'The Paradine Case' and Chicago Censors . . .

The eleven reels of film so designated The Paradine Case were duly examined on Tuesday, May 18, 1948, by the ever watchful inspectors of the stern Chicago Film Review Board (which held sway from 1913-1984; no film for commercial use could be shown within the legal boundaries of the city of Chicago unless it had a permit from the CFRB---no exceptions---anyone in defiance would be subject to fines and penalties).

Their ruling was severe, the decision: 5-0 for the dreaded, "Adult" permit.

The reason for such a drastic ruling is given on the inspection card, and reads thusly: "This picture is given an Adult Permit---because it features murder and immorality."

Of course, it could've been worse---much worse---the board could have rendered its most feared edict: "Rejected" At once barring a film from being shown in the city's confines, and forbidden to play in the lucrative Chicago theatre marketplace. Appeal was possible, and with certain modifications, cuts, additions, or whatever work was deemed necessary, the horrible stigma of "Rejected" could be upgraded to "Adult" (also feared, because such an attachment to a film would usually bring down viewership, and, as such, a much lower take at the box office---all film distributors shuddered at the verdict of "Rejected"; and most also shuddered at an "Adult" ruling).

Several previous films directed by Alfred Hitchcock had also run into problems---but nothing too serious: for example, Jamaica Inn was also ruled "Adult," but after 1 cut was made was given "General." It must be noted, however, that the Board treated Hitchcock, generally, very well, his films were routinely---one could even say "rubber-stamped"---"General." Rarely did a Hitchcock film cause major problems. What problems there may have been were usually minor, and taken care of easily. However, of his films that followed Paradine, only one ran into serious trouble: in the same year,1948, his film Rope was---one can hear the earth tremble---"Rejected." It could not be shown within the limits of Chicago. As far as I am aware, this was the only Hitchcock film ever to suffer such a cruel fate---but not for long. The card notes that on the verbal orders of the Police Commissioner the original verdict was overturned, and a more kindly---if one could consider such a ruling such---"Adult" permit was issued. The original ruling for "Rejected" was 4-0. Thanks to the more benevolent Commissioner, Rope opened at the State Lake theatre on Thursday, September 30, 1948, and had a standard two-week Loop run (the verdict against Rope was not overturned by the Board until Sept. 9, 1983, when by a vote of 6-0 a "General" permit was issued). After 1948 no Hitchcock film had problems with the Board---just stamp 'em "General."

Now, back to The Paradine Case. No further action, as far as can be discerned from the card, took place until Friday, July 9. A notation reads "Made General by Com. J. Prendergast with 4 cuts" (there is no date next to this notation, but I'm assuming it was the 9th of July, when the permit was issued---but it could've been ordered earlier). The Chicago Police commissioner had the authority to overrule a decision made by the board. Why over seven weeks? There is no way to determine what machinations took place behind the scenes between the Board, the Selznick Releasing Organization, and the Police Commissioner. Obviously the Selznick group wanted to be rid of that loathsome "Adult" designation, and go for a more favorable "General" permit. As such, yes, a decision was made to grant a "General" permit [no. A6246, to the Selznik Rel. Org.], but the price would be the four cuts that were now ordered:

What was cut? The following lines of dialogue were excised from the film:

Reel #2 Cut dialogue

Lawyer: "There were others?"
Mrs. Paradine: "Of course there were others."

Reel #6 Cut dialogue

Lawyer: "Are you implying that you engaged in adulterous relationship with Mrs. Paradine?"
Valet: "Yes."

4 cuts
________________________

With permit in hand, the film could now precede, from that moment on, with its opening. The Paradine Case opened in Chicago at the Woods Theatre on Monday, July 12, 1948, and played in the Loop for five weeks. (This same theatre would also play host to Hitchcock's Vertigo, in 1958, and to Psycho, in 1960---both of those films also had five week Loop runs.)

The only thing unusual was the odd Monday (non-holiday) opening. Though not unheard of, Monday was a day almost never chosen for the opening of a first- run film. Perhaps time was pressing, they obtained the highly desired "General" classification on Friday, and went ahead with a Monday showing.

The inspection card reveals no further activity on this film until Wednesday, September 8, when application was made for 8 more permits (which, of course, were issued). The second, and final, date shown on the card is for Tuesday, September 28, when a further 2 permits were granted (obviously all these permits were needed when the movie went out to the "nabes"). Afterward, no further activity concerning this movie was noted.

General information taken from the card:

General
ADULT PERMIT (Printed at top of card, however, Adult was later crossed out and General was written above)
Name of Manufacturer: Selznick
Title of Film: Paradine Case, (The)
Date Inspected: May 18, 1948
No. of feet: 11,000 (11 reels)
Synopsis: Murder solved
Cuts ordered: (None made under the original "Adult" ruling; however, when made "General", four cuts were now ordered, as mentioned above.)

[Note: the number 115 is written in the upper righthand corner of the card---it's not clear what this signifies, but perhaps it means that this card represents the 115 film inspected for the year by the Board---perhaps?]

Okay---bear with me for the moment---to go back to that over seven week gap, from May 18th to July 9th---what was going on? Again, it's impossible to know---as there is no supporting correspondence attached to the card to base an opinion on. Guess---Selznick wanted a "General" ruling with no cuts---period! That wasn't to be, so things must've been thrashed out, maybe with Selznick himself getting directly involved, and all sides agreed that a "General" permit would be granted, but with 4 cuts made (which Selznick must've wanted to avoid). Alas, it had a good run in Chicago.
____________________________