Three Plays by Mae West

by Schlissel, Lillian

  The performance commenced about 8:40 P. M. At the commencement of the second act police officials walked back stage, and I was informed that these officials representing and acting as agents of the defendants herein, had left word that no member of the cast was to leave the theatre but that they would be placed under arrest and taken to court immediately at the conclu sion of the performance. When the performance was over, a little after 11 o’clock, the members of the cast were arrested by the police officials and arraigned in the night court.

  Bail was given in the night court, and the defendants were released and the matter was set down for City Magistrate Edward Weil in the 54th Street Police Court for October 2nd, 1928. On that day the defendants were again arraigned upon an information dated and filed the 2nd day of October, 1928, a copy of which information is hereto annexed and made part of this affidavit. On that day the matter was adjourned to Thursday, October 4th, 1928.

  The defendants herein have embarked upon a course of intimidation. They are determined to suppress this play and to prevent me from continuing the production thereof; to destroy my investment; to compel me to breach many contracts with others without giving me a hearing on the merits of the play.

  I have been informed and believe that it is the intention of the Defendant Charles Warren, Police Commissioner, at the instigation and at the request of the other defendants herein to arrest and re-arrest each and everyone of the members of the cast and Miss West at each and every performance of the play on the same charge to the end that I will be unable to continue the further production of this play.

  The arrest which was made on the evening of October 1st, 1928 has had a demoralizing effect upon the morale of the cast. The acts of the defendants, if permitted to go unrestrained, will disturb this morale entirely and make it impossible for me to give any further performances of the play in which event I will suffer irreparable damage, which cannot be computed.

  I will lose my enormous investments; I will lose an opportunity to acquire profits from the further presentation of the play in the City of New York for a season or perhaps more, and I will lost the right to put on road shows or to sell stock or repertoire rights in the play, and I will lose an opportunity to acquire moneys for the motion picture rights in the play, all of which are very valuable and run into large sums of money, and I will suffer injury to such an extent that no adequate remedy at law is available to me in this matter.

  Moreover, the other plaintiffs herein will likewise suffer irreparable damage and injury if the defendants succeed in their course of intimidation and demoralization.

  The acts of the police officials and the acts of the defendants herein are illegal, arbitrary and tyrannical.

  This play has a valuable property right. The advance sale of seats indicates that this play will take in from $20,000 to $25,000 per week.

  In addition to the rights above enumerated and to the moneys which will accrue from the continued presentation of the play, I have been offered substantial sums for the foreign rights and also for a second company of the play for a run in Chicago, Illinois.

  All this property and valuable good will, will be destroyed by these defendants if they succeed in harassing the plaintiffs in the manner hereinabove described, by continued arrests, and if they are unrestrained in interfering with and hampering me in the production of this play. The acts of the defendants are high-handed because they constitute an illegal intimidation against which I have no remedy, and against which the other plaintiffs are without any remedy, except however, the restraining arm of a court of equity.

  This action is not at issue but a summons has been issued herein and served simultaneously with the order to show cause and affidavits. That the earliest term, so I have been informed and verily believe, at which this action can be noticed for trial is November, 1928.

  For the above reasons, plaintiffs seek a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making any further arrests of any of the members of the cast of the play “THE PLEASURE MAN” or of Miss West or of anyone else connect ed with the production of this play, and from interfering with this play “THE PLEASURE MAN” and from doing anything calculated to harass, annoy or intimidate the members of the cast of this or from taking any steps to close the plaintiff’s play, directly or indirectly, and from any act or acts tending to harrass, impede or prevent me from the production of the said play at the Biltmore Theatre in the City of New York or elsewhere.

  That the reason that an order to show cause is asked for is that it is of the utmost urgency that a speedy adjudication of this motion be made as the injury complained of is causing the plaintiffs great injury.

  That no previous application for this order has been made. Sworn to before me this

  2nd day of October, 1928. (Signed) CARL REED.

  (Marion L. Elkin

  Notary Public N. Y. Co.

  Clerk’s No. 133 Register’s No. 9130)

  Commission expires March 30, 1929.

  [The prosecution provided scene by scene description of action that take place on the stage, with specific allusions to jokes about homosex uality, to the “large number of male degenerates,” to “sex degeneracy and sex perversion,” to a “fairies convention” and the use of the word “queers.” In March, 1927, the New York State Legislature passed legisla tion banning all depictions of homosexuality on the stage. —L.S.]

  8. NOTES FOR PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS IN PEOPLE VS. MAE WEST ET AL. #174820 1/2

  Prosecutor’s Notes Jury sole judges of facts. Must consider interest of witnesses. Defendant most interested.

  People’s witnesses, police officers. Who else can you get to be around for two years, make notes and keep refreshed, etc. Police told the truth. No motive to concoct story, [officer James] Powers a stenographer.

  His notes, in all probability, more accurate than present memory of any other witness.

  Police properly made full memorandum shortly after performance, when facts were fresh in their mind.

  We would have been glad to produce book or script of play if we could have found one.

  Could not get prompt book or actors’ parts.

  No witness called by defense ever saw manuscript (prompt book) according to their testimony.

  If there is in existence a manuscript of this play, it is within the control of the defense, and they have not produced it.

  Infer that they did not dare submit the real manuscript. What kind of a play with no prompt book on hand in case an actor “gives up” in his lines.

  The best of them do it sometimes, particularly when play is new. Who is on trial.

  Not the People’s witnesses for being policemen and obeying orders.

  Not the D.A. for attempting to enforce the law.

  Defense would like to try anything but case against defendants.

  Defendants on trial for violating law.

  Only question is, what did they do on October 1st, 1928?

  Did they present and participate in an obscene, etc., play?

  Did they prior to that date prepare and advertise that play?

  If you find that the defendants or any of them prepared this play wrote it, rehearsed it, directed it, produced it so as to make it ready for stage presenta tion on October 1st, 1928, and that the play is one condemned under this section of the statute, then any of these defendants who prepared or advertised or produced this play should be found guilty under the law.

  This Court, I believe, will charge you that a person can aid and abet in the commission of an offense without being actually present at the time when the offense is committed.

  Question for the jury is what took place on stage on October 1 st, 1928.

  Was the play obscene, etc. and tended to corrupt, in whole or in part enacted?

  OR

  Was the play produced in whole or in part, depicted or dealt with sex degeneracy or sex perversion?

  This 2nd section doesn’t mean sodomy. The People of this state, thru their legislature, have said in so m
any words to theatrical producers, authors, man agers and actors, “You must not depict or deal with sex degeneracy or sex perversion on the stage. If you do you commit a crime.”

  It does not say, “You may not depict or deal with sex degeneracy in a seri ous drama, but you may do so in a comedy.” It doesn’t say, “You may do so if you make a joke of it.”

  It says that subject is bound for stage purposes. Deal with it at your peril.

  Legislature had a right to make that law, and the people of the stage must obey it.

  Law not intended to apply to acts of sodomy. You can hardly expect these to be enacted on stage in public.

  What was play? On what did it depend for its box office appeal? In the age old simple story of its main theme, a girl ruined and a boy by a faith less lover? No change.

  On the lines and situations as put forth here by the defense?

  NOT AT ALL.

  It was a deliberate attempt to capitalize by depicting on the stage, the por trayal of the action, speeches, manners and obscene jokes of a large number of male degenerates to depict and deal with these types on the stage in such a manner that a sensation would be created that would draw to the theatre the prurient mind, and the curious, to the end that the pockets of the author and producer would be FILLED.

  Let us analyze the testimony and see if this Is not so.

  FIRST SCENE:

  Scrubwomen: I’ve had it—Yes, more than once. I’ve had my time—Yes, with the whole fire department.

  As told by People.

  As told by defense—“I don’t remember.”

  SHE DIDN’T WANT TO COMMIT DELIBERATE PERJURY.

  Opening note of play. What is the meaning?

  Blame on author and manager, rather than on actors.

  SCENE: BIRD OF PARADISE:

  PEOPLE:

  “I get down on my knees (pause)”

  I’m a female impersonator.”

  “I sing mammy songs” (not in [James] Powers’ notes).

  DEFENSE: “What kind of an act do you do?”

  Howe—“I sing mammy songs.

  No attempt at joke; no comedy; no situation. A mere walk. As People describe it, a play for a laugh on an obscene allusion to degenerate practices.

  You can see the effect if a male in men’s attire, acting like a fairy, in view of Harvey’s definition of what “goes down on knees” means.

  Depict by manner, walk and speech with double meaning sex degeneracy and sex perversion.

  It means that or nothing. Which is it credible to believe happened?

  Shortly after this, Stanley has a line, “It looks like a convention.

  The only point, the only in that was the appearance soon after [Leo]

  Howe, of two males who were acting and talking FAIRY.

  Stanley didn’t mean a Democratic Convention. He meant a fairie’s conven tion.

  He follows it up later, when three more of a similar type appear, as described by People’s witnesses, “I told you it was a convention. Here are some more delegates.”

  The object of these lines, in addition to whatever comedy effect they had, was to call attention to these persons who were depicting male degenerates. They were not doing any female impersonation. If, as People’s witnesses say, they were acting in an effeminate manner, walking like and talking like women, they were depicting fairies or degenerates.

  Connors says this didn’t happen at all.

  Connors put on to tell the whole story of the play, an actor with few lines and appearances, according to his own testimony, has apparently spent a large part of his time since the date of arrest, preparing for his appearance in court.

  If defense admitted fact like this, they would admit whole case against them.

  Mrs. H:

  “They’re so queer.

  “I’ll say they’re queer”

  People’s witness.

  Defense—the learned Chuck.

  They’re so odd—Yes; my dear.”

  I think odd is the word. They lack the true perception that goes to make up the artist of the legitimate stage.

  These characters being talked about apprarently only walked on conversing among themselves. No one claims they had any dialogue with the Hetheringtons that would call for a speech on their artistic perceptions. But if they were acting like fairies, H’s speech wold mean something, if QUEER is understood.

  “DID YOU EVER HAVE A chronic/platonic LOVE AFFAIR?

  “YES, BUT HIS WIFE FOUND IT OUT.”

  Connors—it never happened.

  Significance of this scene between two males—in men’s dress.

  The broom incident.

  People’s witness: S touched him. He whooped.

  STANLEY: “I whacked him and knocked him Off stage.”

  The acrobats.

  The stunt as described in a play full of men depicting and portraying male degenerates, has a peculiar significance, which it otherwise might not have.

  As done by them it is.

  It consists largely of falling down.

  Head is not in trousers long enough for any comedy effect, decent or indecent. Pants brought to court so arranged that it was difficult for small man to get into them at all.

  A PALPABLE FAKE.

  Designed to appeal to the sort of people that might be attracted to the theatre by a show of this character.

  No one called by defense saw men with women’s underclothing for bodies, and brassieres, kimonos, sewing—all point fact to audience that these men were not mere female impersonators, but degenerates, who, even Off stage, when not performing, adopted the mannerisms of women.

  Same effect from scene between Connors and his dancing partner. (We didn’t see Dickens [who played Joe].)

  Stanley: Dickens was just a big lamp shade manufacturer.

  Connors said no lamp shade was produced. Stanley said yes.

  Connors lost his memory as to somethings while traveling with “Diamond Lil.”

  “Not a dry seat in house” line cut, and says [Officer] James Powers got it, [Lieutenant James] Coy got it—they only saw show in Biltmore; had no script.

  Stanley Sheehan to draw attention of audience to type and get a laugh.

  No point or joke otherwise.

  Scene when Stanley opens door of dressing room. He says nobody screams.

  No comedy in scene unless something happens, or if man acted like a man.

  Even make an improper suggestion out of scene when Par[adise] tries to help girl.

  If you’re a man, thank God I’m something else.

  MEANING OF THAT SPEECH.

  THIRD ACT

  No excuse for gathering of men in women’s clothes at this party. They were not portraying female impersonators, but depicting degenerates or fairies at a fairies’ party, given by a man who depicts a fairy type.

  THE SONGS. ANALYZE THEM. ANALYZE CONNORS’ WORDS.

  [Chuck Connors, the self-styled “Mayor of Chinatown,” was a Bowery character of the 1890’s. An acrobat who styled himself Chuck Connors, II, played one of the “hoofers” in PLEASURE MAN, and when that play closed, Mae West kept him in the touring company of DIAMOND LIL. The cross-examination was obviously tied to proving to the jury that in PLEASURE MAN, the cast was not acting the parts of gay men but were themselves practicing homosexuals. —L.S.]

  9. MEMORANDUM ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF [CHUCK] CONNORS.

  Has a good memory and can he remember who was on the stage on October 1 st, 1928 and who participated in every scene? What character did [Lester] Sheehan portray in the play? When Sheehan came on, was he supposed to be a man living in the town, inviting them to a party of another man living in the town?

  Sheehan was not one of the female impersonators in the 2nd act. Sheehan appeared in woman’s dress in 3rd act. Is Chuck Connors his true name? Ever convicted of a crime?

  What have you been doing since “THE PLEASURE MAN” closed? Have you been in the employ of Mae West since that time? Did you appear in the cast of “DIAMOND
LIL” after “THE PLEASURE MAN” closed?

  Have you received any money from Mae West since the play closed? With whom have you talked about this case since the arrest? Who engaged Mr. Burkan as your counsel?

  Did you engage him or was he hired by Miss West as your attorney? How many times have you gone over the story you told on the witness stand?

  You were a comparatively unimportant person on the stage, in very few scenes, and have very few lines. Isn’t that a fact? (See affidavit)

  You say you live at Langwell Hotel, 44th St. and Broadway. How long have you lived there?

  Are you married or single? Whom do you live with?

  When did you last see Ed Hearn, your former partner? Where did he live when you last saw him?

  Did you state in your affidavit that you were one of the authors of this play and put in scenes and lines of your own?

  How many times have you been in Burkan’s office since the arrest?

  How many times have you seen Mae West since the arrest?

  In the first act, did you see a scene between Stanley and Augustin [William Augustin played the part of Steve McALLISTER] in which they had a conversation about shoes?

  In the first act, what you were representing to the audience was a stage of a small town theatre in the morning when the acts were coming on in rehearsal, but when there was no show supposed to be coming on in this small town theatre.

  And in the second act you are depicting and portraying a scene on the backstage of this theatre at a time when the show that was being given in the small town theatre was supposed to be going on somewhere Off stage where the audience in the Biltmore Theatre could not see it.

  When the actors came on in the second act, they were supposed to have left the stage where they had given their performance or they were on their way to the stage of the small town theatre.

  Do you know who gave Sheehan the name of Lester Queen in the show?

  Were you on the stage when Stanley was kicking Hetherington?

  Did you see Stanley run upstairs after kicking Hetherington.

  Did he pull open door of dressing room where there was an individual in a kimono?

  Did that individual scream like a frightened woman and draw the kimono around him as though he were concealing his person?