This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

A request has been made to determine if this article meets the B-class criteria for WP:FILMS. Looking over the article, at this time it does not meet the criteria. The article will require further expansion as well as additional sourcing to advance to B-class. For what needs to be done to reach the next assessment level click on the "[show]" button in the above film banner and follow the instructions in "Start to B-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films". Once the article meets the criteria, please relist your request for reassessment and I'll be happy to take a look. If you have any questions or need help with anything let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article still doesn't meet the criteria. Coverage is limited to "plot" and "controversy", and is largely unsourced. PC78 (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your re-evaluation. I'll work on citations when I get a chance. Can you perhaps give a little more detail in what you would like to see improved in terms of coverage? I'm perhaps feeling that there isn't too much information out there on the film, as it is a minor blip in the overall history of film, but the quality of the article isn't meant to be dependent on the amount of information on the topic but on how thoroughly the topic is covered. Do you have any suggestions for starting points that I should look into a bit more? Thanks for your time and input! Sevey13 (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would you distinguish "the amount of information on the topic" from "how thoroughly the topic is covered"? That's just two different ways of saying the same thing. You could expand the plot summary a bit (but not too much), add a cast list, find some sources to support the "Music and controversy" section. Have you tried searching for information about the film? I've managed to find [1] and [2], both of them reliable sources with some good, usable content. Best of luck in improving the article. :) PC78 (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to contradict itself on this point, describing the film and two scenes in it as “pre-code” while also saying it barely passed Hays Code review. I’m not a subject matter expert but perhaps the intention is that the film was written or shot pre-code but released after, or that it’s in a pre code style?

Out of caution, I’ll just nix the phrase “pre code” for now but would appreciate someone who’s master of the topic reviewing Excessivedetails (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, blame the contradictory terminology we use for the Production Code era(s). The code was established in 1930, but was only "enforced" voluntarily at different levels of studio/production, and often intentionally flouted (see Lord's recommendation that they simply ignore the SRC points and do what they wanted, which was routine in the "pre-code" era). What we (inaccurately) call the "pre-code" era ended halfway through 1934, when increasing Catholic pressure (over movies such as this one) compelled the studios to start enforcing their own code in earnest. That's when Breen came in, and the code (actually in place already for 4 years) started to be enforced to the letter.

As mentioned in the article, this film was released 2 months before Breen's new enforcement regime began, and its flagrant content definitely makes this a pre-code movie. It was also produced largely in 1933, before any hint of this stricter enforcement was in the winds. The stuff about the earlier back-and-forth with the SRC/Hays office was standard in the "pre-code" (read: code-not-enforced) era, and aside from just looking good on paper to appease Catholics for a few years, it served a practical purpose as a kind of advisory committee that warned about what regional censorship boards (with actual cut/veto power) might object to.

Anyway, to answer your main question directly: this is definitely a pre-code movie, both by date and by content, as the term is used here (and everywhere, in film history/criticism). It's a shame that term is so technically false, but we're all stuck with it now ;) Chronometric (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article a bit more, it definitely needs some clarification about the pre-code stuff. For example, footnote c (while not technically incorrect) attempts to explain the entire pre-code concept, and mentions the 1930 Production Code as though it was law, without even mentioning that enforcement was so lax it was practically non-existent. It also cites a single source, as though a writer on this article was hearing about pre-code censorship for the first time in this specific context. This misleading stuff should probably be deleted, in favor of linking to the proper page (or at least, edited to reflect the critical points of this censorship period. Chronometric (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The heading ends with the interesting claim that the "Going to Heaven on a Mule" (blackface) number was "considered in bad taste even in its day." It cites a two-page section in an encyclopedia of musicals (which I can't access atm, but seems unlikely to contain a lengthy discussion—it is essentially Wikpedia citing another encyclopedia).

But given the prominence of this statement, it's worrying that there is literally zero support for this strong claim in the actual article. The earliest critical response that includes the racial elements (or indeed, anything about "bad taste") is from 1988, and all the others nearer to 2020.

And indeed, every contemporaneous review mentioned seems to have nothing but positive things to say, about the film in general, and its musical spectacles specifically—to say nothing of the film's financial success. Given that, the statement in question seems more like a retroactive application of later opprobrium toward blackface. And even if it's a direct quote from the book in question, it would seem to be implying a historical consensus that is strongly contradicted by the actual evidence presented. Even if well-intentioned, this type of vague "it must have been this way" assumption is a hindrance to people researching the actual historical implications of such subjects.

I'd suggest this statement be expunged, or at least moved to the "critical response" section. Without a lot more research/explication, and explanation of apparently contradictory evidence, it is extremely inappropriate as a highlighting summary statement. Chronometric (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]