Presentation for POL 338 Dr. Kevin Lasher

Hollywood and Censorship

Beginnings Because of the power of the movie-going experience and large mass audiences, there has always been a concern about the moral content of Hollywood films

Beginnings Local and state censor boards beginning in 1907 Although it never happened, there was always the possibility of some type of national government censorship board Production Code Administration was “voluntary” studio organization

Mutual Film Corp v. Ohio (1915) Did Ohio film censorship law violate the Ohio Constitution’s freedom of speech/press provision? Testing constitutionality of numerous state and local censorship boards US Supreme Court ruled that films are NOT “speech” or “press” and CAN be censored

Mutual Film Corp v. Ohio (1915) “But they may be used for evil, and against that possibility the statute was enacted. ...They take their attraction from the general interest, eager and wholesome it may be, in their subjects, but a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to. Besides, there are some things which should not have pictorial representation in public places and to all audiences. And not only the state of Ohio, but other states, have considered it to be in the interest of the public morals and welfare to supervise moving picture exhibitions. We would have to shut our eyes to the facts of the world to regard the precaution unreasonable or the legislation to effect it a mere wanton interference with personal liberty.”

Mutual Film Corp v. Ohio (1915) “It cannot be put out of view that the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded … by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion. They are mere representations of events, of ideas and sentiments published and known; vivid, useful, and entertaining, no doubt, but, as we have said, capable of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attractiveness and manner of exhibition. It was this capability and power, and it may be in experience of them, that induced the state of Ohio, in addition to prescribing penalties for immoral exhibitions ...to require censorship before exhibition, as it does by the act under review. We cannot regard this as beyond the power of government.”

Mutual Film Corp v. Ohio (1915) No “freedom of speech” protection for motion pictures until 1952 [Burstyn v. Wilson] Film censorship was permitted under the Constitution Censorship did not disappear immediately after 1952 decision

Mutual Film Corp v. Ohio (1915) Ambiguity: most states and many large cities had no censorship at all (high point – ten states)

Decadent Hollywood of 1920s Growing concern about sinful Hollywood images on screen but also “misbehavior” by Hollywood stars and colleagues in their personal lives

Decadent Hollywood of 1920s Comedian Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle accused of manslaughter in death of actress Virginia Rappe Arbuckle acquitted in third trial in 1922, but his career was destroyed One of a number of scandals of early 1920s, including an unsolved murder and drug overdoses

Decadent Hollywood of 1920s Will Hays (former Postmaster General) appointed head of Motion Picture Producers and Distributers of America (MPPDA) in 1922 Charged to “clean up” Hollywood Actually PR program and lobbying to prevent additional legislation

Decadent Hollywood of 1920s Hollywood continues to “push the envelope” and pressure builds for more restrictions

History of Censorship 1927 “Don’t’s and Be Carefuls” 1930 Hays Production Code 1930-34 Pre-Code Era (production code ignored) 1934-66 Enforcement of Production Code 1968-present MPAA Ratings system

Don’ts and Be Carefuls MPPDA list of actions and images to be prohibited or limited Profanity, suggestive nudity, illegal drugs, sex perversion, white slavery, miscegenation, ridicule of the clergy, offending any nation, race or creed, others Fairly well ignored by Hollywood 1927

http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/syllabi/w/weisenfeld/rel160/donts.html

More Worries 1927 Talking pictures take over by late 1920s Objectionable dialogue Sound pictures were more difficult for censors to edit 1927

Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code) Very detailed document outlining prohibited topics and “theological” reasons for the prohibition Written by Catholic priest and Catholic layman Hollywood studios agreed to abide by its restrictions But they didn’t …

Pre-Code Era (1930-34) Period in which Production Code existed but was pretty much ignored Movies became increasingly “wild” before the final crackdown One reason – attract audience during height of Depression

The Code is Enforced We will watch documentary Thou Shalt Not: Sex, Sin and Censorship in Pre-Code Hollywood

The Code is Enforced Mid-1934 sees end of the pre-code era and enforcement of Hays Code and creation of the Production Code Administration

Why Enforce the Code in 1934? 1. Catholic Legion of Decency (1933) 2. Film attendance was rising 3. Threat of federal censorship legislation 4. New Deal “optimism” 5. Hollywood “welcomed” limited censorship Create “modest” single national standard Studios could evade new restrictions (again)

Production Code Administration Studio-created bureaucracy headed by Catholic Joseph Breen, who took his job VERY seriously For next 30 years Breen and his successor enforced the Production Code

Production Code Administration NOT national government censorship Voluntary, private sector censorship instead of national government censorship Local and state censorship bodies declined (but did not disappear)

Production Code Administration Elaborate bureaucracy to censor films “Cooperation” between Breen Office and studios Breen saw himself as part of the film-making process, his job was to help get “moral” films made

Production Code Administration Ushers in “golden age” of Hollywood films Put serious restrictions on content of Hollywood films Made film makers work harder to communicate adult messages Wide variety – not every film was G-rated fare

“To process thousands of potential narratives – preliminary screen treatments, magazine stories, best-selling novels, and original screenplays – Breen setup an assembly-line system. On a typical morning, the day’s work began with the staff congregating around a conference table for a ‘huddle’ where projects were assigned, difficulties discussed, and troublespots flagged. Two men were give a copy of each script to read, mark up, make suggestions, and write the official memoranda. A third ‘outside reader’ was consulted to make sure that the two-man team, after prolonged consultation with the filmmakers under review, had no gone native. Said Breen: ‘Our procedure is such that where there is likely to be any difficulty or trouble, we endeavor to stop it before it begins.’ ” Thomas Doherty. Hollywood’s Censor: Joseph Breen and the Production Code Administration.

“After the lengthy and meticulous script review process, Breen and trusted members of his staff sat down for the final ‘print review’ stage of the process. Only after eyeballing the final cut of the film, the version that would be released to theaters, would the Code Seal be formally issued. Sometimes, in order to help the studios lock in bookings with theaters committed to playing only PCA-approved films, the Code Seal was issued a written stipulation that agreed-upon changes would be made prior to release – a token of the good faith and professional courtesy between two teams of serious players.” Thomas Doherty. Hollywood’s Censor: Joseph Breen and the Production Code Administration.

“A controversial play, a scandalous novel, or a remake of a pre-Code film might require months, sometimes years, of review, revision and refinement before the cameras were permitted to roll. In Breen Office-speak, a long-gestating project of dubious morality was called a ‘tough nut to crack.’ The repair work – salvaging studio investments in products purchased before 1934 or rehabilitating dicey best sellers and sophisticated Broadway plays – justified Breen’s power and pay grade.” Thomas Doherty. Hollywood’s Censor: Joseph Breen and the Production Code Administration.

“The bottom-line savings that most firmly cemented Breen’s authority resulted from his efficiency and predictability. Unlike the state and municipal censorship boards, whose rulings were off-the-cuff and whose members rotated with election cycles, the Breen Office was an entrenched bureaucracy with transparent procedures, consistent regulations, stable personnel, and institutional memory. ‘These decision, even as decisions of public courts, have the force of law for the industry and are carefully considered in adjudicating subsequent cases,’ Breen noted.” Thomas Doherty. Hollywood’s Censor: Joseph Breen and the Production Code Administration.

“Even so, the Breen Office was not a shadowy cabinet of faceless bureaucrats. Known by name and idiosyncracy, the chief and his subalterns kibitzed over the phone and schmoozed in person, making frequent visits to the studios to view sets and costumes and to screen dailies, rough cuts, and final prints. In 1936, by one reckoning, Breen and his staff made 2650 personal visits to studios. To emphasize the assembly-line setup – and by way of promoting the office and himself – Breen issued weekly summations on Code-approved films and each year reviewed the work of the PCA in a comprehensive annual report.” Thomas Doherty. Hollywood’s Censor: Joseph Breen and the Production Code Administration.

1950s: The Code Breaks Down Post-war changes in morality Foreign films shown in US Pressure from television created need for more “adult-oriented” stories Growing teen-age audience Certain code restrictions seemed silly and out-of-date

1950s: The Code Breaks Down Joseph Breen retires in 1954 Code is “liberalized” a bit Breen’s replacement a bit more accommodating 1952 SC decision that movies are “protected speech” Film makers begin to challenge

1950s: The Code Breaks Down The Man with the Golden Arm (about heroin addiction) was released without PCA seal and nominated for several Academy Awards in 1955

1950s: The Code Breaks Down Controversial Baby Doll (about teen-age bride) was released with PCA seal in 1956 Condemned by Catholic Legion of Decency Nominated for four Academy Awards

The Code Breaks Down The Pawnbroker (about a Holocaust survivor) is released with PCA seal as a “special and unique case” in 1964 for two scenes of brief nudity Rod Steiger nominated for Academy Award

The Code Breaks Down Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe is released with PCA seal under “special conditions” in 1966; won several Academy Awards

Rating System Replaces Code PCA abolished in 1966 MPAA introduces rating system in 1968

Rating System Replaces Code Rated G: General Audiences – Suggested for General Audiences – All Ages Admitted Rated M: Mature Audiences – Suggested for Mature Audiences (Parental Discretion Advised) Rated R: Restricted – Persons Under 16 Not Admitted Unless Accompanied by Parent or Adult Guardian Rated X: Adults Only – Persons Under 17 will not be Admitted Begins in 1968

Rating System Replaces Code 1990-present

http://www.the-numbers.com/market/mpaa-ratings

Rating System Replaces Code Arbitrary nature of current ratings Desire of directors/studios to avoid dreaded NC-17 rating Directors make cuts to earn R rating and release un-cut version on DVD Complaint that sexual themes are treated more strictly than violence

Rating System Replaces Code The MPAA goes far to claim that their rating system is not a form of censorship You could argue that it is a KIND of censorship, especially in the line between R and NC-17 “You are free to make an NC-17 film that will not receive advertisement or be shown in most theaters” “You are free to make an NC-17 film that almost no one will see in theaters”

Rating System Replaces Code

The End