Bibliography

Primary Sources
Books
Chandler, Charlotte P., Ms. Ingrid Bergman, a Personal Biography. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007. Digital file. Although Ingrid Bergman's life doesn't directly pertain to our project, her entanglements with Roberto Rossellini reflect a lot about Rossellini's style and cinematic finesse. Bergman offered herself up to participate in a film of Rossellini, explaining that she was an actress who knew French, Italian, and English, and would love to be featured in an Italian or international film. Many film historians and critics claim that Ingrid Bergman was Rossellini's ideal muse that inspired him to expand his films beyond the vanity and beauty of American Hollywood, or even other European film making. We used this primary source to add depth to our Historical Context and Reaction pages of our website. Eastland, Terry, ed. Freedom of Expression in the Supreme Court. N.p.: Rowan & Littlefield, 2000. Print. The 1950s is an era when the constitution, the bill of rights, and the amount of protection they sustain in judicial proceedings was questioned by many individuals. This primary source book includes the detailed proceedings of monumental Supreme Court cases that changed how Americans viewed the impact of the first amendment. Rather than only including exact text and transcriptions from the court case, the editor places

his own opinions and discussions in conjunction with the transcripts as a way to add dimension to the description of the case. This book presented itself as an informative piece on the history of the first amendment in the supreme court and how significant rulings were impactful in American law. This book was primarily referred to when writing the Turning Point and Legacy pages of our website. Keough, Peter. Flesh and Blood: The National Society of Film Critics on Sex, Violence, and Censorship. San Francisco: Mercury, 1995. Print. The rules of the National Society of Film Critics have fluctuated so much over the past decades that it was crucial for my partner and I to understand the current standards. This primary source book also has a very useful section of recorded opinions and statements by the editing author, Peter Keough. Keough's analysis and interpretation of the current issues in censorship law is very pertinent to how people receive certain films, television, or media. He conducted a series of studies on how public perception played a role in legal battles over censorship. We used this source when writing the Legacy and Reaction pages of our website. Knowles, Dorothy. The Drama, the Censor, the Film, 1900-1934. London: Allen & Unwin, 1934. Print. Of all the primary sources that we found in the process of researching, this was one of the most unique. This author, Knowles, recorded the apparent changes in censorship and restrictive laws in Hollywood as she was living in New York in the 1930s. Knowles also relies heavily on other opinions and sources, and cites where the individuals came from and what

movies or concepts they were referencing. Many of these quotations would not have normally been recorded in that period of time. Silent film actors and directors are often noted in this book to be controversially retaliating against the Hollywood industry. In producing such a collection of accounts, Knowles created a source that was not only unique, but exactly fit the topic we on which we are making this website. We used this source for the Historical Context and Reaction pages of our website. Rossellini, Isabella. Some of Me: Isabella Rossellini. New York: Random, 1997. Print. Although it was difficult to find quotations or sources that Roberto Rossellini had written, this autobiography provided very similar information. Isabella Rossellini remarks vividly on his father's opinions, skills, and career in such a way it was almost as if he had written. Our website does have a main focus on the actual Supreme Court case Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v Wilson, but understanding Rossellini's motives when he made the film is also important. Much of the first half of the website discusses why many people protested against this film and claimed it was sacrilegious. Knowing that Rossellini intended to explore concepts of Catholicism in post WWII Italy, and the fact that his daughter discusses it in her autobiography changed our view of this topic. We used this book when writing the Historical Context and Reaction pages of our website. Valenti, Jack. This Time, This Place: My Life in War, the White House, and Hollywood. N.p.: Harmony, 2007. Print. This is Jack Valenti's autobiography, and in it he discusses his emotional setbacks as he was transitioning from the position of

Johnson's special advisor to the president of the MPAA. This book had many great primary source quotes that we used for our website.

Documents
The, Catholic News. "Newspaper Clippings on Film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 5 of 14)." 1950-1951. MS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_Article_005. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from Catholic News, December 30, 1950. This newspaper article is another example of a publication from the Catholic News. This article, however, has a very different motive. This article attempted to manipulate general reactions to the film L'Amore and turn them toward the efforts of banning the film. The author, who is not know, cited here claims that certain Motion Picture Industries feel as if "they are in a very uncomfortable predicament" when deciding to show this film or not. According to the archives and other historians who compiled the original documents, this man wrongly quoted a representative of a Motion Picture Association in Ontario, O.J. Silverthorne, as a supporter of the Catholic protests. This article was one of many that added depth and variety to the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website. The, New York Times. "Newspaper Clippings on film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 14 of 14)." 6 June 1952. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-

77_B2561_F2_Article_014. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from the New York Times, June 16, 1952. This is an original advertisement for the reviewing of L'Amore in New York. We used this image as a great way to add to the thesis page of our website. The, New York Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. Against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, p. 4." 16 Feb. 1952. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_004. Brief of the respondents. This section of the respondent brief discusses the how the New York State Board of Regents articulated their decision to ban the film as well as the resulting protests that happened shortly afterwards. The respondents described the exact location and development of the protests. Many of the respondents considered in this document and legal brief how exactly the protests manifested themselves in certain parts of New York. These respondents also considered how the ruling and its exact wording effected the protesters. Many people on the New York State Board of Regents didn't believe that the representative of the Supreme Court who viewed the film did a good enough review of the film, and decided to review it themselves. However, according to this page of the legal brief, the State Board of Regents sent only three of their members to watch and analyze the film for unacceptable content. The other members based their critiques solely in what the three viewers claimed about the film. This page of the

document was useful when writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of the website. The, New York Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 5." 16 Feb. 1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_005. Brief of the respondents, page 5. This page of the respondents' brief describes how the legal council in charge of issuing the opinion of the Supreme Court in response to Burstyn's appeal allowed private businesses across the country to give their opinion on the case. The residing film company that allowed the film to be seen at the Paris Theater, Lopart Films, issued an advocacy statement for the movie. The legal council was flooded with statements and assertions that the film should be seen or for that matter, taken off of any public screen. This page of the legal brief helped us to understand that the film was not only interpreted by a small pocket of New York or the United States judicial system, but also by numbers of individuals from multiple backgrounds and all with different motives in the matter. This page legal brief was used to write the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website. The, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 5." 16 Feb. 1952. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_005. Brief of the respondents, page 5. In this page of the respondents' legal brief,

the New York Supreme Court discussed how to best interpret the need for an appeal as well as the controversy behind this case and upcoming decision. The Supreme Court then decided to send out a request for interpretation from multiple businesses and private organizations, as a way to add perspective to what people claimed about Rossellini's work being 'sacrilegious'. There were multiple opinions, but most of them insisted that the Supreme Court take a somewhat lukewarm stance on this issue, because they felt as if people reacting with ideas of offensive content and other such accusations were based more on bias than actual fact. So, they sent three people to review the film to obtain a purely objective impression of the work. This page of the legal brief gave us a broadened view of how the Supreme Court conducted themselves in the process of this case, as well as how they came to approve of Rossellini's work. This part of the legal brief was used on the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website. The, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 7." 16 Feb. 1951. MS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_case_007. Brief of the respondents, page 7. This page of the legal brief includes a synopsis of L'Amore from the point of view of the members of the New York Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court. Justices from both groups reviewed the film and tried diligently to understand whether or not the content was offensive and

obscene. All of these men left the theater with unspecific attitudes about it. They all felt that the film simply posed a new mode or method of considering certain religious beliefs. This was a particularly insightful source when writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website. The, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 8." N.d. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_008. Brief of the respondents, page 8. This page of the legal brief from the respondents' reflects their study of the content of the film as well as the arguments that the New York State Board of Regents made in wanting to ban it from public viewing. The New York State Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court approached this film very objectively, and they both left it with objective points of view. They both stated that while the film makes obvious jabs at certain aspects of Catholic doctrine, it makes no attempt at mocking it, putting it in a sacrilegious light, or even a slightly offensive tone. They then proceed in this page of the legal brief to criticize the Board of Regents' "rash assumption" about L'Amore. They even note in this page of the brief that the Board of Regents only sent three of the hundred or more people on the board to view it. The clear rationality and fairness of the Supreme Courts in this page of the brief proved to us that there was a great amount of equality granted to peoples' points of view. This page was used when writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website.

The, New York State Supreme Court. New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 9. 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_009. Brief of the respondents, page 9. In this page of the legal brief, the respondents deconstruct the assumptions, crude understandings, and unfair interpretations about the word sacrilege. Specifically speaking, they define sacrilege strictly as something or someone that steals, misuses, violates, or desecrates and thus deprives of its current religious meaning. They almost define in terms of objects or tangible things rather than concepts, and even make a direct connection to the word profanation. When determining something that is so abstract or intangible, it was undoubtedly difficult for this organization to be completely fair in judging L'Amore. However, they did not even research or investigate a substantial amount about the film, and so they cannot not argue that they have a serious perspective on it. This page of the legal brief was used for writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of the website. The, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 10." 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_case_010. Brief of the respondents, page 10. In this page of the respondents' brief, the writers of the document uphold an assertion about

how and why the film is not, under any circumstances, sacrilegious. By discussing Catholic beliefs in a non-heretical manner, and by posing the situation in a hypothetical fashion, this content and the acting along with it should not offend any devout Catholic, according to the New York and United State Supreme Court. This page was used when writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website. The, New York State Supreme Court. New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 11. 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_011. Brief of the respondents, page 11. In this page of the respondents' brief of the Joseph Burstyn case, they discuss the fact that the Regents did not have any jurisdiction to turn back on their previous ruling of L'Amore. When Rossellini first imported L'Amore into the United States, the New York State Board of Regents let it be shown in multiple movie theaters for public viewing and they never considered its content inappropriate. With the help of the Regents, this film won a New York Film Critic's choice award, not in the foreign film category. Soon after, the Regents turned their back on their earlier decision and allowed the Catholic protests to scare them into revoking the film's license. The respondents invalidated the Regents' ability to revoke a license and turn their backs on an earlier decision. This page was used when writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of the website.

10

The, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 13." 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Regents, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_case_013. Brief of the respondents, page 13. In this page of the legal brief, the respondents take a different approach when interpreting how culpable the New York State Board of Regents for subjecting Burstyn and Rossellini's film to scrutiny. The respondents preface the description on this page of the legal issues by acknowledging that each local legal authority has to review a film for viewing. When they do review a film for viewing, they have to take into account all of the reasons that a film should not be shown or has to be censored. The respondents make clear the fact that they didn't initially internalize the fact that this organization has the responsibility of reviewing a film on all subjects, sacrilege, obscenity, profanity, and many other subjects. This page was used for writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of the website. The, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 14." 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_case_014. Brief of the respondents, page 14. This page of the legal brief of the Burstyn case continues the earlier discussion on the responsibilities of the New York State Board of Regents. They claim, again,

11

that the responsibilities of this organization are somewhat more rigid than most in the United States in that they have to address concerns clearly laid out for them in the Constitution, rather than interpret what their duties are given the situation. This page, along with others was used to write the Reaction and the Turning Point pages. The, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 15." 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_case_015. Brief of the respondents, page 15. In this page of the New York Supreme Court legal brief, the respondents discussed how much blame the New York State Board of Regents should feel for banning the film, L'Amore. The New York Supreme Court claims that under this organization, the legal right to censorship and regulate the production of film were all consolidated. For that reason, these members and legal authorities on the Board of Regents were not well-versed in film production codes and legislation. These people were not knowledgable enough to understand the ramifications of their actions, or able to predict how certain groups in the United States, such as the Catholic organizations. This page of the legal brief was used when writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages in the website. The, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 16." 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New

12

York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_case_016. Brief of the respondents, page 16. In this page of the legal brief, the respondents discuss the penalty that the New York State Board of Regents would have to endure if they refused to ban L'Amore. According to the 1950s New York legal standards, the State Board of Regents would have faced a repeated injunction on their organization, and multiple board members would have to have been on probation for their "reluctance to carry out due process". Understanding the motives that the State Board of Regents had when considering banning the film, as well as their final decision to carry out the ban were much easier knowing the constraints and pressures that the organization had on them. This page was used for writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of the website. The, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 19." 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_case_019. Brief of the respondents, page 19. In this page of the legal brief, the respondents' make reference to other cases in the Supreme Court that dealt with film censorship, and the impact that those verdicts and pieces of legislation had on American social politics. This particular case, Matter of Katz, v. Goldwater, a 17 year old girl describes her right to apply for a job, even though she got past the company's requirement to be at least 18. The defense argued that she was able to exercise her right to free speech, or

13

for that matter to refuse revealing her identity, is entirely within her first amendment rights. Ultimately, the case ruled in favor of the company and she was asked to leave her job. This page was used to write the Reaction pages of our website. The, Catholic News. "Newspaper Clippings on Film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 4 of 14)." 1950-1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_Article_004. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from Catholic News, December 30, 1950. Regardless of the actual number of original newspaper articles that we found while researching for this project, we were looking for something that added perspective to our website. This article gave us great perspective when understanding exactly how Catholics reacted to this film. This clipping from a Catholic newspaper is proof that Catholics in New York reacted differently from other dissenters and disapprovers of the film. Many men and women argued that the case should be banned for blasphemy on the ground that it didn't pass the rating system that the Legion of Decency had established. This didn't make their argument too distinguished because much like the other private organizations that argued against this film, their point had no basis in legal opinion. A group such as the Legion of Decency has no bearing over whether or not a film can be banned, because it has no national or even state legal power. This article and the information it provided gave us insight into the protests of the film, as well as how the Supreme Court

14

found the arguments misleading. This was very informative when writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website. The, Daily News. "Newspaper Clippings on Film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 7 of 14)." 1950-1952. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_Article_007. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from The Daily News, January 15, 1951. This newspaper article provided us with one of the few pictures found of the protests in New York around theaters that showed The Miracle. We used this picture when writing and organizing the Reaction and Protest pages of our website. The, New York State Supreme Court. "New York State Archives, New York (State). Motion Picture Division, License application case files, 1921-1965, box 2561, folder 2." 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_012. Brief of the respondents, page 12. In this page of the legal brief, the respondents reaffirm the inability of any political, private, or legal organization to claim that sacrilegious is a legitimate term to ban any piece of media from public viewing. We used this page when writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website. The, New York Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 3." 16 Feb. 1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_003. Brief of

15

the respondents, page 3. In this page of the respondents' statements of the Legal Brief, the respondents are discussing how they noticed that the film they recently passed was in fact considered to be sacrilegious. They discuss the relative timeline of events that occurred and how they related to the appeal and the decision to move the case to the Supreme Court. This document, along with the other pages of the legal brief provided us with a greater analytical understanding of the case as well as how certain events lined up with the outcome or the 1952 verdict. This was used when writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website. The, New York Times. "Newspaper Clippings on Film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 6 of 14)." 1950-1952. MS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_Article_006. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from the New York Times, January 8, 1951. The author of this article, who is anonymous, acted as a clear bipartisan when describing the ramifications of the film as well as the general public reaction to it. He describes the protests as "a mixed pot swirling with anger and resentment, while comprised every now and then of ardent supporters and champions of a positive cause for the film." Although we could give this article a trite description and claim that it is unlike any other one that we found, it was similar to other articles that we found. The distinct quality that it does have is its blatant display of praise for those who did support the film. He showed the most apparent amount of support for the

16

film, and of Rossellini, which convinced us that these protests were in no way of all one attitude. We used this article when writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website. The, Tablet. "Newspaper Clippings on Film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 3 of 14)." 1950-1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_Article_003. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from The Tablet, December 30, 1950. This is an original copy of an article written by a member of the staff on the New York newspaper titled, "The Tablet". This article is a discussion of the all the films that the Legion of Decency had actually seen in the early 1950s, including the films that they decided not to view or decided to ban or not ban. This document, which was proved authentic by other librarians, proves that the New York Legion of Decency had never seen the film, L'Amore. If they did, they viewed it at the earliest, in early 1952. It was astounding to find out definitively that this organization, that grandstanded and paraded around New York collecting loyal protesters to demand the ban of this film, hadn't seen it. This source was used when writing the Reaction and Legacy pages of our website. Cianfarra, Camille M. "Newspaper Clippings on film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 10 of 14)." 11 Feb. 1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_Article_010. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy

17

surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from The New York Times, February 11, 1951. According to the manner in which this article was made, the author is an actual news correspondent who traveled to Rome to be able to understand the Vatican's opinion of Rossellini's L'Amore. The author of this article cites that the Vatican only recently spoke publicly on the subject, stating that "it had yet to come to their attention". In many ways, the Vatican's reaction was not relevant in the protests because by the time that the Vatican showed any interest, Cardinal Spellman had already spoke on behalf of most American Catholics, thus starting riots and violent threats against the film. This newspaper article, as rare as it is, mainly confirmed for us that the Vatican did not play a singular, important role in how L'Amore was received by the United States. They acted in response to Cardinal Spellman's declarations and statements. This article impacted our view of the widespread reactions to L'Amore, and helped us when writing the Turning Point and Reaction pages of our website. Cruikshank, Alice. "Letter to Mr. Hugh M. Flick in Protest of The Miracle." Letter. 16 Jan. 1951. TS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F1_letter1_pg1. When my partner and I first started to research for our topic, we repeatedly read about the protests that went on in New York and New York City specifically. Both of us did not know the magnitude nor the medium through which these protests happened, so it was very difficult for us to wholeheartedly believe that certain authors and historians were correct in describing the protests as

18

"staunch, livid, and outbursts against claimed ridicule of Catholic beliefs." But when we came across the first set of documents on this website that were letters from civilians, we were quite surprised. At that point, our suspicions about the reactions from these protesters were affirmed, and our website became much stronger in evidence. This was a great primary source document to use when describing the protests on the Reaction portion of our website. Cruikshank, Alice. "Letter to Hugh M. Flick in Protest of The Miracle." Letter to Hugh M. Flick. 16 Jan. 1951. TS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F1_letter1_pg3. This letter, along with the letter that Mr. Hugh M. Flick received from the Motion Picture Official Association was one of many wonderful primary source documents that we found when first researching for our website. The quotations that we pulled from the website evoked more emotion and strength in her opinion than from most of the sources that we found in making our website. She not only cited that she is a practicing Christian, specifically a Protestant, she felt that this was a direct afront to all Christians and principles of the bible. Rather than claim that this is the result of ignorance on the part of the American and New York Motion Picture Company, she also claims that it is an indictment of the religious policies that are crumbling in Italy. Considering how rash this woman was in her writing, her conclusions were very succinct, and indicated to us that this was a widespread protest. We referred to this

19

document repeatedly when writing the reaction and turning point pages of our website. Cruikshank, Alice D. "Letter from Alice D. Cruikshank to Motion Picture Division Director Dr. Hugh M. Flick Protesting the Showing of The Miracle." Letter to Hugh M. Flick. 16 Jan. 1951. TS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F1_letter1_pg4. This portion of the letter from Alice Cruikshank (one of the many New York citizens who protested in the 1950s, was very revealing in terms of its content and arguments. Because Cruikshank gave specific reasons for wanting the Motion Picture Association to ban the film, we developed stronger analysis when writing the Reaction pages of our website. These pieces of information gave us new understandings of the protest. We realized that certain people asserted that L'Amore shouldn't be seen because it was revealing, others because it was offensive to Catholics, and some because they felt it had Communist undertones that would be off-putting. This was an excellent primary source find for our website. Daily News, The. "Newspaper Clippings on Film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 8 of 14)." 1950-1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_Article_008. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from The Daily News, January 21, 1951. This article posed the most radical attempt at downgrading and dispelling the credibility of the Miracle. This article by the Daily News in New York is reporting on a bomb

20

scare that occurred to prevent hundreds of people from seeing the film. For us, this article indicated multiple aspects of New York government as well as the tactics used to diminish the film's quality. Dreyfus, Parker A. "Newspaper Clippings on Film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 2 of 14)." 1950-1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_Article_002. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from The Evangelist, December 29, 1950. We found many official documents and newspaper articles from the years of protest and resentment of the Rossellini film, L'Amore. This newspaper article specifically attacks the New York organization that administers the licenses and evaluates the films that they receive. The author, Dreyfus, claims that this organization's ban of the film brings to light the clear "ineptness" of the New York State Board of Education and the New York State Education Department's Board of Motion Picture Censors. This article was eye-opening and surprising considering the amount of material and documents found on slandering the film and its related subjects. This article was used when writing the Reaction, Turning Point, and Legacy pages of our website. Flick, Hugh M. "Letter to Dr. Hugh M. Flick in support of The Miracle." Letter. 22 Jan. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F1_letter3_pg1. The response from the Motion Picture Association director, Mr. Flick, also revealed that this organization

21

acted very bipartisan when evaluating the protest letters and other critiques that people made. There was no indication that the Association agreed with any particular party arguing any way in the process of the trial, the original showing of the film, or even before it was first seen by the public. This letter was a wonderful primary source when discussing the implications the protests had in the trial and verdict in 1952. We used these letters and responses when writing the Turning Point and Reaction pages of our website. Flick, Hugh M. "Acknowledgement of letter to Dr. Hugh M. Flick against showing of The Miracle." Letter. 16 Jan. 1951. TS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Regents, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F1_letter4_pg1. This letter was considerably similar to other responses that Mr. Flick gave to the protesters. He mentions that he is grateful for their feedback and hopes to be able to answer the person's concerns at the appropriate time. This letter was very useful when compiling documents and information to write the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website. Herald Tribune, The. "Newspaper Clippings on Film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 13 of 14)." 27 May 1952. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_Article_013. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from the New York Herald Tribune, May 27, 1952. Ironically enough, this article was printed a day after Burstyn knew that he had won the case in favor of showing the film publicly.

22

This article contains a discussion on how and why the journalists at the Herald Tribune felt that they predicted the case would rule in favor of Burstyn. This coupled with one of the few, originally documented pictures of L'Amore in from the 1940s and 1950s makes this article very distinct and useful for us when we were writing the Reaction and Historical Context pages of our website. In Conjunction to the American Civil Liberties Union, New York State Civil Liberties Union. "Amici Curiae Brief on The Miracle, page 1." 1950. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_ACLU_001. The document is a brief of the New York City Civil Liberties Committee and National Council on Freedom of Censorship, Amici Curiae. Statement of facts states that this is an action for an injunction by the distributor of the motion picture "The Miracle," against the License Commissioner of New York City, who has threatened to revoke the license of any theatre showing said picture on the alleged ground that it is blasphemous.This section the from the New York State Civil Liberties Union in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union describes how the Amici group, the group that initiated this charge against the Edward T. McCaffrey, does not have any bearing on whether or not the film was "blasphemous" or offensive to religious groups. This page was one of the many indicators of who made the claim of sacrilege against the film L'Amore. This document and its other parts were used and referred to when writing the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website.

23

In Conjunction with American Civil Liberties Union, New York State Civil Liberties Union. "Amici Curiae Brief on The Miracle, page 3." 1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_ACLU_003. Case of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Joseph Burstyn, Inc., Plaintiff, against Edward T. McCaffrey, Commissioner of Licenses, Defendant. The document is a brief of the New York City Civil Liberties Committee and National Council on Freedom of Censorship, Amici Curiae. Statement of facts states that this is an action for an injunction by the distributor of the motion picture "The Miracle," against the License Commissioner of New York City, who has threatened to revoke the license of any theatre showing said picture on the alleged ground that it is blasphemous. This document, or rather this particular section of the fivepage document gave us two new insights. One, this document proved that the New York Civil Liberties Union was responding the fake bomb scare as well as the arson threats that people made in order to prevent people from seeing The Miracle. Second, this document also makes a very poignant insight on how certain legislative and private entities interfered with the democratic rights in United States law. The New York State Civil Liberties Union asserts specifically that the claim of "blasphemy" and other such claims for preventing the public viewing of this film are immaterial, and have no validity in a court of law. This document was used when writing the Turning Point and Legacy pages of our website.

24

In Conjunction with American Civil Liberties Union, New York State Civil Liberties Union. "Amici Curiae Brief on The Miracle, page 4." 1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Regents, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_ACLU_004. Case of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Joseph Burstyn, Inc., Plaintiff, against Edward T. McCaffrey, Commissioner of Licenses, Defendant. The document is a brief of the New York City Civil Liberties Committee and National Council on Freedom of Censorship, Amici Curiae. Statement of facts states that this is an action for an injunction by the distributor of the motion picture "The Miracle," against the License Commissioner of New York City, who has threatened to revoke the license of any theatre showing said picture on the alleged ground that it is blasphemous. While this page in many ways serves as a reiteration of the previous arguments, it also shows a clearer declaration on the separation of Church and State in the United States Judicial Court, and specifically pertaining to this case. The New York State Civil Liberties Union makes a direct statement that there is no way that religious arguments register as sound ground for any case whatsoever. This gave us the unique point of view that the case should have been nullified when reviewed for court, but it wasn't. This document fragment was used on the Turning Point and Reaction pages of the website. In Conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union. "Amici Curiae Brief on The Miracle, page 2." 1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-

25

77_B2561_F2_ACLU_002. Case of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Joseph Burstyn, Inc., Plaintiff, against Edward T. McCaffrey, Commissioner of Licenses, Defendant. The document is a brief of the New York City Civil Liberties Committee and National Council on Freedom of Censorship, Amici Curiae. Statement of facts states that this is an action for an injunction by the distributor of the motion picture "The Miracle," against the License Commissioner of New York City, who has threatened to revoke the license of any theatre showing said picture on the alleged ground that it is blasphemous. Interestingly enough, this page has an opinion from the head of the New York Civil Liberties Union wherein he claims that the decision to not try films as examples of expression has been "all but overruled". He cites other cases that happened between the Mutual Decision (1915) and the Miracle Decision (1952) that show certain strides being made toward overturning the 1915 decision to ban films on the grounds that they are pieces of consumerism. This section of the 5 page document provided us with an authentic piece of information from that time, but also gave us a new way to analyze the historical context surrounding the Miracle Decision to support that the first amendment was becoming all-encompassing. Film, movies, newspapers, and other mediums through which to express free speech were developing. We used this document when writing the Legacy and Historical Context pages of our website. In Conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union, New York State Civil Liberties Union. "Amici Curiae Brief on The Miracle, page 5." 1951. MS. New

26

York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_ACLU_005. Case of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Joseph Burstyn, Inc., Plaintiff, against Edward T. McCaffrey, Commissioner of Licenses, Defendant. The document is a brief of the New York City Civil Liberties Committee and National Council on Freedom of Censorship, Amici Curiae. Statement of facts states that this is an action for an injunction by the distributor of the motion picture "The Miracle," against the License Commissioner of New York City, who has threatened to revoke the license of any theatre showing said picture on the alleged ground that it is blasphemous. This fifth and final section of the brief made by the New York State Civil Liberties Union, in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union, was a semi-summary of the arguments made in the previous sections, with a more resounding, final note. The New York State Civil Liberties Union says in the final section of their brief that administering or even revoking a license takes the strength of a higher power than a private distribution company in New York. The New York State Civil Liberties Union makes a clear assertion here that the case we did this project on was an anomaly in that it made it all the way to the Supreme Court. This source dictated a lot of the analytical discussions on the Turning Point page as well as the reaction page. In Conjunction with the United States Supreme Court, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, p.

27

21." 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Regents, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_021. Brief of the respondents, page 21. This page of the legal brief is a continuation of the discussion on the previous page, where the respondents articulated each of the individual cases and arguments that have been made to support the claim that film licenses are only administered to those who have passed the state Board's approval. This page lists three separate cases that occurred prior to this film's evaluation, all of which had rulings that conclusively decided to require that a level of approval is required. This page was used as direct support for the Reaction pages, specifically the Ban and Initial Appeal page. In Conjunction with the United States Supreme Court, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, p. 23." 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_023. Brief of the respondents, page 23. This page of the legal brief is also a continuation of the discussion on film licenses and how that relates to the justification of film censorship. The respondents in this page of legal brief, however, establish a discussion on the overall film censorship, and only make a smaller connection to the business of giving film licenses. The respondents initially mention the Mutual Decision (1915), but only in passing. They claim that that verdict and its ramifications do not have impacts that reach into the contemporary (1950s) era. But, they cite a similar legal opinion that was

28

publicized in a law review in the 1930s on the Pathe Exchange, Inc. v Cobb case. The case determined that films and cinema were a form of expression that is slightly above a newspaper or a periodical, which are the basic forms of media that are considered when one thinks of Freedom of Speech. The author of this article also claims that the form of opinion and expression that is presented in film and cinema is less of a medium than most other forms of public opinion. This author does not see that the wall against liberating film is slowly crumbling. He maintains that they as legal authorities have to look forward; but this assertion is flawed because he disregards the progress modern films have made in the United States. This page of the legal brief gave us great insight into the legal opinions of the time, as well as how people overall reacted to the showing and banning of the film. This page of the legal brief was used when writing the Reaction and Legacy pages of our website. In Conjunction with the United States Supreme Court, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, p. 24." 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_024. Brief of the respondents, page 24. This page of the legal brief has a very different tone than the others written by the respondents. The page continues the discussion held earlier regarding the specific cases that supports the banning or the public viewing of any film. In this page, the respondents take a direct side on the ban v. public viewing issue. A piece of evidence, a legal review

29

that belittles a film's possibility to express sentiments and be a conduit for free speech, leads the respondents to say that this is what would decide the 1952 case. The respondents assert in the last sentences of the page that, "since that case has been determined, the Legislature has exempted news reels from the necessity of license which substantially strengthens the present status of the Supreme Court in this decision. The respondents are taking a clear side in this verdict. We used this page for writing the Reaction pages, as well as the Ban and Initial Appeal pages. In Conjunction with the United States Supreme Court, New York State Supreme Court. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, P. 20." 16 Feb. 1951. TS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_020. Brief of the respondents, page 20. In this page of the New York Supreme Court's Legal Brief, the respondents make clear that that the attempts to have the film banned were in every way legal. According to this page of the legal brief, the complaints made against a film are initially carried out by citizens themselves. Any person can view a film, believe it to be visually offensive or unfit for public showing, and decide to share the complaint with the members of the local Board of Education. From that point, the complaints or sentiments that are expressed by any one individual are solely reviewed by the Board of Education of that particular state. The Board uses these comments simply as a unique perspective. That is when the Board makes the

30

decision to either ban or continue showing the film in local theaters. The second half of this page discusses the required criteria that a film has to have in order to be seen for the first time in any venue. A film has to first have a license approved by the local state Board. The respondents then describe the particular Supreme Court cases that support the fact that the film has to have a required license. This page of the legal brief was used when writing the Ban and Initial Appeal as well as the overall Reaction pages. Klouda, Arthur M. "Letter to Dr. Hugh M. Flick against showing of The Miracle." Letter. 16 Jan. 1951. TS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F1_letter4_pg2. This letter, although had a very trite argument, still provided us with a piece of substantial evidence to help support the writing on multiple pages. The author of the letter, Arthur M. Klouda, made a direct link between the accusation of sacrilege and the accusation of Communist motives in the film. This argument was very different from the others made in the protest letters. Almost none of them indicated that they felt L'Amore had ulterior Communist sentiments expressed through the acting and the setting. We used this letter to provide support for the Reaction and Turning Point pages of our website. New York. Motion Picture Division of New York. Official License Given by Lopart Films to Approve L'Amore (Ways of Love) for Public Viewing. 1949 Leg., 4th reg. sess. Doc. 564. Print. Of all the projects that we have created in History Day, this project provided us with some of the most authentic documents.

31

These documents were also readily available online, which reminded both of us how wonderful it is to be able to participate in the website division. To find some of the original documents that are associated with L'Amore, Rossellini's film, which was part of such a large controversy is very special. Also, this license that was issued by the Motion Picture Division of New York, and that was later rescinded proves that this case was the subject of much debate amongst leaders in the Motion Picture industry, but also among men and women who happened to see the film at the time and develop a strong opinion of it. This document was a great addition to the production codes part of our website. New York. Leg. Motion Picture Division of New York. Notice of Action to Rescind the License for Motion Picture Il Miracolo. 1951 Leg. Print. When my partner and I had the opportunity to find not only the original license for showing the film, L'Amore (called Ways of Love in the United States), we were incredibly shocked. We were more surprised to find that after years of protest and antagonism against the film, the archives of the New York State Board of Regents, in affiliation with the New York government, had still kept the attempted license and later rescinded one in their archives. Knowing exactly when the license was issues and when the protests ensued was particularly important for our website. These two documents were undeniable proof of when the protests started and how they changed as certain declarations of sacrilege and bans were made by multiple political parties. After discovering this archive and database, we decided that our website needed to have a

32

firmer structure, and for that reason we are very grateful that we found this archive. This document and the archive were used when writing the Legacy, Reaction, and Turning Point pages of our website. "New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dept. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. against the Regents of the University of the State of New York, p. 1." 16 Feb. 1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_case_001. This is one page of a document that divided into 34 parts. All of these 34 parts of this document combined make up the legal brief of the Miracle Decision, or Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v Wilson. This page of the brief shows and records the names of all the participants in the New York State Board of Regents that originally pushed so fervently for this case to reach the Supreme Court. This page of the document also shows evidence that Joseph Burstyn applied for a license for this film, and was originally approved for the license. The bottom of this document also indicates that the license was revoked. This page along with all of the others of this document were used for establishing a clear timeline of the events on this website. New York Times, The. "Newspaper Clippings on film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 12 of 14)." 24 Feb. 1951. MS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_Article_012. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from the Motion Picture Herald, February 24, 1951. Of all the newspaper articles we sifted through, of

33

all the primary source quotations we read, this article was probably the most bipartisan of all the ones we found in the process of researching for this website. The author of this article, one of many at the New York Times, recounts the timeline of events that occurred from when the film was first aired in the United States up until Burstyn made the appeal at the Supreme Court. This was a wonderful objective source that we used to write the Historical Context and Reaction pages of our website. New York Times, The. "Newspaper Clippings on film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 9 of 14)." 21 Jan. 1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A141877_B2561_F2_Article_009. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from The New York Times, January 21, 1951. This excerpt from a New York Times article had a very interesting take on journalism in the 1950s. The article title is "The Public Speaks", and from there the author of the article cites the responses he received when he asked people to take a stance on Rossellini's film, L'Amore. The article contains three different, visible opinions. There is one from a man who approved of the film on the grounds that there is no way to argue that blasphemy is obscenity. He felt that there is no clear definition of how blasphemy is visually offensive rather than purely offensive in its content. Another man argued that it was an issue that the public should vote on; he felt that there should be a poll taken by local citizens as to how they reacted to the film. If the majority of the state felt the film was acceptable for public

34

viewing, then it should be aired according to this man. To hear such unofficial statements made on this film, and how people felt the press was reacting to it, was incredibly refreshing for us. We felt that the quality of our research was not compromised by the bias of the time period. This article, amongst others was incredibly useful for writing the reaction pages of our website. New York Times, The, and The Herald Tribune. "Newspaper Clippings on film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 11 of 14)." 18 Feb. 1951. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_Article_011. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from The New York Times and the Herald Tribune, February 18, 1951. This document has articles by two separate journalists from the Herald Tribune and The New York Times on how the New York State Board of Regents banned the film L'Amore. The two articles discuss the specific ramifications of the ban from very different perspectives. The journalist at The Herald Tribune considers the ban from a very specific perspective. Based on the thorough content of the article, the journalist at the Herald interviewed a rabbi and members of his synagogue to glean a different point of view. Many of them felt the ban was an act of pressure based on the Catholic and general American population's reaction. The New York Times' journalist felt very ambivalent, considering the opinions that he obtained. The journalist at the New York Times interviewed a very similar segment of the American jewish population, and uncovered much of the same quotations and opinions, but he didn't draw

35

as clear of a conclusion on the subject. The fact that the two journalists were able to talk to the same people, but come to two very different understandings of the ban, proves that there was definite bias regarding the topic as well as some hints of corruption amongst journalists. This article was one of many that broadened our understanding of the Reaction to this ban and L'Amore overall. Parke, Richard H. "Newspaper Clippings on Film The Miracle by Roberto Rossellini (article 1 of 14)." 1950-1952. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F2_Article_001. Newspaper clippings relating to the controversy surrounding the film "The Miracle." Clippings from the New York Times, December 24, 1950. While the New York times website provided us with many primary source newspaper articles and other original documents, it was very thrilling to be able to find the original newspaper article from the 1950s on the protests and bans of The Miracle. This document was very insightful when describing the statements made by particular people during the protests. We used this newspaper article when writing the Reaction and Initial Ban and Appeal pages of our website. Rossellini, Roberto, and Frederico Fellini. Il Miracolo/ The Miracle film script (p. 1 of 12). 28 Nov. 1950. MS. New York State Archive. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F1_script_001. It was already great to be able to find the original letters and protest sentiments that people filed against the film, L'Amore. It was thrilling for us to be able to read an

36

original section of the script and translate parts of it to understand the content of the film. This was a wonderful primary source document that we used when writing the Film and Reaction pages of the website. Sommerville, Jeanne. "Letter to Dr. Hugh M. Flick in support of The Miracle." Letter. 22 Jan. 1951. TS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F1_letter3_pg2. In a very succinct and concise letter this woman, Jeanne, felt that she was not offended by The Miracle. On the contrary, she felt more upset by the fact that multiple Catholic organizations were making assertions onto people such as Roberto Rossellini, Magnani, Fellini, and Joseph Burstyn. She argued that the film was only blasphemous or offensive based on the way a person interpreted, rather than being inherently offensive. This letter was distinct, and made a coherent argument against such officials of the Motion Picture Association of New York as well as against the Legion of Decency and Cardinal Spellman. This letter was proof that the protests and reactions to the film were not homogeneous, but actually filled with mixed sentiments. The Catholic organizations just happened to be at the forefront of this movement, to the credit of Cardinal Spellman and his congregation of devout Catholics. Squire, John. "Letter to Dr. Hugh M. Flick Questioning Censorship of The Miracle." Letter. 1 Jan. 1951. TS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F1_letter2_pg2. Of all the original letters that we found, this one was the most surprising, specifically because of its content. The person writing this letter to the Motion Picture

37

Association of New York states that he wasn't concerned with whether or not it was censored, and whether or not the Association or the Catholic church came to the decision. He was primarily concerned with the grounds on which L'Amore was censored. He believed that the term sacrilegious is not a wholly defined term in this particular context, and thought "the public has the right to know" how they determined sacrilege. This source changed our perspectives completely, and gave us a perspective that put us in the shoes of men and women who disapproved of this film. We understood at this point in our research that the reactions to this film weren't solely confined to anger and contempt, but also confusion and misunderstanding. This letter and the quotations we pulled from it were very useful when writing the Turning Point and Reaction pages of our website. Squire, John. "Letter to Dr. Hugh M. Flick questioning censorship of The Miracle." Letter. N.d. TS. New York State Archives. New York State Board of Education, New York. NYSA_A1418-77_B2561_F1_letter2_pg1. Even though we both felt that these letters were helpful indicators of how protesters and antagonisms toward the film developed, they were also great indicators of how the Motion Picture Association of New York decided to react to these protesters. When we understood that this private company and organization decided not to lash out against the film and its distributors, but rather make an exact attempt to ban it and ensure it wouldn't be seen. The quotations and comments from the Motion Picture Association affiliate named Mr. Flick were crucial pieces of evidence in understanding the Association's reaction. This

38

primary source document was an influential source when writing the Turning Point and Reaction pages of our website.

Websites
The Motion Picture Association of America Headquarters. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2013. <http://mpaa.org>. When we were trying to understand the connections to today's MPAA ratings, using the official website's archives, regulations, and public access channels helped us to see the significant changes between the MPAA of Jack Valenti's era and today. We realized that while the rating system is still intact, as well as the overall method of rating, many of Valenti's rules are almost rigidly enforced as if they can't moderate based on social or political change. This website and database was very useful when writing the Legacy page of our website.

Interviews
Belknap, Michal. Personal interview. 21 Mar. 2013. As we first researched this topic we realized the impact that different eras in the Supreme Court had on then current American social politics. Certain issues such as African American civil rights would have been treated differently if a Supreme Court Chief Justice other than Warren had presided over the Supreme Court. That reasoning is what lead us to find an expert on the era in the American Supreme Court wherein the Vinson Court was in power. Understanding that the Vinson Court was a very prejudicial court was crucial when reading multiple opinions and briefs that came from the Justices and the Court overall. Also,

39

professor Belknap helped us to understand that opinions can be very biased because when writing them, a justice might change the wording not because he has greater expertise, but because he was convinced his point of view was more accurate. This interview was particularly useful when writing the case, verdict, and importance and aftermath pages. Clo, Clarissa. Personal interview. 25 Jan. 2013. Clarissa Clo is a professor of 20th century Italian cultural studies, specifically in film, literature, and entertainment studies. When we first began researching for this project, we realized that we aren't knowledgeable enough to understand the nuances of Italian cinema, specifically the changes in the genre or the overall style in filming. Professor Clo explained that the nuances we struggled with were a result of historical changes in Italy at that time. Because of the drastic political changes that occurred as a result of World War II, and the social devastation it had, directors such as Rossellini sought to focus on what they perceived to be real in Italian society, which is how such a "masterpiece" (Ingrid Bergman, 2007). Her insight on how this film fit into the cultural changes in Italy as well as how people perceived it at that time gave us greater perspective when writing our website. Haberski, Raymond J. Telephone interview. 20 Mar. 2013. The Miracle Decision is not only a seldom heard Supreme Court case among historians, but is also rarely heard in the legal history circle, and amongst law professors. So, when my partner and I found a book entitled the Miracle Case by professor Haberski and professor Wittern-Keller, we were very surprised and grateful

40

to have such a focused source on our topic. We also took it upon ourselves to immediately contact the authors of the book. When the two of them wrote the book, Professor Haberski was definitely more of an expert in historical discussions about film, as well as the social history regarding the Catholic church's place in mid-20th century United States. However he proved to have a substantial understanding of the case's legal impact as well as its place in American social politics. His interview helped us when writing and understanding every aspect of our website. Robin, Jeffrey. E-mail interview. 8 Apr. 2013. When films such as Rossellini's The Miracle are brought to the Supreme Court, lawyers with specific concentrations are necessary to make certain arguments. The case involved the complexities of constitutional law because the appellant claimed that in banning his film and not allowing him to show it with the content he wanted, he was being denied of his first amendment rights. The case also involved the complexities of entertainment law because when a producer, distributor, and director all decide to make a film together it is legally required of them to have an options agreement, as a way of delineating the individual rights each person has regarding royalties and publicity. Because we didn't understand the true definition of entertainment law and its ramifications in such a case, we felt compelled to talk to professor Robin. In many ways, professor Robin is quite the double threat; because he is a professor at California Western School of Law he is able to speak to the history of many of these legal regulations and how they have changed over time, and he currently practices

41

in Los Angeles with multiple firms. His interview helped us to understand how this case impacted the Production Codes and the film industry overall. Smith, Glenn. Personal interview. 24 Jan. 2013. Glenn Smith is a professor of constitutional law at California Western School of Law in San Diego. He also specializes in political science at UCSD. His interview was particularly insightful for us when writing and creating our website because he understood that our case did not have impacts or important ramifications solely restricted to legal perspectives. He understood that this case was true turning point in how the American government as well as citizens in the United States at the time viewed free speech. And this film changed how people interpreted films. L'Amore was more than an American film with typical 1940s characteristics. This Rossellini film was considered to be a piece of art, which paved the way for film as well as other forms of media to be heard in the United States. His opinion on how other cases addressed that issue, or how they qualified a double standard that gave credence only to newspapers and other such publications, rather than film gave newer depth to the analysis in our website. Verdicchio, Pasquale. Personal interview. 28 Jan. 2013. Pasquale Verdicchio is a professor of Italian Studies at UCSD, specializing in literature and film. However, his knowledge extends beyond just general understandings of literature and film, and goes further into crucial historical analysis of respective periods in Italian and American history. When he studies and reads about various films, he seeks to know more about the relevant events

42

and motivations of that particular time, and understands if they changed the impact of that film or novel. When we asked him questions regarding Rossellini's work, the Burstyn case, or even regarding the Catholic reaction to these films he was able to concisely hypothesize why these people reacted in such ways. And, because he is a native of Italy who came to the United States his perspective was incredibly refreshing in that he could speak as an American witnessing the various degrees of antagonism toward Rossellini's work while knowing him as someone who is akin to his culture and customs.

Secondary Sources
Books
Alpert, Hollis. Fellini: A Life. Quebec: Collier Macmillan Canada, 1986. Print. Roberto Rossellini and Frederico Fellini made their films through an equal relationship. The two relied heavily on one another to discover unique topics, find the best settings, and choose the perfect actors for the job. For us to understand the concept behind L'Amore, we needed to understand Rossellini's and Fellini's contributions. Fellini thought initially to create a film that depicted a seldom heard topic in Italian cinema, which was the middle class' and lower class' understanding of Catholicism and social structure in Italy after WWII. The similar and sometimes conflicting opinions between the two men added a new color to the historical context and reaction pages of our website.

43

Balio, Tino. The Foreign Film Renaissance on American Screens: 1946-1973. Madison, WI: U of Wisconsin, 2010. Print. Wisconsin Film Studies. Understanding the relationship between the American and Foreign film industry was essential to our project. It was an anomaly that a movie such as L'Amore with such unusually different styles and characteristics than most foreign films was so successful in the United States. The author, Balio, describes specific characteristics of foreign films and how they have changed in relation to their popularity in the United States. Even more important, he claims that Italian Neorealism as one of the most alluring genres in foreign film. The author states that the development of that genre in film began created a new niche for foreign film in the United States, and from there the reactions are widespread. Balio's conclusion that some Americans who witnessed this brand of Italian cinema, in such films as L'Amore, thought only to lash out against its unique qualities. This notion behind Italian and foreign cinema helped establish the structure of the Reaction and Historical Context pages of our website. Berger, Melvin. Censorship. New York: F. Watts, n.d. Print. At the later stages of researching, we realized it was just as important to understand and analyze issues with censorship after the Joseph Burstyn case. In those decades, from 1960 to the early 1990s, censorship was applied to a much greater degree than in earlier years. At this point, there was conflict over visual display of espionage, libel, pornography, and how they all impacted students at the college and graduate level and their ability to exercise their rights. We used

44

this secondary source when writing the Legacy and Turning Point pages of our website. Bondanella, Peter. The Cinema of Federico Fellini. Princeton, NJ: Princeton U, 1992. Print. Bondanella, one of the preeminent authors on Italian cinema and cultural studies, considers Fellini "the great instigator" in the film industry. In many ways, Bondanella has every right to give Fellini that moniker. Fellini is historically known for urging Rossellini to write the first neorealist film, film the first footage of life in lesser known parts of 1940s-1950s Italy such as Prato, Palermo, Salerno, Ancona and Arezzo, and lastly, he developed some of the first ever imaginative pieces ever seen in Europe. In attempting to understand the purpose and ulterior statement behind Rossellini's film, L'Amore, we had to be aware of all the influences Fellini had on Rossellini and how that contributed to the film. Both of us internalized a great amount of information about Rossellini and Fellini, however that information became especially useful when discussing the Historical Context, Reaction, and Turning Point sections of our website. Brunetta, Gian Piero. The History of Italian Cinema. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton U, 2009. Print. This secondary source compiles a vast amount of information on Italian Cinema into one book. When relying on this source for information on our topic, it was referenced in every part of our website. This book was also very objective in how it described the producers, authors, and directors we had to research for our project.

45

Chandler, Charlotte. I, Fellini. New York: Random, 1995. Print. This book is a secondary source that provides a commentary on Fellini's life, as well as what most believe are the events in his life that directly lead to his career in Italian film. What was specifically different about this book is Chandler's discussion and assertion that Fellini's experience in animation and with exported American film stars lead him to a life of success in United States. This book was a good source for writing the Historical Context pages of our website. De Grazia, Edward. Censorship Landmarks. New York: Bowker, 1969. Print. Doherty, Thomas Patrick. Pre-code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930-1934. New York: Columbia U, 1999. Print. In the initial stages of our research, finding secondary sources that presented historical facts and research on Hollywood production codes (or lack thereof) before the 1940s was a tedious task. Not only does this source do a thorough evaluation of how films and cinema were circumspect in their content, it also compares them significantly with films of the latter half of the 20th century, and references landmark events that lead to changes. This book also cites the Joseph Burstyn case as one of the film industry's greatest landmarks that furthered free speech and fair production in United States film. We used this source for the Historical Context and Reaction pages of our website. Gallagher, Tag. The Adventure of Roberto Rossellini. New York: Da Capo, 1998. Print. In writing such an extensive history and account of Roberto Rossellini's life,

46

Tag Gallagher has produced a source that is incredibly rare. Gallagher wrote not only a detailed biography of Rossellini, but he also discussed him in context of Italian cinema and its changing genres. He even included primary source documents regarding Rossellini's controversy over his 1948 masterpiece, L'Amore, and a bibliography referring the reader to other important documents. Many of them relate to the criticisms and antagonism Rossellini received from the Vatican, Cardinal Spellman, and Pope Pius XII. Such documents are only seen in localized archives in New York and the northeastern United States. Gallagher's work affirmed Rossellini's fame and impact in cinema today, and proved how controversial his film was. This book was exceedingly useful when writing the Reaction and Historical Context sections of our website. Gazetas, Aristides. An Introduction to World Cinema. 2nd ed. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2008. Print. When doing preliminary research, it was a struggle to find a thorough secondary source on a general history of world cinema. Gazetas' book on world cinema has a very broad focus that provided us with enough information to better understand L'Amore's place in world cinema. And this book is not strictly a discussion of cinema, but also a discussion of social and political events that often instigate or interfere in the cinema industry. From that additional focus, the author also examines significant controversies such as Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v Wilson as landmarks in the study of both cinema and free speech. And, there was a very particular section that discussed Italian Neorealist cinema, from the point of view of

47

multiple film studies professors. This book was useful when writing the historical context, reaction, and turning point sections of the website. Gottfried, Ted. Censorship. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2006. Print. This secondary source book looks into the common argument that surrounds the history of Censorship, which is whether or not it interferes with the issue of morality. Greenhaven Press, and Gale Cengage Learning, eds. The Film Industry. Detroit: Gale Cengage, 2009. Print. Opposing Viewpoints. This book is a primary source compilation of multiple opinions and statements taken from directors, actors, producers, and editors in the film industry. This source covers a wide range of topics, varying from how profanity, sex and violence is increasing in movies and film to the up and coming trends in digital film. There were three specific sections that we thought were useful when writing and creating the structure of our website. We thoroughly examined the sections entitled, "Hollywood films are multinational enterprises","MPAA ratings are effective", and "MPAA ratings are not effective". The presence of multiple viewpoints cited against each other in one source proves that this is not only reliable, but acts as a good source for a number of topics. We used this book for the Legacy, Historical Context, and Turning Point pages of our website. Guarner, Jose Luis. Roberto Rossellini. 3rd ed. New York: Praeger, 1970. Print. This secondary source is a film-by-film discussion of Roberto Rossellini's work, and many critics' suggestions at the strength and progression of his career. Each film of Rossellini's is analyzed based on five different categories: quality

48

of script, acting, composing, directing, and setting. And Guarner included stark comparisons between the film's American reception and the film's reception in Europe. This book is a presentation of raw statistics and facts that are then synthesized by the author and analyzed as theories. This author's perspective on why and how films are successful is an illuminating approach to our topic and the film that it is focused on. Guarner cites that it is very likely that L'Amore's reception in the United States is directly related to its "riskay" content. This theory also coincides with the fact that the film was given a New York Film Critics Circle award, then later slandered and banned for its content. This book was used as a vital source when writing the Historical Context, Reaction, and Turning Point pages of the website. Hayward, Susan. Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2000. Print. This secondary source describes the all the different phrases, vocabulary words, and genres used and discussed in the study of film. This was a perfect source to rely on when first watching L'Amore and writing the historical context page of our website. Hizeroth, Deborah. Movies: The World on Film. San Diego: Lucent, 1991. Print. This book eventually became the ultimate encyclopedia for us. Every film, every cartoon, every documented motion feature is here in this secondary source. Not only does this book have a wide range of sources and valuable facts, the editor established a historical based and film history based timeline in book as a reference. This was a wonderful resource to begin the researching

49

process, and proved to be very helpful when writing the Historical Context pages of our website. Leff, Leonard J. The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code from the 1920s to the 1960s. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990. Print. This secondary source was a survey of Production Codes history that was very useful when writing the majority of the pages in our website. Lewis, Jon. Hollywood versus Hard Core: How the Struggle over Censorship Saved the Modern Film Industry. New York: New York U, 2000. Print. The author of this secondary source book, Jon Lewis, does a case by case study of legal confrontations in Hollywood that are addressed in the Supreme Court. Each case, according to Lewis has a very different dynamic and argument made that produces a unique outcome. In regard to Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v Wilson, Lewis cites that one of the many key factors that broke the long streak of the Vinson Court was the fact that Burstyn argued for Rossellini's film as representative of a new age in cinema. Many films and movies that were slandered by private organizations were thought to be part of a mediocre genre of film wherein there was a thin plot, poor acting and absence of many other vital elements. Both of us deeply considered this hypothesis and incorporated it into many pages of our website, such as the Turning Point and Legacy pages of our website. Liehm, Mira. Passion and Defiance: Film in Italy from 1942 to the Present . N.p.: U of California, 1984. Print. Americans and Italians perceived Italian cinema very differently. People who lived in Italy at the time these famous films were

50

produced and aired in local theaters believed them to be comparable to other film of the time, and relatively insignificant. However, when such films by Rossellini, Fellini and others arrived in the United States, there were numerous reactions. Most believed them to be starkly distinct from what normal cinema should be. The fact that this book was written by an American commenting personally on how she reacted to European and Foreign film in the 1950s makes it a unique primary source. To be able to contrast European and American opinions over Italian cinema is what helped our project develop new perspectives and analysis. This book was an excellent resource when describing the American reaction and opinion of Rossellini's film, L'Amore in the United States. Long, Robert Emmet. Censorship. New York: H.W. Wilson, 1999. Print. This secondary source focuses on censorship issues to do with United States film. Magoon, Kekla. Essential Viewpoints. Edina: ABDO, 2010. Print. This book is one of a series on media censorship that has to do with its relation to the first amendment. Marcus, Millicent. Filmmaking by the Book: Italian Cinema and Literary Adaptation. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins U, 1993. Print. There is a fine line between Italian literature and Italian cinema, especially cinema of the 1940s. Many directors felt the need to draw upon and rely on great biblical, historical, and literary sources of Italian and world history. The parallels drawn indicate some deep themes in genres such as Neorealism. This secondary source discussed the apparent and crucial connections made

51

between literature and Italian cinema, and how they can cause controversy and intellectual discussions amongst historians. The author, Marcus, hypothesizes that films such as L'Amore could never have achieved the controversial place in American culture had it not been for their blatant discussion of Catholic figures. We used this source toward writing the Turning Point and Reaction section of our website. Robinson, David. The History of World Cinema. 2nd ed. New York: Stein and Day, 1981. Print. This was a great book. Steffens, Bradley. Censorship. San Diego: Lucent, 1996. Print. This book looks more closely at specific roles politicians play in censorship laws. Taylor, C.L. Censorship 1986. 2nd ed. New York: F. Watts, 1986. Print. This book is a special edition of censorship history in the United States published the second time in 1986. Testa, Carlo. Italian Cinema and Modern European Literatures: 1945-2000. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. Print. In the years 1945-2000, European cinema changed dramatically. Directors changed all their previous methods. After World War II, directors such as Rossellini and Fellini sought to use un-staged backgrounds in Italy and throughout Europe, chose inexperienced actors, and wrote provocative scripts. No subject heard amongst any group of people in Europe was not acceptable for the screen in these directors' eyes. This book provided a great amount of context to establish a place for Rossellini's L'Amore, and the subsequent protests that followed. This book was

52

particularly helpful when writing the Reaction and Historical Context pages of our website. Wagstaff, Christopher. Italian Neorealist Cinema. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2007. Print. The genre deemed Neorealism in Italian cinema has been discussed by numerous literature and history professors everywhere. There is great debate as to how it started, what its great influences are, and why it developed in post WWII Italy. Out of all the books I read and perused, this book was concise and exact in how it analytically described the Neorealist genre in Italian literature. And rather than citing his own opinions and discussion in this book, Wagstaff regards the opinions of numerous historians and culture professors who disagree with his conclusions. Rarely does any participant in History Day find a source wherein the author supplants a portion of his own opinion to highlight others, which is the mark of a fantastic source. This book was the most well articulated secondary source on neorealism, and my partner and I found it very informative for the reaction, historical context, and legacy pages of our website. Wittern-Keller, Laura, and Raymond J. Haberski. The Miracle Case: Film Censorship and the Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: Lib. of Cong., 2008. Print. In all of our years of history day, we have been waiting to find a source of this good a quality. It is incredibly difficult to find primary sources from people who lived during the Miracle Decision, and almost as difficult to find historians such as professors Wittern-Keller and Haberski who have devoted this amount of time to research and write analytically on it. These two professors

53

have written as dedicated historians who interviewed first hand witnesses, other historians such as themselves, and took into account original documents. They put these sources and their vital information on equal footing with their own conclusions and analysis. And, professor WitternKeller is very well-versed in legal history and its specific ramifications in American society. This source was consulted for every page of our website.

Databases
"American History." ABC-Clio American History. MARC records, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. <http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com>. The American History database on ABC-Clio provided us with a wide variety of media, secondary source opinions on specific events, and even original documents and quotations to support our research. "World History: The Modern Era." ABC-Clio World History: The Modern Era. MARC records, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. <http://worldhistory.abc-clio.com>. The World History section the ABC-Clio databases had a number of sources that discussed Roberto Rossellini's film as well as the how they were seen in Italy. We used this database to find pictures and other important sources for almost all parts of the website.

Videos/Audio
Dick, Kirby, dir. This Film Is Not yet Rated. 2006. Film. This film had a variety of primary source interviews that were eyeopening in the process of our

54

research, and many opinions that we otherwise would not have found. We used this documentary for every stage of researching and writing for our website. La Siera Fiesolana. Composed by Renzo Rossellini. Rec. 12 May 1995. 1996. CD. This song is one of the very few available recordings of Renzo Rossellini's songs that still exist. Renzo Rossellini, Roberto Rossellini's brother, had the job of composing all of the songs for Roberto's films. This song was not put in as the accompaniment for any of his films, but the style and the instruments used to make this piece mirror the style seen in soundtrack for many of Roberto's other films. Piazzolla: Adios Nonino. Orch. Salvatore Accardo. Orchestra de Camera Italiana. Rec. 12 Oct. 2001. 2002. CD. This album has a compilation of songs that were performed by an orchestra that has an extensive history of working with Renzo Rossellini. We used many of these songs on various parts of the website. Voice of the Violin. Orchestra d'Archi. Rec. 5 Aug. 1996. 1998. CD. This orchestra also has a long history of working with Renzo Rossellini when he composed earlier music for this brother's films. The songs were vivid reminders of how beautiful his films are, and we put them on the website to depict the moods and specific intensity of that particular part of the case.

55