While doing research on the Grand theater in Bandon, Oregon, I came across an advertisement for a film titled Hypocrites. In the advertisement, it described how the film had been banned in Portland and across the country and that the film will easily offend those who are prudish.
Hypocrites directed by Lois Weber was a film that caused an uproar in New York and London not because the film discussed the immorality and hypocrisy of the wealthy, but instead it dared to show a completely nude woman. The woman represented the "naked truth" and was a guiding light present throughout the film and represented truth and good. While the character was metaphorical, there was an uproar over the presentation of a nude woman and censor boards were set ablaze in deciding whether to ban the film or present it as a legitimate film. New York elected to show the film as they deemed the nudity to be appropriate for the religious context of the film and was very impactful on audiences. Los Angeles, on the other hand, banned the film and determined it to be vulgar exploitation and unfit for public viewing. The film became a hot button issue and censor boards were divisive on whether the film should be exhibited and varied wildly depending on its location.
The original Bandon advertisement claimed that Portland banned the film but this was not the case in my research. There was a private screening of the film held which included the mayor of Portland to determine whether the film was moral and decent. In the end, they aligned with New York in its ruling that the film's religious themes were an appropriate context to have the nudity in the film and there were many moments of applause throughout the screening. They believed that the film was not only appropriate for audiences but urged everyone in the city to attend the films screening at the Peoples Theater. The reception was largely warm and accepting of the film from local clergy and most interestingly women groups who found the nudity to be empowering and positive, again disagreeing with groups in LA who deemed it immoral.
From this case study, it appears that when nudity is presented in a religious context and is metaphorical and not a literal naked woman, the image can be accepted and admired by the censor boards and clergy. Others would simply not accept any nudity and found the idea of exhibiting naked images as immoral and unsuited for public viewing. Another reason that the nudity was probably accepted among the censor boards was that it was of a female body and not a male's. It is no secret that these boards were made up of mostly men and that in order to see a naked woman they came up with a religious excuse to let it pass. They could morally justify what they considered to be a sin and not feel any remorse. If the "naked truth" in the film was a man, the board would have likely deemed it immoral and unsuitable for public exhibition. I would be curious to see if there were any cases of male nudity being passed by a sensor board and why they would let it be shown. Nudity, it seems, wasn't only present in underground cinema, but mainstream cinema as well. Overall this case demonstrates how censor boards can vary wildly across the country in their determination of what is suitable for viewing and that silent films were not as clean as one might think.
