Joaquim da Silva Fontes, Significação e Estabilidade do Género no ...

Joaquim da Silva Fontes, Significação e Estabilidade do Género no ... Joaquim da Silva Fontes, Significação e Estabilidade do Género no ...

28.03.2013 Views

2.2 Censorship and Politics In the first half decade of the Great Depression, Hollywood’s movie-makers perpetrated one of the most remarkable challenges to traditional values in the history of mass commercial entertainment. The movies called into question sexual property; social decorum and the institutions of law and order. (Sklar 1975:175) I think the whole system of Hays censorship, with its effort to establish a list of rules on how to be decent is nonsensical. A studio can obey every one and be salacious – violate them and be decent. (James M. Cain, Daily News, 1944) On inspecting the censorial mechanisms governing Hollywood’s wartime activities, it is essential to consider wartime production restrictions in order to understand the way the industrial environment of World War II advanced film noir style. While the informal codes of practice that governed the film industry had been operative ever since the appearance of cinema, always concerned to make sure that audiences would not be shocked or offended in any way, it was in the decade of the thirties that films started to be more carefully scrutinised and submitted to stronger external regulation. In fact, it was back in 1934 that the Production Code was created, and in order to enforce its guiding principles, Joseph Breen was appointed as Head of the Production Code Administration (PCA). Breen was a powerfully anti-Semitic conservative who thought he had to protect traditional morality and so came forward with a set of specific rules against miscegenation, the misrepresentation of law and religious officers in film, among other related issues. The Hays Code, after Will Hays, president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) first started to monitor scripts on the West Coast on a regular basis in 1929 and adopted the Production Code, founded by Father Daniel Lord and Motion Picture Herald publisher Martin Quigley as its moral blueprint for Hollywood films in 1930. When the National Catholic Legion of Decency threatened to proscribe indecent Hollywood films at the beginning of 1934, Hays established the above mentioned 138

Production Code Administration. This was to bring to an end the model of self-regulation that had existed in the “pre-Code” cinema of the late twenties and early thirties, 43 embodied in the Hays’s advice to filmmakers: Speaking to the directors, I appealed to their ingenuity and artistic pride, hinting that it takes vastly more to be interesting while observing decent limits than being risqué. I told them, for example, that instead of seeing how far they could get an actress to lift her skirt and still stay within the law they might try seeing how low she could leave her skirts and still maintain audience interest. (Will Hays) The Code was basically a set of film regulations governing Hollywood productions, with three General Principles which attempted to ensure that films would show “correct standards of life”, including the injunction that crime should always go punished, as shown in Principle 2 of the table below. The Code was therefore an effort to make films endorse family values and defend American legal, political and religious institutions and operated, as Maltby has noted, as a “determining force on the construction of narrative and the delineation of character in every studio-produced film after 1931” (Maltby 1993:37). General Principles 1 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. 2 Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented. 3 Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation. In this chapter, I intend to refer to the noir productions that were often a paper-thin edge away from the wrath of the censors or comment on those which were subjected to important changes or even banned in some parts of the US because they violated the strictures of the Code. I have also included the complete list of “particular applications” of the Code in Appendix II at the end of this work to make it easier to understand references 43 These films are normally characterised as raw, subversive, and precisely uncensored. 139

Production Code Administration. This was to bring to an end the model of self-regulation<br />

that had existed in the “pre-Code” cinema of the late twenties and early thirties, 43<br />

embodied in the Hays’s advice to filmmakers:<br />

Speaking to the directors, I appealed to their ingenuity and artistic pride, hinting<br />

that it takes vastly more to be interesting while observing decent limits than being<br />

risqué. I told them, for example, that instead of seeing how far they could get an<br />

actress to lift her skirt and still stay within the law they might try seeing how low<br />

she could leave her skirts and still maintain audience interest. (Will Hays)<br />

The Code was basically a set of film regulations governing Hollywood productions,<br />

with three General Principles which attempted to ensure that films would show “correct<br />

stan<strong>da</strong>rds of life”, including the injunction that crime should always go punished, as shown<br />

in Principle 2 of the table below. The Code was therefore an effort to make films en<strong>do</strong>rse<br />

family values and defend American legal, political and religious institutions and operated,<br />

as Maltby has <strong>no</strong>ted, as a “determining force on the construction of narrative and the<br />

delineation of character in every studio-produced film after 1931” (Maltby 1993:37).<br />

General Principles<br />

1 No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral stan<strong>da</strong>rds of<br />

those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be<br />

thrown to the side of crime, wrong<strong>do</strong>ing, evil or sin.<br />

2 Correct stan<strong>da</strong>rds of life, subject only to the requirements of drama<br />

and entertainment, shall be presented.<br />

3 Law, natural or human, shall <strong>no</strong>t be ridiculed, <strong>no</strong>r shall sympathy<br />

be created for its violation.<br />

In this chapter, I intend to refer to the <strong>no</strong>ir productions that were often a paper-thin<br />

edge away from the wrath of the censors or comment on those which were subjected to<br />

important changes or even banned in some parts of the US because they violated the<br />

strictures of the Code. I have also included the complete list of “particular applications” of<br />

the Code in Appendix II at the end of this work to make it easier to understand references<br />

43 These films are <strong>no</strong>rmally characterised as raw, subversive, and precisely uncensored.<br />

139

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!