Baby Face (1933) & Night Nurse (1931): Provocative Films in Pre-Code Hollywood

Paper by Ivonne Arroyo.

Baby Face (Green, 1933) and Night Nurse (Wellman, 1931) are two distinctly controversial films that defy the Production Code of 1930 in unique ways through the portrayal of empowered female protagonists who expose their sexuality in risqué manners. Lily Powers from Baby Face and Lora Hart from Night Nurse are ambitious women in a male-dominated world where sex and crime are intricately embedded into the current society. Lily uses her own sexuality to conquer men, and achieve her materialistic objectives, moving up the social and economic ladder one level at a time. Thomas Doherty describes Powers as “sassy, smart, and single-minded, a superwoman whose will to sexual power is encouraged by her Germanic mentor with a taste for Nietzchean philosophy (Doherty, p. 134).” Lora on the other hand, innocently and casually exposes her sexuality while prancing around with a fellow nurse. Clearly a more ethically and virtuous woman, Lora Hart seeks to protect two little girls under her care, and uncover a brutal crime being committed by those who mean to harm the children. Both films depict extraordinary women in remarkable circumstances, whose actions on film violate and defy the strict regulations of the Production Code in regards to sexuality, violence and brutality. Further analysis of Baby Face and Night Nurse will reveal the moral leniency of Pre-Code Hollywood, and how it provided for an array of distinctive and powerful roles for female characters in provoking films that visibly resisted the enforcement of the Code.

Baby Face’s female protagonist Lily Powers is a woman initially trapped by her sexuality. Living in the Prohibition Era, Lily’s father owns a bar, and has forced her to sleep with customers since she was fourteen. In first few scenes she is badgered by the male customers who want to “have a good time” with her. A half drunk man solicits Lily by asking her to take a walk to his car. Other men try to grab at her while she vigorously fights them off. One man in particular who “protects” the father’s bar from the authorities enters the bar setting his eyes on Lily’s legs, his eyes tracing her entire body; clearly objectifying her. Just these first few scenes violated the Production Code in its regulations concerning sex. “Adultery and illicit sex, sometimes necessary plot material shall not be explicitly treated, nor shall they be justified or made seem right and permissible.” Nevertheless all the activity in the bar seemed permissible for the film’s standards. Lily had been subjected to this twisted norm of pleasing customers since she was a teenager. Pimped out by her own father was the only life she had known until her father’s death in a fire.

To make a living she is offered a job as stripper but her Germanic mentor advises her to use her power over men to achieve social and economic status:

“A woman, young, beautiful like you, can get anything she wants in the world. Because you have power over men. But you must use men, not let them use you. You must be a master, not a slave. Look here — Nietzsche says, “All life, no matter how we idealize it, is nothing more nor less than exploitation.” That’s what I’m telling you. Exploit yourself. Go to some big city where you will find opportunities! Use men! Be strong! Defiant! Use men to get the things you want!”

In this logic, Lily must use the only thing she has ever known, her sexuality, in order to achieve her ambitions. “Heroines no longer got ahead by being good girls and marrying a rich husband (Benshoff & Griffin, p. 181).” Instead and according to the film, if they were to succeed without being held back by their social and economic status they must manipulate their way through society if they were ever to make anything of themselves. From that moment on Lily goes on a sexual rampage, conquering men to realize her dreams.
She leaves town with her black maid and boards a train to the big city. When they are both discovered on the train by a rail worker Lily offers him a sexual favor in order to keep them from being thrown in jail. The freight car is dark, the rail worker carries a lamp but when the scene is obviously turning salacious the lamp dims out indicating that they are going to have sex. Though the act of sex itself could not be shown it is clearly implied. The Production Code regulated that sexual scenes “should never be more than suggested, and then only when essential to the plot. They should never be shown explicitly.” Yet the code also regulated that “they should never be made to seem right and permissible.” The film however implies that the Lily’s actions are acceptable and that the ends to justify the means.

The remainder of the film sees her manipulating and sleeping her way to the top. Like other female heroines of the early 1930s films and before the enforcement of the Production Code in 1934, females sold their “bodies to the highest bidder, using their wiles to “trade up” from a mailroom clerk to the head of the company (Bernshoff & Griffin, p. 181).” Lily begins to work at Gotham Trust in New York City. Upon entering the personnel department she encounters the receptionist whom she openly flirts with. When he asks her “Have you had any experience?” Lily brazenly responds that she has had “Plenty!” The sexual innuendos and double meanings are all part of the racy dialogue in the film which defies the Code’s regulation about vulgarity. “Vulgar expressions and double meanings having the same effect are forbidden.” In particular “obscenity in words, gesture, reference, song, joke, or by suggestion, even when likely to be understood by only part of the audience is forbidden.” The film however rejects these regulations and uses its racy dialogue to continue to expose Lily’s sexual power.
Making her way at the bank she eventually conquers upper level management up to a young executive, Ned Stevens who is engaged to the daughter of the bank’s vice president, J.R. Carter. In an intimate moment in his office he holds her close to his body, their faces near to each other, and her mouth open while he goes in for a kiss. Such behavior is unbecoming of a woman according the Code which states that “lustful and open-mouthed kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive posture and gestures are not to be shown.” Yet these lustful embraces and suggestive postures are frequently exhibited by Lily in her seduction of men.

She also callously does away with them once they have served their purpose. Once Stevens’ fiancé discovers the affair between them, Lily loses no time and moves on to the next conquest. J.R Carter becomes her new lover, who gives her a lavish apartment along with plenty of money to spend. Stevens is unable to forget or give up Lily as he is in love with her and kills Carter while consequently committing suicide. In the Production Code, suicide is specifically referenced in that “as a solution of problems occurring in the development of screen drama, is to be discouraged unless absolutely necessary for development of the plot, and shall never be justified or glorified, or used specifically to defeat the ends of justice.” However the murder of Carter and Stevens’ suicide is used as a justification for Lily’s ultimate conquest. In order to reach the very top she must be rid the trail of men behind her. In this manner she is free to seduce the president of the bank, Courtland Trenholm.

Courtland proves to be a harder conquest for Lily but she eventually snags him. He gives her everything she could have dreamed of and they eventually marry. When Courtland is indicted for the mismanagement of the bank though he is innocent, he asks Lily to return all the money and gifts he has given her in order to collect money for his defense. She refuses, and flees to Europe with all her possessions. In the original version Lily finds that Courtland has killed himself after she left him. In the censored version however Lily returns to Courtland but survives after a gunshot wound. She gives up her immoral lifestyle and they live happily ever after. The second ending was made in order to please the censors yet audiences who watch the film are left to question how such a callous woman could have given up her such a lifestyle if money and power were all she ever wanted. The entire film glorified vice and the sexual nature of its characters, from the easy woman, to corrupted politicians, and laborers who cheat on their wives and use the workplace for sex (Doherty). This second ending didn’t make much sense according to the rest of the film, but the original version would have been too controversial for 1930s conservative audiences.

Night Nurse another Pre-Code film is just as provoking as Baby Face. The film follows Lora Hart, a woman set on becoming a nurse at a prestigious hospital. The film contains numerous scenes of violence against women, alcoholism, child abuse, bootlegging, gangsters, and illicit sex. As an intern at the hospital, Lora shares a room with another nurse, Miss Maloney. “The film concocts repeated occasions for Lora Hart and Joan (Maloney) to disrobe, slipping from civilian clothes into nurse uniforms and back again (Doherty, p. 118).” Not only do they repeatedly undress together but they jump into bed one night to avoid being caught by the head nurse after staying out beyond their curfew. These few incidents violated the codes decrees about nudity in that “any licentious or suggestive nudity- in fact or in silhouette; any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture” is prohibited. Other scenes in the film depict Mrs. Ritchie, the mother of the children Lora cares for in body hugging and slinky party dresses. The wealthy Mrs. Ritchie also holds rowdy parties serving illegal alcohol where the rich cavort with one another in sexual endeavors.

Lora’s first encounter with crime begins when she tends the gunshot wound of a bootlegger, Mortie. She promises not to report the incident as required by law and thereafter pursues her romantically. He is also very grateful for her keeping his secret. This is just one of the few incidents where crime is involved. Once Lora and Maloney graduate they both get employed as private nurses for the widow Mrs. Ritchie who hires them to look after both of her daughters who are severely undernourished. Lora discovers that the daughters are purposely being maltreated so that they may die and the evil chauffer, Nick, can marry Mrs. Ritchie and attain the daughters’ trust fund. Lora tries to get the alcoholic Mrs. Ritchie to understand the consequences of her behavior and sober up in order to protect the children. She fails to do so and in one scene she literally must drag the drunken Mrs. Ritchie across a room to get her concentrate on the well being of her children. Unfortunately Mrs. Ritchie is unresponsive and Lora must take matters into her own hands. One night Lora finds herself alone with the Nick, and she is physically abused by him after being confronted about his malicious intentions. These occasions once again violated the Code’s rules about brutality in that “excessive and inhuman acts of cruelty and brutality shall not be presented. This includes all detailed and protracted presentation of physical violence, torture and abuse.” Child abuse itself was a taboo subject what could not be discussed on film let alone other forms of cruelty such as physical violence. Yet Night Nurse confronted these serious issues without regret. It would not glorify these violent acts that were going on in society but it would certainly provide awareness to these pertinent issues.

Other occurrences of crime and violence involved the bootlegger, Mortie, whose character is depicted and generous and lighthearted even though his lifestyle is not. He comes to Lora’s aid after she discovers that the children’s doctor, Milton Ranger, is a willing participant in the criminal plot. Together they manage to get Dr. Bell to examine the girls but is initially reluctant interfere with another doctor’s case due to ethical issues. Nick however has other plans and interferes by punching Dr. Bell. Mortie manages to stop Nick and thus allowing Lora to save the children through a blood transfusion. The final scene of the film sees Mortie and Lora in a car where informs her that he has told some of his “friends” that he doesn’t like Nick, implying that his friends have murdered Nick. Thus Mortie’s criminal activities are easily and lightheartedly justified because Nick got what he deserved. However the Code’s directive about crime stated that “crime shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the crime as against law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitation.” The audience however feels that the crime is justified and feels sympathy for the characters involved in the story in that they must had to do whatever necessary to save the children.

It is understandable that Hollywood would eventually adopt the Code to prevent films such as Baby Face and Night Nurse from being made after facing intense pressure from conservative audiences. Films in the 1920s and early 1930s were “racier as failing companies tried to woo Depression-era audiences back into their theaters. The appearance of strong, forward, sexualized heroines in the early 1930s was thus the result of those economic and industrial factors, as well as the increasing liberalization of sex roles that had occurred in throughout the 1920s (Bernshoff & Griffin, p. 227).” Nonetheless, artistic expression should never be censored and after conservatives demanded that Hollywood regulate films, roles for women in particular were not as individualistic or provocative. Nowadays these roles and films don’t seem as controversial. Society has caught up to the films’ standards. In spite of that, women’s roles continue to be limited to housewives and second-class citizens. Hopefully in years to come roles for women will expand, be less stereotypical and become more appealing.

Work Cited

Benshoff, Harry M. & Griffin, Sean. America on Film. West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2004

Thomas Doherty, “Vice Rewarded: The Wages of Cinematic Sin” in Pre-Code Hollywood. New York: Columbia UP, 1999, 103-136