National Feelings in Film: Patriotism, Presidential Respect, and the Code

American Serviceman stand while the National Anthem is played during the Salute to Heroes ceremony during the BNP Parisbas Open at the Indian Wells Tennis Garden in Indian Wells, Calif., on March 13, 2015. Harry How/Getty Images

Commentary

Does it offend you when Americans have no respect for our country’s flag, national anthem, and heritage? Any patriot will feel a swell of pride when the United States is honored and glorified in a film, television show, or play, but the opposite is unfortunately true in many current forms of entertainment. During the Golden Era of Hollywood, the Production Code Administration (PCA) oversaw the content of American movies, ensuring that they met the guidelines of the Motion Picture Production Code (commonly misnomered the Hays Code) from 1934 to 1954 under the strong leadership of Joseph I. Breen.

People who know about the Code usually are aware only of its restrictions on immorality, profanity, and violence. However, it also included guidelines about national respect, patriotism, and sympathy against the law. This combined topic, “National Feelings,” is listed as Article X in the Code. It wouldn’t make a film clean or dirty, but it would make a film acceptable or unacceptable. That was always more important to the PCA than for films to just be “clean,” since that would mean not offensive on any level.

National Feelings

Article X of the Code, includes two subsections:

1. The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.
2. The history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry of all nations shall be represented fairly.

The second section of the Code, “Reasons Underlying Particular Applications,” expounds on National Feelings:

• The just rights, history, and feelings of any nation are entitled to most careful consideration and respectful treatment.

The above rule and other guidelines for national feelings generally apply to foreign countries, not the United States. However, filmmakers had to be reminded about their duty to America, as well. Whether or not clearly stated in the Code, there were certain standards which had to be upheld.

One very important aspect of properly representing the United States was the depiction of officials. In “Reasons Underlying the General Principles,” an explanation is given of the rule that law must not be ridiculed:

• The courts of the land should not be presented as unjust. This does not mean that a single court may not be represented as unjust, much less that a single court official must not be presented this way. But the court system of the country must not suffer as a result of this presentation.

This rule was extremely important, preventing unpatriotic tendencies from sneaking into dramatic films. Without it, films like “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (1939) could have made the whole Congressional system look corrupt, thereby creating suspicion and mistrust of it. Instead of bolstering patriotism by warning Americans against corrupt tyrants, it could have made citizens suspicious of the entire democratic process.

Sympathy for Crime

Another important rule in the Code was that the sympathy of the audience must never be thrown “on the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil, or sin.” Equally dangerous is a film which “would throw sympathy against goodness, honor, innocence, purity or honesty.” The Code never states that a film must not throw sympathy against the United States of America, its legal system, or democracy, but it was an unwritten standard. Although you can’t find this standard within the text of the Code, you can find it within the content of Breen Era films.

Code films didn’t create suspicion or dissatisfaction with our system of government. They bolstered patriotism and made one feel proud to be an American. Whether made during peacetime or wartime, they stressed the importance of doing all you can for your country. Not all Code films feature flag-waving and grand patriotic gestures, but many of them present an unspoken testimony to the greatness of America. They don’t belittle other countries, since Americans should be the friends of all people who love justice and freedom. However, they instill the truth that we should be proud of our unique nation. The Code did not require that films be patriotic, but it did require that “[c]orrect standards of living, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.” Correct standards of living according to the Code included patriotism, since treason and disloyalty are not correct standards.

During the 1930s and early 40s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was given a lot of film representation. Sometimes he was played by an actor, as in “Yankee Doodle Dandy” (1942), but oftentimes an image, a clip of official footage, or a newsreel of the real president was shown. He had more film coverage than any other president, because he served four terms and was in office during notable times, such as the Great Depression and the beginning of World War II. A cursory glance of Busby Berkeley’s work could make you think that this choreographer and director particularly liked President Roosevelt, since he depicted, mentioned, and showed his image in many of his grand musical numbers. However, according to the New World Encyclopedia, Berkeley denied deeper significance behind his musical numbers. His main goal was to outdo his past creations and make something which would appeal to the public, and this included patriotic references to our president, who happened to be FDR.

Loyalty vs. Politics

Not supporting the president of the United States simply wasn’t an option under the Code. There were no official rules regarding depiction of or reference to presidents, but it went without saying that respect was necessary. I’d say that the unwritten rule was basically, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

Since Joseph Breen was Irish, a group affiliated with the Democratic party at the time, one might assume that he was a supporter of the Democratic President Roosevelt. However, his grandson Jack Benton told me that he disagreed with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s political policies so much that he became a Republican because of him. Despite this, the Roosevelts were friends of the Breens who visited the Breen home in Beverly Hills.

I would say that the Code’s political standard was to avoid divisive politics. If there is a hot political topic, films shouldn’t pick a side, since it will make somebody upset. Movie characters could discuss dissenting political views, but current politics were handled very carefully. It was better to stick to big principles on which most people agreed, like creating jobs during the Depression or defeating the Axis powers during World War II. No matter how much a filmmaker disagreed with a current president, it was not his place to make propaganda against that man. The country had elected that president, so he had to support him or keep his opinions to himself. It is treasonous and disloyal for a film to slander any US president. This is a lesson which modern Hollywood needs to learn. Whether or not you agree with or like the man who is in the Oval Office, you must respect that office.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.