When Ida Lupino directed her first pictures with her own production company, she believed she was the "first woman to undertake such an assignment in more than ten years" (Lupino and Anderson xiii; Labuza 47). Arriving on "the set at 7:30 in the morning, before any of the technicians" reported for duty, Lupino "felt terribly alone" with the arena "empty and dark" (xiii). She asked herself, "Ida, just what do you think you're doing here?" But her cinematographer, Archie Stout, assured her that another director he had worked for – none other than the renowned John Ford – could "take lessons in composure" from this grand dame of the cinema (xiii). Lessons in fortitude alone may be enough to bring this filmmaker – forgotten save for the few cineastes and scholars who focus on women in early Hollywood – to the attention of our students, but the lessons she offers through her films in terms of social justice, community, and belonging provide other reasons as well.

Descended from generations of entertainers in the UK, on stage when still a child, a one-time student at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, Lupino was under contract with Paramount, living in Hollywood, and featured on the cover of a magazine by the early 1930s – when she was still just a teen (Sipiora).  Independent-minded – the "tiger" some said – the actress disliked many of the roles she was given, turned them down, found herself suspended, and thus spent her time with the cinematographers and directors on set (Donati; Sipiora). In other words, with "fierce determination" she attended a kind of self-made college and studied with the experts who held her aspirational position in the industry (Donati). But gendered labor division presented an obstacle, albeit not one she could not overcome.

In her memoir, Lupino wrote, "There was an absolute iron-clad caste system in the film capitol in the 1940s and 1950s which, it seems to me, had its primary purpose to exclude females" (ix). She went on to enumerate, "Women back then would be seen in public, appear on television, frequent night clubs, attend the fights, and smoke; but, within the towering citadels and sound stages of a motion picture studio, there were women-tight compartments to which they may gain access only over the dead bodies of a guard, as tightly disciplined as a king's" (ix). As one historian explains it, "At the time, there were, quite simply, no women directing films in Hollywood. Although there had been numerous women directors working in Los Angeles in the 1920s and '30s, including Lois Weber, Ida May Park, Ruth Stonehouse, Cleo Madison and Dorothy Arzner, by 1943 women had effectively been dismissed from the director's chair" (Dixon). Despite this exclusion, Lupino – as Alexandra Seros will remind us in her forthcoming book – "was the only woman with membership in the Directors Guild of America between 1948 and 1971" (forthcoming, cited in promotional material).

Lupino yearned to write, too. While her work as a director has received more attention as of late, we would do well to remember that Lupino wrote or co-wrote for her independent film company as well as for the burgeoning television industry. The scripts she penned include Not Wanted (1949), Never Fear (also released as The Young Lovers) (1950), Outrage (1950), The Hitch-Hiker (1953), Private Hell 36 (1954), "No. 5 Checked Out" for the Screen Directors Playhouse (1956), "The Stand-In" as well as "The Story of Emily Cameron" for Four Star Playhouse (1956), The Green Peacock (1968), and an episode of Thriller, "The Last of the Sommervilles." About her work as a writer-director, Lupino stated, "Where there is human courage, there is drama. When everyday people fight for life and love, you have the very essence of heroism. I tried to capture this in every film" (142). So successful was she in many aspects of film and television production that she was awarded not one but two stars in 1960 on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Not Wanted was Lupino's debut project after forming Emerald Productions, honoring her actress mother who used the stage name Connie Emerald. With this premiere feature, Lupino proved herself not only a talented writer and director – she stepped in after Elmer Clifton had a heart attack – but a savvy ambassador when it came to the Production Code Administration (PCA) censors as well. Both moves display her formidible fortitude. We can also see the triad of themes emerging: social justice, community, and belonging.

To illustrate what I like to call her "PCA skills," we can first turn to the San Diego Tribune writer Bob Thomas who explained, "Ida is currently doing much of the writing on the Not Wanted script and has conferred with the nuns at St. Ann's Home for unwed mothers. Naturally with such a subject, she has heard also from industry censors at the Breen Office. I expected a blast at the scene snippers. But, no soap." In other words, Lupino's political acumen in navigating the censorship bureaucracy at the time was clear from the founding of her production company: "I found them amazingly helpful. We went over the script with them and they pointed out what we must do. They virtually wrote the story for us" – clever woman, clever launch, indeed (qtd. in Thomas).

A 14 February 1949 letter from chief censor Joseph I. Breen discloses the climate in which she launched this first picture. At one point, he stated he was "pleased to report that this basic material seems acceptable under the provisions of the Production Code." He had only a few suggestions such as raising the age of the protagonist to twenty; perhaps, he thought, it would be "not good to indicate" a "precise point of contact." Breen also "pointed out to Miss Lupino that we would have to go very carefully on the questions of labor and childbirth." He hoped "that the 'off-the-shoulder affect' of the dress does not mean that there is any exposure." The censor believed, "The actual use of the word 'pregnancy' may be deleted by some political censor boards. We suggest that you find a somewhat less pointed substitute." His own Catholicism also influenced his advice: "It is our understanding that the characterization of Sister Theresa and of any other nuns who may appear in this story will be filmed with adequate and proper technical advice." Wisely, Lupino cut the nuns from the picture altogether. Breen concluded his letter by writing, "We have been assured in our telephone conversation with Miss Lupino that we will receive revised pages in due course which will take care of the principal problems mentioned above. We will be happy to read these changes and to give…our further opinion regarding them."

Broadcast over KECA on 18 February 1949, the filmmaker chatted with Eleanor and Anna Roosevelt during their popular radio show. Lupino began by describing the development process on Not Wanted, "As a matter of fact, several of the studios [Enterprise, Warner Brothers] have turned down this story because they were afraid of it. However, with the wonderfully constructive help of Mr. Joseph Breen and his office – they are much more than just censors, by the way – we are now bringing to the screen a film which will show the public the heartbreak of the unwed mother." Dropping compliments for the production code officials as well as for those who support them – and might boycott her movie – underscores Lupino’s ingenuity when it came to launching her production company within a censorship climate while also determined to be a cultural leader with her storytelling. She also announced herself as a social justice warrior as she explained the research they had done: "We wanted to make this picture just as authentic as possible, so for genuine atmosphere I contacted hospitals and homes for unwed mothers, here in Los Angeles and the East." Lupino reminded the audience of her social consciousness in terms of the plotlines and characters: "It was wonderful and heartwarming to see how well the girls were cared for by these splendid and humanitarian organizations." The filmmaker went on to assure the listeners, "They couldn't have better care. When the girls come there...they are taken in and given sympathy and care. These homes are of all denominations and races." Ever-thoughtful about community and belonging, Lupino explained, "And that is why this picture is a plea of understanding of unwed mothers…we feel that there is no such thing as an illegitimate child." She concluded, "We simply hope that through the screen we can bring to the public a keener understanding of what it really means to be not wanted." Lupino succeeded in her efforts. Without drama or delay, the film received, on 11 April 1949, certificate of approval No. 13790 from the Breen office. To be sure, Lupino was progressive: "presenting Sally as good and thoughtful, not a scarlet woman, was radical in 1950. Through the characters who accept her heroine, Lupino offers a vision of a more open-minded world" (James). According to film historian J.E. Smyth, "Lupino's overt anti-Hollywood sheen" provides audiences with "something new and more valuable" (78).  

Because she could not "afford a big-name cast, they decided to develop talent and introduce some new faces in leading roles" (Vermilye 97). The film "won critical praise for handling, with intelligence and 'commendable restraint,' subject matter that could have opted for cheap sensationalism" (Vermilye 99). "Produced for less than $100,000," the film "grossed over a million and brought Emerald Productions an offer from RKO head Howard Hughes to do three films for his studio at a cost of $250,000 each" (Vermilye 99).

The film centers on Sally (Sally Forrest) who gets pregnant, gives birth, and decides to place her child for adoption. Later, she is imprisoned for the attempted kidnapping of another. By film's end, Sally encounters Drew (Keefe Brasselle), who wants to marry her, but flees from him. She struggles with emotional intimacy and prefers to escape rather than confront situations or emotions that may arise from uniting with him. Throughout a tense chase sequence during which Drew pursues her, Lupino expertly frames Sally with cars, tunnels, stairs, bridges, and streetcars, which creates a sense of danger and entrapment – mirroring her feelings throughout the picture. Viewers also feel increasing tension as they fear she may hurtle herself in front of oncoming vehicles or fling herself off a catwalk. Having lost a leg in the war, Drew too embodies a person missing a part – whether a limb or a baby given up for adoption. 

Lupino had lived through the Great Depression and World War II, and, as such her "approach" to Western culture "assumes a traumatized point of view, one that is highly sensitive to the brutal realities facing men and women in the postwar period, but especially to the experiences of young women, who are systematically abused by institutionalizations of power" (Grisham and Grossman 33). Chasing Sally through the urban jungle of sorts, Drew hopes to prevent Sally from hurting or even killing herself, but he collapses in his efforts. When she sees he can no longer walk, she stops and returns to help him. In the final shot, as they cling to one another, in this moment of camaraderie among the lead characters, viewers hope for a better future. Love, friendship, mutual support, belonging, community – these themes would have uplifted postwar observers. As one journalist explained it, Lupino's films exude "an idealistic view of society that seems hopeful even now" (James).

Critics such as Andrew Sarris have been reluctant to honor Lupino's legacy. These criticisms can be challenging for professors who hope to use her life and films in the classroom. He – and others like him – have  argued "that if Lupino had not been a female, her films would have been forgotten long ago" (Sarris qtd. in Georgakas 32). One wonders if the opposite may, in fact, be true: if Lupino had been a man, she may have received cult-like praise as do filmmakers ranging from John Cassavetes to Nicholas Ray. Annette Kuhn explained, "Her work…has met with mixed responses, ranging mainly from simple disregard via damnation with faint praise to outright dismissal. Thus could critic Andrew Sarris repudiate the entire Lupino oeuvre (together with those of all but a few women film directors) as an 'oddity'" (3-4). Kuhn continued, "Called to account some years later for this piece of sexism, Sarris compounded the insult by dubbing the films Lupino directed 'weepy social consciousness and snarling paranoia'" (3-4). Teaching Lupino in the context of such criticisms may feel daunting, but professors can and should encourage students to approach her work with fresh eyes. As Walt Whitman encourages, "You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, not look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books. You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me, you shall listen to all sides and filter them from yourself."

Martin Scorsese, on the other hand, praised her pictures, "The five films she directed between 1949 and 1953 are remarkable chamber pieces that deal with challenging subjects in a clear, almost documentary fashion, and they represent a singular achievement in American cinema" (qtd. in Huber; qtd. in Sipiora). Others have argued that Lupino made "smart, wise, and pleasingly small films – incisive, memorable works that were always more mysterious and fraught than their loglines let on" (Collins). Her "films have a funny way of refusing to be about what we think they're about" (Collins). On the surface, they may be about pregnancy, polio, and assault, but they are also about resiliency, agency, hope, social justice, community, and belonging. Her protagonists face the worst, retreat to a supportive network, and begin the long, slow road to emotional, physical, and spiritual recovery with good people – including men and people of faith – by their sides. 

Lupino's second film Never Fear, also known as The Young Lovers, displayed her raw honesty with her audience by portraying her own true story – a battle with polio – on screen. The plotline focuses on Carol (Sally Forrest) who contracts the disease just as she has fallen in love and launched her career as a dancer. As the movie concludes, she leaves the treatment facility only to be bombarded by passersby on the street and movers handling furniture. Despite these obstacles, Carol finds solace in the love and support of those close to her and her own inner strength. She realizes she can confront life's complications again after overcoming a dangerous illness and recovering from the virus, which prompts viewers to reflect on the parallels with the recent COVID-19 pandemic.

Produced under The Filmakers banner at RKO, Outrage (1950) remains one of the most important films from this period of Lupino's career in cinema. Co-written with her then-husband Collier Young and Malvin Wald, the picture "exemplifies the complexity Lupino wrestles from seemingly straightforward situations: with minds and bodies in turmoil, everything seems strange, even unknowable" (Huber). This film grew out of her "understanding of marginalization and alienation" (Grisham and Grossman 6-7). Her "own role in Hollywood as an insider (an acclaimed actress) and outsider (a woman filmmaker) gave her a unique perspective on the theme of isolation, on the challenges her own creative force as a woman would pose to the status quo" (Grisham and Grossman 6-7). "Male authoritarianism pervades" the worlds of her protagonists, but this reality never ends in outright tragedy, however (Cook 62). Lupino suggests that with the possibility of positive change there may be different outcomes for women in American culture. As aforementioned, she is also careful to avoid reductionist plotlines in which religious hypocrisy or Ezekiel's "tyranny of evil men" erases the fact that some people of faith as well as some men persist in doing the right thing. This complexity remains an important lesson for emerging filmmakers and screenwriters as well.

In the final moments of Outrage, for example, the Reverend Bruce Ferguson (Tod Andrews) tells Ann (Mala Powers) she is "going to have a wonderful, happy life" as he waits with her at a bus stop to begin her trip home. "Aren't you?" he asks. "Yes," she replies, "thank you for everything." They embrace. Lupino cuts from a long, two-shot of them to the bus pulling into frame. Then she holds the camera on a tight shot of the side of the bus for several seconds – longer than most directors might. As the bus pulls away, Bruce remains on screen alone. The implication is that Ann has boarded to rejoin her fiancé and her parents after she has had time in this refuge or haven to recover from a sexual assault. But Lupino seems to be doing something deeper, more resonant with the construction of this sequence as well. While some feminist critics have shunned Lupino as "not feminist enough" and critiqued the "powerlessness" of Ann, her disappearing act signals her decision to act. She withdrew to the agricultural hills of Santa Paula on a kind of spiritual retreat; she has faced an aggressor and taken action to stop his unwanted actions; she is now refueled and ready to return to the life she is supposed to live rather than hiding out as "victim." Evil may exist in this world, but good exists perhaps in equal measure. Again, viewers are hopeful for a happy ending with a woman protagonist who – through her own agency – chooses and acts on that choice.

Upon the release of these first three pictures, Lupino "became Hollywood's golden girl" for a time, and many who work in this arena still consider her the mother of American independent film and New Hollywood (McCausland; Collin; Labuza 47). A few years later, she began directing for the new technology – television – ever the lead-out pioneer, paving the very roads on which second-wave feminists would march in the late 1960s and 1970s. Thus, she became in life what she created on screen: "the very essence of heroism," an "exemplar of collaborative auteurship," a "rugged individualist," an emerald in the rough (Lupino 142; Seros; qtd. in Meares).

Typically, when people use the term "diamond in the rough," they refer to something – an object – a person – that needs polishing. To be clear, I use "emerald in the rough" in an entirely different manner here. The "rugged" individualism Lupino displayed may provide another reason we include her on our syllabi (Seros). This mental toughness, this "emerald in the roughness" models just the lesson in endurance, courage, tenacity, and fortitude that our students must learn. Indeed, as I have been arguing, her emphasis on community and belonging can inspire students to tell stories that matter, to be cultural leaders. In other words, she teaches us how to create "in a more meaningful way" with "compassion and understanding" (Sipiora). Ida Lupino's emphasis on social justice inspires students to think about their media as entertainment that can also make a positive global impact.

WORKS CITED

Breen, Joseph I. Letter to Anson Bond at Emerald Productions, 14 February 1949, AMPAS Production Code File. 

Collins, K. Austin. "Ida Lupino, the Mother of American Independent Films, Finally Gets Her Due," Vanity Fair, 30 September 2019, vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/09/ida-lupino-box-set 

Cook, Pam. "Outrage." Queen of the B’s: Ida Lupino Behind the Camera, edited by Annette Kuhn, Praeger, 1998. 

Dixon, Wheeler Winston. "Ida Lupino." Senses of Cinema, April 2009, sensesofcinema.com/2009/great-directors/ida-lupino/ 

Donati, William. Ida Lupino: A Biography. The UP of Kentucky, 2023. Google Books. 

Georgakas, Dan. "Ida Lupino: Doing It Her Way." Cineaste, vol. 25, no. 3, 2000, pp. 32-36.  

Grisham, Therese and Julie Grossman. Ida Lupino, Director. Rutgers UP, 2017. 

Huber, Christoph. "Mother of Us All." Cinema Scope, vol. 65, 2016, pp. 39-43. 

James, Caryn. "Why Ida Lupino"s Taboo-Breaking Films Could Be Set Today." BBC, 28 January 2019, bbc.com/culture/article/20190128-why-ida-lupinos-taboo-breaking-films-could-be-set-today 

Kuhn, Annette. Queen of the 'B's: Ida Lupino Behind the Camera, Praeger, 1998 

Labuza, Peter. "Hard, Fast, and Brokerage: Irving H. Levin, the Filmakers, and the Birth of Conglomerate Hollywood." Film History, vol. 33, no. 1, 2021, pp. 46-75. 

Lupino, Ida and Mary Ann Anderson. Ida Lupino: Beyond the Camera. BearManor Media, 2018. 

McCausland, Sinéad. "Rediscovering the Films of Ida Lupino in the #Metoo Era." Columbia Global Centers, 7 December 2018, globalcenters.columbia.edu/news/rediscovering-films-ida-lupino-metoo-era 

Meares, Hadley Hall. "Ida Lupino, Hollywood Renaissance Woman." Vanity Fair, 16 March 2021, vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/03/ida-lupino-hollywood-renaissance-woman 

Never Fear (The Young Lovers). Directed by Ida Lupino, The Filmakers, Eagle-Lion Films, 1950. 

Not Wanted. Directed by Elmer Clifton and Ida Lupino, Emerald Productions Inc., Film Classics, 1949. 

Outrage. Directed by Ida Lupino, The Filmakers, RKO, 1950. 

Roosevelt, Eleanor and Anna. The Eleanor and Anna Roosevelt Radio Show. Transcript of Radio Broadcast over KECA, 18 Feb. 1949, AMPAS Production Code File. 

Seros, Alexandra. Ida Lupino: Forgotten Auteur. U of Texas P, 2024. (forthcoming, quoted  from promotional materials) 

Sipiora, Phillip. Ida Lupino, Filmmaker. Bloomsbury, 2021. Kindle. 

Smyth, J.E. "Ida Lupino's America: 'Just a Big Family of Little Failures.'" Cineaste, vol. 45, no. 1, 2019, pp. 12-78. 

Thomas, Bob. "Lupino Trying Low Budget 'Unwed Mother' Drama Film," San Diego Tribune 9 Feb. 1949, AMPAS Production Code File. 

Vermilye, Jerry. Ida Lupino: Pyramid Illustrated History of the Movies. Pyramid, 1977,

Whitman, Walt. "Song of Myself."  Poetry Foundation, poetryfoundation.org/poems/45477/song-of-myself-1892-version