THE NEW MOTWN PICTURE RATENG CODE AND ETS EFFECTS ON TEENAGE AUDIENCES Thesis far the 33:55:39. 05 M, A. MECHlGAfi 375375 WWERSETY. iAMES: a RESWESS 3.973 J|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1\\\\\\\\\\\2\\\\\\W1:; 3 1293 1045 11 U1nivcxtsitycc ABSTRACT THE NEW MOTION PICTURE RATING CODE AND ITS EFFECTS ON TEENAGE AUDIENCES BY James R. Respress The purpose of this study was to establish how effective the new motion picture rating code is in helping the teenager select the films he or she sees. The new rating code is directed toward children and teenagers up to the age of eighteen. The Motion Picture Association of America has emphasized that the code is extremely effective in shielding children from material not suited for them. This study will show quite the contrary in many respects. In addition to student and association views, this study deals with the theatre owner/manager, who has to bear the brunt of public pressure exhibiting films produced today. The study is divided into six chapters. Chapter I is an introduction to censorship as it applies to the mass media in general, but with major emphasis on the enter- tainment motion picture. The conception and rational for self-regulation in the motion picture industry in the United States from 1900 James R. Respress to the late 19508 is analyzed in Chapter II. The Motion Picture Producers and Distributor Association's self— regulation code, established in 1922, is also discussed in detail. Dramatic changes in the American motion picture is traced from the teens through the fifties. The revolution of "new wave" films in the sixties and changes in the old motion picture are studied in detail in Chapter III. The present motion picture Rating Code was established in 1968 and is studied and analyzed in Chapter IV. The association introduced the letters, "G," "M,” "R," and "X" for the first time as symbols of a new rating game. The goal was to provide adults with a guide to movies that were suitable or unsuitable for children. A number of changes have been made since 1968 and are discussed in this chapter. The methods of data collection and findings are reported in Chapter V. Questionnaires were mailed to 900 high school students in 30 states and to 106 theatre owners across the country. The results of the interviews and the questionnaires are summarized and objectively reported in this chapter. The conclusions reached in the study are found in Chapter VI. They are as follows: (1) the Code is effective for approximately 25 per cent of all teenagers; (2) teenagers have no problem gaining access to restricted James R. Respress films; (3) teenagers are aware of the Code and its meaning; (4) approximately 30 per cent of the parents utilize the Code in selecting films for teenagers; (5) a higher percentage of blacks prefer restricted films; (6) theatre owners are not pleased with the present rating system; and (7) many theatre owners fear prosecution from local and state officials for exhibition of restricted films. The new motion picture rating system is still in use and is constantly being modified to meet its full objectives. THE NEW MOTION PICTURE RATING CODE AND ITS EFFECTS ON TEENAGE AUDIENCES BY James R. Respress A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Television and Radio 1973 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Television and Radio, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. 2 Director 0 T esis ii AC KNOWLE DGMEN T S The author is indebted to many people in the pro- fessional business and academic world for advice and guidance in the conduct of this study. He gratefully acknowledges the interest, cooperation, and assistance of the students and theatre owners who were interviewed or completed the questionnaires. Sincere thanks must go to Mr. David A. Weitzner, Vice President, Advertising and Publicity, ABC Pictures Corporation for his valuable imput of materials and motivation on this project. Mr. Arthur Weld receives a special vote of thanks for his advice, understanding, and capable directorship of this study. Sincere appreciation is also given to my typist, Ms. Fayann Lippincott for her expertise and patience in typing this project. Finally, a special "thank you" to Monette, whose love and total support in her performance as a wife has made this study possible. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . l V II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . 12 III. FILM CLASSIFICATION: CHANGES AND TRENDS TO VOLUNTEER CLASSIFICATION--1965-1968 . . 112 IV. THE NEW VOLUNTEER FILM CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 1968-1972 . . . . . . . . . 146 V. FINDINGS AND OBSERVATION OF TEENAGE AUDIENCE AND THEATRE SURVEY. . . . . . 176 VI. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . 229 APPENDICES Appendix A. Text of Old Code . . . . . . . . . . 233 3., Text of New Code . . . . . . . . . . 262 C. Letter to Principals or Counselors . . . . 285 D. Letter to Students . . . . . . . . . 287 E. Letter to Theatre Owners . . . . . . . 289 F. Student Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 291 G. Theatre Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 293 iv Table 1. 2. LIST OF TABLES Cities/Towns Used in School Survey . . Total Number of Returned Questionnaires by Age. . . . . . . . . . . Total Participants by Sex, Race, Title, Locale. . . . . . . . . . . Average Theatre Attendance Per Month by Teenagers O I O O O O O O O O Page 182 183 184 220 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Since its inception some seventy-seven years ago, the movies have probably been the most attractive, popular, and worried over of all the media of communication. The movies' extraordinary power to capture reality and give it representation in the most simply understood terms has not only guaranteed this medium a large following, but con- vinced many persons that it has some special capacity for harm. This power of the film in our mass society has aroused a strong censorship interest that has loomed over the movies since their beginning in this country. There is no other medium, in my estimation, that has been subject to the intensity of the variety of moral measurements and restraints as have the movies. The movies had somewhat of a stormy infancy, but, an effective combination of state and local censor boards, organized religious pressure, and the film industry's own code of self-regulation succeeded in curbing much of the screen's potential for offensive and threatening depiction. As a result of this combination, an entire generation of Americans grew up with the clean and wholesome "family" film; an artistically immature, morally safe, and highly profitable piece of entertainment. In the 19508, this long life of stability and affluence was interrupted by two events that would eventually lead to radical change in the content of movies. One of these was the advent of tele- vision; the other, the inclusion of movies within the constitutional guarantees of free speech. Television had a devastating economic effect on the motion picture business. Television sets increased four-fold in the 19508 and theater admissions fell by 50 per cent. Tele- vision succeeded in displacing the movies completely as ythe prime supplier of American "family" entertainment. This left the movies to search for a new social and cultural identity as well as new income. Also, during this period of the early 19503, the movies were acquiring a new freedom in the law. In the now famous Miracle, case, the United States Supreme Court held that the movies, which had never before been considered anything more than a business enterprise in the law, were a medium of speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment of the Constitution. The industry should perhaps thank these two developments. Because of the results of the two, movies have never been freer in the eyes of the law nor more provocative in content. These new liberties and economic imperatives have made possible films Of quality and maturity that were all too uncommon before; but this new freedom Opened the floodgates to unprecedented excesses of nudity, erotica, and violence. These elements have come to play an increasing role over the years, in movies produced for the general everyday audience: These have been aptly named "exploitation," "sexploitation," and the pseudo- masochistic features we have today. These types have become an established and gainful sector in America's film business. Movies, unlike the other media, all of which are controlled to some degree by advertising, deal with a content that was previously limited almost exclusively to the elite channels of the hard cover book and the theater. The movies raised in a somewhat acute form, a larger question of how a free-speech society could co-exist with a mass democratic society. Popular sovereignty and unfettered expression, seldom mixing easily at any time, are particularly apt to be an unstable combination when the speech in question involves sex and morality, which touch so often upon elemental hopes, fears, and frustra- tions. However, in our dedication to the proposition of democracy, we are allowed certain predilections. We may not be able to have freedom at the expense of responsibi- lity, but we can and do love it more. This means, in the concrete, that whenever occasions arise in which it is permissible to give the benefit of the doubt to one side or the other, our natural drift is always toward freedom; and because we are conscious of the tryannies of the past from which we sought to escape, we are willing to bear the consequences of many insults to the body Of society so long as the liberty to act is not impaired. Restraints, now, even in favor of order, are always suspect. From the above attitude, it is easy to rationalize self-indulgence. By a strange anomaly, we are in one sense a massively regulated people, whereas, on the other hand, we are steeped in self-gratifications almost beyond belief. For most of us,the maintenance of a middle ground is as difficult as trying to pick up a puddle of mercury between the tips of our fingers. .One thing is perfectly clear, however. In a climate of permissiveness, like the present, there is- nobody of respected opinion that forms a consensus on the side of controls. Instead, one will hear remarks regarding the subject from both sides, be it congress or the film industry, that are very much like those coming from the general public. Examples of this type of thinking is prevalent in Washington with our government and with the Motion Picture Association personnel. Senator Margaret Chase (RrMaine) introduces legislation to curb the per- missiveness in films with backing of religious organi- zations; on the other hand we have the Motion Picture Association lobbying in Congress to keep the motion picture industry free of federal regulation. One may be confronted, for instance, with the indignant demand as to "who is going to protect us from the protectors?” Built into the very marrow of our society is the answer to this shallow conundrum, that our remedy lies in a system of checks and balances. In a like manner, it is said, "If it doesn't hurt them, it won't hurt me," meaning, of course, that what is sauce for the censors is sauce for the ganders. There is some merit in this thought. However, it is my feeling that it is not the state Of the question. The problem is not with this scene or that, or with whether any particular individual is going to "hurt" anybody. An individual all that susceptible is probably going to be hurt anyway. No. The problem is with the cumulative process in which a tyranny is set up of sordid competition for lowest common denominators, in which writer is set against writer, and creative mind against creative mind in a contest first for the bold, then the shocking, then the sickly fringe, and then lastly the corrupt. It is degrading to society as a whole to be party to a race into the lurid. It is also the nature of the Americans to repel any attempt by anyone to tell an adult what he can see or read. Aside from the fact that there is an improper amalgam here, since reading and seeing are not always the same thing, the point is more importantly a prime example of poor thinking, in that it attempts to confound self- regulation with a dictatorial desire to regulate others. Even a child today could see that if the editor of the New York Timg§_deletes certain news that he judges not fit to print, he is not thereby "telling adults what they can or cannot read." There is a certain fitness in what the editor does that is so obvious that it almost takes a deliberate act of naiveté to twist it out of shape. More aptly, today, some will argue that the techniques employed by the movie industry are fatuously called "self-regulation." The argument could go as follows: "If Mike Nichols did not voluntarily make alterations in his own film, how can the editing of 'Carnal Knowledge' be described as 'self—control?'" There is only one flaw to the basic question. The film is not Nichol's. Surely it bears his signature, but that is what he has sold. Had he, in a spurt Of altruism, put up his own money as well as his time and talents, then he would be completely at liberty to gamble with his very own product. But when he is only surrogate for the resources of others, then it is facetious for one to attribute to him the prerogative of ownership. The executive, who is the ’ proxy for the investor, has every right to exercise quality controls directly or through designees, and this is properly called "self-regulation." At the present time, management is using violent evasive tactics to avoid this function and is attempting to put discretion back into the laps of the patrons. In place of the defunct Code, which served from 1930 through 1968, the Motion Picture Association of America has initiated a system of classification, whereby the motion picture industry claims it has discharged its obligations toward the public by "informing" it. The Motion Picture Industry has informed the public, "We will no longer be your babysitters."4o A new legal concept has been broached that may someday be applicable to this situation and that is the idea of "obtrusiveness."2 According to this theory, to disseminate publicly material that is near pornographic and to make it both notorious and available, may be the equivalent of morally forcing it on the society. Some say that too much of a fuss is made about sex and not enough attention is given to violence, which is what threatens to destroy all of us. Those who argue this point will look back at our Puritan background and claim that the sup- pression of sex produced a psychological gap that had to be filled with something else and that something else was 2 A number of prominent social scientists say brutality. we are turning into barbarians. A little more pleasure in each other would make us more sentimentally disposed and would melt away the urge for violence. Perhaps this is why it was taken up, as a last resort, by the "flower children" of our generation. But the contradiction of the whole idea lies in the fact that today, when we have more freedom in the area of sex than ever, not only in books, magazines, the theater and the screen, but in our private lives as well and even in the attitudes toward homosexu- ality and other forms of "non-normal" sex, we are at the same time more violent than ever before, with unrest in our schools and streets, with assassinations, and the Vietnam War. The malignancy that we feel is ours is global and afflicts countries that can never be accused of having been puritanical. Had not the psychiatrists been trying to warn us and to tell us that violence is sex, only extended; and that sadism and masochism are only sicknesses in the order of sexuality. The common denominator between sex and violence may very well be self—indulgence. This is what they both seem to share. The new classification system, which was founded in November, 1968, and rates all films "G," "PG," "R," or "x," in terms of suitability of the material for various levels of audiences has created a scheme in which just about anything is possible in motion pictures. Jack Valenti, who introduced this system, is a realist and knows this system is imperfect and emphasized it in a article written in Harper's Bazaar, that, You cannot get perfection in this work, my friends. The rating system is not perfect. No program that deals in subjective opinion can ever be 100 per cent correct. But the rating system is the sanest approach free men can devise to inform parents about the suitaEIIIty Of movies for their children. Our concern in the motion picture industry is to give information to parents and young people, so that parents can help their children in their movie going decisions. That is the sole objective of our film rating program . . . that adults are deemed capable of making their own decisions on attending movies is a principle basic to the entire American democratic system. The ratings do not suggest whether a movie goer may like or dis- like a picture. Who could determine that except the individual? Pre-digested opinions exist only in dictatorships.35 There is definitely a gap that involves the public and the movies today. Perhaps it can be stated through a question which comes mainly from older persons. "Why can't we have movies like we used to have when I went to the theater all the time?" Many of these same persons seem aware of the sharp edged changes that have occurred over the past decade in other phases of American society. Yet, they still look upon the movie as it was perhaps twenty to thirty years ago. The truth is, the movies could not stand still when the world was moving. A study on the new rating system was completed in 1970 by Richard Randall of Wisconsin. Randall's contention in this study was that enforcement of the age restrictions on admission to rated films was the weakest link in the new rating procedure. Randall's study dealt with the teenage audience in New York City and in his findings, several facts were revealed in regard to the system. 'The first: teenagers do gain admittance to R and X rated films unaccompanied by adults. Secondly, theatre personnel such as ticket sellers, doormen, and some managers tolerate the system and allow the underaged to see restricted films. 10 Third, Randall found a high level of "self-enforcement," of the age restriction on admission to R and X films by teenagers themselves. _But Randall's study is a limited one. The present researcher, who has a deep interest in motion picture exhibition practices, wished to expand it into the wide- open area which Randall left unexplored, and which has not been examined by theirs. It was my desire to find out what teenagers across the country were thinking when using the code to select their films. The code is aimed at the parents in hopes that it will help them in selecting films for their youngsters. But, a visible symbol (G, GP, R, X) is tagged on to every MPAA rated film and in actuality the last two, R and X, are prohibited films for most teenagers. Did the teenagers use this new code for selection of films or was it an added frustration to the already frustrated teen? What other outside influences affected their movie selection--parents, religion, self-enforcement, theatres, etc.? In addition to the students, theatre managers/ owners seemed to be creating some problems by not sup- porting their own system of self-regulation. A research prOject in itself could be done on theatre exhibitor problems; but the present study confined itself to areas including understanding of the code by parents, the manager's policies on admission to R and X rated films, changes they would like to see in the system, etc. 11 In approaching this problem and ways to properly gather data, the mail questionnaire was selected on the basis of cost, and favorable attitude of school adminis- trators who cooperated in the first test of the question- naire. A total of 900 students were questioned in the survey across 30 states. Theatre owners numbered 106 located in all 50 states. This study also solicited views of Motion Picture Industry personnel in person and by correspondence. In addition to a large number of local theatre managers interviewed a number of high school students in the Lansing area were interviewed. This research was compiled and written in the Lansing, Michigan area, and theatres mentioned are located in the Lansing market. In addition to theatres named, specific film titles are given. These films played theatres in the Lansing area during late 1971 and early 1972. CHAPTER II HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The unveiling of movies in America, if one attempted to fix it with any precision, would probably be on April 14, 1894, when Thomas Edison's Kinetoscope made its commercial debut in a Broadway parlor in New York City.5 By 1896, the Kinetoscope was expanded by a device called the "magic lantern." Under the original design only one person could peek into the machine and see the movie. The lantern allowed the "movies" to be projected on a screen and allowed a much larger group to watch. The movies began their debut on the American scene by filling out Vaudeville shows or were added as added attractions with carnivals and amusement parks. Movies began to expand rapidly around 1902 and every sizable town in this country had its own five-cent theatre--the nichelodeon. The early American films, or any produced during this period, simply depicted motion rather than attempting to tell a story or convey an idea. Though not very exciting the people thought they were sensational. A kiss 12 13 by May Irwin and John C. Rice ran fifty feet and thrilled thousands, but was decried as a "lyric of the stockyard."4 This type of excitement stirred the movie makers by showing them the direction in which huge profits might be made. In 1903 The Great Train Robbery led the way to longer films which in turn opened the door to a tide of lurid westerns and slapstick comedies.16 Ventures into exotic subjects were attempted, and the sensationalism of a few of these productions focused moralistic attention to the new medium. Also, during this period (1903-1904), with the screen achieving a steady audience which was being drawn largely from the working classes and immigrants in the cities,8 the film mediums' potential for molding the thoughts and actions of the masses became disturbingly apparent to many persons. Nor did discord within the industry do anything to improve its image as cut-throat practices frequently bordered on criminal behavior, with accusations of theft and pirating not uncommon.26 Movies were being increasingly as a disreputable and possibly subversive enterprise. The first recorded protest against a movie, involving an entertainment film called Dalorita in the Passion Dance, which according to the January 22, 1962 issue of Variety was the rage of the peep-show parlor on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. This occurred only two weeks after Edison introduced his Kinetoscope. The l4 pantomine of a bride's wedding night preparation was closed down by a court order in New York, with the judge denouncing it as an "outrage upon public decency."4 In 1901, the Children's Society of New York brought about the arraign- ment of a theatre manager because his establishment was allegedly packed with youngsters watching The Great Thaw Trial. In 1902, a group in Rhode Island, members of the Murphy clan, threatened to descend on a Providence theatre and close Murphy's Wake, which featured an inbiding "corpse" in the title role.18 In 1903, the mayor of New York attempted to close all nichelodeons as immoral places of amusement.4 In 1900, the moral views of very large segments of the American populace and the clerical ban imposed by some protestant groups upon movie going were concentrated almost entirely on the subject of sex, although the portrayal of gambling and drinking and other vices was regarded as Objectionable. Discussions of sex and exposures of feminine limbs were strictly taboo, and for women and girls to appear on the stage in low-necked evening gowns was accepted in most homes as prima facie evidence of ”looseness," to use one of the mildest phrases of the period.5 Stage girls presenting themselves in tights were past redemption; one-piece bathing suits were unknown either in the legitimate theatre of the period or on the beaches; even ballet dancers and chorus girls wore corsets almost as stiff as armor plate.5 15 However, so insistent was the hunger for enter- tainment and the desire for the delights of play-acting, that as the nineteenth century drew to a close more and more young people, broaderminded and more daring than their forebearers, crept through the barriers erected by religious prejudice and enjoyed for themselves the plays presented by repertoire troupes. "Uncle Tom's Cabin," accepted as an exception to the evils of the stage, was a powerful factor in ameliorating the clerical attitude. Even rigid Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians approved of its propoganda against slavery and permitted themselves to enjoy the emotions aroused by "Uncle Tom" troupes that played around the country.16 Throughout the 18908 church restrictions were relaxed--not formally by the authorities, but informally by the member827--so by 1900 Americans were restlessly searching for entertainment. They knew they wanted some- thing; but they did not know what the something was, they merely knew it must be enjoyable and the price must be low. They had welcomed the phono- and kineto-parlors as places of amusement within reach of them economically; and when moving pictures reached the "show shops," [a term given to some of the small nichelodeons that would hold about ten people] the masses soon overcame their suspicions of dark rooms and their skepticisms Of the showmen's treachery, and flooded the ticket-sellers with their dimes and nickels. 16 Sex pictures were unknown in American studios during this early period in America, though some European studios were experimenting with this taboo subject in 1906.20 Any film touching on sex, to be exhibited in the United States had to convey a wholesome, moral lesson.22 Several states made official attempts to curb movies. The first attempts employed local business- licensing laws. In Delaware, owners of movie houses were subject to heavy license fees on the ground that their business constituted a ”circus" within the meaning Of 15 existing statutes. A similar result was obtained in New York, where movies were grouped with "public cartmen, hawkers, ticket speculators, and bowling alleys."26 In Deer River, Minnesota, an annual merchant's license fee of $200.00 was deemed not excessive for a town of 1,000 because movie houses were "among those pursuits which are liable to degenerate and menace the good order and morals of the people.15 It may be said that these early and sundry measures failed either to have much effect on the content of movies or still the protests against them. Local censorship of films was introduced in 1907, and in 1909 the first 4 In tentative attempt at a national system was begun. December, 1908, Mayor McClellan of New York ordered police to close every movie house in New York City. This attempt was annulled by a court injunction, but in an attempt to forestall any further such action in the future the 17 People's Institute, a body concerned with social research and adult education, agreed to review films and allot 28 The Institute set up classification marks or symbols. an advisory committee which the film producers (all pro- duction was still being handled in the east) organized in the Motion Picture Patents Company and pledged themselves to obey, subject to the right of appeal to the General Committee of the Institute. The advisory committee, which began work during 28 Its 1909, was called the National Board Of Censorship. decisions and its seal were used in New York and all over the country, although after a few years it ceased to have much effect. The Board's attitude from the beginning was firmly against any type Of formal censorship and in turn devoted much of its energies to combating censorship proposals, both federal and state. Its preview policy was largely linked to a campaign for better films and it con- sequently tended to concentrate more on classification rather than censorship. This attitude was crystallized in its change of name in 1916 from National Board of Censor- 27 It became a purely ship to the National Board of Review. previewing board issuing lists of films in various cate- gories for the guidance of subscribers and the public. The Board in 1920 promoted a model ordinance providing that cities and states should not allow films to be shown which had been banned by the Board. New York State adopted this model and Florida followed suit in 1921, 18 but had to drop later when the state found it unconsti- tutional.27 The Board was not strong enough to overcome the growing pressure from more public organizations for more official censorship. The Board's official censorship function was taken over in 1922 when Will Hays took Office as head of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA).13 Prior to Hays' taking Office the story of self- regulation in the American film industry was one of con- fusion. The National Board of Censorship relied on voluntary agreement for the observation of its rulings, but this was not strong enough to cause any appreciable difference in the type of film shown or in the attitude of the censorious bodies attacking the industry. The National Association of the Motion Picture Industry, set up in 1916 as part of the industry's cam— paign against censorship, brought forth in 1919 a consti- tutional amendment providing for freedom on the screen.13 This constitutional amendment was defeated in Congressional Committee, and in turn the association suggested that they censor themselves [producers]. This resulted in the publication in March, 1921 Of the "Thirteen Points," a list of subjects most frequently objected to by censor 13 boards throughout the country. The thirteen points were intended to exclude scenes from pictures: 19 l. Dealt with sex in an improper manner; 2. Were based on white slavery; 3. Made vice attractive; 4. Exhibited nakedness; 5. Had prolonged passionate love scenes; 6. Were predominantly concerned with the underworld; 7. Made gambling and drunkedness attractive; 8. Might instruct the weak in methods of community suicide; 9. Ridiculed public Officials; 10. Offended religious beliefs; ll. Emphasized violence; 12. Portrayed vulgar postures and gestures; and 13. Used salacious subtitles or advertising.13 But without the machinery to enforce them, the "Thirteen Points" remained only a pious hope and weak 3bargaining counter in the campaign against censorship Waged in America by the Association. Back stepping to 1916-17 for a moment; World War I llad broken out and with the transfer of hundreds of ‘thousands of American servicemen to France, left scarcely a family in America untouched, the thoughts and desires Of <3rdinary life were superseded by serious considerations of 'the tragic drama in progress "over there.” The spontane- 'ous, enthusiastic, lighthearted adoration Of movies gave ‘Way to acceptance of the screen as a means of relief from 20 the worries and the horrors of the day. Movies here to date had been an entertainment; now they became an emotional safety valve. People looked to the theatre as to an old friend who would give them relief from heart- aching and the screen, always sensitive to public feelings, responded with films glorifying the participation Of the American soldiers and their allies in the struggle. The families of soldiers were comforted and sustained by romantic portrayals Of the heroism of their loved ones in the trenches, and they fairly clung to the screen in the dark days of 1918, when the lists of dead, wounded, and missing brought their quota of pain into an increasing number of homes. Many turned to the screen for entertainment, but those producing for the screen were having many problems during this period also. During the World War I period the demand for film features was extremely high. Many Of the larger film companies attempted to purchase only the best scenarios for production, often amateur scenarist would send in scripts that were rejected, later they would see films which they thought resembled their rejected manuscript and assumed that the movie company had swindled them. Others, less innocent, brought suit for plagiarism against producers, and to avoid litigation and unpleasant publicity, the producers fell into a habit Of settling such cases as cheaply as possible. This was, in effect, 21 submission to blackmail, and the producers soon found themselves involved in cases which could not be settled simply. A good example of this is when a woman in the south brought the situation to a head by declaring that C. B. Demille and Jeanie MacPherson had stolen from her the plot for the "Ten Commandments" and demanded several thousand dollars in damages. The integrity of the lady was undermined and the whole thing cost Demille $20,000 to clear himself. By 1922, the pressure was becoming acute. Already four states had enacted film censorship statutes: 28 2 Pennsylvania in 1911, Kansas and Ohio in 1913, and Maryland in 1916.15 In 1921 Florida passed a law requiring all movie theatres to conform to the rulings of the National Board of Review in New York (ruled unconstitu- tional in 1922).28 Also, in 1921, New York passed a film censorship act against the combined opposition of the National Board of Review and the National Association of the Metion Picture Industry.15 In August, 1921, as the New York Censorship Board began its work, Senator Myers, from that state, introduced into the United States Senate a resolution requesting the Senate Judiciary Committee investigate the political activities of the film industry arising out of the state legislature by the National Board of Review and the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry in connection with censorship proposals.4 22 During early 1922, censorship bills were discussed in thirty-six states.2 By December, 1921, the film industry had become sufficiently alarmed to ask Will H. Hays, Federa1_Post- master General and well experienced in politics, to head a new organization which would embrace mostly the industry and control the type of films produced. Hays said he would give the offer serious consideration.16 Few people, however, realize the importance of the year 1922, which marked the formation of the first trade association of the motion picture industry; namely, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc. The abuses bringing this organization about may be inferred from the report made by the Cleveland, Ohio Chamber of Commerce dealing with motion picture censorship; Early in 1922, the producers and distributors of motion pictures, realizing that the moral tone of their productions must be raised in order to retain continued public apprOval, organized an association known as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc. The honorable Will H. Hays, then Postmasters General, resigned his position in the cabinet and became president of the new organization on January 14, 1922. Its purposes, as set forth in its articles of Associations is as follows: The object for which the corporation is to be created is to foster the common interests of those engaged in the motion picture industry in the US, by establishing and maintaining the highest possible moral and artistic standards in motion picture production by 23 developing the educational as well as the entertainment value and the general usefulness of the motion picture by diffusing accurate and reliable information with reference to the industry by reforming abuses relative to the industry, by securing freedom from unjust or unlawful exactions, and by other lawful and proper means. Hays foresaw difficulties in maintaining the actual allegiance to the Association of its member companies and to be required as a term of his acceptance that the member companies should be bound together, to the Association, and to Hays personally, by a complex system of inter- locking contracts which in effect prevented members from resigning and gave Hays practically dictatorial powers.16 Also, in 1922 the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America issued its first critical pronounce- ment against the motion picture industry in an article entitled, "The Motion Picture Problem" by Charles N. 5 In this article Mr. Lathrop argued for a written Lathrop. definition of what constituted immorality in films and for some way of bringing pressure to bear upon producers. He also felt, Civic groups differed too much among themselves to be effective; even the most intelligent members of the groups conferred that producers had divergent opinions; and parents disagreed upon the films which might to harm to the morals of their children. Under these conditions, the only solution was some statement of principles to which the producers might be made to subscribe. The industry had acted none to soon. Another state, Virginia, had passed a censorship statute while the 24 MPPDA was being formed, and a tremendous amount of cen- sorship legislature had been introduced in various state legislators.2 Hays decided that of the states which had bills pending, Massachusetts was the most important, and he embarked on a fierce campaign to defeat its bill. Hays put forth the argument against state censorship and in favor of self-regulation; he sent out agents to make the industry's viewpoint to the press, to public meetings and to citizens' groups.24 All of this had such good effect that Massachusetts rejected the proposed censorship bill by 553,000 votes to 208,000 in a referendum held November 10, 1922.2 The Massachusetts success had the hoped for result. Apart from some minor provisions in Louisiana and Connecticut, no censorship law was passed in any other state.16 The motion picture industry, with this victory, had won its breathing space, but it still had to justify the aims of the MPPDA, for although public pressure was checked, it still existed and there was no likelihood of it allowing the industry to retain its previous anarchic freedom. Five years were destined to pass, however, before Hays realized that he needed more than the original ”Gentleman's Agreement” to enforce the thirteen points established by the old National Association of the Motion Picture Industry Committee in 1921. In the period of five years from 1922-27, the spate of novels, plays, and films 25 inspired by the new morality of the Jazz Age, and the pri- vate lives of famous film personalities, gave greater scope to the censorious reform groups.16 Hays' first positive step to combat this was the "Formula." This was a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the MPPDA February 26, 1924.16 The preamble read as follows: Whereas, the members of the MPPDA, INC., in their continuing effort "to establish and maintain the highest possible moral and artistic standards of motion picture production" are engaged in a special effort to prevent the prevalent type of book and play from becoming the prevalent type of picture; to exercise every possible care that only books or plays which are of the right type are used for screen presentation; to avoid the picturization of books or plays which can be produced only after such changes as to leave the producer subject to a change of deception; to avoid using titles which are indicative of a kind of picture which should not be produced, or by their suggestiveness seek to obtain attendance by deception, a thing equally reprehensible; and to prevegg misleading, salacious or dishonest advertising. The members of the association undertook not to produce, distribute or exhibit any films by whom so ever made which "because of the unfit character, title, story, exploitation or picture itself, do not meet the require- ”22 There were no sanctions and ments of this preamble. the only requirement for implementing the resolution was the requirement that all plays, novels, and stories should be submitted to the MPPDA before they were filmed.22 Although the Hays Formula created a tentative cOntrol over scripts, it was not very effective and the strain was increased still more when sound was introduced in 1926. The filming of Somerset Maugham's Sadie Thompson 26 and Sidney Howard's Thenynew What They_Wanted was announced by the producers as being without the approval of the MPPDA.16 This lead to other plays and novels being produced which had been rejected by the MPPDA, The Plastic Age, The Constant Nymph, and White Cargo were produced by 16 but were not shown in theatres non-members of the MPPDA, controlled by member companies of the MPPDA. The pressure on the Formula and the need to keep a permanent eye on the producers in California caused Hays to send his top man, Colonel Jason J. Joy, out to Holly— wood in December, 1926 to form a Studio Relations Com- 22 This committee was attached to the Association mittee. of Motion Picture Producers, Inc. [AMPP], an independent organization set up in 1924, comprising at that time eleven companies which were members of the MPPDA and one which was not.16 The AMPP was an organization of producers and had no formal relationship with the MPPDA, but because it was composed of the studios; i.e., the actual production centers, Hays found it more effective to work through the AMPP.22 Joy established contacts with the studios and advised them on the attitudes of censorship boards around the nation. This was so effective that on June 8, 1927 that members of the AAMP agreed to a resolution incorpo- rating the thirteen points and new self-imposed regulations in a contract which was signed by all producers then 27 37 This resolution was (in members of the association. substance) as follows: The Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., with the MPPD of America, resolved that since the sphere of influence of motion pictures had so widened and the standards of production so improved, they would adopt certain standards for the further improvement of films and for service to society. To accomplish these ends, they would exclude: l. Profanity 2. Suggestive nudity 3. Illegal drug traffic 4. White slavery 5. Miscegenation 6. Venereal disease 7. Childbirth 8. Ridicule to the clergy 9. Willful offense to any nation, race or creed. Also included was care in the treatment of such subjects as the flag, international relations, religion, arson, use of firearms, all types of crime, brutality, third degree methods, capital punishment, sympathy for criminals, attitude toward public institutions, sedition, sex relations of any kind, surgical operations, use of drugs and law enforcement or enforcement Officers.22 28 A total Of seventeen studios signed the resolution, undertaking the responsibility of carrying out its pro- visions in good faith.32 These lists came to be known as the "don'ts and the be carefuls,” and Joy continued to consult with the studios about their implementation. But, as before, the lack of enforcement detracted from the usefulness of the lists except as window dressing. In January, 1929, Joy sent a memo to Hays outlining the short comings of the 13 existing system. They were: 1. Less than half of the members of the AAMP were co-operating. 2. Some companies did not carry out or enforce JOY'S recommendations. 3. There was no system of previewing films to make sure that modifications ordered by Joy's office had been carried out. 4. "Ad libbing" could not be controlled by Joy. 5. The ”don'ts and be carefuls" were negative. As a result of this memo, work was begun On the drafting of a new code, based on the don'ts and be care- fuls, by Martin Quigley, a Catholic publisher, and Daniel Lord S. J., which was completed and submitted to the I producers in Hollywood in February, 1930 and ratified by a meeting of the directors of the MPPDA on March 31, 1930.27 29 The code was a list of prohibitions rather more elaborate than its predecessor, and enforcement was more efficient. The members Of the AAMP resolved that every film produced by a member company should be submitted to the Studio Relations Committee before being sent to the labs for printing. If the film violated the code, the producer was required not to release the print until the necessary changes were made. An appeal by a company or producer were sent to a jury of three members of the AMPP Production Committee which comprised seventeen studio executives-~one from each member company. This committee was later called the Hollywood Jury.22 Any appeals from the jury went directly to the Board of Directors of the MPPDA. In December, 1931 the Studio Relations Committee was given power itself to appeal from the Hollywood Jury to the MPPDA13 (previously, appeal could only be made by producers), but in any case this was not very important since the jury was seldom used. It was used ten times in a three year period. The Studio Relations Committee never exercised this right.13 In 1932, Colonel Joy left the Hays office and was replaced by James Wingate, who was in turn replaced by Joseph I. Breen in November, 1933.16 Everybody in the business of making pictures was resolute in his determination that the code should be upheld—-by the other guy. The country was slowly sinking under water into the great Depression, the studios were 30 disintegrating into bankruptcy, a buck was hard to come by, and if people wanted a speck of titillation, well, what the hell, a laugh in a time like this, and a person needed it to keep from going crazy. If this is what the people wanted--a little excitement or a little raciness—who was going to say he could tell the great American public what it could or could not see? Jason Joy never had the full cooperation of studio executives and often in his trips across the nation, had a tendency to influence the censorship issue that his organization was attempting to control. An article in the July 13, 1932 issue of The Christian Century described a trip Joy had made to various censor boards of the country and his success in persuading them to accept such-gangster pictures as Scarface. According to The Christian Century's October 14, 1933 issue, Colonel Joy had neglected to state that censor boards had been established to protect children from just such pictures. The following excerpts speaks for themselves: "The Strange Love of Molly Louvain" and "State's Attorney" were passed by some of the boards only after earnest consideration and discussions with us. In each of these were representatives of public Offices mixed up with sex items. . . . The number of such [that is, sex] pictures in any one period should be determined by their acceptability upon the part of the audiences. An overdose of this theme is bad economics--a word which needs no emphasis from me. . . . Risque situations, double entendre, and exposures to titillate the audiences . . . should be reserved for the naughty farce and light comedy types of stories. Over-exposure, particularly of the female figure, should be "selective" and not general in its 31 use. . . . The partial exposure of Jane's breasts in an early sequence of "Tarzan" puts us "on the spot" with the censors. . . . It was not a flagrant exposure in itself but was assumed to have been deliberately dragged in to titillate the audiences (and build her up to stimulate the sex instincts of Tarzan). On the other hand . . . the rather complete exposure of Ivy Parson in her bedroom scenes in "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was expected as being legitimate. . . . I did not neglect to discuss with the censors the score or more of pictures . . . which have not yet been presented to them. I am sure that these visits have helped to prepare a more favorable reception for them. . . . Every censor seemed prepared to pre-judge un- favorably such pictures as . . . "Street of Women," "Week End Marriage," "Westward Passage," and "Merrily We Go To Hell." . . . In the case of some of these pictures the censors are now, because of my description of the producers' plans, really looking forward in favorable anticipation. . . . I urge that . . . the temptation to inject rela- tively unimportant censorable material in pictures pg foregone until times are better [italics ours]. . . . A man 0 ability, character, and personality has been added to our New York office to assist your representatives in dealing with the various censor boards in the east. We will Supply this man . . . with every argument that occurs to us as being helpful on each picture as it is shipped. . . . The Christian Century went on to say that if any reader wishes to render a practical service in the cause of better movies, he will take this column and bring it to the attention of his nearest board of censors. It may enlighten them to learn how the Hays' Office regards them and proposes to get by them. Jason Joy's ride was short and sweet. He was absorbed into an elegant job at 20th Century Fox, and a successor was picked from the ranks of the opposition. The Industry reached into the most powerful censoring body in the country, the New York State Censorship Bureau, and 13 selected a Doctor James Wingate. Wingate soon took 32 refuge in the Hollywood Athletic Club where about all he was allowed to do was work out on the barbells. The Industry went plunging along making the Little Ceasars and the Mae West epics as if nothing had happened. Before progressing further with changes in self- regulation in the motion picture industry lets digress and take a look at the trends in films from the end of World War I through 1930. One will be able to observe these trends and how they would arouse the local, state, and federal advocates of censorship into action to stem the tide of immorality in movies. World War I changed the thinking of many Americans, this was especially true with troops returning from the war. Bolshevism was the new home theme and a steady and emphatic stream of movies pointed out the need for laborer and employer to get together and cooperate against their mutual foe. The movie The Right to Happiness posed the question, "Which would you rather have in this country—- destruction under the Red flag or construction and oo- 16 This was only one operation under the American flag?" of the films that suggested that a post-war industrial nation settle down. Also, in the 1919-21 period, the pre- war type Of movie, with its emphasis on religion, parental love, self-sacrifice, duty, devotion to home and family, and contentment with one's lot, was making its last stand in such films as Humoresgue, Madame X, The Little Shepard of Kingdom Come, Way Down East, Broken Blossoms, Over the 33 16 Their values were based upon Eill' and Eyes of Youth. virtues soon to be mocked and openly defied in the Jazz Age . The new materialistic standards and the rebellion against out moded dogmas were first manifested on the screen in two signal "hits” of the blundering post—war year of 1919, The Miracle Man and Male and Female.16 The Miracle Map frankly and shockingly depicted the hero (Thomas Meighan) as a racketeer and crass materialist who seeks only easy graft. The film openly acknowledged sex magnetism and the "sheer brute instinct which holds Rose to Burhe."5 Such outspokenness and emphasis on sex were indicative of the new frame of mind, which dealt in ”essentials." The exposure of racketeering, a new phenomena in American life, with its exploitation of honest people for selfish ends, was in itself a significant dis- closure of popular interests. Despite the spiritual note on which the film closed, The Miracle Man was a patent of the new, hard order of things in which principles were being discarded for material things. Even more suggestive of the new era was the signi- ficantly titled Male and Female. The film was an adaptation 16 of James Barrie's The Admirable Crichton, it related the intimate adventures of a lady and a butler on a desert isle. The main stars were Gloria Swanson and Thomas 16 Meighan. The film emphasized the supremacy of sex over 34 class barriers, condoning marital infidelity, "spice," and sensation for their own sake. More doing in its subject matter than any other picture Hollywood had produced, bolder in its attacks on the genteel tradition, this film ushered in the new movie Showmanship. Throughout it played on the audience's senses with luxurious settings, cave-man love scenes, and sensual display. Cecille B. DeMille, the director, pointed out, "The ruined woman is as out of style as the Victorian who used to faint."28 In the years 1919-30, hundreds of films like ng_ Miracle Man and Male and Female, attacked the genteel tradition, flaunted sex, advocated new morals, condoned illicit and illegal relationships, set up new ideals, established a new tempo in living, and broke down pre-war class distinctions with the new emphasis on money, lux- 16 Refinement went out as urious, and material success. aggressiveness came in. Films set the pace for the nation as cynicism and disillusionment marked the gradual decline of an old order and the upsurge of a new. The breakdown of the-old order on the screen was signaled first and most markedly by the pictures of Cecil B. DeMille which condoned the loosening of marriage bonds and questioned responsibilities until now conceded 28 The promiscuity and new to be necessary in home life. attitude toward marriage presented in Male and Female were carried further in his series of domestic dramas that reversed the previous moral order. Don't Change Your 35 Husband (1919)16 told how a young and beautiful wife (played by Gloria Swanson), goes to the seashore to arouse her neglectful business-engrossed husband played by Elliot Dexter. While there Swanson meets a "home wrecker," played by Lew Cody, and divorces her husband to marry him, only to discover he nags her constantly. They stay married for five years and encounter financial problems. Her former husband has become very successful in the meantime and on meeting, they become reconciled and remarry. Ostensibly an argument against divorce, the film promul- gated the new notions that a woman had a right to break her marriage bonds as she saw fit. Other DeMille films, For Better, For WOrse (1919), Something to Think About (1920), Why Change Your Wife (1920), Forbidden Fruit (1921), The Affairs of Anatol (1921), Fool's paradise (1922), Adam's Rib (1923),16 formed a glittering array of problem plays of sex intrigue among the wealthy. These films disregarded the sanctity of the home and of woman's duty, at all costs, to be a loyal wife and mother, and subordinated all problems to the new major interest of the Jazz age, sex. Reinforcing these DeMille films were the hundreds of domestic dramas by other producers that stemmed from these, all tended to emphasize the importance of love in marriage and woman's right to independence. Wives became the heroines in all sorts of situations. Movies taught 36 them to keep up their appearance and "style" after marriage, convinced them then that they had the right to love and attention after marriage, and finally began to suggest that legal bonds should not prevent wives from having an independent life of their own. Films such as Bluebeards Eighth Wife, Other Men's Wives, Scrambled Wives, :22 Marriage Flapper, and Week-end Wives16 mirrored the increasing daring and independence of the women engaged in flirtations and growing ever more astute in using "her chastity as a fence between her and men."24 A new note in continental sophistication and marital laxity was brought to the screen in the films of Von Stroheim, His films were sly thrusts at traditions and sentiments, and their gleeful acceptance by the public indicated how rightly attuned they were to the national state of mind, despite the March 1922 issue of Photgplay Magazine3 which said Stroheims "foolish wives" was "an insult to every American." Von Stroheim did not treat sex so frivolously as other directors, the underlying tone of even his lightest works was earnest.28 His insistence upon sex as a serious matter to be openly acknowledged rather than mockingly and teasingly exhibited was one Of the reasons for the vast amount of antagonism, and praise, that his films inspired. As the importance of love in marriage grew and sex became ever more predominant, films began to emphasize 37 that disappointment and repression in marital relations were valid reasons for a married woman to have a fling at love and romance. Marriage became an open sesame to freedom rather than a responsibility.5 Elinor Glynn became the popular author of the day, and her novels were adapted regularly to the screen. Three Weeks,16 perhaps the most popular of the movies based on her work, told the story of a queen who, bitterly disappointed in marriage, allows herself one romantic interlude. This film opened the door to hundreds of similar movies which thumbed their noses at "Victorian" codes as they justified adventures outside the bounds of marriage. Story-book films, such as The Shiek, The Mark of Zorro,16 grew fewer in number as the Jazz age wore on and America grew more hardened and reckless. The farcical treatments of situations that would have been tragedies in pre-war days no longer appeared shocking, and movies had to become even more daring if they were to titillate their audiences.v Marital fidelity was now even ridiculed; adultery and philandering among mature married people were not only frankly condoned but made fashionable and attractive. Lubitsch's films in particular were attuned to this attitude.28 In risqué and teasing terms his films all dealt with the flirtations and playfulness of the rich and carefree. Lubitsch's characters were always mature men 38 and women of the world who engaged in their little games with full knowledge of what they were doing. Sinfulness was now a spicy social sport rather than the road to a dire fate. Films such as The Marriage Circle, Forbidden Paradise, Kiss Me Again, and Lady_Windermere's Fan were 16 high-water marks of this movie fad. The Marriage Circle with its humor and its sophistication, portraying the promiscuity in high society between other mens' wives and other wives' husbands, all engaging freely in the inter- play, became a model for other movie makers and even for the natural way of living.16 One film of the era, bluntly called Egg moralized, "don't do anything to another woman's husband that you 16 and included the usual would not have done to your own," scenes of "wild parties, amorous adventures, and--despite prohibition-~drinking orgies." In such films marriage as an institution broke down completely. Desires for family life and its responsibi- lities were looked upon as old-fashioned. The woman in the house became a whimsicality,9 and wide-eyed Mary Pickford an emblem of the past. Marriage was regarded as a license for escapades, divorce was viewed as the path to even greater freedom. Divorcees and widows, like wives, were considered far more interesting than young girls. The new films of the era often time and time again showed divorcees victorious in their lives despite their unconventional position in society. The Impossible Mrs. Bellew and 39 Divorce Coupons were two of the films that glorified the divorcee.16 Divorce was also offered as an excuse for frivolity and excitement in such films as On to Reno, Reno 16 Divorce, and Beware of Widows. Once marriage and the home had broken down on the screen, there was a breakdown in morals all along the line. Impropriety, promiscuity, illicit sex relations, and bad manners generally were shown as prevailing among married and unmarried alike.21 Movies of the Jazz Age reflected the vogue of hip flasks, cocktail parties, speakeasies, petting parties, necking, recklesness and defiance of all laws, written or unwritten. Morality having been proved to be a useless asset, lovemaking and excitement for its own sake became the chief pursuits of the nations, at least in the nation represented by movies. Thus DeMilles' remarkable set of Jazz Age films helped to set new styles in social behavior and reflected the new standards of living. The old order crumbled away entirely. The screen became flooded with dancing mothers, flaming youth, jazz babies, cake eaters and flappers. Revolutions in etiquette, culture and conduct generally broke out in this new film domain of electrified apart- ments, seductive bath tubs, hilarious speakeasies, etc. Movies, like the tabloids and sex and confession magazines of the era gave their all to the task of giving America sensations. 40 Movie producers tried to out do each other by adding more "hot mamas," bathing beauties, and Volstead Violators. Modesty and virginity became absurd as love- making took on the appearance of a wrestling match. Films also featured the lust for youth as beauty packs, bobbed hair, and short skirts were essential in pictures. Films flattered the masses' new taste for finery and culture, fed the romantic desire for "freedom," and stumped for the necessary business psychology of the day by demonstrating the great American dogma that any man can achieve success by high—pressure salesmanship.11 The mockery of ethics, of the old "inner goodness" of the film heroes and heroines, was paralleled by the new regard for material Object. A burning ambition to be identified with the rich, a deep reverance for material goods, characterized American attitudes. Such things as silk stockings, country clubs, resorts, sports, college were paraded across the screen in films such as Brown of Harvard, Tpg_guarterback, and The Flirt, which were typical of films dealing with "higher learning."28 The worship of money, hard-boiled materialism, irresponsibility, living for the moment and violent lust for excitement found a background for the large-scale racketeering and other criminal activity that broke out after World War I. At first movies featured racketeering and crooks for their dramatic possibilities, blaming 41 crime on personal afflictions, annomosities, and the desire for sheer adventure. Lon Chaney made his debut during this 16 and the stream of film that era in the film The Penalty followed made him famous for his characterizations of the underworld ruler. The underworld became inhibited by the smart set, the gangster was revealed as an enviable hero, quick and intelligent, refined, influential politically and powerful financially. Movies like the tabloids glorified his life, showing it full of excitement, adventure, beautiful women and plenty of money. As gangsterism became a more critical problem toward the close of the twenties, an increasing number of gangster films reached the screen. These films were extremely realistic; The Big City, Tenderloin, and Chicago After Midnigpp}6 emphasized the fact that the complexities of city life made racketeering possible. Josef von Sternberg's The Docks of New York acidly depicted the underworld as aggressive and ruthless or a plague to society.28 The American film had become by 1929 a more power- ful social agency then ever. Reflecting current states of mind, it also deeply influenced them. Its persuasive- ness won not only the people of America but countries abroad.1l Hollywood, nationally and internationally supreme, was very nearly Americanizing the world. Maurice Maeterlinch wrote the August, 1921 issue of Photpplay Magazine that 42 At no time in history has there been such a means of influencing the spirit of men and particularly of women and children. . . . All ideas of dirty, justice, love, right, wrong, happiness, honor, luxury, beauty. All ideas regarding the goal of life . . . are ideas implanted by movies. The Code was a small piece of Americana that was important in its own way. In miniature, it was the summation of all of the past out of which we came, but translated into American idiom. It has often been said that it was the capsulization of the Judaeo-Christian system of morality. No doubt it was, but stylistically it was pure USA, even to the point that the method was exported back to certain parts of Europe, and even to the Orient. The Japanese system is based almost identically on the Code.11 Lastly, it is Americana of a certain period. It was the product of the age of Babbitt, and of the Crash. It could never happen again. Therefore, it is important that it not disappear into oblivion. One thing which, is generally forgotten in accounting for the inception of the Code is that the mood of the times was one of severe backlash. Psychologically, it is very important to recognize this., From the end of World War I until the great stock market crash of 1929, the country had embarked on a prolonged binge, which was saying, in a manner of speaking, that we did have here a lasting dwelling place. There were two fallout conse- quences of World War I that had almost endless shock waves. For one thing, it brought to an end the last crumbling 43 remnants of the feudal system, during which kings fell like tenpins, or turned to mere figureheads. It was the end of the patriarchal and the patrimonial structure of society, which grew up out of the fact that, for centuries, man was a "landed" creature. This idea prevailed right up through the hierarchial scale through princes and popes to the abiding father figure of them all: God. This was one thing that began to come to an end with the Armistice of November 11, 1918. From that date on there was a great turnaway from tradition. Concomitantly there was, as it were, a celebration Of freedom over this fact. The Industrial Revolution, which was greatly accelerated by the demands of World War I, came full circle and finally into its own. It presented itself as being able to cope with and control man's environment. Instead of tossing the sponge over unseen and unknown forces in his ambiance, man was now able to take his contemplation off and after life and pitch into the here and now, with a feeling of responsibility for himself. This called for a party. And so there came the flapper and the jazz age and speakeasies in defiance of Prohibition and a great speculative fling on Wall Street-- and there were the movies. They were impudent about life; and saucy about claiming it, and the devil take the hind- most.19 44 With the crash, the party was over. In the littered debris of confetti and tickertape, an enormous sense of guilt set in. In a mood of sobriety, a chastened citizenry reacted against those symbols of its great debauch and began to punish them. The Securities and Exchange Commission was made into a powerful bureau to control excesses in the stock market. And the FBI was resurrected from mothballs under the then young Director J. Edgar Hoover. Movies were more wily. They promised to control themselves. Since this solution seemed more coordinate with the American ideals of freedom and of the undesir- ability of censorship, the gesture of goodwill was accepted generally by the public. As mentioned the Code was written by Martin Quigley and Daniel Lord S. J., this was prepared under the direction of Will Hays with the counsel and guidance of leaders representing several branches of the motion picture industry. The task of formulating the code was an enormous one, since it had to be so designed as to embody the basic principles of Christian morality without touching upon the theological beliefs of anyone denomination. Mr. Hays' years of close contact with many religious leaders and public groups fitted him ideally for such a task.22 The Production Code was written in a rather broad form of regulations which could be variously interpreted 45 to apply to specific problems. This was a wise move for it provided the code with the necessary flexibility to cover all issues and all situations which might be reasonably be expected to arise in the consideration of story developments and film portrayals-—a flexibility which would have been impossible had the code been written in such a form as to attempt to cover every contingency in advance. This 1930 Code incorporated the moral features which both Protestants and Catholics had been striving for, and, at the same time, satisfied the political censorship requirements.22 The new moral principles had particular references to story content and stressed the importance of the story's thesis in the moral evaluation Of the finished picture. Charles N. Lathrop had urged the consideration of these very factors in his book, The Motion Picture Problem, in which he advocated the adoption of such measures in these words: I The scenario writing is a very important factor in determining the character of motion pictures. The producers have been severely criticized for spending so much money for star actors and actresses and 80' comparatively little on the preparation of their scenarios, thus not securing the services of the competent. The criticism of scenarios before pro— duction has been tried, but without much success. So much depends on the staging of the pictures and the details of acting that a picture may be‘made or marred in the production process. However, the subjects treated and the personal standards . . . portrayed are important considerations.22 - 46 Thus the gist of the changes incorporated in the industry's plan for self-regulation lay in the inclusion of moral principles for guidance in studying the morality of story content and thesis. The absence of these principles during the work of the trade association from 1922 to 1930 appears to have been responsible for the inability of the industry to satisfy public demand for morality. It is evident upon a reading of the "13 Points" and the 1927 "Resolution" these were concerned primarily with the details of action and dialogue rather than with a control of the philosophy inherent in the thesis of the basic story. . The motion picture industry in 1930 was at the crossroads. It was fully equipped for the realization of its object of self-regulation. It was in a position, for the first time in its short history, to satisfy public groups. Yet, thus favorably equipped, and with a leader to urge them in the right direction the producers defeated the efforts of the trade association. A period of deceptive followed the formulation Of the Production Code. From 1930 to 1931 the press was more or less quiescent; the public groups expectant. The Producers Association appointed a Producer Appeals Board 22 This for the purpose of conferring on code matters. board had the power of deciding whether the Code rulings were to be upheld or overruled in each specific case. 47 The idea of the Board was adequate in itself, but it failed to take into consideration the economic consideration which would defeat the purposes of the Code. Often the round table discussion which followed in the wake of each ruling made by the Production Code officer, were settled in only one way. Example: Producer A made it clear to Producer B that if Producer B would pass Producer A's picture now, Producer A would pass Producer B's picture when it came along. So changes demanded under the Pro- duction Code were frequently overruled and ignored.13 Why did the producers thus ignore the Code? The reasons were many. Businessmen, whether they make pictures or other products, are traditionally conservative for the simple reason that change costs money. The producers were not at all sure that this new Production Code really represented what their public wanted. It was rather severe to them, or at least, it seemed so in comparison with the very liberal literary standards of the studios at the time. Add to this the fact that as far back as time itself there has been warfare between the church and the literary world whenever the latter overstepped the boundaries drawn by the standards of conduct set by the former, and it is easily seen that ready acquiescence to church pressure was not a response to be expected in the course Of ordinary events. The producers felt that if the Code proved an impractical document, it would have to be improved at the cost of thousands, and even hundreds Of 48 thousands of dollars. They were afraid that if stories were made to conform to the rigid standards set by the code, the public might balk at seeing them--that it might refuse to accept preachments or Pollyana philosophy with its amusement fare. For this was the light in which the producers regarded the Code at that time. Therefore, they preferred to make few, if any, changes in an entertainment which was bringing them huge profits as it was. It was reasonable in the face of this fact, to expect that the producers would hesitate to make changes suggested by the Code. The response, or lack of response, of the movie audiences to the industry's few tentative attempts to make ‘glgag movies, did much, too, at the time to confirm the opinion of the producers that the Production Code was but a visionary document not practically suited to the industry's problems, against the economic problem of the screen. What the producers failed to see, and what the public groups and Mr. Hays saw only too clearly, was that for the very reason that the motion picture was a medium of unprecendented emotional appeal and force, a change was not only necessary, but inevitable. Millions of young people were seeing the films, and, in the cases of some pictures, at least, an immoral philOsophy was being popu- larized through this mighty medium.6 There are no sta- tistics as to the actual harm which these pictures did, along with contemporary literature advocating ”liberal" 49 standards, it is safe to assume that the young man and the young woman of the late twenties did not escape wholly unscathed from the immoral propaganda of that period, of which the film represented one of the most potent and articulate forms. That the Hays office itself felt at that time the public groups were demanding more than was reasonable in reform is mirrored by former Governor Carl E. Milliken of Maine, Secretary of the Producers Association in New York, in remarks to the New York Timgg: Since men differ in their interpretations of Holy Writ, there is no reason to expect that any form of entertainment, code or no code, self-disciplined or otherwise, will ever be free from criticism . . . it is inevitable that the church should always have a higher standard than such a secular endeavor will perfectly attain.13 At that period, the demands of the church were apparently far removed from the demands of the movie audience which seemed to prefer its pictures on the liberal side.27 With this state of affairs existing, the only check to which the producers could be made to subscribe was that of "federal" censorship, for the simple economic reason that it would have cost money to ignore censorship requirements. To make changes in a picture after it was finished was extremely costly. Cutting out certain scenes and dialogue could, more often than not, ruin the picture too, all of which meant loss to the producer. By living up to the censorship requirements, he could not only save 50 himself the cost of retakes but also insure himself of better box office value by saving the vital parts of the picture from the censor's scissors. Hays also was concerned about the high costs of production especially when a producer would not follow the code and the film was often restricted from viewing by the church. He was concerned not only with the producer but also the local theatre manager. Would the manager of a small theatre reflect a taste in film subjects higher than that exhibited by the producers. This consideration applied to the family with children. Hays wondered if the managers would play the "garbage" film with children in the audience. He had no power to stop them.15 What did Will Hays see as he sat at his desk and read the figures about those productions that were to arouse praise among the fastidious? He saw that: The Scarlet Letter was produced with the recommendation 3f_Protestant clergymen, and after production was attacked by other Protestant clergymen, because in it a clergyman showed a human weakness. The 5123:0f KingsL made with the cooperation of Jewish leaders, was so vigorously attacked by Jewish organi- zations that it had to be extensively altered.27 Disraeli was received with plandits by all the better fiIm people [critics], and lost a fortune.27 Abraham Lincoln had a similar fate.27 Such facts as above disturbed Will Hays, who worked genuinely hard toward organizing support for better films as better films would have made them promising investments. Could the economic aspect of the motion 51 picture and its cultural-moral aspect be brought into harmony? This was a nagging question to Hays and he often liked to cite the film, The Man Who Played God, which started as a dismal failure, but was turned by praise, especially from the pulpit, into success.22 Consequently, the Code was more or less ignored by the producers who generally overruled the efforts of the Production Code office to enforce its tenets, though censorship requirements were generally met.17 The Producers Association was functioning as a veritable clearing house for censorship information, so that the industry had at its fingertips the latest word in censorship deletions. In addition, the records of all censorship cuts went to the studios for their guidance. With these warning signals posted throughout the industry and in the Association office, it was possible to foretell what scenes and dialogue would conform to censorship requirements.37 As proof that censorship alone was inadequate to satisfy demands of the public groups, after a year of hopeful waiting the press broke again with protests, complaints and tirades against the motion picture industry. The national assemblies of the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Congregational, and other churches passed resolutions condemning motion picture immorality. The Christian Century published a number of articles and editorials analyzing the effect of immoral movies on 52 children and young people. Following this action, the Motion Picture Research Council inaugurated the Payne Fund Studies for the same purpose, conducted by social scientists at seven universities. Their findings provided the basis subsequently for the widely publicized book by Henry James Forman, entitled Our Movie Made Children.6 Critics did have a reason for complaint against the movies. Here are a few from 1932: The Advertisements are shameless enough claimed the Reverend Clifford Grey Trombley, of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and proceeded to point this up in his book, Shamelessness of the Movies.17 Allow me . . . to present to you a list of some typical advertisements of the movies which have recently appeared in the Lancaster newspapers . . . ”What does a traveling hubby do after he kisses his wife goodby? . . . Is a traveling husband entitled to a wife, and a sweetheart?" "Social secretary tells all. The bold facts, shocking but true. Reveals the private affairs of New York's -fastest stepping crowd of millionnaires, from boudoirs to speakeasies." ”Each kiss a new surrender, each woman a new affair. . . . Women barred their doors, but gave him a secret key.” "Alluring, pursued by many men. Experimenting with love, wild passions, gay parties. It tells who really pays for those ladies known as expensive." This, however, said the Reverend Trombley, was not all, because the films themselves gave more "dirt" than was promised. He offered these examples: 53 A man who has broken up a home and did not marry the woman afterwards, falls in love with another woman and breaks up another home. Four lovers, two sets, one woman stealing the lover of the other woman, with subtle hints of all night hotel engagements. At the conclusion of these remarks the Reverend concludes that the moving picture is one of the gravest menaces the country has ever faced. A doctor writes in the Journal of American Medical Association,17 "There is no doubt that the American picture has become the school of delinquency." The Catholics echo another warning. The Most Reverend John J. Cantwell writes in the Ecclesiastical Review (February, 1934):27 Previous to the coming Of the talking picture, the American made motion picture sinned chiefly because of its vulgarity. . . . With the coming of the talking picture has come greater and more far-reaching influ- ence. The pictures now impress not only by sight but with animated sound as well. An examination of the number of motion pictures recently released . . . suggests that the entire motion picture industry has set itself to the task of seeing which company can produce the most vicious film. After flaying the industry for the immoral philosophy taught and for the flippant Broadway playwrights whose stories are in part to blame for the final product, Reverend Cantwell takes ten pictures selected at random, all of them offensive. One is based on seduction, rape, and prostitution, another deals with aphrodisiac drugs, rape and revenge; another is the story of a mother who becomes a prostitute in order to provide luxury for her 54 son, yet another adultery is justified. Reverend Cantwell concludes with, "It may well be sustained that 25 per cent of all pictures made in Hollywood in the course of a year are definitely bad and offensive."27 It is evident from the foregoing that censorship, with all of its cutting, did not improve the morals of the movies, and if they were to be really reformed, the motion picture Production Code, providing control of the source materials, would have to be enforced. There was another side to the problem, however, as revealed by the press record of those who had a good word to say for the movies, in the summer of 1932: Trenton Times, September 19, 1932:13 Fortunately the motion picture industry itself has been responding in recent months to the\growing demand for less emphasis upon the sordid side of American civi- lization. There has been a noticeable increase in the number of screen productions designed to satisfy the most discriminating critic. Chattanooga News: A large number of worthwhile pictures which have appeared here lately . . . were in differently patronized by the public. . . . We are weary of blaming the movie producers for the tendency of the movies toward filth and shabbiness. Obviously it is the public taste which needs evaluating. Indianapolis Star: Another service to the public as well as the motion picture industry itself has been rendered by MPPDA. . . . Will Hays . . . attacked "hopped up” advertising which emphasizes sex themes and other undesirable forms of press agentry at a gathering of executives. . . . The Hays organization in the past has shown its power to command the respect of the industry in fighting for higher moral and ethical codes. 55 Professor J. T. Grade, Harvard University: Motion pictures can and do inspire men and women to higher standards of life . . . nine out of ten people who see good pictures leave the theatre dwelling on the possibilities of betterment in their own homes, in their own speech and their language. At the same time the Better Film Council and W. Ward Marsh of the Cleveland Plain Dealer pointed to a positive program for reform. The opinion of both was that the hope of up- lifting the standards of the screen lay in proving that good films were better business than bad, for no producer would deliberately choose to make objectionable pictures if good ones paid better. Not tirades from critics looking for evils, but education to make the public patronize the good films would be the plan of the Better Films Council. W. Ward Marsh, the motion picture critic for the Cleveland Plain Dealer put the whole matter succinctly: I have grown weary of the constant carping against the movies. Genuinely good ones too often are permitted to starve at the box Office. The elevation of the moral tone muSt come from within the industry, and it only comes in proportion to the demands set by the public, not by the reformer, not by the constant 13 clamoring minority, but by the public at large . . . Doctor Fred Eastman, in a pamphlet entitled 27 "Better Motion Pictures" admits that the churches, the schools, and the homes failed, in the past, to develop public taste. He says: This answer points an accusing finger directly at us. The element Of truth in it strikes home. However, schools and churches are beginning to recognize more and more their responsibility at this point. Many 56 schools have organized motion picture appreciation classes. . . . In many churches Better Film Councils have been organized; church groups are cooperating with the local library in providing and reviewing service for the people of the community. What is the situation that causes so many parents and other citizens acute alarm? Take the gangster films of the 1930-33 era for instance. Lillian Gish was inter- viewed by an Altantic Monthly Reporter in January, 1933 and she gave her views on the current state of the film art and gangster pictures in particular: If I had children I should not care to have them attend those pictures. What is dangerous about them is the actors who are cast for gang leaders are in their own personalities attractive, and through that fact are admired by boys.13 The article went on to state that the general public believed that criminals were created watching these movies. Sex would be a much more difficult matter to deal with. Hays had hoped that the new code established in 1930 would curb sex, but it apparently had not been communicated to the producers in Hollywood. It appears from the records of 1930-32 that the economic resistance of producers against the Code had its origins in the fact that dirt in the movies was proving ”pay dirt" and that while but 25 per cent of the total product of the industry was on the sensationally smutty side, that 25 per cent was paying for the industry's losses on the clean 75 per cent which nobody seemed to support. 57 Of all the pictures that were occasionally cited as "having brought on the Code single-handedly," the two most frequently mentioned were The Story of Temple Drake 16 They can be taken as symbols of a and Convention City. small hoard of other films that continued to be thrown, like pies, into the face of a public suffering in the throes of deep Depression. Temple Drake would probably top the list of the ten most feared pictures of 1933. It was based on what was then considered to be the scandalous novel of William Faulkner, Sanctuary. It was the story of a "wild" girl from a family of good stock, who gets involved with a group of primitive moonshiners in a backwoods hide— away. The leader, Popeye, later called Trigger in the movies takes to this girl, and rapes her in an unnatural manner. He then brings her to Memphis and puts her in bondage, until she kills him in self-defense. She is made to pay for her great orgy by confessing her shame on a witness stand in order to exonerate one of the moonshiner's falsely accused of an earlier murder. The quality of her bloodlines come to surface and the respectable lawyer who really loves her is proud of her. Two things are remembered about Temple Drake. The most vivid is the rape, which occurs in a corncrib, with the clear inference that Trigger violates her with a cob or ear of corn. The second factor that still smoulders in the memory is the torrid nature of the affair in Madam Reba's house. What the impact Of the sequence was all 58 about was this: A girl abandons herself for her lusts and "goes earth," in the sense that one may use the phrase "goes ape." Here is a girl who has temporarily turned away from "soul realities," and who lets herself get totally immersed in carnality. This particular sequence would be the very quintessence of the point we have tried to make as being central to any understanding of the Code. To a critic or reviewer in 1933, with any lingering convictions about religion and the nature of the human frame, this is ultimate diabilism. The factor of abandonment to the flesh is further irritated by the sly inference that the girl is a slave of a supermagical tool owned by Trigger. There is a little ambiance here, since it seems that the act of raping her with a corn cob would suggest impotence. A lost statistic of the time shows that the principal offenders of the Hollywood menage were Paramount Studios, with twelve entries in the bawdy race, and the First National-Warners, with the same number.37 In an answer to the claim made by producers that they were justified, because of thelprofit involved, in "giving the public what it wants," Doctor Fred Eastman states: To assume that church, school and home bear the entire responsibility for the character of public taste . . . seems to disclaim any share of that responsibility for the motion pictures themselves. It intimates that the pictures exist to perform one function only: make profits. These assumptions are contrary to the facts. We have seen that the movies themselves are a school of manners, morals and conduct and that certain movie 59 men admit it. They admit that they help teach the public to like what the movies like. The development of discriminating public taste is part of the movie's job.27 Other changes taking place, however, were to throw the balance of favor of the religious groups. The depression had become a grim fact, and the pressure of the poverty which came in its wake was to dampen to a great extent the appeal of the "fleshpots." Hunger, terror, and uncertainty turned thousands of people to the churches for' comfort. A more serious attitude toward life in general was but a natural reaction of the hard times. In this mood people were ready to listen to the exhortations of their religious leaders to return to Christian standards, to demand a higher level of entertainment. The time was ripe for moral revolution. Thus, 1932-33 marked the era in which the pendulum was to begin its swing back to morality. The denunciations against immorality found a bulls eye target in the current film fare. The movies were heroes and heroines blithely "sowing their oats" were suddenly "behind the times." To an impoverished country which had become religious and serious minded, the sex attitudes of the post-war period became grotesquely unreal and out dated. The movie industry, on its last legs financially, was vulnerable to attack.16 In September, 1933, the New York Board of Censors released a report on their operation for their prior fifteen months. The report had several interesting bits 60 of information regarding censorship in a particular state bureau. The censorship board seem to be all caught up with what cuts to make on a film released in 1933 called."gpgk_ of the Air." The instructions for cutting the questionable sequence was as follows: "Eliminate views of Roger sen- sually contemplating bed."13 The editorial staff of Nation Magazine said in one of their columns that "this scene is something we would like to have seen. We should, indeed, like to know just how it is done. A man who can ogle a bed must be talented beyond the ordinary."9 For the more serious student of film in 1933 the report contained a statistical study of the censors' activity. There seemed to be something like 38 per cent of all material in "feature" films eliminated, and that 44 per cent of the eliminations have to do with sex, 29 per cent violence, 16 per cent with crime, 5 per cent with government, 3 per cent with religion, and the rest with miscellaneous topics.9 The Nation staff analyzed these figures on specific eliminations and it "appeared that most Of those involving sex were merely silly, eccentric, and sporadic deletions which have no effect whatever upon the general atmosphere Of the film." The Nation went on to give its total view of the report in the final words: It must be confessed, however, that the general impression produced by a reading of the record of the censors activity is not of something particularly sinister but an elaborate, solemn, and organized 61 piece of silliness. Glancing through the report one comes to the conclusion that the State Board Of Censors exists primarily for the purposes of preventing the movie-makers from presenting three things which they are tirelessly determined to present: (a) infants so displayed that the sex is evident, (b) gentlemen who rest their hands upon the posteriors of their lady friends, and (c) incomplete phrases which end when the speak silently forms his lips in the position necessary for uttering the sportsmans name for a female dog. We do not know how much the activities of the Board of Censors cost the State of New York but whatever the sum, it is obviously too much. When you come right down to it, the Code, in its first whirl, was pretty much of a Protestant affair. True, the document itself had been written by two Catholics: Martin Quigley, and influential publisher of motion picture trade journals and a graduate of Niagara University and Catholic University of America; and Father Daniel Lord, a 18 To the contri— Jesuit priest from St. Louis, Missouri. butions of these two men, certain facts were added by Will Hays, who did not want to abandon the "don'ts and be carefuls" altogether. What resulted, of course, was a mongrealization between a philosophical document and a proscription list.13 The officers of the Association were too canny, however, to hand over the operation lock, stock and barrel to the Catholics. The Romans were structured and would have taken away the play with the ease of the Green Bay Packers. This would have defeated the Protestants. Therefore, the management of the Code stayed with a tight little knot inside the Association composed of Will Hays, an elder in the Presbytarian Church; Francis Harmon, a 62 vice-president and what one could call with acrimony, a "Professional Protestant"; Jason Joy, who was some kind of divine or divinity student; and Geoff Shurlock, who passed for an Episcopalian. And Joe Breen, which is a story in itself.19 Breen graduated from St. Joseph College in Philadelphia. He emosed his way into the American Consular Service as a minor secretary in Jamaica. Then, somehow, to Budapest, where he was involved in the American Aid Mission. From Budapest he went to Ireland, where he claimed he was arrested by the British for his part in formenting sedition and condemned to death. The American Foreign Service secured his release. He found his way to Chicago, where he found his true center of gravity. He became a newspaper reporter in the days of the Great Chicago School, the days of Ben Hecht, Heywood Brown, and others. By luck and design he secured himself the post of Public Relations Director of the famous Eucharistic Con- gress in Chicago. He was definitely churchy. Two more steps brought him closer to his ultimate goal. Working as director of press relations for the Chicago World's Fair, this led him to an acquaintance with Martin Quigley, who induced Breen to enter his office to work on matters pertaining to the Code in New York. Joe was hired by Hays and was immediately sent to Hollywood to be, technically, a publicity man for the Association, but actually to be the eyes and ears of Hays with reference to Code work.37 63 It was too much to expect of human nature to think that the picture makers would lift themselves by their own bootstraps up to the levels of high idealism. Even men of good will, who actually desired the Code were being dragged off by the weight of common community practiceinto a dank marshland. In a meeting with Quigley and Monsignor John Corrigan, Breen pointed out that the only organization with the potential for precipitating a unified public opinion was the Church.37 Already, small segments of it had taken the initiative. In Chicago, a Jesuit priest by the name of Fitz George Dineen had started a movement to prescribe evil movies;7 which he had labeled with a catchy little title of Legion of Decency. At the same time in New York, the International Federation of Catholic Alumnae were publishing review of recommended" pictures, and in St. Louis, the nationally circulated periodical Queen Work was beginning to list five "condemned" pictures each month.13 What.was needed now was a coordination of these fragmentary mOvements by the Episcopacy of the United States. This body was to meet in its annual synod in November. At that time, it should be proposed that the hierarchy take over sponsorship of the Production Code of the Motion Picture Industry, and lend its influence to the enforcement of it. This meant the boycotting of certain pictures, and even the picketing of the worst offenders. The result would be the only sanction the producers would heed: economic.27 64 The Code was touted as a voluntary system of self— regulation. What Breen had proposed was that the Industry be put in a position of being forced to regulate itself voluntarily.37 It was Monsignor Corrigan who undertook the responsibility of approaching Archbishop McNichols, the Dominican Ordinary of Cincinnati, who, in turn most likely proposed the whole idea to be assembled Synod of Bishops in November, 1933. The plan was accepted, and Archbishop McNichols, was named the first Chairman of the Bishop's Committee, which turned into the Legion of Decency in April, 1934.27 What ensued is often called the Bishops' Revolt. The Most Reverend Amleto Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate before the Charities Convention in New York, may be credited with having put the torch of religious fervor to the dry tinder of public disgust.27 An Episcopal Committee on Motion Pictures was appointed by the American Bishops at their annual meeting in November, 1933. That fall and winter the plans for a comprehensive campaign were carefully and painstakingly 27 this Committee declared war worked out. In April, 1934, on the films through the Legion of Decency, with its head- quarters in New York City. The far reaching effects of the Legion of Decency boycott in which Protestant and Jewish groups joined, may be traced in the press reports of those days: 65 Chicago Daily Tribune, June 5, 1934: Urging that "some censorship or morals" be put upon the motion picture industry, Cardinal Mundelein formally brought the Chicago Diocese yesterday into the nation- wide fight now being waged by the Catholic Church against indecent films coming out of Hollywood. Chicago Daily Tribune, June 6, 1934: Protestant leaders praised the leadership taken by Cardinal Mundelein. . . . They announced their delight in the broad form of the Catholic campaign in which, they said, Protestants, Catholics and Jews will be able to join wholeheartedly. . . Father Dineen secured the support of Cardinal Munderlein in Chicago. The Chicago Legion enrolled 500,000 Catholic women to campaign against theatres. The Jesuit from American Magazine, Wilfred Parsons, S. J., obtained the endorsement of Cardinal Hayes of New York. Bishop Michael J. Gallagher of Detroit turned loose Monsignor Hunt, pastor of the cathedral in that city, in a bitter vandetta against scandalous films. Detroit Catholics started using bumper stickers proclaiming "We Demand Clean Movies."27 The part played by the various great Protestant groups in boosting this movement was neither frivolous nor sycophantic. The only human factor of interest in this connection is that which is recalled by Monsignor John Devlin, the Hollywood representative of the Legion of Decency. He points out that the Protestant backing was strong until, in 1936, Pope Pius XI issued his encyclical on the movies.37 With this, Protestant interest melted away, Warner Bros. had a heavily concentrated chain of 66 theatres in the Philadelphia area. On top of that they were indiscreet enough to put up a large and offensive billboard opposite the residence Of the fiery prelate of that city, his Eminence, Denis Cardinal Dougherty. Every morning when this man climbed into his limousine to go to his downtown office, the provacative sign caught his eye. As a man of prudence, he turned his head away as long as he thought he could. But when the display did not disappear, he one day felt he had had enough. Climbing into his pulpit, he categorically forbade all Catholics within his jurisdiction to attend gay movies, under pain of mortal sin. There is reason to think to this day the prohibition has never been rescinded.27 The Catholic drive had manifested itself in fifty dioces. Some estimated placed the number who had signed the pledge of the Legion of Decency, which was a pledge to boycott offensive films, at 2,000,000, with every likeli- 37 (The total hood of a five million within a short period. eventually reached eleven million at the height of campaign.)17 In Massachusetts, plans for a specific boycott of indecent pictures by cooperation of 1,695,000 Catholics received approval Of the Arch Bishop of Boston, William Cardinal O'Connell. The Dallas Dioces joined the fight. Also, 15,000 in San Pedro, California.27 Doctor Harold G. Campbell, Superintendent of City Schools of New York City, ordered an immediate investi- gation of pictures shown to school children, in July, 1934.6 67 Doctor M. E. Dodd, President of the Southern Baptist Con— vention, called upon 12,000 Baptist ministers to join the crusade. The committee of Ten of the Chicago Church Foundation, a Protestant group, pledged cooperation. Support was ordered by the United Presbyterian Assembly, the Massachusetts Civic League, the Christian Endeavor Union, the Oregon Methodist Conference, and the National Conference of Jews and Christians.27 The Legion of Decency boycott exerted an irre— sistable economic pressure. This pressure came at a time when the movie industry was practically bankrupt; when each ticket at the box office counted in the balance. Millions of movie goers no longer appeared at theatre box offices, and thus it came about that the producer again for economic reasons, were ready to accept the motion picture Production Code set up for the industry in 1930. On July 7, 1934 the Motion Picture Research Council8 released the following facts from a report compiled by Henry James Forman which summarized the Payne Fund Studies which had been underway for four years. Their findings were as follows: 1. Seventy-seven million Americans attend movies every week. 2. Four out of every eleven are under twenty-one years of age. 3. One out of every seven is under four years of age. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 68 This means that an average of one movie a week for every school child in the United States. Two-thirds of these children are going to evening shows. Attending one movie is equal to losing three hours sleep for a child even though he may go to bed at the usual time. The effects of a movie are felt in a child's sleep even four or five nights after a movie. Fatigue from movies makes a child more restless, nervous, and less self-controlled. Horror pictures often sow the seeds of nervous disorders which are long-lived. Seventy-five per cent of all motion pictures deal with crime, sex, and love. Life as displayed by the movies is usually set in a scene of luxury and extravagance, driven on by motives of self-seeking, and leading to crime, indulgence, and illicit love. Would you choose the above forms for your children and the nation's children? Children between eight and ten remember 60 per cent of what you do after seeing a movie, and many older ones remember more than you do. Children are much more stirred up emotionally by movies than grown ups are because they do not realize it is only a movie. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 69 Passionate and emotional movies lead a child up to a pitch of action with little self-control left. Children just learning how to do things tend to copy what they see in dress, attitudes of mind, in love-making and crime. Delinquent boys gave thirty-two different tech— niques of crime they learned from movies. The standards of life as shown in movies are just the opposite of those we hold up to children at home, school, or church. Movies sent to other countries show Americans as dishonest, immoral, greedy, interested only in wealth, dissipation, luxury, and illicit love. A number of persons were writing about the effects movies had on children during this period and unfortunately those studies undertaken at that time were the only com- prehensive ones ever produced. On July 12, 1934, Will Hays and the Board of Directors of the Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., of Hollywood, concluded action ammending and amplifying the Production Code Administration. 13 The Production Code Administration came into vital being with a fighting Irishman, Joseph I. Breen at its head. His appointment garnered the following press comment: Terre Haute Star, July 17, 1934: Something is being done about it now out in Hollywood, be sure of that. Joe Breen, the two fisted assistant 70 to Mr. Hays once of the Philadelphia North American, and at heart a good newspaper man, now has his coat Off and what he is saying about what is fit and what is unfit for the screen carries a terrific punch to the cowering, ill founded direction and scripwriting coming out of Hollywood. For years they have been scoffing the Hays rule . . . Mr. Breen has been appointed umpire of the movies, assigned to preview each picture and to order the product cut, remade, or discarded. He will be guided by the Code that for four years has been available to producers and accepted by them, but lately regarded by many directors as irksome and in the way of progress and profit . . . smut, glossed vice, faked romance, unhealthy sex appeal, will not pass Joe Breen, if he can spot them. He is that kind Of an editor. One of the first steps taken by Breen was to have the Board of Directors of the MPPDA abolish his Studio Relations Committee and form the Production Code Adminis— tration. The Hollywood Jury was abolished, leaving only an appeal directly from the Production Code Administration (PCA) to the MPPDA. This notice of change appeared in Variety on July 15, 1934:37 Producers Appeals Board is abolished. Joe Breen is supreme pontiff of picture morals from now on. Only appeal from Breen ruling is to the Hays directorate in New York. This is the unanimous dictum of the major companies after long session in the Hays Office deliberating over means to satisfy church pressure. Switch of all moral problems from the West to the East is revealed to have been motivated by an understanding that the crusaders have lost patience with the studio heads, but still believe in the judgment and good intentions of the Eastern executives. Inference is also being broadly drawn that there will be compara- tively few reversals of Breen's future judgment. Haysites tonight describe Breen as in a position where his word from now on will be the industry's law. . . . 71 Hays comments on the new control of films: It is recognized that the solution of the problem of the right kind of screen entertainment rests solely with the quality of the product and these strengthened arrangements are directed to discharging that responsi— bility more effectively. With all these radical changes going into effect, the Bishops decides to give industry another chance to fulfill its promise of code enforcement and called off the boycott on June 4, 1934, two and one—half months after it went into effect.37 Hollyyood Citizen News, July 26, 1934: The future of this decency drive, so far as the Pro- testants are concerned, can be determined only by what takes place in Hollywood. If Mr. Breen succeeds and the producers support him, and what is done is not a temporary effect, there will be no more drastic action. We would like to see Mr. Breen succeed. No company belonging to the MPPDA was to distribute or release any film whether produced by it or by a producer distributing through its facilities unless it had received a certificate of approval signed by the Director of the Production Code Administration and bearing the PCA's seal. Every print of every film shown was to bear the Code seal. On July 3, 1934, a penal sanction was added: "Those that failed to comply with the provisions would render the offending member liable to the payment to the MPPDA Of $25,000 as liquidated damages." The fine was never imposed, .btrt the existence of the provision undoubtedly strengthened tllse position of the PCA.13 72 The Code was originally applicable only to films produced, released or shown by member companies of the MPPDA and AMPP, but in 1935 its procedure was made available to non—members.37 The latter, were not liable to its sanctions, except insofar as a rejected film would not be distributed or shown by an association member. Times were tough for the movies in the early thirties with the backlash against their product and a devastating depression. The movies were one word to many people--sin. The nation's censor boards were clamping down on films in their states and many producers were running scared. But, admidst all the gloom some writers tempted to poke fun at the censors and sin in general. In the August,1, 1934 issue of Nation Magazine, James Rarty wrote the following enlightening piece about sin in the movies. The movies are accused of corrupting the morals of American men, women, and children. But consider who makes the accusation--a "Legion of Decency" already numbering hundreds of thousands Of people and rapidly growing; by autumn it is expected that there will be at least 12,000,000 Legionnaires of Decency--8,000,000 Catholics and 4,000,000 members of other denominations. By their own admission these crusaders are them- selves unstained; the movies have utterly failed to corrupt them. Presumably the criterion of membership in the Legion is the scriptural text, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Otherwise the crusade would be un-Christian and immoral. Surely one does not mobilize sinners to do God's work. Hence, considering the number and purity of the accusers, the movies must be acquitted out of hand. The conclusion is inescapable: America may be "smothered in goods," we may have excess productive capacity in industry and agriculture, but our moral economy is still one of city. The labors of Cecil De Mille, Greta Garbo, 73 Clara Bow, Jean Harlow, Lupe Velez, even that great good/bad woman Mae West, have been utterly ineffective. Man does not live by bread alone. We are facing a sin shortage of alarming proportions. Relatively, America is still as innocent as a new-born babe. It is possible, of course, that this shortage is more apparent than real--that it is largely based on the misunderstanding created by the efforts of the Hays office to have its cake and eat it too. For instance, the title of Miss West's forthcoming picture was announced as "It Ain't NO Sin." If this title had been retained we would confidently expect that the Legion of Decency would set up headquarters opposite every theater exhibiting this picture, with a bigger, brighter Neon sign proclaiming "Tis Too." Which indicates the tragic confusion of purposes underlying the whole controversy. Stung by the ingratitude of her public, Miss West is rumored to have said: "If I was a home girl, I'd be broken hearted," It is further rumored that Miss West, when sternly instructed to take the kick out Of her current product burst into tears. Like the Georgia mules that wouldn't plow under the cotton, the gallent trouper balked stock still in the farrow rather than abate her customary zeal in giving the sinners what they wanted. Sudden as it seemed, this new attack upon the movies did not spring full-born from the brow of Mrs. Grundy. It started over a year ago when some eighteen assorted sociological, psychologists, and educators issued a nine-volume report of the findings Of a four-year study of the effect of the movies upon children. The study was financed by the Payne Fund and instigated by another privately subsidized organization known as the Motion Picture Research Council. By a curious coinci- dence, the director of the Council is William H. Short, and certain unregenerate movie people have intimated .that Mr. Short's object was to intensify the shortage indicated in the title of this article. The con- clusions of the social scientists as summarized by Mr. Forman were briefly, that sure enough the movies were not so good for the little tots; that the big tots as they reached puberty learned about women from Mae West and about men from Clark Gable; that the movie industry is, in effect, an educational apparatus rivaling in influence the school, the church, and the home; that at least three-quarters of the subject matter of current movies is sex, love, and crime--the apposition of "sex" and "love" is consistently adhered to; that many high school and college boys and girls confess they learned elements of practical love tech- nique from the movies; that many juvenile delinquents 74 and adult criminals have been movie fans and that some of them think the movies started then on the downward path; finally that the movies are a powerful instrument of propaganda--for and against war, for and against racial minorities. (The movie is also used consistently to carry propaganda against radical political and economic movements but this fact was not brought out.) Some of the studies were about as silly- scientifically as Walt Disney; for example the experi— ments in which a number of helpless boys and girls out of an orphanage, when exposed to the armors of screen lovers, promptly boosted the needle of the pscho- galvanometer. The "scientific norm" in these experi- ments was the reaction of the financee of one of the experiments to a kiss administered in the laboratory. The first Production Code Administration "Seal” was issued to "The World Moves on" for 20th Century Fox. The date, July 11, 1934.13 The system of financing the Code Administration is based on a scale of sliding fees which has been unchanged over the course Of years. In general, one can say that the price for Code "certification" ranges from $84 for the least expensive, to $3,000 at the other end, for work done on films with a gross negative cost in excess of $1.5 million. But traditionally the Code office has never been paid until the actual issuance of the Seal. If it had to reject a film, it did not receive a single cent, even though it might have done a considerable amount of work on it.37 There has always been an "Appeal" over the heads Of the Code staff to the Board of Directors of the Motion Ihicture Association in New York. This review group is made up of the company presidents, to which have been added in more recent years representatives Of world exhibition, and representatives of the independent 75 producers. The decision of the Appeals Board is final. It is the true guts of the whole structure, for it is the way the Code decisions are made more strict or more lenient. In theory, it was a well devised system, since it followed the American scheme of checks and balances. It was the Industry's protection against an excess of zeal on the part of its regulators; but it was also its Achilles heel, since it created a device whereby the Industry could strike the posture of sanctimony while actually being self-serving. To defy the Board meant to run the risk of being fined $25,000, but for anti-trust reasons, the Industry was always very chary about trying to levy this penalty. It may have been assessed against United Artists in the case of The Moon is Blue and against Howard Hughes in the case of The Outlaw, but in neither case was the sum collected. United Artists left the Association and Hughes sued it. Hughes lost; United Artists returned eventually; and the fine was abolished.19 Those were the days before the free—form type of movies with fractured time sequences, came into the popu- larity that they enjoy today. Pictures were constructed with the rigidity of a sonnet, so they could be summarized according to formula. The heart of the story was "the Problem." The body of the story had to do with the steps talien to solve the problem. If the problem was unsolved, ‘tllea story was a tragedy (in the Aristotelian sense). If the problem was solved, the story was, in the Greek usage 76 of the word, a comedy. A comedy in the classic sense is not necessarily funny. It only means a happy ending. From the point of view of the Code, the morality or the immorality of a story had little to do with the problem. It has to do with the quality of the steps taken to solve the problem. These were either right or wrong. If they were wrong, they should be labeled as such. It should not be left up to the discretion of the immature mind to decide for itself whether the characters had acted rightly or wrongly. This was too important a consideration to leave to luck, Therefore, the guality of the solutions used in the plot would be spelled out in words of one syllable. This device was largely invented by Joe Breen, "37 The nearest and was called the "Voice for Morality. equivalent of the Voice of Morality would be the Greek chorus. If this device seems slightly awkward now, and slightly bald-faced in its lack of trust of the audience, it must be remembered that the only other medium of mass family entertainment at that time was the radio. The movie theatre was not the sophisticated place it is now. It was the most influential of all the entertainment media of its time, and was frequented by audiences of every mental color in the spectrum, from sage to just plain stupid.8 Even the Bible, which did not stop to comment on the flubrality of the conduct of its cast of characters, enjoyed In(Dre relative liberty in reporting its stories. But then, the Bible was limited in its reading audience pretty much 77 'tt> adults. The motto in those days was to try to make paixctures "reasonably acceptable to reasonable people."16 ‘ {Priat.phrase had a nice ring to it, and was almost beyond (:rrallenge, since it seemed to put the complainer in the vvrnong camp. As this phrase wore out, another substitute grew up and took its place. It was that Hollywood would 1:1:y to make films that would "neither Offend the innocent, Iacbr frustrate the intelligent."16 The key to all this - . .‘d” h. J i.rrtricate approach to story doctoring was, however, the Problem. Unless the problem of a story could be stated ‘hrjuth clarity and succinctness, there was no proper handling (>1E the material as a whole.12 To protect their investments, the banks insisted tilidat the various picture makers get a letter of clearance from the Code office, stating that the script was at least _basically acceptable, before they would release funds to f i mance production . 16 In 1936, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ i411. America37 issued a progress report on the state of the fi lm for a two year period since Joseph Breen had been a~Dpointed director of the Production Code Administration. The report went on to say: Motion pictures have squirmed for three years under the corrective influence of the hair-brush and soap Legion of Decency. For two years, they have been roundly spanked, there language tubbed and scrubbed by a production code within the industry. In spite Of their heroic efforts, it hasn't been good enough. 78 The report went on to charge the film industry of tjie following infractions: 1. False picturing of the love and ethics of true marriage. 2. Lack of depth, sincerity and integrity in picturing the ideals of life. 3. Overdone drinking scenes to an extent amounting to educating of youth in tippling. E 4. Glorification of gambling. Gambling filled much space in the report and fire fell heavily on audiences lured indulged in by neighborhood izkieatres. "In the 'bank nights' and other ways of stimu- lating attendance at theatres, not only is the craze for 'EJiambling fed, but there also develops a tendency to use <=lneap features instead of more desirable features." Publication of this report caused private comment but there was no panic in Hollywood. The Report went on to criticize Will Hays and CJVcoseph Breen as men who wield tremendous power without, jlutadeed, having such power authorized. Also, the Report 8 aid, "There is a disquieting trend at the present in many jsiilms, trailers and in exhibitors publicity to go as far as possible in suggestiveness.” Passionate love scenes were one of the main gripes Qxitics of movies had. An attempt was made by the MPPDA to level off this criticism and set a hard and fast rule 79 on the length of a kiss. A kiss was allowed to last ten seconds, not a fraction more. A particularly ingenious invention was used by a director to defeat the supposed ten second limit on kisses. What this craftsman did was to train his camera on his two lovers and let them go the full ten seconds. It was a nice warm open mouth kiss. When the "time limit" had expired, the director let the camera travel slowly away from the blissful pair, and, in what is called a "continuing Pan," Passed a pool of water in which it picked up their reflections kissing upside down. With this we had the equivalent of a new time span in which to survey them topsy-turvy, still locked in their rapturous embrace. When thé ten seconds were up, the director allowed the camera to dri ft past the pool, and to catch their reflection ina Conveniently placed mirror. This time, of course, they Were right side up again. The audience was allowed to feast its eyes on the, two for another time count. Then, if this was not enough, the shelf above the mirror was a long row of bottles, over which the camera panned, picking up in each the diminutive image of the romantic pair, on into a dissolve that created the effect of infinity.19 It was interesting to note that there were no re\rersals on Breen's decision by the Board of Directors in New York on the few occasions in which an appeal from the Code ruling was made. It is also of interest to observe that the entertainment value of pictures has 80 increased with the continued enforcement of the Production C3CNie. Further evidence of satisfaction with the work of the Production Code Administration appeared in the Brooklyn 27 Tablet of March 16, 1935. Reverend John T. McNichols the Episcopal Committee of Motion Pictures took the opportunity 1:<3 ¢express its gratification for the marked improvement in films, and to encourage all those who realized the menace Ic>1E .immoral films to continue their vigilance so that the EJJrciund gained might not be lost. The final acclaim, however, was published in the 27 Los Angeles Times on July 3, 1936, in which recognition (>15 the success of the Legion of Decency campaign was eJ'Crzbressed by Pope Pius XI in these words: It is an exceedingly great comfort to us to note the outstanding success of the crusade. Because of your vigilence and because of the pressure which has been brought to bear by public opinion, the motion picture has shown improvements from the moral standpoint; crime and vice are portrayed less frequently; sin is no longer openly approved or acclaimed; false ideals of life no longer are presented in so flagrant a manner to the impressionable minds of youth. In particular, you, venerable bretheren of the US, will be able to assist with justice that the industry in your country has recognized and accepted its responsibilities before society. Terry Ramsay writes in the July 11, 1936 issue of ‘tr‘fiat Motion Picture Herald regarding the Pope's message: Signal success in the greatest of the social adjustments of the motion picture achieved for it by the American industry in its adoption and operation under the Pro- duction Code . . . is recorded in terms destined to become historic in the encyclical letter discussing the screen by Pope Pius XI. . t e-v—‘ij 81 Within the motion picture industry, the encyclical is to be seen as of significant recognition, and approval, of the Production Code adopted in March of 1930, con— cerning which the letters observes: "It is promised ‘ in this agreement that no film which lowers the moral standards of spectators, which casts discredit on natural or human law or arouses sympathy for their violation will be produced." ‘ Another tough subject came up, this had to do with the touchy subject of the treatment of animals in pictures. The theory was that animals could not speak for themselves. [ They trusted man and could be taken advantage of. There- 15c>re, it behooved man, acting as human, not to degrade litirnself by mistreating them. Thus, the society that took lelee responsibility of overseeing the treatment of animals 5411. pictures wisely took the title of the "American Humane AS sociation."37 It had to do with man, as much as with titles animals. It had been the habit, in the roughshod IPIi.be, one wry item seeps to the surface. On January 12, 19 34, a letter from a Mr. George Cole of the Paramount l3.3"..sstributing Office in Kansas City was addressed to the DIE?195, pointing out that he had prevailed on the Governor of illlueat state to persuade his censor board to be "a little Incantre tolerant on the question of liquor in pictures in the State of Kansas. . . . Anything in a picture that will tend t0 ridicule prohibition or the drys will certainly be reIt'noved. . . . The State of Kansas is considered extremely <13=Tsr."37 While all the world was agitated about sex and criminality, the central USA could see morality equated Wfi—‘th only one thing: drinking. The Hays office had tremendous power over the film j“r‘<3ustry in the late thirties. It seemed that Joseph B:‘:‘ntentment of such organizations as the Legion of Decency, t:11e record of the Production Code Administration, under IBczreen, was one of notable achievement. Producers did complain in 1939, basically on Isurireleased films prior to Breen taking office in 1934. It was Breen's position to screen and scrutinize films made E>:::ior to the PCA seal for release. Producers felt that t:lt‘aese films made prior to the seal should have to be SScarutinized anew before being re-issued. An example of tilnlis is with the film A Farewell to Arms produced in 193219 Eiflrad released earlier without a seal. Scenes that were pErmitted prior to Breen's administrative position had to be re-edited to meet his standards. Another complaint was that the more powerful £31tudios were able "to get away with murder," while the ‘Vfieaker ones had to toe the line.19 Breen said to this 86 remark, "Every picture is an individual problem, and every problem is worked out by individuals from the production 37 Walter Wanger, side and the Hays side of the business." a producer said, "If these individuals [I presume pro- duction] happen to understand and like one censor, they are sure to arrive at results more satisfactory to all con- cerned than if they are not so friendly and so mutually understanding." Wanger went on to say, "Nowhere in the Code, 'do we read: Thou shalt not offend anyone, anywhere, at anytime. Yet this is our film lands first commandment, 8 Regardless of the charges and the greatest of all." thrown at them the Hays office or MPPDA continued to run Hollywood with an iron fist. It may have been true that the film industry did not want to offend anyone, but would Soon he changed in the late forties with films on anti- Semetism and some loosening of the Code itself. In 1943, the MPPDA had a new rival in its field, 19 The OWI wanted to take a the Office of War Information. second look at films prior to their release to the public. The purpose of the OWI review according to MPPDA, is to pl‘ovide a "standard procedure" for transmitting "voluntary p1: Opaganda requirements? to motion picture producers.” These requirements have been reduced to a kind of flexible and developing OWI code. The reasons given for review are technical. The OWI wanted to review all scripts in advance a"Id make deletions similar to what the Production Code PQOple were doing. The studios were not in favor of this 87 threat, many felt they were tied down heavily with the MPPDA and defended that agency.19 Also, many producers felt that this might be some type of "trick or move on the federal government's part to slap censorship on the film 37 industry." In response to the remarks by Hollywood Film Daily reported that State Department officials "recently passed along some rather definite instructions on foreign {'1 37 affairs to Hollywood." The whole story of the State Department's involvement with the making of For Whom the Bell Tolls made it quite evident that the department did not believe in freedom of speech when it came to diplomatic cInlestions. Warner Brothers, Paramount, and Twentieth Century—Fox dropped projected films that dealt with the North African invasion by the allies on hints from the 21 It is impossible to tell how far this State Department. involvement went as there is little available written about it, but we do know that Paramount resisted with the Hemingway film, but to what extent no one knows. A writer for the Nation Magazipg supported the OWI Stand in the issue of self-regulation vs. government review. The article went on to say, "the OWI, despite its limitations, is much more enlightened and more moved by 19 An example good-will toward men than the Hays office." was given: The Hays office has managed to ignore the 1‘Tegro pressure, preferring apparently the Southern white market to the Northern Negro market on a straight box Office basis. The OWI, whether influenced by man power 88 needs in wartime or a conscious liberalism, brought about a better attitude toward Negroes, overturning the unwritten Code according to which Negroes were always either funny or menial. That is a point scored for the OWI, but it *would be a mistake to chalk it up for censorship. The problem of government review hung over the lieads of the MPPDA throughout the war. The OWI never did [i gain full cooperation of studios, on the review aspects. The MPPDA and self-regulation continued along its merry vmay. Geoffrey Shurlock began exploding paper tigers such its temperance societies, political censor boards, the lhamerican Humane Association, the Legion of Decency, and all other public pressure groups that made great growling Ilsoises and threatened to hinder the film makers from iflowing over the cliffs. Shurlock claimed that their bark was worse than their bite and exposed them by defying them. The only problem was that these were the groups that were supposed to be Shurlock's final support and strength in Shoring up the Code. Shurlock felt he had the producers Itight where he wanted them. They were down to bedrock of themselves, they could find a sense of their own integrity, C>r'they could make spectacles of themselves for the whole World to see . If the Catholic Church, or the Protestants, for that matter, is so weak that it cannot stand to see a little vice, then we cannot preserve it by hiding our heads in the sand. Let the producer have his scene. If people don't like it, he'll know.37 89 Most people thought that the issue with "Blue Moon" was one of "blue" language. The New York Times sstated for reasons this film fell into disfavor with the <2ustodians of the Code "obviously" was the absolute lack c>f inhibition with which sex was discussed. It cited such '"taboo" words as "virgin," "seduce," and "pregnant," vvliich, according to the paper, were used "with bland :irisouciance and cool forthrightness."17 This was not the problem. Within the group of ifj.bm makers, there was a consciousness of being daring in flanking this enterprise in hand. The star, William Holden, Vials quoted as saying that Preminger, and himself entered ierito an agreement before the picture went into production tzriat the screenplay would not be submitted to the Code C>1Efice for approval. Holden said, "I didn't see anything "37 At any rate the script, in “moral about the picture. 15act,was sent.to the Code office in the waning days of 19 52, and after considerable soul searching, a letter was lreeturned to the studio by way of a New Year's present. rPrue, the letter contained such minuscule prohibitions as "UDhe broken expression 'son of a bitch' is unacceptable"; Elrld "the reference to marijuana should be ommitted"; but c>tflher lines got closer to the heart of the matter. There ‘Vals dialogue like "Men are usually bored with virgins," a111d " . . . godliness does not appeal to me," followed by "steaks-liquor--and sex. In that order." Elsewhere there ‘flas the line, "I always feel uncomfortable in a high moral 9O plane." It was the flavor of talk such as this that created the question.” More specifically, the problem arose from the plot. The premise of the story was this. Maggie McNamara, a talkative aspiring television actress has allowed herself to be picked up by a successful architect, William Holden. He has just had a spat with the girl upstairs, Dawn Addams, [1 daughter of the charming scamp, David Niven. It seems that Dawn had come home the night before, only to find her father taxider the influence of alcohol and preparing to bed down with his current lady friend. Coming downstairs, she had Eiz>pealed to Holden for a place to sleep. He surrendered his bed in a chivalrous manner and slept on a couch in the living room. In the great spate of misunderstandings that followed this arrangement, Holden categorically denied that mobility or moral principle had anything to do with his decency. He had drawn back because the girl had forced the issued on his malehood, taking away from him the right to choose the time, the place and the circumstances. To prove his point, he had gone out and found Maggie McNamara. fight here lay the root of the problem. Inferentially, the Story was saying that "free love" was something outside the scope of morality altogether, was a matter of moral indifference. Had the architect chosen to pursue the Opportunity on his own terms that was his business. What came into contention here was the Code clause that stated, "Pictures shall not infer that two forms of sex 91 relationship are the accepted or common thing" (see Appendix A). Philosophically this was one of the most .important provisions in the entire Code document. If "free love" were a common place, and were something widely aaccepted, it was only a small segment in the conclusions tfliat it was acceptable. This then became a matter of cuondoning evil in principle, which in turn became a cataestion of embracing corrupt standards.37 The plot went on to take another twist. David Niven, our swinger, came storming upstairs in the role of izlie outraged father to beat-up Holden, when he heard that Ples daughter had slept in an alien bed. However, as he Cli_scovers that nothing happened, he is a first nonplused Elrld then chagrined that the girl's vanity has been sorely Vfc>unded. He decides that he ought to beat the architect 15c>r compromising the girl by n23 making a pass at her. This element in the plot did nothing but bruise an already sore point. But the main item was yet to come. (Zerculati 9 like a vestal virgin in the midst of all these (Icmmplications was the aggressively chaste figure of Maggie liczNamara. So emphatic does she become about her virtue ‘tllat William Holden eventually accuses her of being a "£>rofessional virgin." When she asks him what that means, lies tells her that she is always advertising her virginity. She wants to know, indignantly, what is wrong with that. rte says that those who advertise usually have something to Sell. This, incidentally, is probably the most remembered 92 dialogue in the piece. The only trouble was that, to the devotees of sexual continence, the figure of Maggie McNamara is the main rooting interest. The architect is someone to be looked at with interest and envy, but not cheered on. He has to be overcome. But (this was the key to the entire controversy) when he so patently tops Maggie, he is made to seem to win. She, on the other hand, is made to seem eccentric for being "clean," an oddball for clinging to her virtue in the midst of this "characteristically" loose way of life. In dealing with Preminger, Breen encouraged Preminger to make the picture according to dictates of his "integrity" and "taste."37 Actually those Virio could not understand the objections against the film V'eere looking at the story from the opposite end of the tzeelescope. The audience believed the character portrayed by Maggie McNamera. The audiences were not overpowered by the character of William Holden. Audiences realized that the girl was being a bit extravagent and a bit too aggressive about her virtue, but on the whole they knew She was right, and Holden wrong. Such was the way Preminger argued. Preminger argued that it was Maggie, the virtuous girl, who wins, in the sense that she gets her man because he is decent, and without giving the Previous commodity in her loins away. Thus, virtue tJz-iumphs. The straw that broke the camel's back with Martin Quigley and Geoff Shurlock was the film Interrgted Melody. 93 There was nothing in the picture about which to be appre- hensive. Basically it was biographical, being the life story of the opera singer Marjorie Lawrence, who at the Iheight of her career is struck down with polio. It was .filled with glorious music and animated by noble emotions, such as her stirring struggles to rejoin the human race and tn: find her voice again. The high point was the low point in the life of the opera singer. In utter desolation, she determines to try suicide. Wheeling herself into the bathroom in her hospital chair, she makes a pitiful effort 1:<3 reach up into the medicine cabinet and lay her hands on as. bottle of sleeping capsules. The bottle, just off the 1:1Lps of her fingers, tumbles into the sink and spills out 5L1:s tablets. As her frantic hands scoop up the loose IPGills, we see in close up the label on the bottle, lest 1:11ere be any doubt of her intentions. As she is drawing a Ilurried glass of water for herself, her husband bursts into ‘tflne room discovers her, and brutally wrests the pills out of her clenched fists. She overturns on the floor, and 1dies sobbing pitifully. So stunning was the sequence that You could have cut the silence with a knife. Quigley blew ‘le with this and wanted to know "where the Production Code Administration was when £h_a_t_._ scene was shot? On vacation."19 31!) the Code there was a certain provision covering the depiction of narcotics. Traditionally, it had been iinterpreted to exclude drugs of all sorts, including sleeping pills. It is doubtful that its original 94 intention extended beyond opium or heroin or other such destructive habit forming drugs, but since the motion ;picture theatre was not discriminate in its audience, it twas thought better not to bring to the attention of