Paul
Choi
Tara Phillips, Friday 9-10
Comparative
Literature 60AC
November
18th, 2016
Morality
and the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930
A common theme in modernism is the
moving on from traditions of old, and the idea of tradition is frequently
accompanied by the idea of morality, the question of what is acceptable and
what is to be cautioned against. William Faulkner touches upon this topic in Absalom,
Absalom!, especially regarding the ideas of God and godliness with respect
to the South losing the war.
It is not entirely unexpected, then,
that such a theme of ever-changing morality might arouse a countermovement
against the change. The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930, informally
known as the Hays Code, was a code of moral guidelines designed to regulate the
content displayed on the silver screen, and the first general guideline of the
code was written as follows:
“No picture shall be produced that
will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the
audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.”
Other
guidelines included the condemnation of sexual perversion, the consideration of
religious faith, and the prohibition of profanities.
The
censorship of profanities is particularly interesting (not only in part due to
the traditional taboo of using the Lord’s name in vain, thus meaning the words
“God”, “Lord”, “Jesus”, and “Christ” were all prohibited, barring their use in
reverence) in the case of what is widely considered one of the greatest movies
of all time, Gone with the Wind.
The
linked video contains one of Hollywood’s most iconic lines, a dramatic finale
of complete and utter apathy contrasted against a desperate stutter of
professed love through tears, yet the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 almost
erased this line from existence due to its (at the time) profane use of
language.
The
film creators, including Jewish-American producer David O. Selznick, vehemently
fought against the removal of the line. The creators folded on many other
restrictions pressed upon them, such as their removal of all references to the
Ku Klux Klan (given that the film was set in the Civil War era South), yet
collectively and firmly refused to comply with this particular demand.
Eventually, the line was greenlit and as such prompted the Motion Picture Producers and
Distributors of America, later known as the Motion Picture Association
of America, to change the code so that profanity could be used in the case of
absolute artistic necessity. This paved the way for more and more motion
pictures to challenge the Hays Code, until it was officially replaced in 1968
with the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system.
Therefore
it can be said, perhaps, that the censorship of art in the early 20th century
was an attempt to regulate morality. Artists, in turn, fought against such
regulation as a method of expression; they wanted to move on from the
traditions of old. Thus two questions, regarding the topic, can be asked:
- How, if at all, does censorship fit into modernism? Or are they inherently incompatible?
- The creators were willing to remove all references to the Ku Klux Klan from the film, yet refused to budge on the removal of a single use of profanity. Does this show a moral bias? How might selective morality fit with or go against the idea of modernism?
Works
Cited:
- "The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code)." Arts Reformation. Ed. Matt Bynum. N.p., 12 Apr. 2006. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.
- Leff, Leonard J. "'Gone With the Wind' and Hollywood's Racial Politics." The Atlantic. N.p., Dec. 1999. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.
- Mondello, Bob. "Remembering Hollywood's Hays Code, 40 Years On." National Public Radio. N.p., 8 Aug. 2008. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.
- Gone with the Wind. Dir. Victor Fleming. Prod. David O. Selznick. By Sidney Coe Howard, Max Steiner, and Ernest Haller. Perf. Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, Leslie Howard, Olivia De Havilland, Thomas Mitchell, and Hattie McDaniel. N.p., n.d. Web.
While at first censorship seems to be incompatible with modernism, artistic censorship could be used as a form of modernism. Also, everything needs boundaries. Even free speech in the US has its limits for protection.
ReplyDeleteI think this topic is a good representation of how the artists tried to find a voice to articulate themselves. In the fight against the restriction of profanities they eventually found a place they felt they could effectively express themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think that this attempt to tear down the boundaries of what was "allowed" in the world of artistic expression goes very well with the modernist movement and its constant push against what is expected. It is another example of art pushing limits, shocking the audience and questioning our beliefs on what is right, what is wrong, what should be allowed and what should not.
ReplyDeleteI think that the modernists definitely tried to push boundaries and interpret the world in untraditional ways. The problem was that the public may interpret their philosophies and how they express them as immoral. However, if a modern art piece is censored, it must have succeeded in its endeavor to push boundaries and step outside of the norm. Thus, I believe that censorship, or controversy that could lead to censorship, is actually beneficial to modernism, because it shows that the modernist artist was successful in his endeavor.
ReplyDeleteI think that censorship is inherently against modernism but it also has the effect of supporting it as well. Modernism and tradition are always at war and censorship is tradition's way of fighting back. Censorship shows Modernism's effects and powers and, in a way, makes their ideas more known and their effect much more potent.
ReplyDeleteI thought your connection between modernism and the push back against the old moral standards was interesting, and I think, because of that, censorship and modernism don't seem very compatible. Perhaps another way of looking at the connection between the two is that modernism is characterized by a lack of the censorship of the time, so in some ways, censorship might inform the subjects of modernist literature.
ReplyDelete