The Rise and Fall of the Hays Code
Every year, without fail, film ratings cause furor amongst filmmakers, critics and audiences alike. Whether the prevailing position was that a particular rating was too hard, too lenient, or completely trivial, exhibitors are confronted with the reality of a limiting or broadening audience for the films they screen. The extent and breadth of these controversies are different film to film and country to country, and even province to province. The debates are ceaseless, but the specific debates that have emerged recently are not in question here. What is in question is how a system of censorship was initially implemented, and how that system engendered and encouraged a wider culture of hyper-sensitivity towards the images and sounds of cinema. In terms of relevance and impact, one cannot look beyond the overbearing influence of the MPAA on American mainstream cinema, and how guidelines for cinematic content were strongly reinforced from the 1930s through till the 1960s.
The Inception of the Hays Code
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), founded as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), was formed by the major Hollywood studios in 1922 as a means of self-regulation. Attempting to limit government interference and censorship in the motion picture industry, they ensured limits placed on studios were placed by studios themselves. With the impending popularity of talkies, the first director of the MPPDA, William Hays, oversaw the introduction of the Motion Picture Production Code in 1930 – also called the Hays Code. Once in place, it set guidelines and limits for nudity, profanity and violence in film, which was motivated by the ardent protests of various organizations including The National Legion of Decency (also known as The Catholic Legion of Decency). Although the Code was in place from 1930, it didn’t go into full effect until 1934, when all the major studios complied. Its requirements were put in place to reinforce the core principle of the Code: “if motion pictures present stories that will affect lives for the better, they can become the most powerful force for the improvement of mankind”.
In working within the strict confines of the Code, many films were coated with innuendo and suggestions of nudity. One of these films was Frank Capra’s It Happened One Night (1934). The romantic-comedy follows news reporter Peter (Clark Gable) and heiress Ellie (Claudette Colbert) who despise one another after a chance encounter, but through the course of the film develop a relationship based on mutual love. In one particular scene, the protagonists find themselves sharing a room for one night. The room is not equipped with a private area, so to allow Ellie to get changed, Peter puts up a sheet between their two beds. These moments, and others like them in that era, reinforced the ability of the Code to succeed – especially as its films were routinely well-received by audiences and critics. With classics such as Gone With the Wind (1939) and A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) falling afoul of censors and subsequently being recut, it potentially supports the legitimacy of the Code for future generations.
A Bigger World
Although it is the case that the 30’s and 40’s saw many classic films emerge, Hollywood and the rest of the world would face a post-WWII reality, as the global culture of cinema began to emerge. When the accessibility of successful foreign films grew, the legitimacy of the Code was undermined. One of the more prominent of these films was La Dolce Vita (1960). This is one of many films from that specific era which were made and distributed when the Hays Code was losing its grip on the industry. Part of the reason for this is the Academy Awards. Although the artistic validity of garnering an Academy Award can be brought into question, its ability to bring publicity to a film is unrivalled. It was to the detriment of the Code that films such as the aforementioned La Dolce Vita garnered four Academy Award nominations – including a nod for director Federico Fellini. From here, it is clear that in order for a system of enforced censorship to work, it needed the validation of the broader movie-going public. This came to a head when Alfred Hitchcock released Psycho (also in 1960). The classic thriller portrayed sexuality and nudity in unprecedented ways, and consistently came up against censors. However, despite being met with a negative reception from critics upon its release, the film was enormously successful with audiences. Shortly thereafter, in 1968, the enforcement of the Hays Code made way for the film-rating system in use today. Instead of enforcing restrictions on the film’s themselves, it warns audiences of a film’s content. Only a year later, the then X-rated Midnight Cowboy won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. The Hays Code era was well and truly over.
Art & Commerce
Despite the loosening of systematic censorship in mainstream cinema since the 1960s, film-ratings still poses the problem of accessibility and relevance. As the sights and sounds emerging from the media landscape have evolved alongside the broader culture, ratings continue to create a gap between perceived and actual immorality. This dichotomy is explored in Kirby Dick’s 2006 documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, where the provocations of the MPAA is explored at length, specifically with regards to the extent with which the organization demands films to be altered, recut, or rebranded for audiences lest they receive a rating that limits its theatre audience.
Although the influence of films on wider cultural behavior broaches an entirely different set of questions than those posed here, it is to the detriment of the film industry at large that an organization limit the exact art it is attempting to preserve. It delimits the very individuals it sets out to support, and gestures towards a culture of sensitivity that is always already present. The financial success of Psycho provides a convoluted lesson that is not heeded today. As the MPAA claims that they “aspire to advance the business and the art of filmmaking and celebrate its enjoyment around the world”, they fail to grasp the fundamental – and quite simple – contradiction within that very mission. Art is not always business, and the success of one can often be to the detriment of the other.