Wording, clothing, and sex were some of the most reoccurring problems the Production Code Administration had with Alfred Hitchcock’s 1954 film Rear Window. Throughout their communications, the PCA and the filmmakers discuss scenes that have subtle sexual undertones, risqué costumes, and wordings that the PCA found to be unacceptable. The correspondence between the filmmakers and the PCA begin around November 1953 and go on until around April 1954. Most of the letters are between Paramount Pictures producer Luigi Luraschi and PCA’s Joseph Breen. Most of the concerns the PCA had involved things they believed to be overly sexual. Most of these scenes deal with clothing that they feel is too revealing, scenes that can be taken as sexually suggestive,
…show more content…
Most of the letters with concerns from the PCA have some kind of response from the studios on how they are going to handle these issues. One example of this is seen in the response letter on February 16th from E.G.D. In this letter, they are responding to issues the PCA found on multiple topics and how they were going to fix them to the PCA standards. The first solution they came up with dealt with a scene the PCA believed showed a girl who was supposed to be dress in a ballet outfit, but was instead thought to be dressed only in underwear. A solution the filmmakers came up with was to add narration to a scene, so there would be no confusion as to what Miss Torso was wearing. Later on, the filmmakers came up with another solution to this problem, which is discussed in the March 29th letter from E.G.D. The studio talks about how they “advised Mr. Luraschi” that they would need to use “the protection footage” of the girl “in some not quite distinguishable garment” instead of showing her nude from the waist up. By doing this, the filmmakers were able to solve this problem.
With the subject matter and genre of Hitchcock’s Rear Window, it was only expected that the PCA would have some issues with the film. Through the correspondents with the studios and filmmakers, the PCA was able to convey the problems they found with the film and give suggestions on what they should change or remove. In the end the studios and filmmakers worked with the PCA in finding ways to fix or change the issues they
Most of the letters with concerns from the PCA have some kind of response from the studios on how they are going to handle these issues. One example of this is seen in the response letter on February 16th from E.G.D. In this letter, they are responding to issues the PCA found on multiple topics and how they were going to fix them to the PCA standards. The first solution they came up with dealt with a scene the PCA believed showed a girl who was supposed to be dress in a ballet outfit, but was instead thought to be dressed only in underwear. A solution the filmmakers came up with was to add narration to a scene, so there would be no confusion as to what Miss Torso was wearing. Later on, the filmmakers came up with another solution to this problem, which is discussed in the March 29th letter from E.G.D. The studio talks about how they “advised Mr. Luraschi” that they would need to use “the protection footage” of the girl “in some not quite distinguishable garment” instead of showing her nude from the waist up. By doing this, the filmmakers were able to solve this problem.
With the subject matter and genre of Hitchcock’s Rear Window, it was only expected that the PCA would have some issues with the film. Through the correspondents with the studios and filmmakers, the PCA was able to convey the problems they found with the film and give suggestions on what they should change or remove. In the end the studios and filmmakers worked with the PCA in finding ways to fix or change the issues they