Revisiting ‘The Production Code of 1930’s Impact on America’

The Breen family, circa 1934. The father, Joseph I. Breen, a conservative Catholic layman, oversaw the Production Code Administration, which strictly enforced the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930. Courtesy of Jack Benton

Commentary

It’s hard to believe that I’ve been writing for The Epoch Times for 4 1/2 years now. During that time, I’ve focused the majority of my articles around the Motion Picture Production Code, which was the theme of my first article, “The Key to the Golden Era of Hollywood.” Before writing for this publication, I had a blog on the same subject for years called the Pure Entertainment Preservation Society, or PEPS. My first blog post was called “The Production Code of 1930’s Impact on America,” and it had a similar theme to the first article: the Production Code as the reason behind the Golden Era of Hollywood’s acclaimed yet decent entertainment.

I started the blog with my younger sister, Rebekah. That first article began as a 3,000-word research paper we wrote during the summer as the climax of a writing course. On Oct. 17, 2016, we decided to publish it as the first entry on our Wordpress blog. During the three years between starting that blog and having my first article published by The Epoch Times, I read a lot about the Code, and I wrote a lot about it, too. My opinion on the Code’s value and influence on films didn’t change during that time. However, looking back on that first article, I realize that the way I talk about the Code and classic films has changed.

The title page of the Motion Picture Production Code. Public Domain

The Censorship Issue

The research paper started with a long, detailed opening paragraph outlining the theme:

“What’s wrong with the modern American cinema? Out of the top twenty films in 2015, why were twelve rated R, six rated PG-13, and not one rated G? The reason for these depressing statistics is a simple one: films are merely rated but not censored. In other words, all obscene content is allowed as long as audiences are warned of it. Many people complain about the shocking content of nearly every film released in this country, and moral Americans dream about times in the past when they could go to the theater and see good films. Not even all senior citizens remember a time when every film was decent. Sometimes it is hard to believe there ever was such a time. A look at films from the past, however, reassures one’s faith in the power of propriety in the cinema. If one looks earlier in time, one may be surprised to discover that films in the 20’s and early 30’s contained immoral elements similar to those seen in the 1960’s. Why, then, were films so conservative and moral only a few years later? The answer to this question is surprisingly simple: from 1934 to 1954 Joseph I. Breen, a conservative Catholic layman, oversaw the Production Code Administration, which strictly enforced the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930. But what is this Code, and how did it produce the miracle of films which adhere to strong Christian principles? Read on to learn the fascinating story of loose early films, Hollywood’s Golden Age, its tragic demise, and the hope this time gives for the future.”

Besides a few punctuation styles, I could have written that paragraph yesterday. As a 15-year-old high school graduate, I had already developed my writing style. The ideas presented in that paragraph are points that I make in many of my current articles. The choice which strikes me is my use of the word “censored.” Throughout this paper, I used some form of the word “censor” 14 times. Half of these times are referring to the Code and its enforcement as censorship. It’s not surprising that I would use that word, since it’s included in the titles of most books on the topic.

As I learned more about the Code and the men who wrote and enforced it, I discovered that they hated for their work to be referred to as censorship. Instead, they preferred the term “self-regulation.” Apparently, I discovered this by January 2017, since the 13th blog post addressed the issue of whether the Code was censorship. In an article published on January 7 entitled “The First Amendment and the Code,” I addressed the difference between government censorship and what the Code did, explaining why it didn’t conflict with the constitutional Freedom of Speech. This changed wording was largely inspired by the responses and reactions I received during my first months as a vocal proponent of the Code’s virtues. From 2017 onward, I’ve never used the word “censorship” or any of its derivatives, including the oxymoron “self-censorship,” when talking about the Code, unless I’m explaining how it differs from true censorship.

A Cultural Phenomenon

Besides the erroneous usages of the word censorship, the rest of the essay is a very detailed but accurate account of film content regulation in America, starting with the Supreme Court case ruling in 1915 which exempted films from First Amendment protection. As the essay explains, this would lead to the formation of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America in 1927, the adoption of the Code in 1930, and the formation of the Production Code Administration (PCA) in 1934. Where the essay differed from the standard writings on this subject is its inference that the Code’s enforcement shaped the artistic quality of entertainment and, as a result, American culture during the Great Depression and beyond:

Joseph I. Breen in the 1950s, working at the Production Code Administration. Courtesy of John Benton

“The relentless Breen faced opposition from everyone. Producers, directors, writers, actors, and the press mocked him and the morality he and his Code were trying to enforce. He believed in the Code, though, and insisted that films adhere to it. When Hollywood realized this, it had to reform. Costumes were made more modest, foul language and vulgarity were removed from scripts, titles were revised, suggestive scenes were cut, controversial subjects were avoided, and kisses were limited to three seconds in length. For the first and only time in history, films were made without the inappropriate material which is usually thought to sell tickets. Instead the emphasis was put on clean living and a wholesome American lifestyle. This began a resurgence of morality and patriotism in this country. Instead of being a country of pleasure seekers, America was once again one nation under God, if only in appearance. The Victorianism of the Code spread throughout America, making society once more regard immorality as intolerable in a civilized democracy. This was the only time that the consumer had a true friend on the other side of the Silver Screen. Joseph Breen and the other men involved with the Code wanted to demonstrate righteousness for and protect the morals of America’s general public, especially the youth. The people behind the scenes in Hollywood were also forced to maintain an appearance of American morality, even if it was in many cases a farce. Film-makers ceased depicting the grim and ghastly elements of degenerate Mankind. The cinema turned its focus to true entertainment, which provides a diversion from the bleakness of reality. Good always triumphed over evil. Common people striving to do their best and the right thing became the heroes, instead of the glorified libertines and criminals of past years.”

A Strong Conclusion

The biggest weakness in every telling of the Code’s story is a strong conclusion. Its steady decline in the late 1950s and 60s is recounted, but a reason for its downfall is rarely cited, even in hypothesis. However, this essay, written mere months after my sister and I first became aware of the Code, strongly blames Geoffrey Shurlock for the moral collapse, a belief I still hold to this day:

“Joseph Breen was replaced by Geoffrey Shurlock. Immediately filmmakers began to test the new leader to see how strictly he would enforce the Code. Although at first it was upheld, one can immediately see the change in films after Breen’s departure. Some films followed the rules by which they still had to be made, but others challenged the weaker director. Mr. Shurlock felt pressure from filmmakers, who had to compete with both foreign films and a relatively new medium, television. ... By the end of 1968, Geoffrey Shurlock abdicated from his position, and the Code was officially over. Almost immediately films were worse than they had ever been before the Code. In fourteen years, Shurlock, who had been given the extremely important job of guarding the morals of America, had allowed the work of five decades toward civilization and propriety in films to collapse.”

The essay ended with commentary on the positive effects of the Code, a few statistics on the success of films from that era, and discussion of the possibility of the Code’s ever being reinstated. It ended with a patriotic call to action, citing the Code as America’s last hope:

“Audiences will accept anything Hollywood gives them and will adapt their lifestyles accordingly. With films getting worse every year and the immorality in America rising to terrifying heights, something must be done to regain order. If America is going to change, Hollywood must change first. ... What can Americans do to invoke change? We must unite against immoral entertainment and entreat Hollywood to bring back the Code, clean up the film industry, and make America once again, as our founding-fathers named it, ‘a city on a hill.’”

When did you first learn about the Motion Picture Production Code? What are your thoughts on it?