Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Promises! Promises!

Promises! Promises! is a 1963 American film directed by , written and produced by , and starring Noonan and as married couples on a who participate in a drunken spouse-swapping encounter, after which both women discover they are pregnant and attempt to determine the fathers' identities.
The film is primarily remembered for Mansfield's topless scenes, which marked the first instance of by a major actress in a sound-era , challenging the strictures of the (Hays Code) in its final years. This provocative content led to bans in cities like and garnered significant publicity, including Mansfield's nude pictorial in magazine to promote the release, though the movie received mixed critical reception and modest box office returns. Despite its lowbrow humor and dated values, Promises! Promises! holds as a harbinger of the post-Code era in American cinema, where explicit content began to supplant self-censorship.

Development and Pre-Production

Script and Concept Origins

The screenplay for Promises! Promises! originated from the 1960 play The Plant by Edna Sheklow, which depicts two couples on a who swap partners during a drunken episode, resulting in pregnancies and subsequent paternity confusion. , an actor and producer experiencing career stagnation, acquired the rights and spearheaded the adaptation into a script co-written with William Welch, incorporating explicit to distinguish the in the competitive . Noonan announced the project on May 23, 1962, under the Promise Her Anything, planning an independent to commence filming in August of that year. Development faced delays due to distribution challenges, stalling in September 1962 before reactivation in December with T-I Films Company, Ltd. as co-producer. Noonan initially approached actress for the lead role, but after her refusal, he persuaded —who was also navigating a downturn post her early fame—to star, convincing her to perform the film's nude scenes as a publicity , making her the first major American actress to appear fully nude in a feature. This bold concept aligned with Noonan's strategy to leverage sensationalism, drawing from the play's comedic premise of marital and struggles aboard a luxury liner, while amplifying sexual elements to appeal to adult audiences amid evolving norms. Contributions to the screenplay were also noted from Howard Snyder and , refining the narrative for cinematic execution. The official title Promises! Promises! was finalized on February 21, 1963, shortly after wrapped on February 15.

Casting and Key Personnel

The film was directed by , an actor known for roles in films such as (1956), marking one of his few directorial efforts. Donovan had been announced as director on January 9, 1963, alongside initial casting considerations that included and in lead roles, though Van Doren did not appear in the final production. Jayne Mansfield starred as Sandy Brooks, the wife of a stressed writer desperate to conceive a child, a role that featured the film's groundbreaking scene. Her husband portrayed King Banner, the athletic spouse of the other lead couple. played Claire Banner, King's wife, in a parallel storyline involving and . , who also co-wrote the screenplay with William Welch and co-produced alongside Donald F. , took the role of Jeff Brooks, Sandy's impotent husband. Noonan's multifaceted involvement stemmed from his independent production approach, leveraging his experience from similar low-budget comedies. Supporting roles included as the ship's doctor, adding comedic elements to the setting. Casting emphasized established B-movie actors and personal connections, with Hargitay's inclusion facilitated by his marriage to , which began in 1958 and brought his bodybuilding physique to the screen as a contrast to Noonan's more character. Mansfield's decision to perform nude was a deliberate draw for publicity, aligning with her publicity-seeking persona, though it contributed to the film's later issues.

Production Process

Filming Locations and Schedule

for Promises! Promises! occurred aboard the S.S. Independence, which served as the primary to depict the film's central shipboard narrative. The production schedule ran from January 10, 1963, through February 1963, allowing for efficient capture of interior and deck scenes amid the vessel's maritime environment. No additional land-based locations were utilized, as the story's confined setting on the ship minimized logistical needs for exterior shoots. This abbreviated timeline reflected the low-budget, independent nature of the Noonan-Taylor , prioritizing rapid completion to align with the film's controversial content and anticipated release strategy.

Technical Production Details

The film was lensed in on 35mm by Joseph F. Biroc, employing a 1.85:1 to frame its comedic and intimate sequences. Biroc's work emphasized straightforward lighting and composition suited to the low-budget production, with no reported use of innovative optical effects or filters beyond standard period practices. Editing duties fell to Edward Dutko, who assembled the 75-minute runtime from completed between January 14 and February 15, 1963, resulting in a tight pace that prioritized -driven humor over elaborate cuts. Sound was recorded at Ryder Sound Services in format, with delayed due to an accident involving ; the mix captured basic and effects without notable or advanced recording techniques typical of higher-budget features of the era. Hal Borne composed the original score, incorporating light elements and including "Lu-Lu-Lu I'm in Love," "Promise Her Anything," and "Fairy Tales," recorded on March 20, 1963, to underscore the film's playful tone. The production operated on a modest budget estimated at $300,000, reflecting its status under Noonan-Taylor Productions and constraints that limited technical extravagance.

Narrative and Content

Plot Summary

Sandra Brooks (), a woman eager to start a family after four years of marriage, accompanies her husband Jeff (), a stressed writer unable to perform sexually, on a vacation in hopes of rekindling their intimacy. They travel with another couple, the athletic Ward Ring () and his wife Lou (), who face similar marital frustrations. During a night of heavy drinking aboard the ship on an unspecified date in the , the husbands arrange a swap, leading to spend the night with and with . Both women subsequently discover they are pregnant upon returning home. Complications arise when learns from a that he is sterile, revealing that 's child must be 's. To avoid and preserve their , publicly claims paternity of the child, while grapples with the truth. The film concludes with the couples navigating the ensuing paternity confusion and marital deceptions in a comedic vein.

Explicit Elements and Nudity

Promises! Promises! features that marked a significant departure from norms under the , with becoming the first major American actress in the sound era to appear topless in a mainstream film released on November 22, 1963. The film's explicit elements include several brief scenes of Mansfield's character nude from the waist up, occurring early in the runtime and repeated in later flashbacks. These encompass her lounging in a with minimal bubble coverage, emerging topless in a doorway, and lying nude on a bed while writhing. A nighttime skinny-dipping sequence in a provides additional , with Mansfield's character briefly visible unclothed during the swim. In a key bedroom encounter, shares the frame with co-star , who appears fully nude as they engage in implied intercourse, thrusting motions visible under sheets that offer partial coverage. reportedly consumed to summon the resolve for these sequences, highlighting the era's taboos around on-screen . Beyond nudity, the incorporates suggestive dialogue and scenarios centered on marital and aboard a , though these remain verbal rather than visual depictions of . The nudity's prominence drove and , positioning the film as a precursor to relaxed standards, despite local bans in cities like where courts later deemed the scenes non-obscene.

Release and Legal Challenges

Distribution Strategy

Promises! Promises! was produced by Noonan-Taylor Productions and distributed by NTD, an affiliated entity controlled by co-producer , after major studios declined involvement due to the film's inclusion of nudity by lead actress . This independent approach enabled a release on August 15, 1963, initially in , bypassing mainstream studio networks that enforced stricter moral codes under the fading influence of the Production Code. The strategy focused on regional bookings in independent and adult-oriented theaters willing to screen controversial content, avoiding national circuits dominated by family-friendly exhibitors. Noonan's hands-on role extended to personal previews and promotions, leveraging Mansfield's star power and the publicity from her nude scenes—advertised boldly in campaigns like "You Read About Her in ... Now See All of Jayne !"—to draw audiences in permissive markets. However, the explicit elements prompted preemptive bans and censorship reviews in multiple states, such as where the film was examined by a legislative subcommittee on October 23, , limiting broader dissemination. Internationally, similar hurdles arose, with the rejecting it outright in before later approval in 2011. This selective, producer-driven distribution prioritized controversy-fueled box office in niche venues over wide accessibility, reflecting the era's fragmented market for exploitation films.

Censorship Battles and Bans

Promises! Promises!, released on September 25, 1963, faced immediate local censorship actions across multiple U.S. cities primarily due to its unprecedented nude scenes featuring Jayne Mansfield, the first by a mainstream American actress in a sound film. Authorities in Chicago banned the film upon arrival, citing obscenity concerns, though the Chicago Motion Picture Board reversed the prohibition after an exhibitor appeal allowed public viewing. Similar seizures occurred in Cleveland, where the Cleveland Division of Police declared the content obscene and halted screenings, and in Pittsburgh, enforced by local police. Legal challenges in escalated to court, where a reviewed the film and ruled on December 1963 that Mansfield's nude sequences did not meet the legal threshold for under prevailing standards, permitting its exhibition despite initial opposition. These municipal bans reflected broader tensions over the Motion Picture Production Code's fading influence, as the independently produced film bypassed studio mechanisms that had prohibited since 1934. No federal-level prohibition was imposed, and the controversies ultimately boosted the film's notoriety without derailing its distribution in permissive jurisdictions. Preceding the theatrical debut, nude production stills from Mansfield's scenes published in the June 1963 issue prompted obscenity charges against publisher in , highlighting parallel scrutiny of the film's content; the case against Hefner was later dismissed. While no verified international bans surfaced, the U.S. local restrictions underscored the film's role in testing post-Code boundaries on explicit material in commercial cinema.

Reception and Analysis

Critical Reviews

Critics largely panned Promises! Promises! for its lack of humor, static pacing, and reliance on nudity over substance, viewing it primarily as a low-budget vehicle rather than a legitimate . The film's aggregate score on stands at 30% approval from five reviews, reflecting broad dismissal of its artistic merits despite acknowledging its novelty as the first American to feature topless by a actress. One reviewer encapsulated the consensus by stating, "There are only two reasons why anyone should see this comedy and those reasons belong to ," rating it 2.5 out of 5 for its limited appeal centered on the star's physical attributes rather than or direction. Similarly, a DVD described the film as "fascinating as film history and from a pop culture perspective but otherwise a pretty dull affair," highlighting its technical simplicity and absence of engaging narrative drive. Roger , in a posthumous assessment of 's career, critiqued her involvement as a sign of desperation, observing that the 1963 production marked a rare instance of a major actress resorting to in a "nudie" amid declining opportunities in mainstream cinema. Another analysis deemed it "not a particularly good comedy," recommending it chiefly to Mansfield enthusiasts for the historical rather than comedic or dramatic value. The scarcity of contemporary reviews from major outlets like or underscores the film's marginal status, as its explicit content prompted bans in cities such as and limited theatrical exposure beyond adult-oriented circuits.

Commercial Performance

Promises! Promises! was produced on an estimated of $345,000, with initial of $430,000 borrowed by Tommy Noonan and associate Donald F. Taylor. Production costs were reported at around $200,000, which the film was expected to recover by November 1963 through nonrefundable advances from exhibitors totaling $80,000. In metropolitan alone, receipts reached $80,000 by December 1963. Despite facing bans and censorship challenges in locations such as , the film achieved modest domestic earnings, with unadjusted gross estimates at $1.6 million. By June 1964, it was described as somewhat profitable, allowing Noonan to fund subsequent projects. These returns, while limited by restricted distribution and legal hurdles, marked a financial recovery for the low-budget independent production amid its notoriety for explicit content.

Societal and Moral Debates

The release of Promises! Promises! in ignited debates over the boundaries of in American cinema, particularly regarding the portrayal of female by a major star like , which many viewed as a deliberate challenge to prevailing moral standards. Religious organizations and civic leaders condemned the film as promoting and through its plot involving marital and explicit visuals, arguing that such content could corrupt public morals and desensitize audiences to vice. Local authorities in cities like banned screenings, citing the as obscene and unfit for general exhibition, reflecting broader concerns that films like this eroded amid the waning influence of the . Censorship boards and courts grappled with defining under standards like the 1957 test, which emphasized material lacking serious value and appealing to prurient interest; the Maryland Motion Picture Censorship Board, after examination, licensed despite Mansfield's partial nudity in bath and bedroom scenes, determining it did not meet obscenity thresholds while acknowledging public distaste for its vulgarity. In , exhibitors faced restrictions but successfully challenged some bans, highlighting inconsistencies in applying obscenity laws to non-hardcore content and fueling arguments that overzealous stifled without empirical evidence of societal harm. Defenders, including producer , positioned the nudity as comedic and non-exploitative, akin to European films, yet critics contended it prioritized sensationalism over substance, potentially normalizing objectification and contributing to a cultural shift toward lax . The accompanying publication of Mansfield's nude set photos in magazine exacerbated the controversy, resulting in obscenity charges against publisher in , which were ultimately dropped; Hefner maintained the images served artistic and journalistic purposes, underscoring tensions between First Amendment protections and efforts to shield youth from perceived moral decay. Moral opponents, often from conservative and religious quarters, warned that such precedents would accelerate the sexual revolution's erosion of traditional norms, while proponents saw it as a harmless evolution reflecting adult consent and realism in storytelling. These debates prefigured the 1968 MPAA ratings system, as regulators recognized the impracticality of uniform bans amid changing attitudes, though without longitudinal data proving causal links to societal outcomes like rising divorce rates or in the ensuing decade.

Legacy and Cultural Impact

Influence on Film Censorship

Promises! Promises! defied the Motion Picture Production Code (commonly known as the ), which had governed content since 1934 by prohibiting and explicit . Released on October 23, 1963, the film included topless scenes featuring , marking the first instance of such by a major American actress in a sound-era studio production. This breach prompted immediate backlash from censorship authorities, as the Code explicitly barred "sex perversion" and "sex hygiene" depictions, viewing them as morally corrupting. Local boards across the enforced bans in response, with the film prohibited in cities including , , and shortly after release. In , the Division of Police cited concerns to block screenings, while authorities similarly invoked local ordinances against indecent exhibitions. These actions exemplified the fragmented nature of pre-ratings era , where municipal bodies wielded discretionary power over , often leading to edited prints or outright exclusions of nude sequences in permitted showings. The Motion Picture Board, for instance, convened a special review on October 23, 1963, alongside legislative members to assess the film's compliance, underscoring institutional efforts to uphold prevailing decency standards. The controversies surrounding Promises! Promises! contributed to broader pressures on the Hays 's viability, as producers increasingly tested its restrictions amid declining enforcement by major studios. charges arose in some jurisdictions, with convictions occasionally secured but frequently overturned on appeal, revealing judicial skepticism toward blanket prohibitions in light of evolving First Amendment interpretations. Commercial viability despite bans—grossing sufficiently to rank among 1963's top box-office draws—signaled audience tolerance for explicit material, accelerating the industry's shift toward self-regulation. By 1968, the Code was supplanted by the MPAA's voluntary ratings system, which accommodated varying content levels without outright bans, reflecting lessons from cases like this film's legal skirmishes.

Effects on Jayne Mansfield's Career

The 1963 film Promises! Promises!, in which appeared in the first nude scenes by a major American actress in a , generated substantial publicity through and legal challenges but ultimately accelerated the decline of her mainstream career. By the early , Mansfield's star had faded after her 20th Century Fox contract ended in , with diminishing roles in high-profile productions; the film's explicit content, while drawing crowds to limited releases, reinforced her image as a sensationalist rather than a versatile performer, limiting opportunities for serious dramatic work. Post-release, Mansfield's film output shifted toward low-budget exploitation and international co-productions, such as the 1964 Italian-American comedy and the 1966 beach party spoof , reflecting a pivot from studio-backed vehicles to independently financed projects that capitalized on her notoriety rather than advancing her artistic reputation. These roles, often emphasizing physical allure over narrative depth, failed to restore her to status, as studios distanced themselves from the controversy surrounding her , which had prompted bans in cities like and . Increasingly, Mansfield supplemented her income through acts and publicity stunts, performing in venues across the U.S. and until her death in 1967, a trajectory that underscored how Promises! Promises! entrenched her in a niche of titillation-driven rather than broadening her appeal. While the film briefly boosted her visibility—evidenced by sold-out screenings in permissive markets—it did not translate to sustained box-office success or critical acclaim, contributing to her marginalization in an industry transitioning toward the more permissive but selective era.

Broader Historical Context

The Motion Picture Production Code, informally known as the , was adopted by the major studios in 1930 and rigorously enforced starting in 1934 by the Production Code Administration (), which prohibited , explicit sexual relations, and other content deemed morally objectionable to maintain self-regulation and avoid federal censorship. This system shaped American film production for nearly three decades, limiting portrayals of sexuality to implication or suggestion, with violations risking denial of the PCA seal of approval essential for wide distribution. Pre-Code films of the late 1920s and early 1930s had occasionally included risqué elements, including implied nudity, but such content vanished under strict enforcement amid public and religious pressure following scandals like the Fatty Arbuckle trial in 1921. By the late , the faced erosion from competition with , the influx of uncensored foreign imports like the 1956 French film And God Created Woman featuring Brigitte Bardot's topless scenes, and evolving post-World War II social norms that questioned rigid moral standards. Independent filmmakers, unbound by studio oversight, increasingly tested boundaries; Promises! Promises!, released on May 15, 1963, became the first American to feature major-star frontal —Jayne Mansfield's brief bathtub sequence—bypassing Code restrictions through non-studio production and limited initial release. The film's content, including Mansfield's and themes of infidelity and alcohol-fueled promiscuity, drew immediate backlash, with bans in cities like and condemnation from the , underscoring the Code's inability to adapt to changing attitudes amid the early , fueled by the 1960 approval of the birth control pill. This controversy exemplified broader 1960s challenges to censorship, including PCA exceptions for films like 1964's The Pawnbroker (allowing brief nudity for artistic merit) and Supreme Court rulings affirming free speech in media, which collectively rendered the Code untenable. Hollywood abandoned the system in 1968, adopting the MPAA's voluntary rating categories—G, M (later PG), R, and X—effective November 1, 1968, to provide parental guidance rather than prohibition, reflecting a shift toward audience choice over uniform moral enforcement. Promises! Promises! thus occupied a pivotal limbo between eras, accelerating demands for reform by demonstrating the Code's practical and cultural irrelevance in an increasingly permissive society.

References

  1. [1]
    Promises..... Promises! (1963) - IMDb
    Rating 5/10 (758) After a drunken spree on a cruise ship, two women discover that they're pregnant and set out to discover who the fathers are.
  2. [2]
    19 Fascinating Facts About Jayne Mansfield - Mental Floss
    Jun 4, 2025 · In 1963's Promises! Promises!, about a couple of swingers on a cruise ship, Mansfield became the first major actress of the sound era to appear ...
  3. [3]
    Chicago's Home for Great Cinema | PROMISES! PROMISES!
    Sep 3, 2023 · PROMISES! made history as the first major Hollywood release to feature nudity by a mainstream star, Jayne Mansfield. Released in the dying days ...
  4. [4]
    Promises..... Promises! (1963) - Trivia - IMDb
    Promises..... Promises! · This was the first movie in which a mainstream American actress (Jayne Mansfield) appeared nude in several revealing scenes. · During ...
  5. [5]
    Promises! Promises!/Fun Facts - The Grindhouse Cinema Database
    < Promises! Promises! Promisesff.jpg. This film is famous for Jayne Mansfield appearing nude, the first time the decaying Hays Code had allowed that in ...
  6. [6]
    The world's most comprehensive Film database - AFI|Catalog
    Weeks later, the 4 Apr 1963 DV revealed that Noonan previewed Promises! Promises! by preempting a screening of Too Late to Kill, starring his half-brother ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
  7. [7]
    https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0057428/
  8. [8]
    What Was the First Modern Nude Scene? - Vulture
    Sep 9, 2018 · Promises! was a translation of Edna Sheklow's 1960 play The Plant, about two couples on a cruise ship who swap partners in a drunken haze, and ...
  9. [9]
    Promises..... Promises! (1963) - Full cast & crew - IMDb
    Promises..... Promises! (1963) - Cast and crew credits, including actors, actresses, directors, writers and more.
  10. [10]
    Filming & production - IMDb
    Promises..... Promises! Jump to. Filming locations (1), Filming dates (1). Edit. Filming locations ... Filming dates. Jan 10, 1963 - Feb 1963. Production dates.
  11. [11]
    Promises! Promises! | Rotten Tomatoes
    Rating 30% (5) A TV comedy writer (Tommy Noonan) and his wife (Jayne Mansfield) go on a cruise with another couple, and each wife becomes pregnant.
  12. [12]
    Promises! Promises! (1963) - Filmaffinity
    Rating 4.9/10 (21) After a drunken spree on a cruise ship, two women discover that they're pregnant, and set out to find who the fathers are. Genre: Comedy Drama; Director.Missing: summary - | Show results with:summary -
  13. [13]
    Promises! Promises! (1963) (Film) - TV Tropes
    Promises! Promises! is a 1963 film directed by King Donovan, starring Jayne Mansfield. It's an Awful British Sex Comedy in every respect other than that it was ...
  14. [14]
    Promises..... Promises! (1963) - Plot - IMDb
    After a drunken spree on a cruise ship, two women discover that they're pregnant and set out to discover who the fathers are.
  15. [15]
    Promises! Promises! (1963) - FilmFanatic.org
    Oct 4, 2007 · While on board a cruise ship, a woman (Jayne Mansfield) desperate to have a baby mistakenly believes that her secretly sterile husband (Tommy ...
  16. [16]
    Promises! Promises! (1963) : r/iwatchedanoldmovie - Reddit
    May 30, 2025 · This film is most notable for being the first sound film to have a mainstream Hollywood actress (Jayappear nude, and as such the first in decades.r/classicfilms on Reddit: Jayne Mansfield in 1963's PROMISES ...TIL In 1963, with the release of movie "Promises! Promises!", Jayne ...More results from www.reddit.com
  17. [17]
    Parents guide - Promises..... Promises! (1963) - IMDb
    Promises..... Promises! · Content rating · Sex & Nudity · Violence & Gore · Profanity · Alcohol, Drugs & Smoking · Frightening & Intense Scenes · Certifications · More ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  18. [18]
    Jayne Mansfield Nude! Promises... Promises - Desperate Living
    Aug 8, 2016 · The legendary topless shots of Jayne are pretty brief – they all appear within the first ten minutes of the film, and are then repeated in a number of ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  19. [19]
    Sexual - Erotic Films - Filmsite.org
    It included a nighttime skinny-dipping scene in a backyard pool - it would have been the first nude scene in an American film by a major star. Promises!
  20. [20]
    Promises! Promises! (1963) | Hammer horror Wiki | Fandom
    Promises! Promises! became the first Hollywood feature release of the sound era to feature nudity by a mainstream star (Jayne Mansfield). That distinction would ...Missing: facts | Show results with:facts<|control11|><|separator|>
  21. [21]
    Banned, Ignored, Shelved: Part Two – The Magnificent 60s
    But that was not unusual for Mansfield. Other films never considered for the circuits were Promises, Promises (1963), The Fat Spy (1966), Panic Button (1964) ...Missing: method | Show results with:method
  22. [22]
    [PDF] FORTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MOTION PICTURE ...
    Committee examined the film entitled "Promises, Promises”, starring Jayne Mans- ... Budget Appropriation July 1, 1963 through June 30, 1964 $ 69,480.00.
  23. [23]
    List of works rejected by the British Board of Film Classification
    Works rejected, later classified uncut ; Promises! Promises! 22 October 1963, 16 August 2011 ; The Naked Kiss, 13 March 1964, 31 December 1990 ; Lady in a Cage, 8 ...
  24. [24]
    https://www.freedomforum.org/banned-movies/
  25. [25]
    Banned Movies: 20+ Films That Were Censored or Restricted
    ... 1963's “Promises! Promises!” in several cities. In an unusual case, the 1967 movie “Titicut Follies” was banned in Massachusetts. The film included real ...Missing: battles | Show results with:battles
  26. [26]
    Film History Milestones - 1963 - Filmsite.org
    ... Promises! Promises! (1963). Mansfield became the first mainstream actress to ... The original version was banned in many cities (including Cleveland) and ...
  27. [27]
    Jayne Mansfield's Bold Breakthrough - CMG Worldwide
    Oct 26, 2023 · ... Promises! Promises! and then published them in his June issue of the ... This resulted in obscenity charges being filed against Hefner in a ...
  28. [28]
    Reviews - Promises! Promises! - Rotten Tomatoes
    There are only two reasons why anyone should see this comedy and those reasons belong to Jayne Mansfield. Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5 | Mar 28, 2006.
  29. [29]
    Jayne Mansfield, 1933-1967 The girl couldn't help it - Roger Ebert
    Dec 14, 2012 · Finally, in “Promises, Promises.” she did what no Hollywood actress ever does except in desperation: she made a nudie. By 1963, that kind of ...
  30. [30]
    Promises! Promises! - Rock! Shock! Pop! Forums - Cult Movie DVD ...
    Feb 5, 2011 · Sandy (Mansifled) is married to an eccentric man named Jeff (Tommy Noonan of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes) and together they head off on a cruise ...<|separator|>
  31. [31]
    List of films banned in the United States - Wikipedia
    This is a list of films that are or have been at one time or another banned in the United States; including films banned in some American cities or states.A Woman (1915 film) · Bill Cosby 77 · Cry Baby LaneMissing: battles | Show results with:battles
  32. [32]
    1963 Top Box Office Movies | Ultimate Movie Rankings
    Promises..... Promises! (1963), Jayne Mansfield, 1.6, 21.5, 51, 00 / 00, 25.1. 122, Wives and Lovers (1963), Janet Leigh & Shelley Winters, 2.1, 29.3, 47, 01 / ...Missing: revenue | Show results with:revenue
  33. [33]
    https://www.looper.com/1469141/nude-scene-movies-actor-trouble-real-life/
  34. [34]
    [PDF] Pennsylvania's Proposed Film Censorship Law - House Bill 1098
    cial determination that they were actually obscene.2 By court order. "Promises! Promises!" was returned to the exhibitors and presented as scheduled in ...
  35. [35]
    Nude Scenes That Got The Actors In Trouble In Real Life - Looper
    and the presumed controversy over its nude scenes — has been interpreted by many as an attempt to regain the spotlight.
  36. [36]
    Nudity in film - The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
    Nov 1, 2021 · The sold-out issue resulted in an obscenity charge for Hugh Hefner, which was later dropped. Promises! Promises! was banned in Cleveland ...<|separator|>
  37. [37]
    10 Movies That Changed The Film Industry Forever - Listverse
    Jun 5, 2014 · Sex comedy Promises! Promises! was the first major motion picture to feature a major star—in this case, Jayne Mansfield—appearing nude. While ...
  38. [38]
    Jane Russell: Man, moody and ahead of the curve | The Independent
    Mar 2, 2011 · It helped create the atmosphere of liberalism that would culminate in Promises! Promises! in 1963 when Jayne Mansfield became the first ...
  39. [39]
    10 Obscure Films Immortalized For All The Wrong Reasons - Listverse
    Oct 11, 2013 · ... Promises! Promises! and agreed to do some nudity. This would mark the first time a mainstream Hollywood star had ever appeared nude in a film.
  40. [40]
    https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a64852757/jayne-mansfield-life-photos/
  41. [41]
    https://www.biography.com/actors/jayne-mansfield
  42. [42]
    Take a Look Back at Jayne Mansfield's Life During Hollywood's ...
    Jun 27, 2025 · Promises! made money, it was too crass and too indie to recoup Mansfield's struggling stardom—and her career never bounced back to its 1950s ...<|separator|>
  43. [43]
    Jayne Mansfield: The Actor Forged a Path that Ended in Tragedy
    Jun 26, 2025 · Early Life. Jayne Mansfield was born Vera Jayne Palmer on April 19, 1933, in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Her father, Herbert, was an attorney ...
  44. [44]
    Jayne Mansfield's 8 Best Movies Ranked
    Jun 30, 2025 · Jayne Mansfield's 8 Best Movies Ranked · 8 Panic Button · 7 Single Room Furnished · 6 Kiss Them For Me · 5 Illegal · 4 The Wayward Bus · 3 The Burglar.
  45. [45]
    The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 - History Matters
    1. Complete nudity is never permitted. · 2. Undressing scenes should be avoided, and never used save where essential to the plot. · 3. Indecent or undue exposure ...
  46. [46]
    A Brief History of Film Censorship
    Jan 5, 2020 · This film, featuring a scene of Cybil Shepherd skinny-dipping, was banned in Phoenix in 1973 for violating a state obscenity statute. A federal ...Missing: debates | Show results with:debates
  47. [47]
    https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/130208_ratings-timeline.final.pdf
  48. [48]
    ORIGINAL SKIN - Pulp International
    Aug 2, 2021 · Check out the poster at top for the infamous Jayne Mansfield movie Promises! Promises! It's so garish it almost hurts the eyes, but we think it's top notch.
  49. [49]
    [PDF] the evolution of the film rating system
    The “NC-17” rating replaces the “X” rating. Rating descriptors are added, giving parents more information about the elements of a movie. 1993.