The Palo Alto History Project
Palo Alto's Paternalism at the Movies
                                                                                        
Palo Alto Paternalism: The Advisory Board of Commercial
Amusements

In the early days of cinema before Hollywood established its own production code to govern violence and
sexuality on the screen, the pictures business was essentially unregulated.  Fearing the worst, some localities
created their own boards of regulation, including Palo Alto. Beginning in 1921, The Advisory Board of
Commercial Amusements would spend the next three decades holding court over what Palo Altans could
see on the big screen.

Those who remember classic movies as just tame soft-focus love serenades may not be aware of
Hollywood’s earlier “decade of debauchery.”  In the pre-code 1920s, actresses often appeared on screen in
their underwear or even nude, “damn” and “son of a bitch” were spoken and on-screen topics included
prostitution, homosexuality, illegal drug use and miscegenation.  While this list of no-nos probably wouldn’t
make many contemporary moviegoers blush, it was utter blasphemy compared to the era that would follow.

It was a series of Hollywood scandals that would inch Hollywood toward the Production code.  In 1921,
Fatty Arbuckle stood trial accused of manslaughter in the death of actress Virginia Rappe at an out-of-
control San Francisco party.  The next year the death of director William Desmond Taylor and the
revelations about his bisexuality and the drug-related death of actor Wallace Reid in 1923 further demoted
the town’s reputation throughout the nation.  Throughout the Roaring Twenties, the combination of daring on
and off-screen behavior had the public demanding action.

Fearing regulation of the movies from the federal government, Hollywood decided to regulate itself.  In
1930, the major studios adopted a “Production Code” to spell out what was acceptable on the screen.  
Written by a Jesuit priest (the appropriately-named Father Daniel A. Lord), the Code would begin in earnest
in July of 1934.  It would prove nearly impenetrable for more than 30 years, governing Hollywood films with
specific rules banning profanity and nudity, edicts prohibiting the portrayal of religious ministers as comic
characters or villains and putting an end to “morally ambiguous endings.” It was also decreed that the
“sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.”

Still, by the time Hollywood got around to censoring itself, cities like Palo Alto already had their own system
in place.   By its second year, the Advisory Board of Commercial Amusements had already banned all of
Fatty Arbuckle’s comedies to date despite the fact that he had been acquitted in his manslaughter case.  By
way of explanation, the Board turned the tradition of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head, decreeing that
they would not approve “the showing in Palo Alto of any films featuring any actor or actress who had gained
unsavory notoriety by reason of alleged viciousness in private life.”  

After the 1920s the Board put a procedure into place for passing judgment on films that would last until
1954.  On a weekly basis, Board members perused reviews of opening films in magazines such as the
confidently-titled, “Unbiased Opinions of Current Motion Pictures.”  If the reviews of a film persuaded 3 or
more members of the seven-member all-volunteer board that the film might “tend to corrupt the public
morals” then a preview would be ordered  --- to be screened at the theatre’s expense no less.  If a film was
restricted in Palo Alto, copies of the judgment went straight to the Palo Alto Police, which could revoke a
theatre’s license if the banned movie was shown (in practice, theatre owners were always compliant
throughout the Board’s 33 year run).   

Still, in all fairness, the Board was mainly an advisory panel, putting movies into categories such as “family,
“young people” or “adults only.”  In a number of op-eds and statements over the years, the Board
contended that it would not get involved in “Thou Shall Not” censorship, but rather engage in aiding parents
in making informed decisions.   Such weekly recommendations were published for many years in the Palo
Alto Times and were available at the reference desk at the downtown Carnegie Library.  

The Board also kept an eye on horror films.  In 1952, the Board asked theatre owners not to double-bill
children’s films with adult horror films, as was sometimes the practice on Saturdays.  The Board also banned
outright 38 horror films in Palo Alto between 1943 and 1954.  Given that the current rating system of PG-13
and R rated films had not yet been established, it made sense that a group would provide this service to aide
parents.

Yet there were also many cases of editing and banning movies in which the Board crossed the line into
censorship that would certainly be found objectionable by today’s standards.  This was particularly the case
in the 1950s.  Although the Hollywood Production code did not break until the late 1960s, it began to bend
in the 1950s.   Sexy starlet vehicles for Jayne Mansfield, Jane Russell, and Rita Hayworth had become well-
known for pushing the boundaries of the Code.

Although by that time Palo Alto was one of just two California cities (the other was Pasadena) to have such
an institution in place, the Board seemed intent on making up for the places in which the Code was being
challenged.  In the late ‘40s “The Outlaw” and “Duel in the Sun” were banned until certain scenes were
snipped.  In 1954, “The City Across the River,” “I the Jury,” “Man Crazy,” and “La Ronde” were all
banned outright.  A film called “Donovan’s Brain” was also censored because of the Board’s questionable
critique that “it depicts people as worse than they really are.”  It also struck down “The French Line,” a Jane
Russell vehicle with a plot that seems to have centered a great deal around her cleavage.

Spurred on by a Supreme Court decision that had found that movies were protected by the First
Amendment (somewhat incredibly by today’s understanding, a 1915 decision had found that they were not),
challenges began to be made to the Board’s authority.

On March 4th, 1954, South Palo Alto Cardinal Theatre owner Alfred Laurice sued the city in Superior
Court claiming that the Board’s pronouncements violated the Constitution.  Among the complaints from
Laurice as well as other theatre owners (such as George Archibald of the Palo Alto Drive-in Theatre ), was
that the obligatory previews could cost the theatre owner as much as $50, making it difficult to compete with
Menlo Park movie houses that could show the films free of hassle.  On March 22nd, City Councilman Lee
Rodgers received the backing of the Palo Alto Times editorial page when he offered a motion to abolish the
Board entirely.    

Indeed, it seemed that the Board’s time had passed.  Although it held on for some time after in strictly an
advisory-only capacity, the Board would eventually stop meeting altogether.  City paternalism, it seemed,
had grown out of fashion.  Ten years later the Hollywood Production Code would also come down,
challenged at first from over-seas and then by American films made outside the studio system.  By the late
‘60s, all bets were off at the movie theatres as a new era of sexual mores was in full bloom.   A new era
more concerned with personal choice and freedom had begun and anything that smacked of censorship was
on its way out.

                                                                                                                      -Matt Bowling
Palo Alto Home Page
Political Issues
Entertainment
Palo Alto Memory Bank
Do you have memories or stories
of the Advisory Board of
Commercial Amusements?  Post
them in our memory bank.  
Thanks!
Your name:
Email:
Subject:
Sources:
Palo Alto Times, Palo Alto Historical Association, Wikipedia
Jane Russell's "The
French Line" was
shown in 3-D in
some theatres, but
not Palo Alto
Mickey Spillane's
novel "I, Jury" was
brought to the big
screen, but banned
in Palo Alto
Father Daniel Lord
authored the
Hollywood Production
Code
"Duel in the Sun" was
nicknamed "Lust in
the Dust" by
Oscar-voters who
honored it in 1946
Links:
A list of the rules of the Hollywood Production Code or "Hays Code"
Palo Alto: Then & Now
2007
circa
1935
Marlene Deitricht in 1932's
scandalous "Blonde Venus,"
which came out two years
before the Production Code
was implemented
Barbara Stanwyck in
"Babyface" in which she
played a prostitute being
pimped by her father
Comedian Fatty Arbuckle was
convicted of manslaughter but
was acquitted
The Tarzan films
featured pre-code male
nudity
The Advisory Board of
Commercial Amusement's
recommendations were always
kept at the Carnegie Library
for patrons' perusal
The mysteries surrounding the
death of William Desmond
Taylor contributed to public
morality campaigns to "clean
up Hollywood" in the 1920s
Mae West spent a
career pushing the
boundaries of the
public's appetite for
sexual comedy.  In the
1920s she spent 10
days in jail for
directing and starring
in a Broadway play in
which she played
prostitute.
The details of
Virginia Rappe's
death at a San
Francisco party
have never been
fully known.
The Varsity Theatre from a mid-1930s postcard.  The Varsity was one of two major theatres in Palo Alto which operated
during the Board of Commercial Amusements' tenure.  In 1994, The Varsity became a
Borders Books & Music, although
much of the architecture remained the same and the old (although not oldest) marquee still recalls the name "Varsity."