place in the late twenties and early thirties cinema that are not only specious but baseless, formed out of nothing but guesswork.
Anyone reading this book is likely to have seen more and know more on the subject than the author.
The truth is that the fallen women films of the early thirties explored sensitive subject matter, were protofeminist, and that the sentiments expressed therein -- the notion, for example, that sex before marriage was acceptable -- soon became mainstream in women's films, at least until the intrusion of censorship.
It's also true that the introduction of censorship caused a profound disruption in the content of women's films. The wrongness of Jacobs' argument that censorship made little difference is patently obvious to anyone who has ever seen more than five films from the early thirties and compared them to films from the late thirties.
<< 1 >>
| 
