Hays Code

The Motion Picture Production Code was a set of industry guidelines for the self-censorship of content that was applied to most motion pictures released by major studios in the United States from 1934 to 1968. It is also popularly known as the Hays Code, after Will H. Hays, president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) from 1922 to 1945. Under Hays's leadership, the MPPDA, later the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Motion Picture Association (MPA), adopted the Production Code in 1930 and began rigidly enforcing it in 1934. The Production Code spelled out acceptable and unacceptable content for motion pictures produced for a public audience in the United States. From 1934 to 1954, the code was closely identified with Joseph Breen, the administrator appointed by Hays to enforce the code in Hollywood. The film industry followed the guidelines set by the code well into the late 1950s, but it began to weaken, owing to the combined impact of television, influence from foreign films, controversial directors (such as Otto Preminger) pushing boundaries, and intervention from the courts, including the US Supreme Court. In 1968, after several years of minimal enforcement, the Production Code was replaced by the MPAA film rating system.

"Motion Picture Production Code of 1930"
Written by Martin Quigley & Daniel A. Lord; extant copy from Thomas Doherty, “Pre-Code Hollywood”, New York, (1999); taken from Olga J. Martin, Hollywood’s Movie Commandments, (1937)


 * Mankind has always recognized the importance of entertainment and its value in rebuilding the bodies and souls of human beings. But it has always recognized that entertainment can be of a character either helpful or harmful to the human race, and, in consequence, has clearly distinguished between: Entertainment which tends to improve the race, or, at least, to recreate and rebuild human being exhausted with the realities of life; and Entertainment which tends to degrade human beings, or to lower their standards of life and living. Hence the moral importance of entertainment is something which has been universally recognized. It enters intimately into the lives of men and women and affects them closely; it occupies their minds and affections during leisure hours, and ultimately touches the whole of their lives. A man may be judged by his standard of entertainment as easily as the standard of his work. So correct entertainment raises the whole standard of a nation. Wrong entertainment lowers the whole living condition and moral ideals of a race.
 * Appendix 1, GENERAL PRINCIPLES I


 * Art enters intimately into the lives of human beings. Art can be morally good, lifting men to higher levels. <br This has been done thru good music, great painting, authentic fiction, poetry, drama. Art can be morally evil in its effects. This is the case clearly enough with unclean art, indecent books, suggestive drama. The effect on the lives of men and women is obvious.
 * Appendix 1, GENERAL PRINCIPLES II


 * The motion pictures which are the most popular of modern arts for the masses, have their moral quality from the minds which produce them and from their effects on the moral lives and reactions of their audiences. This gives them a most important morality. (1) They reproduce the morality of the men who use the pictures as a medium for the expression of their ideas sand ideals. (2) They affect the moral standards of those who thru the screen take in these ideas and ideals. In the case of the motion pictures, this effect may be particularly emphasized because no art was so quick and so widespread an appeal to the masses. It has become in an incredibly short period, the art of the multitudes.
 * Appendix 1, GENERAL PRINCIPLES II


 * The motion picture has special Moral obligations: (A) Most arts appeal to the mature. This art appeals at once to every class-mature, immature, developed, undeveloped, law abiding, criminal. Music has its grades for different classes; so has literature and drama. This art of the motion picture, combining as it does the two fundamental appeals of looking at a picture and listening to a story, at once reaches every class of society. (B) Because of the mobility of a film and the ease of picture distribution, and because of the possibility of duplicating positives in large quantities, this art reaches places unpenetrated by other forms of art.
 * Appendix 1, GENERAL PRINCIPLES III


 * Psychologically, the larger the audience, the lower the moral mass resistance to suggestion.
 * Appendix 1, GENERAL PRINCIPLES III


 * 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.
 * Appendix 1, SECOND SECTION WORKING PRINCIPLES


 * “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 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 thru out 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.
 * Appendix 1, SECOND SECTION WORKING PRINCIPLES


 * Law, natural or divine, must not be belittled, ridiculed, nor must a sentiment be created against it. (A) The presentation of crimes against the law, human or divine, is often necessary for the carrying out of the plot. But the presentation must not throw sympathy with the criminal as against the law, nor with the crime as against those who must punish it. (B) The courts of the land should not be presented as unjust. III. As far as possible, life should not be misrepresented, at least not in such a way as to place in the minds of youth false values on life.
 * Appendix 1, SECOND SECTION WORKING PRINCIPLES


 * In accordance with the general principles laid down: (1) No plot theme should definitely side with evil and against good. (2) Comedies and farces should not make fun of good, innocence, morality or justice. (3) No plot should be so constructed as to leave the question of right or wrong in doubt or fogged. (4) No plot should by its treatment throw sympathy of the audience with sin, crime, wrong-doing or evil. (5) No plot should present evil alluringly.
 * Appendix 1, PRINCIPLES OF PLOT


 * Vulgarity may be carefully distinguished from obscenity. Vulgarity is the treatment of low, disgusting, unpleasant subjects which decent society considers outlawed from normal conversation. Vulgarity in the motion pictures is limited in precisely the same way as in decent groups of men and women by the dictates of good taste and civilized usage, and by the effect of shock, scandal, and harm on those coming in contact with this vulgarity. (1) Oaths should never be used as a comedy element. Where required by the plot, the less offensive oaths may be permitted (2) Vulgar expressions come under the same treatment as vulgarity in general. Where women and children to see the film, vulgar expressions (and oaths) should be cut to the absolute essentials required by the situation. (3) The name of Jesus Christ should never be used except in reverence.
 * Appendix 1, DETAILS OF PLOT EPISODE, AND TREATMENT, Vulgarity


 * Obscenity is concerned with immorality, but has the additional connotation of being common, vulgar and coarse. (1) Obscenity in fact, that is, in spoken word, gesture, episode, plot, is against divine and human law, and hence altogether outside the range of subject matter or treatment. (2) Obscenity should not be suggested by gesture, manner, etc., (3) An obscene reference, even if it is expected to be understandable to only the more sophisticated part o the audience, should not be introduced. (4) Obscene language is treated as all obscenity.
 * Appendix 1, DETAILS OF PLOT EPISODE, AND TREATMENT, Obscenity


 * Costume GENERAL PRINCIPLES (1) The effect of nudity or semi-nudity upon the normal man or woman, and much more upon the young person, has been honestly recognized by all law-makers and moralists. (2) Hence the fact that the nude or semi-nude body may be beautiful does not make its use in the films moral. For in addition to its beauty, the effect of the nude or semi-nude on the moral individual must be taken into consideration. <br (3) Nudity or semi-nudity used simply to put a “punch” into a picture comes under the head of immoral actions as treated above. It is immoral in its effect upon the average audience. (4) Nudity, or semi-nudity is sometimes apparently necessary for the plot. Nudity is never permitted. Semi-nudity may be permitted under conditions. PARTICULAR PRINCIPLES (1) The more intimate parts of the human body are the male and female organs and the breasts of a woman. (a) They should never be uncovered. (b) They should not be covered with transparent or translucent material. (c) They should not be clearly and unmistakably outlined by the garment.
 * Appendix 1, DETAILS OF PLOT EPISODE, AND TREATMENT, Costume


 * Dancing (1) Dancing in general is recognized as an art and a beautiful form of expressing human emotion. (2) Obscene dances are those: (a) Which suggest or represent sexual actions, whether performed solo or with two or more; (b) Which are designed to excite an audience, to arouse passions, or to cause physical excitement. HENCE: Dances of the type known as "Kooch" or "Can-Can," since they violate decency in these two ways, are wrong. Dances with movement of the breasts, excessive body movement while the feet remain stationary, the so-called "belly dances" these dances are immoral, obscene, and hence altogether wrong.
 * Appendix 1, DETAILS OF PLOT EPISODE, AND TREATMENT, Dancing

About

 * In July of 1934 an editorial in The Commonweal, a semi-official organ of the Catholic church, declared that the “muck merchants” of Hollywood, that “fortress of filth” that had been destroying the moral fiber of the American people, had finally been brought to its knees by the Catholic church and its Legion of Decency. In less than a year the church had recruited millions of Americans of all religious denominations to pledge not to attend “immoral” movies. With a national depression already threatening Hollywood’s financial stability, movie czar Will Hays, head of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of American (MPPDA), accepted the terms of surrender dictated by the church and its legions. The truce struck between Hays and the Most Reverend John T. McNicholas, Archbishop of Cincinnnati, and written and negotiated by Martin Quigley, publisher of “The Motion Picture Herald”, signaled a turning point in a 30-year battle among religious leaders, women’s groups, civic organizations, municipal and state censorship boards, and the motion picture industry over the content of Hollywood films. The victory took the form of a new agency inside the MPPDA, the industry's trade association. The Catholics demanded that Hays create Production Code Administration (PCA) to enforce the censorship code adopted by the industry in 1930. The code, written by a Catholic priest, had not, in the opinion of the church, been enforced. The church demanded, and Hays agreed, that a staunch lay Catholic, namely Joseph I. Breen, would head the PCA and interpret the code. To guarantee that Breen would have enforcement powers, the agreement forced every studio to submit scripts to the PCA before production. The studios agreed that no production  would begin without script approval and that no film would be distributed with a PCA seal of approval. The MPPDA was given power to levy a $25,000 fine against any violator. But that was not all. The church demanded that Hollywood permanently withdraw from circulation films it viewed as “immoral” and that local theater owners be empowered to cancel any film currently in circulation if they judged it to be “immoral.”
 * Gregory D. Black, “Hollywood Censored: The Production Code Administration and the Hollywood Film Industry, 1930-1940 “, Film History, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1989), p. 167