Censorship of Movies in the 1930's and the Hay's Office - Essay Example

Joe Breens Personal Propaganda Machine Attend a family movie in your local theater today and hardly an eyebrow will be raised when you hear a teenager say something like, "Jeez, he left the [expletive deleted] beer with the [expletive deleted] gun". Yet, barely two generations ago censors would have reduced that line to, "he left the with the". Even the word "Jeez" was considered obscene. During the period of 1922-1945 the Hays Committee, founded by Will Hays, was at the forefront of an effort to keep the "talkies" from talking trash. As Father Lord, an influential Jesuit teacher proclaimed, "Silent smut had been bad, vocal smut cried to the censors for vengeance" (qtd. in Espar). In 1934, Hays was joined by Joe Breen, a strict Catholic moralist, and assigned to run the Production Code Administration (PCA). Todays movie codes grew out of these early efforts to classify and render movies safe for children and general public consumption. But was this an effort to make our movie houses safe for women and children? Or was there something more sinister than a few obscenities at work? In fact, Hays cared little about keeping pornography away from children. His self-serving interest had been to keep the government away from the movies. His misguided attempts would backfire years later as the PCA would evolve into the center of cultural warfare. The Legion of Decency, headed by Breen, joined alliances with Hays, not to regulate morality, but to create an agency whos purpose was to control society, further their personal political ideals, and shape the mind of America. There is little room for controversy over the need to protect our children from the vast array of products and influences available today. There are good reasons why alcohol, tobacco, and pornography are well regulated by society and kept from the hands of children, and it is nothing new. Censorship has existed in every society since the Athenians arrested Socrates for "... corrupting the children and offending the Gods" (Riley 4). Yes, the world has censorship and censorship is here to stay. In fact, without the modern movie code system of PG, PG-13, and XXX that was spawned by the PCA, it would be impossible for responsible parents to adequately screen the volume of content available today. In spite of the problems within the PCA, the Codes have turned out to be a workable solution to a very complex problem. However, there is a wise old adage that says, "The good is found in the intentions, but the bad is in the unintended consequences". In the case of the PCA, it may be exactly the opposite. The PCA may have resulted in good consequences, in spite of the worst of intentions. Peering 75 years into the past to measure the intentions of men long passed is not an easy task. Yet, we can examine the things they said and the things they did. We can read their quotes and read their writings. We can evaluate what was cut out, what was left in, and try to see if there is a common thread that runs throughout that might re-stitch the fabric of their thoughts. Putting this information in context with the cultural and social setting of the time, the depression, the looming war, bigotry, and racism can give us a glimpse inside the mind of the PCA. The original PCA codes were adopted from the Catholic Movie Code and were very specific as to what they deemed a transgression. In part they stated that a film could never "...lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil or sin"(Heins). What was considered wrong-doing, evil, and sin varied far and wide and was almost always at the mercy of Breens interpretation. Semi nudity, lustful kissing, and sexual innuendo were all forbidden. Brutality, drinking, bathrooms, double beds, extra-marital affairs, and other transgressions of Catholic Doctrine have all fallen victim to the censors ax at one time or another. Yet, the PCA went further to dictate that, "Government and organized religion should not be disparaged, nor should ministers be comic characters or villains" (Heins). This guideline is eerily foreboding of the recent uprising in the Islamic theocracies over the caricatures of Allah printed in an obscure Dutch newspaper. Through these abstract, and often undefined ideals, Breen came to realize the power that the cinema had over the minds of people and its ability to influence the masses. In many ways, this era was a showdown over who would control what the public heard and saw. It pitted conservatives against progressives, thugs against police, and man against woman. But it did not stop there. The movie industry, largely dominated by Jewish influence, was beginning to feel the wrath of the beast as anti-Semitism reared its ugly head in America and abroad. In 1932, two years before his position at the PCA, Joe Breen wrote to Father Wilfred Parsons, a fellow censorship advocate, and according to Heins stated in his letter, "That Hays was wrong to think these lousy Jews out here [in Hollywood] would abide by the Codes provisions. Hays lacked proper knowledge of the breed. Breen continued, ... They are simply a rotten bunch of vile people with no respect for anything beyond the making of money". The religious gauntlet had been thrown down, the war for the minds of the public declared, and the helpless masses were waiting to be exposed to a torrent of propaganda in the name of wholesome entertainment. Clean family fun was not Joe Breens only objective. Shortly after assuming the helm at the PCA, Breen began to make clear the direction that the PCAs policy would take. Breen informed his staff that their intentions were to, "...mandate to enforce respect for all law and all lawful authority"(qtd. in Black 245-246). By the mid 1930s, the government was weighing in and wanted a piece of the lucrative trade in ideas owned by the PCA. In the Warner Bros. film G-Men (1935), James Cagney switched sides and instead of his usual outlaw role, he became a Federal agent. New guidelines from the PCA dictated that a gangster could only be shown on screen if he was being charged, captured, or killed by an FBI agent. This was a forced lock step out of reality and one of the governments most notorious forays into the manipulation of the movies. According to Dirks, this major move by Hollywood concerning the way it would present the FBIs relationship to gangsters was, "... mostly due to the propagandistic intentions of FBI head J. Edgar Hoover". The PCA had gone beyond pandering to the churchs demands that criminals be punished in all films and was now fulfilling a government mandate of who was to do the punishing. This tactic served the governments power structure, but did nothing to protect our children. Though Breen tried to protect our children from the likes of Mae West, buxom bombshell of the 1930s cinema, he would do little to protect them from racism. In the movie Imitation of Life (1934), a white housewife and her black maid have a very close, though never sexual, relationship. The PCA rejected the movie due to the possibility of an interracial sexual relationship. Though there was never any sexual language, scenes, or contact, the PCA contended it violated the spirit of the clause. The maid, Delilah, was played by Fredi Washington, a very light skinned Black. This issue confused the PCA as to whether to define her as white or black. If she were perceived as white, the issue of miscegenation could not exist. According to Courtney, Breen rejected the film and asserted that, "No picturization (italics mine) of miscegenation is permitted". Courtney goes on to say that the issue that caused the PCA the most concern revolved around, "how boundaries of racial difference should be cinematically constructed to be seen, and believed, on the screen". The PCA did not want a hazy borderline on the issue of race. During one of the most racist periods in Americas history, the PCA insisted that the racial lines remain sharp and clearly drawn. Race was not the only area where the PCA wanted a clear and decisive boundary. The 1934 decision by the PCA that movies were able to portray only obedience to a lawful authority would not be enough for Will Hays. Hays insisted on dictating to America what that authority should look like. The film The President Vanishes (1934), portrays corrupt government officials and a corporate world filled with greed. The film includes a memorable speech by an impassioned communist condemning the excesses of capitalism. Though Breen had some misgivings over the film, he finally approved it. When Hays saw the film, he was not only outraged by its approval, but also ordered Breen to pull the film. Hays, in a reactionary statement elaborated, "The Screen has no right, as a vast popular entertainment medium, [...] to present a distorted picture which condemns the banking industry, the oil industry, the steel industry, and the newspaper industry per se as war mongers, which portrays the Communist Party as the leading protagonist..." (Black 251) Hays did not welcome a lawsuit from the movies producer Walter Wagner, though the dispute over Breens initial approval and Hayss subsequent pulling of the film had left Wagner with little choice. Hays was not anxious to get involved in a public lawsuit over this issue for fear that the PCA would be exposed as censoring more than just morality. In fact, "Wagner could prove that the censors were determined to control more than just that" (Black 251). In an air of acrimony, Hays and Wagner negotiated an agreement on several key scenes, the movie was released to mixed reviews, and the public largely ignored the film. Breen was reprimanded for his lax oversight, but it was clear that the PCA could dictate the nations ideology. They not only demanded that the American system not be scrutinized, but they also demanded that communism not be glorified. Even political satire was not immune to the scrutiny of Joe Breen and the PCA. Though Breen could never overtly stop Charlie Chaplin from making fun of Hitler in The Great Dictator (1938), he was keenly interested in what Chaplin was working on and wanted to be sure it would not offend his favorite dictator. The British feared German reprisals if Chaplin were to offend Hitler and the British censors were working closely through a series of cables to Joe Breen. In October 1938, Hitler had decimated Czechoslovakia. In November, Breen wrote privately to Chaplin to "learn if he was planning a film that might irritate the Fuhrer, the homes and shops of Jews were being destroyed and looted, and a night of horror was gripping Germany" (Gardner 126). Breen, ever ready to take on the Communists, went forward with great trepidation when the subject came around to the Nazis. As much as the PCA controlled the political views of America, they were also set on defining the social mores. Critics have argued that prior to the 1930 Production Codes, women were treated with greater respect and dignity than after the codes were enforced. Before 1930 women in the movies were free to express womens issues. Womens films of that era, "...dealt with the issues surrounding the emergence of the newly sexualized, self-sufficient New Woman, whod emerged in the 1920s" (LaSalle). After enforcement of the code, women were more limited in their portrayal of sexuality, aggressiveness, and the ability to exploit men. Many of these films were termed "Fallen Woman" films and they often involved prostitutes, sexual affairs, and gold diggers. The film Baby Face (1933), starred Barbara Stanwyk as Lily whose sexual prowess takes her from the basement to the boardroom. The PCA had several issues with the film, though surprisingly most of them did not involve nudity, sex, or obscene language. At center stage was a line that Lilys friend recites before she leaves for New York to "make it big". He recites from the philosopher Nietzches The Will To Power, and tells Lily, "All life, no matter how we idealize it, is nothing more nor less than exploitation" (qtd. in Jacobs 71). The film was ultimately rejected based on the "philosophy" of Nietzche. Hays negotiated with Warner Brothers and explained, "...the necessity of eliminating the declaration of the Nietzche philosophy and sufficiently eliminating the practice else the picture could not be shown" (qtd. in Jacobs 74). The PCA would not allow the condemnation of exploitation by a banker or an oil company, but demanded it when the exploitation was initiated by a woman. This double standard clearly reflected his personal gender bias. The PCAs goal of keeping women out of the workplace and in the sea of domesticity was exemplified in the film Bedtime for Bonzo (1950). Starring All-American Ronald Reagan as Professor Peter Boyd, it was as tame a film as Hollywood was capable of producing. Yet, it was not immune to the censors at the PCA. When the Professor is courting Valerie, the Deans daughter, she comments, "Is there any law that says we have to raise a family?". Joe Breen objected to the line and commented that it "seems unduly pointed" (qtd. in Gardner 110). This was not a reference to pre-marital sex. The objection was to the possibility of a childless married couple practicing birth control. This was against the Catholic stand and ran counter to the belief that the womans place was in the home raising children. While women were often discouraged from being women in the films of this era, homosexuals were ordered off the set. Any slip of a mans masculinity could also be construed as unacceptable by the PCA. In 1941, Breen had reviewed the Maltese Falcon (1941), and had dispatched a letter to Jack Warner. As reported by Gardner, Breen wrote, "Page 40-41: We cannot approve the characterization of [Joel] Cairo [Peter Lorre] as a Pansy, indicated by the lavender perfume, high-pitched voice, and other accouterments" (39). Not only was Breen forbidding any portrayal of gay sexuality, he was attempting to define it for the American public. Breens attempts at social control were often stern and punitive. However, when he took on vulgarity, the results were often quite hilarious. This was never more true than when it involved some of the favorite comediennes of the era such as W.C. Fields and Mae West. These box office giants could keep an entire room of censors cutting for weeks on end. In Fields The Bank Dick (1940), one of Joe Breens suggestions was on page 110. The line, "... Take me to the culvert--I want to spew" should be eliminated, Breen insisted (Gardner 135). One of the characters was named "Filthy" in the original, but Breen insisted that it be changed. It became "McNasty". Gardner tells us that in Never Give a Sucker an Even Break (1941), scene 29 was rejected by Breen as he insisted Panghorn could not be a "Pansy" though he could be a "Fussbudget" (138). Breens America would have no "Filthy Pansys". It would, however, have a few "McNasty Fussbudgets". Mae West could hardly utter a word that wasnt construed as sexual innuendo. In fact, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst contended that West was largely the reason for the PCA (Gardner 144). With the production of Klondike Annie (1936), Mae West seemed to thoroughly send the censors into a state of disarray. In a letter to Paramount, Hays expresses his concern and tells John Hammel, of Paramount, that it is imperative that the script be absolutely clear that "Miss West is not masquerading as a preacher, revivalist, or any other character known and accepted as a minister of religion, ordained or otherwise" (qtd. in Gardner 145). Its doubtful that the American public would have confused Miss West for a preacher, revivalist, or minister of any kind, but for Hays the line was hazy. Joe Breen was hard at work assuring that the American public was clear about the occupation of Mae West, and keeping our children a safe distance away. When too few people control a major media outlet, it naturally opens the door for abuse. When those few people are narrow-minded ideologues the abuse will rush right in. Joe Breen took it upon himself to determine what was right for America. In his mind this was not our America, it was his. That he was an acknowledged strict Catholic and anti-Semitic was overshadowed by his zeal to regulate every corner of society. His hope to keep racial lines separated as shown in Imitation of Life only hints at his deeper prejudice. His bias against independent women took box office stars and turned them into B-movie extras. His approach to issues as diverse as homosexuality and philosophy shows us that he believed that what Breen held as moral, the country should too. He wasnt just policing America he was attempting to define it. His lame attempts to actually weed out vulgarity often resulted in little more than an amusing historical footnote. The producers, writers, actors, and actresses that sacrificed true artistic expression during this reign of terror are the true heroes. After all, theyve helped insure that our children are safer today, not because of Joe Breen, but in spite of him. Works Cited Black, Gregory D. Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies. New York: Cambridge UP, 1994. 1-336. Courtney, Susan. "Picturizing Race." Genders 27 (1998). 22 July 2006 . Dirks, Tom. "Timeline of Influential Milestones And Important Turning Points in Film History 1930s." Filmsite. 2006. 22 July 2006 . Espar, David. "TV Series and Beyond." Hollywood Censored: Movies, Morality, and the Production Code. PBS. 22 July 2006 . Gardner, Gerald. The Censorship Papers: Movie Censorship Letters From the Hays Office, 1934-1968. 1st ed. New York: Dodds, Mead, 1987. 1-226. Heins, Marjorie. "The Miracle: Film Censorship and the Entanglement of Church and State." The Free Expression Policy Project. 28 Oct. 2002. University of Michigan. 22 July 2006 . Jacobs, Lea. The Wages of Sin: Censorship and the Fallen Woman Film 1928-1942. 1st ed. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin P, 1991. 1-202. Lasalle, Mick. "Pre-Code Hollywood." GreenCine. 24 July 2006 . Riley, Gail B. Censorship. New York. Facts On File: 1998. 1-202 Read More