The Hays Code
The real villain was corporate corruption (and not naked people)
If you have delved into cinema history you have doubtlessly heard of the Motion Picture Production Code AKA The Hays Code AKA The Code. Today, I’d like to delve into the Hays Code, explain its implementation, restrictions, and ultimate downfall.
Prior to The Code, individual states regulated theatrical release. Chicago was the first to establish a board to censor films in 1907. The nature of censorship gets complicated from the jump. In 1915, Chicago banned the racist film Birth of a Nation after protests. While I don’t agree with censorship, I do agree with de-platforming racists. I will also point out here that The Hays Code would eventually ban topics like nudity but not racism.
In 1915, the US Supreme Court ruled that films were not protected as free speech so governments could ban films from public showing. By 1922, 7 states had boards dedicated to evaluating films and determining if they were appropriate for local distribution and viewing. There were also countless organizations dedicating themselves to maintaining American Values, and film was a target. Film studios were worried that lucrative markets wouldn’t show their movies, and filmmakers were disappointed when cities, states, or entire countries banned their works.
The growing concern was not just in the content of films, but in the surrounding community of filmmakers and a moral panic about the emerging technology. Moralists pointed to scandalous stories of Hollywood drug use and murder to illustrate that the film industry was corrupt. There are contemporary opinion articles about the potential for children to think the images on the screen depicted real and replicable events and lifestyles.
I find this especially interesting in an era where all films opened with the credits–establishing that what followed was created by artists and business people. This panic reminds me of an argument that happened in the Nebraska state legislature this session stating that children shouldn’t have access to books depicting violent events lest they become inspired to recreate them. Time is a flat circle.
In 1922, eager to self-regulate, film producers and distributors developed the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc. (MPPDA), and secured the services of Will H. Hays as Chairman. Hays previously worked for the Republican National Convention before managing the campaign of President Harding. Harding made Hays the first Postmaster General. His starting MPPDA wage, paid by the studios, was $100,000 (Which an inflation calculator tells me is the buying power of $18 million in 2024).
Founding the MPPDA and hiring Hays was a PR stunt by film industry executives to prevent government oversight of the film industry—not just film content but the goings on within the studios. Part of Hays’ job was to publicize the potential for good that film as a medium possesses. He touted the medium’s potential to market American goods globally, share artistic contributions to wide audiences, and spread ethical messaging. The MPPDA spent 1922-1927 convincing government bodies that the industry would self regulate and the American public that movies were not dangerous.
The overarching goal of the MPPDA was to protect the freedoms of the production companies of Hollywood. Many calls for government control (that the MPPDA was created to prevent) were in fact calls to break up the monopolistic practices of the studios who had control over creation and distribution. I propose that the censorship conversation is a red herring meant to distract consumers and the government from the rampant capitalism that defines the film industry. The religious zealots who crafted The Code came along later in the 1930s after the MPPDA had made statements meant to curtail fears of the studio and attracted crusaders of morality to the cause.
And I think this is relevant today—if you can make people absolutely incensed about sex or drugs or trans people, then they’ll focus their energies on that instead of corporate greed or political corruption.
In 1924, the MPPDA created The Formula, which listed 13 items that filmmakers should make a “gentlemen’s agreement” not to depict. “I pinky promise not to put any boobies in my movies.” (If filmmakers were unsure of their content they were invited to consult the MPPDA).
In 1927 The “Don’ts and Be Carefuls” list was formulated by Jason Jay and Will Hays. It was similarly flaccid—it listed topics of interest but didn’t have a real mechanic for enforcement
The MPPDA hired Maring Quigley, a publisher of film trade journals and conservative Catholic, who then hired Father Daniel A. Lord to draft a set of guidelines for film. These guidelines were formally adopted in March of 1930:
General Principles
1. No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.
2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.
3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.
Particular Applications
I—Crimes Against the Law
These shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the crime as against law and justice or to inspire others with a desire for imitation.
1. Murder
a. The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation.
b. Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail.
c. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified.
2. Methods of Crime should not be explicitly presented.
a. Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc., should not be detailed in method.
b. Arson must be subject to the same safeguards.
c. The use of firearms should be restricted to essentials.
d. Methods of smuggling should not be presented.
3. Illegal drug traffic must never be presented.
4. The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot or for
proper characterization will not be shown.
II—Sex
The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing.
1. Adultery, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated, or justified, or presented attractively.
2. Scenes of Passion
a. They should not be introduced when not essential to the plot.
b. Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown.
c. In general passion should so be treated that these scenes do not stimulate the lower and baser element.
3. Seduction or Rape
a. They should never be more than suggested, and only when essential for the plot, and even then never shown by explicit method.
b. They are never the proper subject for comedy.
4. Sex perversion or any inference to it is forbidden.
5. White-slavery shall not be treated.
6. Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races) is forbidden.
7. Sex hygiene and venereal diseases are not subjects for motion pictures.
8. Scenes of actual child birth, in fact or in silhouette, are never to be presented.
9. Children’s sex organs are never to be exposed.
III—Vulgarity
The treatment of low, disgusting, unpleasant, though not necessarily evil, subjects should be subject always to the dictates of good taste and a regard for the sensibilities of the audience.
IV—Obscenity
Obscenity in word, gesture, reference, song, joke, or by suggestion (even when likely to be understood only by part of the audience) is forbidden.
V—Profanity
Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ—unless used reverently—Hell, S.O.B. damn, Gawd), or every other profane or vulgar expression, however used, is forbidden.
VI—Costume
1. Complete nudity is never permitted. This includes nudity in fact or in silhouette, or any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture.
2. Undressing scenes should be avoided, and never used save where essential to the plot.
3. Indecent or undue exposure is forbidden.
4. Dancing costumes intended to permit undue exposure or indecent movements in the dance are forbidden.
VII—Dances
1. Dances suggesting or representing sexual actions or indecent passion are forbidden.
2. Dances which emphasize indecent movements are to be regarded as obscene.
VIII—Religion
1. No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.
2. Ministers of religion in their character as ministers of religion should not be used as comic characters or as villains.
3. Ceremonies of any definite religion should be carefully and respectfully handled.
IX—Locations
The treatment of bedrooms must be governed by good taste and delicacy.
X—National Feelings
1. The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.
2. The history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry of other nations shall be represented fairly.
XI—Titles
Salacious, indecent, or obscene titles shall not be used.
XII—Repellent Subjects
The following subjects must be treated within the careful limits of good taste:
1. Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishments for crime.
2. Third Degree methods.
3. Brutality and possible gruesomeness.
4. Branding of people or animals.
5. Apparent cruelty to children or animals.
6. The sale of women or a woman selling her virtue.
7. Surgical operations
However, for the first years after the Code was officially adopted, there was still no mechanism of enforcement. I see this as potential evidence that the industry did not want formal rules, but wanted to create the image that studios were moral without any real impact on the content of films.
An amendment to the Code, adopted on June 13, 1934, established the Production Code Administration (PCA). All films released on or after July 1, 1934, had to have scripts approved by the PCA before they began filming and the film had to be approved by the PCA before it could be distributed to theaters.
For the decades that followed, virtually all motion pictures produced in the United States adhered to The Code. This was easy to enforce as the MPPDA studios owned the major film distribution companies and theaters.
Despite its power, The Code didn’t completely eliminate the messages it sought to. Film makers found subtle ways to code ‘illicit’ messages.
The Code died a death of a thousand cuts. There wasn’t one final nail in the coffin, but rather several connected events that led to the end of The Code and the rise of the current film rating system (which I may write about later).
In 1945 Hays retired and was replaced. The MPPDA renamed itself the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
Ironically, The Code, which was partially implemented to protect the Hollywood monopolies, fell apart because the monopolies fell apart. A 1948 Supreme Court decision determined that film studios were violating antitrust laws in their ownership of the theaters. This decision made way for independent distribution companies and theaters to start showing films. That meant that filmmakers who did not want to abide by the PCA’s rules could release a film, without a PCA stamp of approval, through theaters that were no longer owned by PCA members. And there were enough distributors and theaters that these non-approved films could make a cultural impact and money.
This, along with a rising foreign film market, undermined The Code. Producers and Distributors outside of America didn’t have to submit their scripts to the PCA—and their less-censored films began to compete with American ones in ways that put pressure on studios to rethink their restrictive content. In 1952, the Supreme Court ruled that films are protected under the First Amendment, so the threat of a municipal government banning a film was eliminated.
In the 1950s and 60s, emerging technologies also made it easier for individuals and companies with less money and resources to make, distribute, and screen movies.
In 1968, after two decades of loosening rules and a shifting power structure in Hollywood, the MPAA did away with The Code officially and implemented the first version of our current voluntary film rating system.
The current system has its problems and complicated entanglements with Catholic structures. I feel, based on my small pool of knowledge, that pressure to avoid R or X / NC-17 ratings has a similar debilitating impact on horror film makers that the earlier version of The Code did.
Thank you for reading. I had a great time researching the code and learning about the complicated entanglements of Christian morality and protecting capitalist interests. Next week will be a bit different, as I’m going to write a brief introduction to German Expressionism.
Sources:
Black, G. D. (1989). Hollywood Censored: The Production Code Administration and the Hollywood Film Industry, 1930-1940. Film History, 3(3), 167–189. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3814976
Harris, A. W. (1954). Movie Censorship and the Supreme Court: What Next? California Law Review, 42(1), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.2307/3478229
"The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930," as quoted in Leonard J. Jeff and Jerold Simmons, eds., The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code from the 1920s to the 1960s (New York: Grove Wiedenfeld, 1990), 283–286.
Shurlock, G. (1947). The Motion Picture Production Code. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 254, 140–146. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1026152
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948)
Wikipedia contributors. (2024, February 27). Motion Picture Association. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:50, March 15, 2024, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motion_Picture_Association&oldid=1210546055