Motion Picture Production Code

Summary

The Motion Picture Production Code was a set of industry guidelines for the self-censorship of content that was applied to most motion pictures released by major studios in the United States from 1934 to 1968. It is also popularly known as the Hays Code, after Will H. Hays, president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) from 1922 to 1945. Under Hays's leadership, the MPPDA, later the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Motion Picture Association (MPA), adopted the Production Code in 1930 and began rigidly enforcing it in 1934. The Production Code spelled out acceptable and unacceptable content for motion pictures produced for a public audience in the United States.

Motion Picture Production Code

From 1934 to 1954, the code was closely identified with Joseph Breen, the administrator appointed by Hays to enforce the code in Hollywood. The film industry followed the guidelines set by the code well into the late 1950s, but it began to weaken, owing to the combined impact of television, influence from foreign films, controversial directors (such as Otto Preminger) pushing boundaries, and intervention from the courts, including the US Supreme Court.[1][2] In 1968, after several years of minimal enforcement, the Production Code was replaced by the MPAA film rating system.

BackgroundEdit

 
Thou Shalt Not, a 1940 photo by Whitey Schafer illustrating the Code's strictures

In the 1920s, Hollywood was rocked by a number of notorious scandals, such as the murder of William Desmond Taylor and the alleged rape of Virginia Rappe by popular movie star Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, which brought widespread condemnation from religious, civic and political organizations. Many felt that the film industry had always been morally questionable,[3] and political pressure was increasing, with legislators in 37 states introducing almost one hundred film censorship bills in 1921. In 1922, as they were faced with the prospect of having to comply with hundreds and potentially thousands of inconsistent, easily changed decency laws in order to show their films, the studios chose self-regulation as the preferable option, enlisting Presbyterian elder Will H. Hays, Postmaster General under former President Warren G. Harding and former head of the Republican National Committee,[4] to rehabilitate Hollywood's image. The move mimicked the decision that Major League Baseball had made in hiring judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis as League Commissioner the previous year to quell questions about the integrity of baseball in the wake of the 1919 World Series gambling scandal; The New York Times even called Hays the "screen Landis".[5] Hays was paid the lavish sum of $100,000 a year (equal to $1,620,000 today),[6][7][8] and served for 25 years as president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), where he "defended the industry from attacks, recited soothing nostrums, and negotiated treaties to cease hostilities".[6]

In 1924, Hays introduced a set of recommendations dubbed "the Formula", which the studios were advised to heed, and asked filmmakers to describe to his office the plots of films they were planning on producing.[9] In 1915, the Supreme Court had decided unanimously in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio that free speech did not extend to motion pictures.[10] While there had been token attempts to clean up the films before (such as when the studios formed the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry (NAMPI) in 1916), little had come of the efforts.[11] New York became the first state to take advantage of the Supreme Court's decision by instituting a censorship board in 1921. Virginia followed suit the following year,[12] with eight individual states having a board by the advent of sound film,[13][14] but many of these were ineffectual. By the 1920s, the New York stage, a frequent source of subsequent screen material, had topless shows, performances filled with curse words, adult subject matter, and sexually suggestive dialog.[15] Early in the sound system conversion process, it became apparent that what was acceptable in New York might not be so in Kansas.[15] Filmmakers were facing the possibility that many states and cities would adopt their own codes of censorship, necessitating a multiplicity of versions of films made for national distribution. Self-censorship was deemed a preferable outcome.

In 1927, Hays suggested to studio executives that they form a committee to discuss film censorship. Irving G. Thalberg of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Sol Wurtzel of Fox Film Corporation, and E. H. Allen of Paramount Pictures responded by collaborating on a list they called the "Don'ts and Be Carefuls", based on items that were challenged by local censor boards. This list consisted of eleven subjects best avoided and twenty-six to be handled very carefully. The list was approved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Hays created the Studio Relations Committee (SRC) to oversee its implementation;[16][17] however, there was still no way to enforce tenets.[5] The controversy surrounding film standards came to a head in 1929.[18][19]

Pre-Code: "Don'ts" and "Be Carefuls", as proposed in 1927Edit

In a resolution passed on June 29, 1927, the MPPDA codified lists of "don'ts" and "be carefuls" into what they colloquially called their "Magna Charta".[20] Many of these would later become key points in the Code.[21] Specifically, the MPPDA resolved, "that those things which are included in the following list shall not appear in pictures produced by the members of this Association, irrespective of the manner in which they are treated":[20]

  1. Pointed profanity—by either title or lip—this includes the words God, Lord, Jesus, Christ (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd, and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled;
  2. Any licentious or suggestive nudity—in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;
  3. The illegal traffic in drugs;
  4. Any inference of sex perversion;
  5. White slavery;
  6. Miscegenation;
  7. Sex hygiene and venereal diseases;
  8. Scenes of actual childbirth—in fact or in silhouette;
  9. Children's sex organs;
  10. Ridicule of the clergy;
  11. Willful offense to any nation, race or creed; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that special care be exercised in the manner in which the following subjects are treated, to the end that vulgarity and suggestiveness may be eliminated and that good taste may be emphasized:

  1. The use of the Flag;
  2. International Relations (avoid picturizing in an unfavorable light another country's religion, history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry);
  3. Arson;
  4. The use of firearms;
  5. Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, et cetera (having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron);
  6. Brutality and possible gruesomeness;
  7. Technique of committing murder by whatever method;
  8. Methods of smuggling;
  9. Third-Degree methods;
  10. Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishment for crime;
  11. Sympathy for criminals;
  12. Attitude toward public characters and institutions;
  13. Sedition;
  14. Apparent cruelty to children and animals;
  15. Branding of people or animals;
  16. The sale of women, or of a woman selling her virtue;
  17. Rape or attempted rape;
  18. First-night scenes;
  19. Man and woman in bed together;
  20. Deliberate seduction of girls;
  21. The institution of marriage;
  22. Surgical operations;
  23. The use of drugs;
  24. Titles or scenes having to do with law enforcement or law-enforcing officers;
  25. Excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a "heavy".

Creation and contentsEdit

In 1929, Catholic layman Martin Quigley (editor of the prominent trade paper Motion Picture Herald) and Jesuit priest Father Daniel A. Lord created a code of standards[22] and submitted it to the studios.[6][23] Lord was particularly concerned with the effects of sound film on children, whom he considered especially susceptible to their allure.[22] In February 1930, several studio heads, including Irving Thalberg of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, met with Lord and Quigley. After some revisions, they agreed to the stipulations of the Code. One of the main motivating factors in adopting the Code was to avoid direct government intervention.[24] It was the responsibility of the SRC (headed by Colonel Jason S. Joy, a former American Red Cross Executive Secretary[16][25]) to supervise film production and advise the studios when changes or cuts were required.[26][27] On March 31, the MPPDA agreed it would abide by the Code.[28] The production code was intended to put a limitation on films which were distributed to a large audience, making it more difficult to appeal to all individuals in the audiences.[29]

The code was divided into two parts. The first was a set of "general principles" which prohibited a picture from "lowering the moral standards of those who see it", so as not to wrongly influence a specific audience of views including, women, children, lower-class, and those of “susceptible” minds, called for depictions of the "correct standards of life", and lastly forbade a picture to show any sort of ridicule towards a law or "creating sympathy for its violation".[30] The second part was a set of "particular applications", which was an exacting list of items that could not be depicted. Some restrictions, such as the ban on homosexuality or on the use of specific curse words, were never directly mentioned, but were assumed to be understood without clear demarcation.

Homosexuals were de facto included under the proscription of sex perversion,[31] and the depiction of miscegenation (by 1934, defined only as sexual relationships between black and white races) was forbidden.[32] It also stated that the notion of an "adults-only policy" would be a dubious, ineffective strategy that would be difficult to enforce;[33] however, it did allow that "maturer minds may easily understand and accept without harm subject matter in plots which does younger people positive harm".[34] If children were supervised and the events implied elliptically, the code allowed "the possibility of a cinematically inspired thought crime".[34]

The code sought not only to determine what could be portrayed on screen, but also to promote traditional values.[35] Sexual relations outside marriage, which were forbidden to be portrayed as attractive or beautiful, were to be presented in a way that would not arouse passion or make them seem permissible.[36] Any sexual act considered perverted, including any suggestion of same-sex relationships, sex or romance, was ruled out.[31]

All criminal action had to be punished, and neither the crime nor the criminal could elicit sympathy from the audience,[5] or the audience must at least be aware that such behavior is wrong, usually through "compensating moral value".[30][37] Authority figures had to be treated with respect, and the clergy could not be portrayed as comic characters or villains. Under some circumstances, politicians, police officers, and judges could be villains, as long as it was clear that those individuals portrayed as villains were the exceptions to the rule.[38]

The entire document was written with Catholic undertones, and stated that art must be handled carefully because it could be "morally evil in its effects", and its "deep moral significance" was unquestionable.[33] It was initially decided to keep the Catholic influence on the Code secret.[39] A recurring theme was "that throughout, the audience feels sure that evil is wrong, and good is right".[5] The Code also contained an addendum commonly referred to as the Advertising Code, which regulated advertising copy and imagery.[40]

EnforcementEdit

Pre-Code HollywoodEdit

The Kiss (1896), starring May Irwin, from the Edison Studios, drew general outrage from moviegoers, civic leaders, and religious leaders, as shocking, obscene, and immoral.
 
A famous shot from the 1903 film The Great Train Robbery. Scenes where criminals aimed guns at the camera were considered inappropriate by the New York state censor board in the 1920s, and usually removed.[41]

On February 19, 1930, Variety published the entire content of the Code, and predicted that state film censorship boards would soon become obsolete;[42] however, the men obliged to enforce the code—Jason Joy (head of the Committee until 1932) and his successor, Dr. James Wingate—were generally unenthusiastic and/or ineffective.[27][43] The Blue Angel, the first film the office reviewed, which was passed by Joy with no revisions, was considered indecent by a California censor.[43] Although there were several instances where Joy negotiated cuts from films and there were definite—albeit loose—constraints, a significant amount of lurid material made it to the screen.[44] Joy had to review 500 films a year with a small staff and little power.[43] He was more willing to work with the studios, and his creative writing skills led to his hiring at Fox. On the other hand, Wingate struggled to keep up with the flood of scripts coming in, to the point where Warner Bros.' head of production Darryl Zanuck wrote him a letter imploring him to pick up the pace.[45] In 1930, the Hays office did not have the authority to order studios to remove material from a film, and instead worked by reasoning and sometimes pleading with them.[46] Complicating matters, the appeals process ultimately put the responsibility for making the final decision in the hands of the studios.[27]

 
Actor Boris Karloff as Doctor Frankenstein's creation in the 1931 film Frankenstein. By the time the film's sequel, Bride of Frankenstein, arrived in 1935, enforcement of the Code was in full effect, and the doctor's overt God complex was forbidden.[47] In the first picture, however, when the creature was born, his mad scientist creator was free to proclaim "Now I know what it feels like to be God!"[48]

One factor in ignoring the code was the fact that some found such censorship prudish, owing to the libertine social attitudes of the 1920s and early 1930s. This was a period in which the Victorian era was sometimes ridiculed as being naïve and backward.[49] When the Code was announced, the liberal periodical The Nation attacked it,[42] stating that if crime were never to be presented in a sympathetic light, then taken literally that would mean that "law" and "justice" would become one and the same; therefore, events such as the Boston Tea Party could not be portrayed. If clergy must always be presented in a positive way, then hypocrisy could not be dealt with either.[42] The Outlook agreed and, unlike Variety, predicted from the beginning that the Code would be difficult to enforce.[42] The Great Depression of the 1930s led many studios to seek income by any way possible. Since films containing racy and violent content resulted in high ticket sales, it seemed reasonable to continue producing such films.[50] Soon, the flouting of the code became an open secret. In 1931, The Hollywood Reporter mocked the code and quoted an anonymous screenwriter saying that "the Hays moral code is not even a joke any more; it's just a memory"; two years later Variety followed suit.[27]

Breen eraEdit

On June 13, 1934, an amendment to the Code was adopted, which established the Production Code Administration (PCA) and required all films released on or after July 1, 1934, to obtain a certificate of approval before being released. The PCA had two offices: one in Hollywood and the other in New York City. The first film to receive an MPPDA seal of approval was The World Moves On (1934). For over 30 years, virtually all motion pictures produced in the United States adhered to the code.[51] The Production Code was not created or enforced by federal, state, or city government; the Hollywood studios adopted the code in large part in the hopes of avoiding government censorship, preferring self-regulation to government regulation.

Father Daniel A. Lord, a Jesuit, wrote: "Silent smut had been bad. Vocal smut cried to the censors for vengeance." Thomas Doherty, Professor of American studies at Brandeis University, has defined the code as "no mere list of Thou-Shalt-Nots, but a homily that sought to yoke Catholic doctrine to Hollywood formula. The guilty are punished, the virtuous rewarded, the authority of church and state is legitimate, and the bonds of matrimony are sacred."[51] What resulted has been described as "a Jewish owned business selling Catholic theology to Protestant America".[52]

In 1934, Joseph I. Breen, a prominent Catholic layman who had worked in public relations, was appointed head of the new Production Code Administration (PCA). Under Breen's leadership, which lasted until his retirement in 1954, enforcement of the Production Code became notoriously rigid. Even cartoon sex symbol Betty Boop had to change from being a flapper and began to wear an old-fashioned housewife's skirt. However, by 1934, the prohibition against miscegenation was defined only as sexual relationships between black and white races.[53]

Breen's power to change scripts and scenes angered many writers, directors and Hollywood moguls. Breen influenced the production of Casablanca (1942), objecting to any explicit reference to Rick and Ilsa having slept together in Paris, and to the film mentioning that Captain Renault extorted sexual favors from his supplicants; ultimately, both remained strongly implied in the finished version.[54] Adherence to the Code also ruled out any possibility of the film ending with Rick and Ilsa consummating their adulterous love, making inevitable the ending with Rick's noble renunciation, one of Casablanca's most famous scenes.[55]

The first major instance of censorship under the Production Code involved the 1934 film Tarzan and His Mate, in which brief nude scenes involving a body double for actress Maureen O'Sullivan were edited out of the master negative of the film.[56] Another famous case of enforcement involved The Outlaw, a 1943 western produced by Howard Hughes, which was denied a certificate of approval and kept out of theaters for years since the film's advertising focused particular attention on Jane Russell's breasts. Hughes eventually persuaded Breen that this did not violate the code and the film could be shown.[57]

The Hays Code required a change in a major element of the plot of Daphne du Maurier's 1938 novel Rebecca. In the novel, the narrator discovers that her husband, the aristocratic widower Maxim de Winter, killed his first wife Rebecca, and she makes light of it, since it followed Rebecca having strongly provoked and taunted him. This could not be retained in Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 adaptation, as it would have meant having a major character get away with murder and living happily ever after, which would have been a flagrant violation of the Code. In Hitchcock's version, Rebecca died in an accident and Maxim de Winter was guilty of no more than hiding the facts of her death.[58] The 2020 remake, not bound by the Code, restored du Maurier's original plot element.

The PCA also engaged in political censorship. When Warner Bros. wanted to make a film about Nazi concentration camps, the production office forbade it, citing the above-mentioned prohibition on depicting "in an unfavorable light" another country's "institutions [and] prominent people", with threats to take the matter to the federal government if the studio went ahead.[59] This policy prevented a number of anti-Nazi films being produced. In 1938, the FBI unearthed and prosecuted a Nazi spy ring, subsequently allowing Warner to produce Confessions of a Nazi Spy (1939),[60] with the Three Stooges' short subject You Nazty Spy! (1940) being the first Hollywood film of any sort to openly spoof the Third Reich's leadership.[61]

Some films produced outside the mainstream studio system flouted the code. One example is Child Bride (1938), which featured a nude scene involving a twelve-year-old child actress (Shirley Mills). The Code began to weaken in the late 1940s, when the formerly taboo subjects of rape and miscegenation were allowed in Johnny Belinda (1948) and Pinky (1949), respectively. In 1951, the MPAA revised the code to make it more rigid, spelling out more words and subjects that were prohibited. In 1954, Breen retired, largely because of ill health, and Geoffrey Shurlock was appointed as his successor.

Some of Hollywood's creative class managed to find positives in the Code's limitations. Director Edward Dmytryk later said that the Code "had a very good effect because it made us think. If we wanted to get something across that was censorable... we had to do it deviously. We had to be clever. And it usually turned out to be much better than if we had done it straight."[62]

DeclineEdit

Hollywood continued to work within the confines of the Production Code throughout the 1950s, but during this time, the film industry was faced with very serious competitive threats. The first threat came from television, a new technology that did not require Americans to leave their houses to see motion pictures. Hollywood needed to offer the public something it could not get on television, which itself was under an even more restrictive censorship code. In addition to the threat of television, there was also increasing competition from foreign films, such as Vittorio De Sica's Bicycle Thieves (1948), the Swedish film One Summer of Happiness (1951), and Ingmar Bergman's Summer with Monika (1953). Vertical integration in the film industry had been found to violate anti-trust laws, and studios had been forced to give up ownership of theaters by the Supreme Court in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948). The studios had no way to keep out foreign films, which were not bound by the Production Code. Some British films, such as Victim (1961), A Taste of Honey (1961), and The Leather Boys (1963), challenged traditional gender roles, and openly confronted the prejudices against homosexuals, all in clear violation of the Hollywood Production Code.

In 1952, in the case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, the Supreme Court unanimously overruled its 1915 decision (Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio), and held that motion pictures were entitled to First Amendment protection, so the New York State Board of Regents could not ban The Miracle, a short film that was one half of L'Amore (1948), an anthology film directed by Roberto Rossellini. Film distributor Joseph Burstyn released the film in the United States in 1950, and the case became known as the "Miracle Decision" because of its connection to Rossellini's film. This reduced the threat of government regulation, which had formerly been cited as justification for the Production Code, and the PCA's powers over the Hollywood industry were greatly reduced.[2]

By the 1950s, American culture also began to change. A boycott by the National Legion of Decency no longer guaranteed a film's commercial failure, and several aspects of the Code had slowly lost their taboo. In 1956, areas of the Code were rewritten to accept subjects such as miscegenation, adultery, and prostitution. For example, the remake of Anna Christie, a pre-Code film dealing with prostitution, was cancelled by MGM twice, in 1940 and in 1946, as the character Anna was not allowed to be portrayed as a prostitute. By 1962, such subject matter was acceptable, and the original film was given a seal of approval.[63]

 
Some directors found ways to get around the Code guidelines; an example of this was in Alfred Hitchcock's 1946 film Notorious, where he worked around the rule of three-second-kissing by having the two actors break off every three seconds. The whole sequence lasts two and a half minutes.[1]

By the late 1950s, increasingly explicit films began to appear, such as Suddenly, Last Summer (1959), Psycho (1960), and The Dark at the Top of the Stairs (1960). The MPAA reluctantly granted the seal of approval for these films, although not until certain cuts were made. Owing to its themes, Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot (1959) was not granted a certificate of approval, but still became a box office smash, and as a result, it further weakened the authority of the Code.[64]

At the forefront of contesting the Code was director Otto Preminger, whose films violated the Code repeatedly in the 1950s. His 1953 film The Moon Is Blue, about a young woman who tries to play two suitors off against each other by claiming that she plans to keep her virginity until marriage, was released without a certificate of approval. He later made The Man with the Golden Arm (1955), which portrayed the prohibited subject of drug abuse, and Anatomy of a Murder (1959), which dealt with murder and rape. Like Some Like It Hot, Preminger's films were direct assaults on the authority of the Production Code, and their success hastened its abandonment.[65] In the early 1960s, films began to deal with adult subjects and sexual matters that had not been seen in Hollywood films since the early 1930s. The MPAA reluctantly granted the seal of approval for these films, although again not until certain cuts were made.[66]

In 1964, the Holocaust film The Pawnbroker, directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Rod Steiger, was initially rejected because of two scenes in which actresses Linda Geiser and Thelma Oliver fully expose their breasts, and also because of a sex scene between Oliver and Jaime Sánchez that was described as "unacceptably sex suggestive and lustful". Despite the rejection, the film's producers arranged for Allied Artists to release the film without the Production Code seal, with the New York censors licensing the film without the cuts demanded by Code administrators. The producers appealed the rejection to the MPAA. On a 6–3 vote, the MPAA granted the film an exception, conditional on "reduction in the length of the scenes which the Production Code Administration found unapprovable". The requested reductions of nudity were minimal, and the outcome was viewed in the media as a victory for the film's producers.[67]

The Pawnbroker was the first film featuring bare breasts to receive Production Code approval. The exception to the code was granted as a "special and unique case" and was described by The New York Times at the time as "an unprecedented move that will not, however, set a precedent". In Pictures at a Revolution, a 2008 study of films during that era, Mark Harris wrote that the MPAA approval was "the first of a series of injuries to the Production Code that would prove fatal within three years".[68]

In 1966, Warner Bros. released Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, the first film to feature the "Suggested for Mature Audiences" (SMA) label. When Jack Valenti became President of the MPAA in 1966, he was faced with censoring the film's explicit language. Valenti negotiated a compromise: the word "screw" was removed, but other language remained, including the phrase "hump the hostess". The film received Production Code approval despite the previously prohibited language.[30]

That same year, the British-produced, American-financed film Blowup was denied Production Code approval. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer released it anyway in the first instance of an MPAA member company distributing a film without an approval certificate. Also, the original, lengthy code was replaced by a list of eleven points outlining that the boundaries of the new code would be current community standards and good taste. Any film containing content deemed suitable for older audiences would feature the SMA label in its advertising. With the creation of this new label, the MPAA unofficially began classifying films.[30]

AbandonmentEdit

By the late 1960s, enforcement had become impossible and the Production Code was abandoned entirely. The MPAA began working on a rating system under which film restrictions would lessen. The MPAA film rating system went into effect on November 1, 1968, with the four rating symbols: "G" means suggested for general exhibition (persons of all ages admitted), "M" means suggested for mature audiences, "R" means suggested as restricted (persons under 16 not admitted unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian), and "X" means persons under 16 will not be admitted. By the end of 1968, Geoffrey Shurlock stepped down from his post.[30][69]

In 1969, the Swedish film I Am Curious (Yellow), directed by Vilgot Sjöman, was initially banned in the U.S. for its frank depiction of sexuality; however, this was overturned by the Supreme Court. In 1970, because of confusion over the meaning of "mature audiences", the M rating was changed to "GP" meaning "for general exhibition, but parental guidance is suggested", then in 1972 to the current "PG", for "parental guidance suggested". In 1984, in response to public complaints regarding the severity of horror elements in PG-rated titles such as Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the "PG-13" rating was created as a middle tier between PG and R. In 1990, the X rating was replaced by "NC-17" (under 17 not admitted), partly because of the stigma associated with the X rating, and partly because the X rating was not trademarked by the MPAA; pornographic bookstores and theaters were using their own X, XX and XXX symbols to market products.[70]

As the American Humane Association depended on the Hays Office for the right to monitor sets, the closure of the Hays Office in 1966 also corresponded with an increase in animal cruelty on movie sets. The association did not regain its access until 1980.[71]

See alsoEdit

NotesEdit

  1. ^ a b McGilligan (2004), p. 376.
  2. ^ a b Sperling et al (1998), p. 325.
  3. ^ Encyc. of World Biog.: Suppl. (2001), "Will Hays" entry
  4. ^ Siegel & Siegel (2004), p. 190.
  5. ^ a b c d Yagoda (1980), "Hollywood Cleans Up ..."
  6. ^ a b c Doherty (1999), p. 6.
  7. ^ Gardner (2005), p. 92.
  8. ^ Leff & Simmons (2001), p. 3.
  9. ^ Prince (2003), p. 20.
  10. ^ Jowett (1989), p. 16.
  11. ^ Butters Jr. (2007), p. 149.
  12. ^ Butters Jr. (2007), p. 148.
  13. ^ LaSalle (2000), p. 62.
  14. ^ Vieira (1999), pp. 7–8.
  15. ^ a b Butters Jr. (2007), p. 187.
  16. ^ a b Vieira (1999), p. 8.
  17. ^ Prince (2003), p. 31.
  18. ^ LaSalle (2002), p. 1.
  19. ^ Butters Jr. (2007), p. 189.
  20. ^ a b "Record #365". MPPDA Digital Archive. 1927-06-29. Retrieved 2020-07-14.
  21. ^ Lewis (2000), pp. 301–302
  22. ^ a b Smith (2005), p. 38.
  23. ^ Jacobs (1997), p. 108.
  24. ^ Prince (2003), p. 21.
  25. ^ Flinders Inst. profile.
  26. ^ LaSalle (2000), p. 63.
  27. ^ a b c d Doherty (1999), p. 8.
  28. ^ Doherty (1999), p. 2.
  29. ^ Tratner, Michael (2003). "Working the Crowd: Movies and Mass Politics". Criticism. 45 (1): 53–73. doi:10.1353/crt.2003.0035. ISSN 1536-0342.
  30. ^ a b c d e Leff & Simmons (2001), pp. 270–271; 286–287.
  31. ^ a b Noriega, Chon (1990). ""Something's Missing Here!": Homosexuality and Film Reviews during the Production Code Era, 1934–1962". Cinema Journal. 30 (1): 20–41. doi:10.2307/1224848. ISSN 0009-7101. JSTOR 1224848.
  32. ^ The Production Code of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America stated by 1934 that "miscegenation (sex relationship between the white and black races) is forbidden" (Part II, Item 6).
  33. ^ a b Doherty (1999), p. 7.
  34. ^ a b Doherty (1999), p. 11.
  35. ^ Butters Jr. (2007), p. 188.
  36. ^ LaSalle (2000), p. 65.
  37. ^ Black (1996), pp. 41–42.
  38. ^ LaSalle (2000), p. 64.
  39. ^ Black (1996), p. 43.
  40. ^ Doherty (1999), p. 107.
  41. ^ Prince. pg. 24
  42. ^ a b c d Black (1996), pp. 44–45.
  43. ^ a b c Black (1996), pp. 50–51.
  44. ^ Jacobs (1997), p. 27.
  45. ^ Vieira (1999), p. 117.
  46. ^ Black (1996), p. 52.
  47. ^ Gardner (1988), pg. 66.
  48. ^ Teresi, Dick. "Are You Mad, Doctor?", The New York Times, September 13, 1988; accessed November 24, 2010.
  49. ^ LaSalle (2000), p. 20.
  50. ^ LaSalle (2000), p. 77.
  51. ^ a b Doherty (2006), "The Code Before ...".
  52. ^ Scott (2004, 2010)[page needed]
  53. ^ The Production Code of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc., 1930–1934, "miscegenation (sex relationship between the white and black races) is forbidden" (Part II, Item 6). No mention was made of miscegenation between whites and any race other than Black people.
  54. ^ Univ. of Virginia (2000–01), "Censored"
  55. ^ Harmetz, pp. 162–166 and Behlmer, pp. 207–208, 212–13. Full citation needed |date=November 2015}}
  56. ^ Vieira (1999), p. 188.
  57. ^ Mondello (2008), "Remembering ...", npr.org; accessed December 18, 2016.
  58. ^ Varnam, Laura (August 2018). "Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca". dumaurier.org. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
  59. ^ The Brothers Warner (2007), written by Cass Warner
  60. ^ Holden (2008), p. 238.
  61. ^ Mushnik (2013), "Three Stooges ...", nypost.com; accessed December 18, 2016.
  62. ^ "PBS American Cinema Film Noir". YouTube. Archived from the original on 2013-10-01. Retrieved January 6, 2019.
  63. ^ Schumach (1964), pp. 163–164.
  64. ^ Hirsch (2007)[page needed]
  65. ^ Hirsch (2007)[page needed]
  66. ^ Leff & Simmons (2001)[page needed]
  67. ^ Leff (1996), pp. 353–76.
  68. ^ Harris (2008), pp. 173–76.
  69. ^ Doherty (2007), p. 334.
  70. ^ Fox, "X Film ...", latimes.com, September 27, 1990; accessed May 28, 2017.
  71. ^ Arnold, Jeremy (May 6, 2012). "Jesse James (1939)". www.tcm.com. Retrieved 2021-08-25.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

SourcesEdit

  • Arnold, Jeremy. "Jesse James". Turner Classic Movies. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
  • Black, Gregory D. (1996). Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56592-8.
  • Butters Jr., Gerard R. (2007). Banned in Kansas: motion picture censorship, 1915–1966. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 0-8262-1749-4.
  • "Censored: Wielding the Red Pen". Exhibit at the University of Virginia Library, September 2000 – February 2001. Retrieved November 7, 2015.
  • Doherty, Thomas Patrick (1999). Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema 1930–1934. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-11094-4.
  • Doherty, Thomas (May 20, 2006). "The Code Before 'Da Vinci'". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 10, 2014.
  • Doherty, Thomas Patrick (2007). Hollywood's Censor: Joseph I. Breen and the Production Code Administration. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-51284-8.
  • Flinders staff. "Col. Jason S. Joy profile". Flinders Institute for Research in the Humanities. Retrieved November 7, 2015.
  • Fox, David J. (September 27, 1990). "X Film Rating Dropped and Replaced by NC-17". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 17, 2014.
  • Gardner, Eric (February 2005). "The Czar of Hollywood". Indianapolis Monthly, pp. 89–96. ISSN 0899-0328.
  • Harris, Mark (2008). Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood. Penguin Group. ISBN 978-1-59420-152-3.
  • Hirsch, Foster (2007). Otto Preminger, the man who would be king (1st ed.) New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 9780307489210.
  • Holden, Henry M. (2008). FBI 100 Years. Zenith Press. ISBN 978-1-61060-718-6.
  • Jacobs, Lea (1997). The Wages of Sin: Censorship and the Fallen Woman Film, 1928–1942. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-520-20790-4.
  • Jowett, Garth S. (1999) [1989]. "'A Capacity For Evil': The 1915 Supreme Court Mutual Decision". In Bernstein, Matthew. Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-2707-4.
  • LaSalle, Mick (2000). Complicated Women: Sex and Power in Pre-Code Hollywood. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-25207-2.
  • LaSalle, Mick. "Pre-Code Hollywood", GreenCine.com. Retrieved October 4, 2010.
  • Leff, Leonard J. (1996). "Hollywood and the Holocaust: Remembering The Pawnbroker". American Jewish History, (84) 4: 353–376. Accessed March 9, 2009. doi:10.1353/ajh.1996.0045.
  • Leff, Leonard L. & Jerold L. Simmons (2001). The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-9011-2.
  • Lewis, Jon (2000), Hollywood v. Hard Core: How the Struggle Over Censorship Saved the Modern Film Industry. New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-5142-3.
  • McGilligan, Patrick (2004). Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light. New York: Harper Perennial. ISBN 978-0-06-098827-2.
  • Mondello, Bob (August 8, 2008). "Remembering Hollywood's Hays Code, 40 Years On". NPR. Retrieved April 17, 2014.
  • Mushnik, Phil (July 14, 2013). "Three Stooges first to blast Hitler". New York Post. Retrieved April 17, 2014.
  • Prince, Stephen (2003). Classical Film Violence: Designing and Regulating Brutality in Hollywood Cinema, 1930–1968. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-3281-7.
  • Scott, Henry E. (2004, 2010). Shocking True Story, The Rise and Fall of "Confidential", America's Most Scandalous Magazine. Pantheon. ISBN 978-0-375-42139-6.
  • Schumach, Murray (1964). The Face On The Cutting Room Floor: The Story Of Movie And Television Censorship. New York: William Morrow and Company. ISBN 978-0-3068-0009-2.
  • Siegel, Scott & Barbara (2004). The Encyclopedia of Hollywood (2nd edition). Checkmark Books. ISBN 0-8160-4622-0.
  • Smith, Sarah (2005). Children, Cinema and Censorship: From Dracula to the Dead End Kids. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 1-4051-2027-4.
  • Sperling, Cass Warner, Cork Millner, and Jack Warner (1998). Hollywood Be Thy Name. Prima Publishing. ISBN 1-55958-343-6.
  • Vieira, Mark A. (1999). Sin in Soft Focus: Pre-Code Hollywood. New York: Harry N. Abrams. ISBN 0-8109-8228-5.
  • "Will Hays: America's Morality Czar". Encyclopedia of World Biography: 2001 Supplement. Gale Research, Inc., 2001. ISBN 978-0787652838.
  • Yagoda, Ben (February/March 1980). "Hollywood Cleans Up Its Act; The curious career of the Hays Office". American Heritage, 31(2): 12–21. Retrieved March 19, 2014.

Further readingEdit

  • Gilbert, Nora (2013). Better Left Unsaid: Victorian Novels, Hays Code Films, and the Benefits of Censorship. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804784207.
  • Lugowski, David M. (Winter 1999). "Queering the (New) Deal: Lesbian and Gay Representation and the Depression-Era Cultural Politics of Hollywood's Production Code", Cinema Journal (38) 2: pp. 3–35. JSTOR 1225622
  • Miller, Frank (1994). Censored Hollywood. Atlanta: Turner Publishing. ISBN 1-57036-116-9.
  • Wittern-Keller, Laura (2008). Freedom of the Screen: Legal Challenges to State Film Censorship, 1915–1981. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-2451-3.

External linksEdit

  • Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, "The Don'ts and Be Carefuls" (1927)
  • Censored Films and Television at University of Virginia online
  • Motion Picture Association of America: History and Film Ratings
  • Bibliography of books articles about movie censorship (via UC Berkeley)
  • Complete list of the 36 "Don'ts and Be Carefuls" of 1927
  • Complete text of the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (without the subsequent amendments)
  • The Production Code of the Motion Picture Industry (includes examples, all amendments, the 1956 rewrite, and 1966 rewrite)
  • More Sinned Against than Sinning: The Fabrications of "Pre-Code Cinema"
  • Talking Pictures website: Article by Nigel Watson about film censorship issues accompanied by classroom activities for students
  • Numbered list of Production Code certificates of approval
  • "Doin' the Production Code" at the 1980 Tonys on YouTube