#the hays code

[renthony]

In the aftermath of my big post about censorship, multiple people have left comments that boil down to, "it's okay to show heavy topics in fiction as long as they're portrayed as bad."

Let's take a quick look at an excerpt from the full ext of the Hays Code, shall we?

No picture should lower the moral standards of those who see it. This is done: (a) When evil is made to appear attractive, and good is made to appear unattractive. (b) When the sympathy of the audience is thrown on the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil, sin.The same thing is true of a film that would throw sympathy against goodness, honor, innocence, purity, honesty. note: Sympathy with a person who sins, is not the same as sympathy with the sin or crime of which he is guilty. We may feel sorry for the plight of the murderer or even understand the circumstances which led him to his crime; we may not feel sympathy with the wrong which he has done. The presentation of evil is often essential for art, or fiction, or drama. This in itself is not wrong, provided: (a) That evil is not presented alluringly. Even if later on the evil is condemned or punished, it must not be allowed to appear so attractive that the emotions are drawn to desire or approve so strongly that later they forget the condemnation and remember only the apparent joy of the sin. (b) That thruout the presentation, evil and good are never confused and that evil is always recognized clearly as evil. (c) That in the end the audience feels that evil is wrong and good is right

This is the same Hays Code that supported Nazis. This is the same Hays Code that forced Jewish artists out of Hollywood. This is the same Hays Code that targeted artists of color, queer artists, female artists, any artist who deviated from the white American Catholic ideal. And it was explicitly Catholic, which I explained in further depth here.

The idea that art has to have a clear moral, which lines up with the dominant morals of white American Christianity, is foundational to the Hays Code. If you sound like the Hays Code, you need to re-evaluate.

Censorship and moral codes enforced on art are never used for anything other than oppression. The second you try to dictate what is and isn't allowable in art, you side with people who will enforce those rules on marginalized people with no mercy and no hesitation.

Censorship does not create healthy relationships with media, even the censorship you might be tempted to think of as "good censorship."

(And, as usual, being an independent censorship researcher does very little to pay my bills. Kick me a tip on Ko-Fi or pledge to me on Patreon if you want to support my work! <3)

[zaebeecee]

No, you don't want the Hays Code to come back.

Listen, I get it. I'm aroace. I don't like sitting through gratuitous sex scenes that do nothing for the plot and exist solely for the purpose of "being a sex scene in the movie". It's lazy writing and a cheap marketing ploy, to be sure, but don't try to fool yourself into believing that a return of the Hays Code will somehow only change this particular aspect of film, and that everything else will be allowed to flourish as a result.

Let's pretend that the Hays Code did come back. If that ever happened, what kinds of things could you expect from all film, going forward? Well, we're going to go on a journey. I'm going to go through the Hays Code (which you can find here in its entirety if you'd like to read it) point by point, and the following list is just what immediately comes to mind while doing that. I promise you, the full list is much, much longer.

Things you could look forward to if the Code came back:

You don't get any more sympathetic villains. The very first rule of the Hays Code is "the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin".

There will be no more characters who are happily allowed to live any lifestyle alternative to the Average American Nuclear Family With Dad And Mom And 2.5 Kids And A Dog. This includes everything from queer representation to just having a woman who doesn't want to get married (or, Heaven forfend, wants a divorce). Any characters who are living lives like this will either 1) have this rectified by the end of the story, usually by falling in love with the promise of marriage and a family, or 2) die.

There won't be any more criticism of the police or the government unless it comes from villains, at which point the criticism will be so cartoonishly over the top and miss the point so hard it isn't even criticism anymore. If a protagonist holds any of these views, they will very quickly be "set straight".

You won't have any more horror movies with any part of the horror coming from the portrayal of a character's death, because the Code prohibits murder shown in any context that people might theoretically be able to imitate or with any brutality whatsoever. The shower scene in Psycho pushed this rule almost to its breaking point.

All crime procedurals will be barebones by necessity, because even crime on property or non-violent crime (theft/robbery, arson, smuggling, etc) will not be allowed to be presented with any level of detail. Any sort of heist story will not exist for the same reason.

There will be no more action movies with guns in them, as the only presentation of firearms allowed will be "restricted to the essentials".

Not only can smuggling not be portrayed, basically everything about illegal drugs will be banned from film.

Characters will only drink alcohol in any form at all if it's critical to the plot.

No romantic affairs unless they're a vital plot point.

The ban on sex will not be limited to on-scene sex. There will be no kissing or even embracing that could be construed as "lustful", as well as no characters allowed to even hold themselves in a vaguely provocative manner. Also, the very act of seduction is banned, even if it's in a positive light.

Oh, hey, look, a good one: any rape must be essential to the plot, non-explicit in any capacity, and never used for comedy. You get one, Hays.

No more queer people. At all.

The Code explicitly bans the portrayal of "White slavery" and "miscegenation". Know what those are? "A white woman traveling in any capacity with a black man" and "any marriage between a white person and a black person".

No stories of anyone suffering from an STD.

No childbirth. You can't even say the word 'pregnant', and showing a woman who is pregnant is pushing your luck.

Good one number two: no depicting children in an even vaguely suggestive manner. So that's two, Hays.

The points on 'vulgarity' and 'obscenity' are so incredibly vague that basically anything objectionable is subject to being banned depending on the personal opinion of the person making the judgment. Also, no more jokes for parents in kid's movies, and that's not limited to sexual innuendo, because the obscenity clause forbids even the possible suggestion of something that might be considered objectionable even if only a small portion of the audience will understand it.

No profanity, for any reason.

There won't be any costumes that are considered immodest according to the standards of 1930. Also, you can't portray anyone undressing or being exposed to the point of indecency according to the standards of 1930.

No one will be allowed to dance in any way that isn't your basic Jr. High slow "save room for Jesus" type dancing. This includes, but isn't limited to, dances with any sort of sexually provocative moves. For context, it was this restriction that had people calling for Elvis Presley to be arrested and burning his records, because of that basic little back and forth hip movement he did. It wasn't even thrusting, it was mostly side to side.

There will be zero critique of religion. Doesn't matter why. On this note, the only acceptable portrayal of religious figures will be as wise, caring espousers of good advice and wisdom. No religious figures as villains or presented in a comedic light. Also, all religious ceremonies are to be respectful if portrayed and cannot be used for negative plot reasons.

If they show a married couple's bedroom, the couple must have separate beds, because you can't even suggest that a married couple are sleeping together.

Anything relating to the flag of the USA or patriotism will be required to be shown in a positive light. The same can be said of representations of other countries and cultures... according to the standards of 1930.

Good point three: no animal or child cruelty.

"Oh but isn't the next point good" no because "the sale of women" just means prostitution, so yeah, no more sex workers. And not just them actively working, you can't portray them at all.

Medical dramas and war dramas won't be able to portray surgery.

Now, yes, it's true that the Code goes on to clarify points, with things like "it's okay to sympathize with the person committing the crime, just not the crime itself", but these clarifications are always just there to make the Code seem less like a totalitarian dictatorship. Also, do you really think people are going to push their luck and possibly have their work subjected to severe third-party editing or, worse, flat out banned? Of course not. Filmmakers are going to err on the side of caution and not push anything.

You might be looking at this list and thinking, "but I know a lot of characters from the Code era that did all this stuff!" Right. I'm sure you did. And they were villains, by and large. And if they weren't, they were either fixed because it was a dramatic plot point, or they were punished with death.

I'm sure there are things on this list that you think are fine. But I'm just as positive that there's at least one thing that bans something you personally like. And I suggest you just stop for a second and think about all the media you like, and how many of them—under strict adherence to this code—would be banned.

Being in my 30s, some of these might be old or outdated enough to be obscure, but this would ban (or change past the point of recognition) things like Breaking Bad, NBC's Hannibal, Monty Python anything, V for Vendetta, James Bond, everything MCU and DCU, Ocean's 11, The Big Lebowski, The Boondock Saints, The Walking Dead, most every reality show in existence, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Substance, Straight Outta Compton, Heretic, Nosferatu, The Hunger Games, Percy Jackson, Salem's Lot, Boardwalk Empire, Wicked, The Passenger, Glass Onion and Knives Out, half of everything the Muppets have ever done, Smile, Skinamarink, The Babadook, Sister Act, The Blues Brothers, Gone Girl, X, Jurassic Park, Death Becomes Her, The Birdcage, Cabaret, Repo! The Genetic Opera, Mrs. Doubtfire, Smokey and the Bandit, Jaws, The Nun, The Amityville Horror, Reefer Madness, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Little Shop of Horrors, Moulin Rouge!, Les Miserables, Chicago, Hamilton, Adventure Time, The Menu, To Wong Foo, Paris is Burning, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, It, The Godfather trilogy, The Thing, Shakespeare in Love, Pirates of the Caribbean, Wilde, To Kill a Mockingbird, Fried Green Tomatoes, Murder She Wrote, and this is just what I can think of at the moment.

Even if you don't like or don't care about most of this list, you can't deny that this is a lot of things from a lot of different genres, many of which have almost nothing sexually provocative in them at all.

The Hays Code didn't make movies better. It isn't the kind of limitation that breeds creativity. The Hays Code existed explicitly to silence absolutely everyone that the Moral Majority didn't like, and I'm sorry to tell you this, but if you're on tumblr then there is a 98% chance that you are one of those people the Code sought to silence. It wasn't made for anyone's benefit except the people who made it and wanted to control as much of the culture as they could.

Things like the Code do not help people, and they do not only hurt people who aren't you. Ultimately, it does nothing except make art unilaterally worse.

[kuiperoid]

Queen Coke Francis talks about the history of the Hays Code and the wave of puritannical thinking towards media seen among young people these days, sometimes under the guise of social progressivism.

[citizenscreen]

Starting tonight, #TCM Spotlights The Hays Code for its 90th anniversary. Get your moral outrage ready for comparisons and discussion on its influence.

[frommybookbook]

Heist Movies and the Hays Code

The other night, some friends and I watched the incredible Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Badda Bing, Badda Bang", which is a loving pastiche of the heist film. As we were watching, we all noticed how old the actor playing the character of Mr. Zeemo was and I knew there had to be an Easter egg reason for it. After looking him up, I realized he was Marc Lawrence, who appeared in The Asphalt Jungle (1950), largely considered to be the first true heist film (though there are a couple from the 40s, that I've also seen, that are sort of proto-heists).

I decided to watch Asphalt this weekend, since I'd never seen it and it'd been sitting in my queue for ages. It was fine, definitely a first pancake situation, but now I can't stop thinking about the evolution of the heist film and the way the Hays Code shaped its early days and how it was allowed to shift and evolved after the code was lifted.

The earliest heist films were made under the Code. And not only under the Code, but at the Code's peak in the late '40s/early '50s. You watch these movies and you know from the very beginning that no one in our gang of misfits is going to succeed. The rules of the Code and its insistence that crime and depravity and bad morals can't pay means all of them will either be dead or in jail by the time the closing credits role. It doesn't matter how much we love our protagonists, it doesn't matter what their motivations are for participating in the heist, they are criminals and they must pay. They'll never see a dime of their money and all their efforts will be in vain.

Contrast this with the modern heist movie: the lovable rogues always beat the house. George Clooney and Brad Pitt and their buddies walk away with their millions. Sisko and his crew trick Frankie Eyes and save Vic's. Jason Statham in every Jason Statham movie gets his cash and lives to steal another day.

A lot of what I've read about the evolution of the heist movie and the role the Code plays in it focuses on the fact that once the code was lifted, these movies became more violent and graphic and leaned hard into that. And I'm sure that's true, but that was true of all movies. The 70s and the 80s in particular really exemplify the shock value of violence and sex in a post-Code Hollywood. But nothing I've seen talks about how the dissolution of the Code changed how audiences are allowed to see the thieves in a heist movie. Without the draconian constraints of the Code, we're allowed to root for the thieves, to be on their side, and to see them "win" in the end and make off with their bounty.

Even in the rare modern heist where the hero protagonist doesn't win—he (because it's almost always a he) doesn't get the money or he does get caught and goes to jail—it's always inferred that this is just a temporary setback. Next time, he'll be smarter and better and he'll win. He's alive and prison is just a small blip on the timeline, he'll be back (probably in 17 sequels) and the next time he'll do the job to beat all jobs. Heist movies of the Code era rarely see the thieves end the movie alive and when they do, they're behind bars with no hope of release or escape. The message that crime doesn't pay is never in question.

Yes, violence and sex have become more prevalent in heist movies in the post-Code era, but I think the greatest change the freedom of production without the Code brought to heist movies is that now, the house can lose.

[heartofhubris]

Everyone here watch Queen Coke Francis I'm not asking

[nerdby]

Please, remember, that by deleting shows and movies, and edging psychical media out of existence Hollywood and streaming platforms are able to censor the media you have access to. It is not an accident that these things are happening at the same time as book bans are happening -- there is already speculation online about The Hays Code being revitalized.

The Hays Code was a set of rules put in place by the Catholic Church in the 1930s-1960s in order to illegally censor TV and film in the US.

The streaming industry is imploding and that is a good thing not just because of censorship but also because they abuse writers and actors.

At one point HBO/MAX swore that DCU content would be exclusive to their streaming platform. But now MAX is hemorrhaging money and is licensing DCU shows and movies out to other streaming platforms including free ones like Tubi. Thanks, Mindy❣️

Another sign that the industry is imploding is that Disney has released Disney+ exclusives like WandaVision and Loki season one on Bluray, and Netflix recently announced a Blu-ray release of the Wednesday series mere MONTHS after canceling their DVD subscription service.

If you want to support writers and actors, please invest in psychical media. If you are in Australia and want to collect psychical media invest in a region free Blu-ray player, and buy movies from Amazon, eBay, etc.

Remember that psychical media is an investment. If you buy a movie or whatever that you end up hating you can always resell it or donate it somewhere, and by investing in psychical media you are helping to preserve film history. If you're able to pirate, I highly recommend burning your favorite shows and movies onto DVDs for more secure storage.

Do not let small children handle your DVDs/Blurays cause nine times out of ten that is how they end up getting scratched and ruined. If you find fingerprints on a disc you can usually wipe them off with a microfiber cloth and the disc will play fine. You can also buy a disc cleaning machine.

If you cannot afford to buy Blurays/DVDs check out your local library as they often have movies you can rent for FREE. Also check out Gamefly which lets you rent movies on Blu-ray/DVD for like $11.99USD a month. It's basically old school Netflix -- and you can rent videogames from them too.

Most importantly remember--

If you buy more psychical media corporations will create more of it. That is how supply and demand works.

Cancel your streaming subscriptions and invest in psychical media.

[eveninanothertime]

[renthony]

Random pet peeve:

It's not called the "Hayes Code." That's a misspelling. It's the "Hays Code." It was officially known as the "Motion Picture Production Code," and nicknamed the "Hays Code" after Will Hays, the first chairman of the MPPDA (know called the MPA). It was also infrequently referred to as the "Breen Code," after head censor Joseph Breen.

It doesn't actually matter that much. "Hayes" isn't such a bad misspelling that it keeps me from understanding what people mean, and the "Hayes" misspelling has been around since the Code's creation. Plus, unsolicited correcting of people's spelling and grammar gets obnoxious (and frequently bigoted) real fast. But I see that misspelling so often in materials that are ostensibly trying to educate, so I feel compelled to say that, if you're genuinely trying to learn more about the topic (or educate people on the topic), make sure you know the proper spelling so you can find the info you need! Running searches for misspelled keywords means you'll miss things. And the Hays Code is important to know about if you're concerned about rising waves of American media censorship.

[emrysmoss]

Can you guys believe that some of the most influential early screenwriters and directors had to sneak queer subtext into popular media for so long that it seeped into straight screenwriters’ subconscious baseline for writing compelling characters and plot, thus, accidentally creating the the gayest non-gay television show to ever exist and that show is called BBC Merlin

[eveninanothertime]

[renthony]

Not "proship," not "antiship," but a secret third thing called "this issue is way bigger than your goddamn petty fandom discourse, I have read the full text of the Hays Code, and way too many people in this bullshit argument sound exactly like Joseph fucking Breen."

[a-gay-a-day]

The Hays Code

The Hays code is often discussed in conversations about censorship, and for good reason. I turn your attention to the above picture, as the rule in the code most pertinent to the discussion of queerness in film is the fourth rule: "Sex perversion or any inference to it is forbidden." It was a major influence on motion pictures in America from 1934 to 1968, because during the early 1930's, movie theaters were attempting to gain an audience with increasingly salacious films because the depression was causing a lack of support for the film industry.

Through the use of the extremally vague ban on "sex perversion," queer people were banned onscreen. However, same-sex couples were not the only thing that the code banned. Depictions of drug use, mocking of religion, and depictions of interracial marriage were all banned underneath the code. More nuanced depictions of people on-screen were also discouraged, such as "sympathy for criminals," and depictions of violence, the reason being "having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron."

[k-wame]

best summary of this film ive ever read

[ariel-seagull-wings]

@the-blue-fairie @themousefromfantasyland @thealmightyemprex

Trump is appointing three washed-up actors as "ambassador to Hollywood" in order to bring back the "Golden Age of Hollywood". Which has historical precedent: there was an ambassador to Hollywood in the Golden Age, too. His name was Georg Gyssling and he was sent by Hitler to monitor the activities of Hollywood studios. To make sure their films didn't say anything anti-Nazi, resulting in many attempts at anti-fascist films being shut down by the Hays Code. Just a fun historical Hollywood fact there