Why did Cecil B. DeMille not take directing credit for the 1927 movie "Chicago"?

gtho4

It's conjecture, but here's one theory: In his book Cecil B. DeMille's Hollywood, Robert Birchard quotes Picture Play magazine columnists Edwin and Elza Schallert's assertion that "it has been done with much secrecy, but fact will out. Cecil B. DeMille is directing Chicago." The writers then stated that upon the film's release DeMille's name would not be found in the credits. Additionally, Birchard points out that a print of Chicago — whose crew was composed of DeMille regulars — was found in the director's personal film vault. Among the film's produced by the DeMille Picture Corporation, Chicago is the only production not (officially) directed by DeMille to belong to the collection. But why would DeMille not want his name attached to one of the most talked-about productions of the year? Well, perhaps because in the late 1920s the director was going through a brief phase of "serious" religious-themed pictures. The King of Kings, a 1927 release about the life of Jesus, was a monumental hit. It simply wouldn't do to have DeMille's name attached in the same year to both Jesus and Roxie Hart. Thus, DeMille would follow his New Testament success with an attack on atheism, The Godless Girl, while Frank Urson, a minor 1920s director and DeMille's assistant in a handful of films, received sole credit for handling the impious world of Chicago. (Note: In his autobiography, DeMille makes no mention of either Chicago or Frank Urson.) http://www.altfg.com/blog/classics/chicago-1927-trivia/ Oct 10 10, 3:47 AM