헤이즈 코드: 검열이 코드화 이전 할리우드에 미친 영향

### 프리코드 할리우드와 헤이즈 코드의 복잡한 유산
* 🎬 대공황 초기에 할리우드 영화는 가톨릭 교회와 업계 지도자들이 정부의 개입을 피하기 위해 **헤이즈 코드를 통해 콘텐츠를 규제**하려고 시도하면서 도덕적 갈등의 장이 되었습니다.
* 📜 대중의 생각과는 달리 **헤이즈 코드는 1934년까지 엄격하게 시행되지 않았기 때문에** 사회적 규범에 도전하는 파격적이고 도발적인 영화로 가득 찬 코드 이전의 활기찬 영화계가 존재할 수 있었습니다.
* 🎥 헤이즈 코드는 성적 변태와 외설 등 광범위한 주제를 금지했지만, **모호한 가이드라인**으로 인해 시행 전에는 다양한 해석과 상당한 예술적 자유가 보장되었습니다.
* 🎭 무성 영화 시대는 복잡한 내러티브와 테마로 특징지어지며, 훗날 헤이즈 코드의 검열에 의해 억압받게 될 **퀴어 표현과 대담한 이야기**가 등장합니다.
* 💃 프리코드 영화에는 섹슈얼리티와 사회적 역할을 탐구하는 **강인하고 독립적인 여성 캐릭터**가 등장하여 경제가 어려운 시기에 진정성과 대표성을 추구하는 관객의 욕구를 반영했습니다.
* 📖 영화 제작자들이 검열에 반발하기 시작하면서 **헤이스 코드의 영향력은 궁극적으로 제한**되었고, 결국 **1960년대에 현대적인 등급 시스템이 발전**하게 되었습니다.
* 🕵 강령을 시행한 조셉 브린과 같은 유명 인사들은 업계 내에서 우정을 쌓아가는 과정에서 갈등을 겪었으며, 이는 **검열과 창의성 사이의 복잡한 관계**를 잘 보여줍니다.
* 🌟 코드 이전 영화에 대한 향수는 **할리우드가 규범에 도전하는 것을 두려워하지 않았던 시대**를 강조하며 **미국 영화의 미래를 형성한 활기찬 시대**를 엿볼 수 있게 해줍니다.

헤이즈 코드가 할리우드에 끼친 영향은 스캔들로 얼룩진 창의성과 진화하는 여성 대표성에 대한 오해의 시대를 드러냅니다.

For five wild years at the beginning of the Great Depression, Hollywood films were a world filled with conflict and scandal. It was all centered on grand questions of morality, of the great fight for the soul of America's youth, and the purity of the populace. While half of the population craved fun and realistic movies to transport them to a world of excitement for a while, the other half feared the growing influence of movies and sought to control them before things were past the point of no return. Enter the Catholic Church, William Hays, Joseph Breen, and the Production Codes: a series of attempts by the movie industry to regulate itself and tamp down criticism from conservatives and social reformers, for fear that if they didn't, the government would do it for them - and nobody wanted that. But of all things in the pantheon of Hollywood history, the Hays Code

is one of the most misunderstood. Richard Maltby writes in 'The Production Code and the Mythologies of Pre-Code Hollywood,' Most people know two things about the Hays Code. One is that the bedrooms of all married couples could only contain twin beds, which had to be at least 27 inches apart. The other is that although the Code was written in 1930, it was not enforced until 1934, and that as a result, the pre-Code cinema of the early 1930s violated its rules with impunity in a series of wildly unconventional films that were more unbridled, salacious, subversive, and just plain bizarre, than any other period of Hollywood's history. Neither of these things is true. I would argue that most people don't even know that much about the Hays Code, true or not. If the average person has even heard

of it, they probably just know that it was a code to control the morality of the films being produced in Hollywood. According to the Hays Code, a film could not contain a wide variety of things, including, but not limited to, sex perversion, abortion, rape, open-mouth kisses, lustful embraces, prostitution, seduction, white slavery, obscenity, nudity, and profanity. This list of general principles was truthfully very general, leading to a wide array of interpretations as to what these guidelines even mean. In the last several decades since the Code lost its power over Hollywood, and the retelling of cinema history goes through an endless game of telephone, it becomes more and more difficult to make sense of this incredibly odd time in film history. The truth is, the Hays Code's effects on Hollywood is an extremely misunderstood case.

but it's also true that the early years following the birth of sound in cinema did see some of the most wild and scandalous films that directors could dream of. What was Hollywood like before censorship took over, and what really happened? Come learn with me! But first: this month's channel charity, Women Make Movies. For over 50 years, WMM has been supporting women filmmakers and screening films made by underrepresented female, disabled, nonwhite, and queer filmmakers. They operate workshops and webinars, fund projects, and run career support, all vital things for new folks in the industry. In honor of the pre-Code filmmakers who were women and who were working to portray diverse stories, I highly encourage you to join me in making a donation. You can find more info below in the description. Now let's get into it. But first:

a word from today's sponsor, Birch Living. Are you one of those people who needs highly specific conditions to fall and stay asleep? That's my nightly struggle, and let me tell you, it sucks. Well, the good news is, I finally got a Birch Luxe mattress. It absolutely rocks. Birch makes mattresses crafted with responsibly-sourced materials like 100% natural latex, and organic cotton and wool. Not only that, but their mattresses have absolutely no polyurethane foam, which causes nasty off-gassing, and is made with fiberglass. Yeah, did you know that a lot of foam mattresses are full of fiberglass? Do not take those covers off, people! Birch doesn't have those issues, though, so you can sleep easy knowing that you aren't sleeping on a literal pile of fiberglass and chemicals. They don't even have

fiberglass in their manufacturing facilities. See, this is important to me because fairly recently I ordered a dresser that was covered in fiberglass, and let me tell you, that was not a fun experience. So when looking into new mattresses, I knew that I wanted one that doesn't create harmful off-gassing and is made with natural, safe materials. Not just for me, but for my cat daughter, who sleeps on my bed too. Birch mattresses are all GOTS and GREENGUARD Gold certified, so you know it's not all talk. This baby is naturally allergen, mildew, and flame resistant because it uses natural wool. It gets shipped right to your door for free in the US, and it was also very easy to set up. Just make sure to actually follow the instructions correctly because I accidentally opened mine upside down. And if you aren't sure,

they do offer in-home setup and unwrapping, which is nice because this thing is really heavy. The Birch Luxe mattress is a nice upgrade from the original and comes with two free comfy Eco-Rest pillows. And after sleeping on it for a few weeks now, I can confirm I am sleeping more soundly and in a lot less pain. And there's no fiberglass! I love my Birch mattress, and I think you would, too. If you're looking for a new bed, check out Birch Living. Their Labor Day sale is live now, so it's the perfect time to upgrade your sleep with 25% off a Birch mattress, plus two free Eco-Rest pillows. Visit BirchLiving.com/Kaz to find out more about this limited time offer. And you also get a 100-night sleep trial and 25-year warranty. Thank you so much to Birch for sponsoring this video.

And now, let's get back to learning about pre-Code Hollywood. ♪ sultry jazz ♪ I think there's a common perception of the Silent era as this campy, simple, wholesome era of filmmaking. Most people think of the comedies of Charlie Chaplin or the quaint romances, but in actuality, the Silent era saw some of the most thematically complex, dark, and daring stories I've ever seen in film. Of course, you have 'Wings,' which pushed the boundaries of cinematography, stunt work, and representation of queer subtext. German expressionist films like 'Metropolis' and 'The Hands of Orlac' showed how grim and complicated narrative storytelling and film could be. And furthering queer subtext, you had a lot of openly queer actors and directors making films inspired by an increasingly visible gay community.

especially in places like the Weimar Republic in Berlin. In 1928, Louise Brooks starred in 'Pandora's Box,' a film that took her to Berlin to film some of the first overtly lesbian scenes in cinema, alongside Alice Roberts. Louise herself, although not actually a lesbian, was sexually and gender ambiguous enough to become a lesbian icon. Her friend, Charles Weidman, said to her, Louise, everybody says you're a lesbian, but you're not really. You're a pansy. Lesbian directors like Dorothy Arzner and Germaine Dulac succeeded in breaking past the boys club boundaries of the film world, and numerous actresses openly identified as lesbian or otherwise some flavor of queer, too. Like Tallulah Bankhead, Greta Garbo, and Marlene Dietrich, who all had well-known, long-term partnerships.

with other women. After a continual avalanche of Hollywood controversies, the deaths of William Desmond Taylor, Olive Thomas, and Virginia Rappe being just a few, national media latched onto the film industry as a veritable breeding ground of sin. The studios knew already that they were in a tenuous position. Government intervention could destroy them financially, especially Paramount, which was not only a monopoly but also the face of some of the worst scandals. Fearing a worsening landscape of vice accusations, the studios took the issue of censorship to the Supreme Court in 1915... ...and lost. The Court ruled that movies do not fall under the First Amendment because they are a product, and products are allowed to be censored. And so, the era of Production Codes had begun. Two censorship boards had already existed in Chicago and New York, but following the Supreme Court case, by 1922,

there were eight state boards to contend with that had a massive reach of control. And progressively, more and more states voted in new boards, with Massachusetts in particular gunning for federal-level censorship. Enter what we assume is the main character in today's story, William H. Hays. A hard-headed conservative Postmaster General and churchman, Hays was brought on as the spokesman of the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry, or NAMPI. And Jason S. Joy took on a leadership role at the MPPDA in Hollywood, doing the grunt work inspecting scenes for no less than 150k a year, which was so much more back then. Hays became the new movie czar and offered the idea that so long as the movie studios stayed on their best behavior, no federal oversight was necessary. This was actually a welcome move, given that year after year, the movies continued

to skew more and more raunchy, and even studio execs were getting a little uneasy. In an attempt to actually prove they were on their best behavior, Irving Thalberg, E.H. Allen, and Sol Wurtzel banded together to create a list that they called The Don'ts and Be Carefuls, which contained guidelines that producers could use to ensure that their pictures followed the rules. But this proud move didn't account for one little tiny thing that would shake the film industry forever. As Mark Vieira writes in 'Forbidden Hollywood,' Then, before Jason Joy could say 'don't' or even 'be careful,' someone else spoke. On October 6th, 1927, a film called The Jazz Singer was premiered by Warner Brothers, one of the smaller companies. For the first time in a feature film, dialogue was spoken on screen. [Al Jolson: 'Wait a minute, wait a minute.]

[You ain't heard nothing yet.] [Wait a minute, I tell ya!'] A Broadway audience gasped, and then shouted. Talking pictures had arrived. It's hard to fully impress upon you just how monumental this shift was, in both good and bad ways. For one thing, sound brought a whole new array of possibilities to film. It allowed for ingrained music, sound effects, and less runtime spent on title cards. On the bad side, it took cinematography back a few steps for a period of time. Shush, honey. Oh, Mila has opinions. [Mila meows] Hi. [Mila meows] Where the silent film saw a grand world of gorgeous moving shots, played with effects, and experimental filmmaking, the early years of talkies had to contend with the limits of new equipment. The microphones would, obviously, pick up on the

sound of the camera rolling. So, as a sort of bandaid fix, movie cameras were imprisoned in these hilarious-looking, hulking, fucking refrigerator-like soundproof boxes that limited camera movement. So, dozens upon dozens of films were pumped out where almost the entire movie is like talking heads or long shots in one or two rooms. As a result, movies ended up looking like stage plays more than silent films did, and filmmakers scrambled to hire the only people who knew how to deal with that: those scary theater gays over on Broadway. Daniel Lord recalled, the transcontinental trains were packed with Broadway writers summoned to save the talking pictures with clever dialogue. Instead, they brought low, crude, and filthy things. Plots were narrowed down to seduction and murder, and illegitimate children, and immoral women, and rapacious men.

Silent smut had been bad. Vocal smut cried to the censors for vengeance. Unsurprising that Daniel Lord felt this way, given that he was widely known as the Hollywood Priest. He was, yes, a priest, but he also was one of the main people responsible for the 1930 Production Code. Now I hesitate to go too hard on Reverend Lord. His endeavors with Hollywood censorship did usually come from an honest place, in that he felt that the power of cinema was a delicate thing. And that's not necessarily untrue. How much can you portray a bad thing before its influence is too powerful, even if you're showing it as wrong? That was his viewpoint, and not one that was unpopular back then. He was also vocal in his many writings about racial equality to a large extent, and combating anti-Semitism in eras that were running rampant with both issues. It just goes to

show that people working in the production codes weren't always these, like, villainous hard asses with a stick up their butt, trying to make movies bad. It's a lot more complicated than that. And you have to think about what they're contending with. Since the late 1910s and early '20s, the movies had brought on middle American religious counsel as moral advisers, and those guys were definitely becoming more liberal over time. The problem was, the loudest voices of critique were coming from extremist fundamentalists who believed that those guys weren't strict enough. So it's no wonder why the movies got scared, and tried to temper the problem. But the reality is the reality, and the reality was, things were getting a little bit wild over in Hollywoodland. ♪ jaunty ragtime piano ♪ The biggest explosion in this already unstable ecosystem that led to the 1930

code being implemented was a 1929 film starring Norma Shearer, called 'The Trial of Mary Dugan.' Based on a stage play, of course, it tells the story of a Broadway chorus girl who is the mistress of a wealthy married man. When she finds her lover stabbed to death, she is accused of murder and put on trial for her life. Now, it bears mentioning that Norma Shearer usually played sweet, sympathetic roles with limited moral complexity. This was her first time playing the role of anything as controversial as not only a mistress but one that we're supposed to be rooting for. Unsurprisingly though, the film instantly caused problems upon release when the Chicago censor board gave the film an explicit rating and then banned it outright. Even back in the '20s, Chicagoans had hilarious senses of humor about the weird antics

of our governing bodies and police. People instantly started cracking jokes like, Oh, God forbid the people of Chicago find out that crime and immorality exist! It's not like we know anything about that. The rapid publicity obviously made the film very popular, in a sort of Streisand Effect type of way. And this only made the holy men of the Windy City even more pissed. One Father FitzGeorge Dinneen said, I'm going to teach some people in this town a lesson! I'll stop these filthy motion pictures from coming into my parish if we have to clean out every alderman on the North Side! And as funny as that is, Father Dinneen was, in fact, not fucking around. He went on to join Reverend Daniel Lord in writing the 1930 Code, along with Catholic magazine writer Martin Quigley, and Joseph Breen, who later took

center stage at the PCA. Journalist H.L. Mencken was one of many who saw this religious attempt to control entertainment as what it was: very, very dangerous. He said, Heave an egg out of a Pullman window and you will hit a Fundamentalist almost anywhere in the United States today. They are everywhere that learning is too heavy a burden for mortal minds. One pretty instant difference between silent films and talkies was that stories sped up like crazy. And the lack of a need for title cards meant that a great deal of the script was now full of space for witty, dirty, wise-cracking dialogue, with a lot of innuendo and cursing. But innuendo was more common than anything else. In order to skirt the prying eyes of censors and the complaints of conservative audiences, script writers crammed in a constant

deluge of double entendres, exemplified by no one better than the legendary Mae West, who we'll get back to in a minute. Many of these saucy jokes were like, if you know, you know; and if you don't, there's plausible deniability. Pre-Code films also made huge headway in depicting a new type of woman, in a way that films under the Hays Code would hesitate to for years after. These women shirked their pre-World War I social roles, and chased more realistic, and yes, scandalous lives and dreams. They had jobs, got divorced, or didn't have children or get married. They had colorful sexual lives and dared to be complicated. This is due in huge part to the huge influx of female screenwriters like Dorothy Davenport, Anita Loos, and Frances Marion. But even the

male screenwriters were often interested in creating strong-willed female characters. And people loved these films. Despite the obvious detractors, people enjoyed the representations of realistic American life. People wanted to see themselves reflected in film, to see the people they know reflected. So lots of these pre-Code women in films were openly sexual, and weren't required to be virginal. She also was allowed to react realistically when confronted with an adulterous husband, or workplace harassment. She could be interested in lesbianism, get an abortion, demand equality in her relationships and not be punished for it - but it's still true that like many of these other themes, lesbianism was often relegated to the realm of innuendo, of implication rather than outright admittance. The pre-Code era had quite a bit of queerness, especially with women, but you had to know what you were looking for.

It allowed queer women in the audience to feel represented, while still retaining that plausible deniability for unknowing straight viewers. Patrice Petro writes in 'Joyless Streets: Women and Melodramatic Representation in Weimar Germany,' What is fundamentally at issue here is not a lack of adequate documentation. In fact, because women have long been excluded from the text and documents of history, the process of feminist interpretation - of posing new relations between the visible and invisible, the representable and the unrepresentable - necessarily entails a crucial or transformed history and not a history predicated on the illusory fullness of empirical detail. What she's saying is, investigating the details of women's representation in these films often requires a great deal of interpretation, rather than taking things at face value. The lesbians were there, but to find them, you had to look underneath the layers obscuring them from view.

because they truthfully were there, and on purpose, too. Hollywood used lesbian theming and hints at stars' dubious sexualities as marketing tactics, mostly because it appealed to the voyeuristic interests of male audiences. Of course, queer female audiences benefited from this too, even if they actually weren't the targets. When we picture Marlene Dietrich today, we imagine her in pants, in her white tie tuxedo, smoking a cigarette and kissing a woman in a cabaret. But this scene was excused because it had plausible deniability, in that Marlene's character is still focused on a man as a romantic interest. It's voyeuristic. Another good example is Greta Garbo's Queen Christina, where she's shown openly shirking the idea of marriage, kissing a woman, and wearing masculine clothes. The vagueness of her character, based on the true story

of the real-life sapphic Queen Christina allows the lesbianism on display to be excused. As Andrea Weiss writes in 'Vampires and Violets,' The color ultraviolet, like most of lesbian history, is located just beyond the visible spectrum. Violet, as a sign of love between women, serves as an indicator of what lies beyond the visible spectrum and as a means by which to become visible to each other. It suggests a way for getting at the problem of actually finding lesbian visual images: to consider invisibility as well as visibility as a form of representation, and to look for signs that have different meanings for lesbians than they do for western culture at large. Getting back to Mae West, though, which -- I just want to brag about a little thing that I own here for a second. I was at a thrift store at some point last year, and I found this

Mae West glass, this collectible 1970's Arby's Mae West glass. I love her. Mae West is arguably the most notorious character of the pre-Code era, and I can't look at her anymore without thinking of Alaska's Snatch Game portrayal of her on Drag Race All-Stars Season 2. [RuPaul: You don't beat around the bush, do you?] [Alaska: I beat around the bush all the time!] [Alaska: What are you talking about?] Mae West was a screenwriter herself, on top of being an actress. And I won't get into the fine details too much, because I fully intend on making a dedicated video on her, but it's outstanding just how much she raised the bar for female roles in Hollywood. Not only was she notoriously sexual, but she had a different body type for most actresses.

coming out in the 1920s. She was older, curvier, bustier, and had a very unique look to her face that added up to her being instantly recognizable. She stood out in every possible way. Her characters were the boss, both literally and figuratively. Her characters were, as she described them, [Mae Voiceover: The kind of Jane that] [always asks for more than she expects to get,] [and then gets more than she asked for.] Unsurprisingly, she had roots in stage acts and vaudeville, and even then in her pre-Hollywood era, her openly sexual productions were scandalous. One even landed her in jail in 1926. And once again, the Streisand Effect kicked in, and the ensuing court case made her instantly famous. A financially distraught Paramount saw a lot of promise in her, and Mae

made her way to Hollywood to begin a career of even more infamy. She went on to defend herself numerous times, saying: [Mae Voiceover The very best thing I have done] [for the public during this Depression] [has been the humorous manner -- even] [ribald sometimes -- in which I have treated sex.] [My fight has been against depression,] [repression, and suppression. You know,] ['A Farewell to Arms,'] [a great picture,] [was a story of sex, but it was] [tragic and depressing. Men saw it and] [were afraid to ever fall in love again.] [I don't want to leave that sort of feeling with them.] [I want to treat sex and love lightly - enough to] [make both men and women feel that life] [is worth living; that it still holds] [heaps of fun, no matter the conditions.]

Mae's film career began, funnily enough, towards the end of the pre-Code era, around 1933, so it goes to show just how immense her impact was. One of her first films, 'I'm No Angel' in which she starred opposite a freshly closeted Cary Grant, features a female main character who goes to court against her ex-fiancé, and exposes the double standards placed between men and women when it comes to premarital sex and legal actions. So pretty much right off the bat, she firmly established herself as the censors' least favorite person. This became especially so when she learned how to play the game better than them. When she knew that the censors were coming to review her scripts, she wrote in scenes that were so purposely egregious and so raunchy, that the censors would be distracted and cut those,

and everything else would look mild by comparison and be left alone. [Mae Voiceover: Then when the film came out,] [and the bluenoses were outraged,] [the censors came and said,] ['Mae, you didn't show us that.'] [But I'd show them the scripts] [they had okayed themselves.] Unfortunately, as much as she profited from her battle with censorship, it was not to last. She left Hollywood in 1940 after having enough of the grief and had a long and fruitful career on TV and in Vegas. After all, in her own words, [Mae: Well, when I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better.] Another veritable queen of scandal was Jean Harlow, of course. A lot of the pre-Code films that insulted the

conservatives the most were the ones that implied that soldiers at war have pre- or extramarital sex with women. Yeah, let's pretend that one of the most common, widely-known war activities doesn't happen. 'Hell's Angels,' starring Howard Hughes and Jean Harlow, featured one of these scenes. In the words of Lamar Trotti from the SRC, The story of 'Hell's Angels' is stupid, rotten, sordid, and cheap. Well, sordid and stupid as it was, it made Jean Harlow famous. Greta Garbo instigated more scandal as well in 'Mata Hari,' aside famous fellow gay Ramon Novarro. The initial script contained two seductive bedroom scenes, albeit with fade to black keeping us from seeing anything truly explicit, of course. As usual, even the implication of sex was too much. And also as usual, much like 'Hell's Angels,'

'Mata Hari' was a smash hit. Joan Crawford vehicles like 'Possessed' and 'This Modern Age' were just as popular and just as spicy. Due to the success of all of these films, the leading ladies themselves began to be blamed for the moral risks. They were accused of romanticizing the lifestyles of kept women. The ramifications of this blame drove it-girl Clara Bow into a nervous breakdown, although she attempted a failed comeback in the very eccentric and also very racist film 'Call Her Savage' in 1932. A lot of the debauchery filling the movies was also a direct result of the Great Depression. 1930 and 1931 were arguably the worst of the Depression years, and '32 to '33 weren't much better. President Hoover was as good as useless in the face of the crisis, and as a result,

he became the face of the crisis. Shanty towns became dubbed Hoovervilles, newspapers were dubbed Hoover blankets, and empty, outturned pockets were dubbed Hoover flags. A popular satire of the 23rd Psalm was written, called the Hobo Psalm, reading, Hoover is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down on park benches. He leadeth me beside the still factories. He arouseth my doubt in the Republican Party. He leadeth me in the path of destruction, for his party's sake, I fear evil, for thou art with me. I'll be honest, I have absolutely no idea how stonks work, and I don't care to know. What I do know about is the reality of what followed. In people's misery, nihilism, and hopelessness, a lot of people adopted a sort of 'fuck it' attitude.

They didn't want to be placated by movies or preached at. They wanted to be transported and represented by them. People wanted to see their experiences reflected in film; the good, the bad, and the ugly. Films that seemed to be preachy or too idealistic or moralizing seemed patronizing to people who had pinched pennies for weeks to buy one ticket. And when the scissor cuts of censorship on the film reels were literally visible to viewers, making the image on screen jump every time a scene was cut out, it felt all the more insulting. People felt cheated out of the good stuff that they were promised by the scenes leading up to the cuts. They felt lied to. So it's no wonder that with the threat of censorship looming, as censors tried to reel in an exploding American spirit with hopes of good taste,

screenwriters upped the ante to punch back. We want complexity! We want filth! We want... problematic media! At the same time, an equally represented half of the population loved the censorship, or just wanted something to be mad about. Ben Hecht wrote, The public is a lonely, lonely mob. It has nothing much to do, and no capacity for enjoying itself. If these people can't go to the church or be led off to war or be given a new hysteria, they're kind of lost. After they finish washing the dishes, they can't think of anything to do. Hollywood comes into their lives and gives them visions of castles and knights and wild playboys and rich nymphomaniacs. It's pleasant. By 1930, even secular reform groups and industry insiders were joining the Catholics and Protestants, and voicing their concerns about the state of naughty Hollywood.

This year also saw the publication of Henry James Forman's extremely influential book, 'Our Movie Made Children,' which stoked fears that salacious films were influencing the youth of America into immorality and vice. With absolutely no proof or reliable research, the book declared that a third of moviegoers were unchaperoned young children, and that the films that they were watching contained a deluge of smoking, drinking, and implied sex. It also contained unconfirmed quotes from teen moviegoers, all claiming that watching these films inspires them to go out and have spooky premarital sex, or become lesbians. Oh, god! [V/O: get up, cock suckers. Salute the flag.] All of this reached a boiling point in July 1934, when the Hays Code was officially put into action. Although some historians argue that since Joseph Breen was more of an active player

in the whole situation, it would be more accurate to use the terms pre-Breen and Breen era, which I think is very funny. It's no wonder why Breen was such a powerful figure. He was a very strong personality and believed himself to be a social and moral hero. One telling incident saw a priest from Philadelphia criticizing him, and Breen sent him a letter in response, reading: My Dear Bozo, I respectfully suggest that both yourself and Dr. Pace are fat-heads. I don't even hope that you are well. But I do hope that you get fired out of that soft job at the Seminary and have to go to work. I say, again, that you are a fathead. For the next 30-odd years, Hollywood productions faced a level of insider scrutiny like never before, and never after. Hollywood censorship, alongside the rise

of Cold War era conservatism and fears, would drive the Golden Age of Hollywood down a complicated road. After all, all that glitters is not gold. ♪ nostalgic jazz ♪ There's a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the details and nature of the Hays Code, and what wasn't surprising to me in learning about this is that a lot of this misunderstanding comes from the fact that we're looking at classic Hollywood's relationship to mainstream American culture, the way that we perceive modern Hollywood's relationship to our culture. Today, movies influence the way we think in subtle ways - it's why representation of diverse characters and stories is so important. It expands our worldview and can show us new perspectives or influence our feelings on social topics. But movies are only one of many, many, many, many factors in what influences us. Especially now. In the classic era, when movies were

still relatively new. Their power was so, so much stronger because of the grandeur of their novelty. They were more special, more exciting, and what else were they competing with? Live performances? Books? Even in the throes of the Great Depression, when most of America had nothing, people would save pennies just to go see a movie. Because of how much genuine social impact people feared movies would have on the nation's morals, the various people in power thought that it was imperative to establish an agreed-upon rubric of morality. And movies, therefore, must abide by those standards. There weren't really specifics here, but rather overarching ideas that were then interpreted by various studios and people to regulate the movies. And a lot of this was driven by classist fears. Richard Maltby continues, The anxiety has been that adolescent males will learn criminal behavior and adolescent females

will learn sexually permissive behavior from various forms of commercial entertainment. Behind this bourgeois concern about their offspring has been a deeper class anxiety about the extent to which the sites of entertainment provided opportunities for heterogeneous mixing of classes. The debate over censorship, then, is a debate over social control. At the root of this debate is the persistent conflict inherent in popular culture, which is a hegemonic institution deriving its regenerative energies from the cultural expressions of the underclasses, and seeking to sanitize and regulate those expressions through the imposition of convention. The answer seemed clear. If pop culture most often flows upward from the lower classes, and usually communities of color, to be appropriated by the wealthy -- and it does -- then the solution is to control the culture of the poor, and therefore, also the culture of the middle and upper classes by using movies to promote a

social standard of propriety. So, William Hays was sort of a perfect character to become central in this conflict. He wanted the film industry to be seen as respectable, and for filmmakers, distributors, and exhibitors to all be on the same page. But until 1930, most codes were just, like, very strong suggestions, rather than requirements. What changed in 1930, which created the unusual strict atmosphere we recall today, was that it became required that all films must be approved by the Studio Relations Committee, or the SRC, before they were allowed to be released. So, studios would completely produce a film and then have to send it off to the SRC to be looked over and usually cut or edited. A huge amount of influence here came from the very loud voices of American Protestant associations, who saw the movies as a good target to blame for a

rapidly changing culture following World War I. And then the Catholic Church decided they wanted in on the fun and established the Legion of Decency and also took it upon themselves to act as the advisers and promoters of the Code. They also enacted huge movie boycotts that spawned media circuses all across the country. And try as they might to gauge what the hell these angry religious groups actually would enjoy, the job proved endlessly hard because these people kept moving the freaking goal posts. Francis Couvares writes in 'Hollywood, Main Street, and the Church: Trying to Censor the Movies Before the Production Code,' The problem was not simply that the movie makers were mostly Jewish arrivistes trying to amuse the Daughters of the American Revolution. It was also that the cultural insiders themselves -- the main Protestant churches and the secular civic and reform

organizations of Protestant America -- failed miserably to agree on what they liked or tolerated. So obviously, nothing has changed literally at all in this country. Cool, yay. The Protestants and especially the Catholics saw themselves as, quote, the saviors of American ideals, end quote, and recognized how much power the movies actually held over the attention of most Americans as the Great Depression raged on. If you control the movies, you control America. But the Legion of Decency never actually, in the end, controlled the movies. Their influence had limits, and because the industry was more so interested in good publicity, that was sort of the upper reaches of their involvement. And then, the industry could say that they'd done their due diligence, and continue with business as usual. Richard Maltby continues again, In Hollywood, history is first of all

a production value; its first obligation is to be entertaining, not accurate. And most of what passes for film history continues to be written under the curious expectation that the history of entertainment must itself be entertaining. Hollywood's history is too often written as a melodrama of rags to riches heartbreak, or of creative virtue triumphing over the mustachioed villains of corporate capitalism, and the moral representations of conspiratorial reactionaries. I mean, I think the reality of the Hays Code is actually quite similar to a system that we are really familiar with today -- YouTube itself. Think about it. As a YouTuber, I have relative freedom to make whatever I want, to an extent, but if I expect to do this for a living and make money through AdSense or sponsorships, I'm beholden to certain standards of ad suitability. I mean, look here. When I post a video

on YouTube, we're asked to fill out an ad suitability survey, not unlike what the movies used to deal with. How much adult content is there, profanity, violence, controversial topics, is it implied, or is it explicit? And because the system is so vague, it's led to a common mythology surrounding the YouTube algorithm, where if you so much as utter certain words, your video will either get shadowbanned or demonetized, leading to YouTubers saying silly shit that I hate, like unalived, or PDF-file, or corn. I actually used this one because I think it's funny. If you've watched my videos and heard me blank out certain words or put a duck quack over them [quack] -- but still saying those words out loud other times? That's me trying to figure out what the hell these boundaries are. Look! I'll say some scary words right now.

Murder! Corpse! Suicide! Sex! Porn! If any of those words have a duck quack over it, you'll know exactly what happened. But from personal experience, I know having profane or risky words in the description is 100% going to get your video exploded in the video exploding chamber and sent to the shadow realm. But see how confusing it is? It's so vague. But our need to make a living beholden to the interest of advertisers on Youtube -- people end up self-censoring themselves just to be safe and avoid the stress. Was Hollywood under the Hays Code actually that different? Honestly, no, it wasn't. The Hays Code didn't have nit-picky particulars, lists of banned words, or hemline requirements, but individual censors dealing with the negotiations of movie makers about some particular concerning thing, do end up becoming very specific.

and therefore look really stupid when we look back on them, and assume that these decisions came from some list of rules somewhere, rather than a censor interpretation of a vague guideline. This vagueness, and as a result, the production codes' victories in keeping movies clean, meant that the PCA was getting a lot of blowback, and the clear influence that the Protestants and Catholics were holding over movies in the 1930s began to tick off the other end of this two-way street of negotiation. The movie studios themselves. Movies had to pay the bills, after all, and they saw that as the decade drew on, the sanitization of entertainment was actually likely to become a threat to the lucrativeness of film. In many ways, the production code itself was actually a result of this conundrum.

In order to make more money, movies had to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and if the widest group of people are god-fearing Americans with a concern about moral depravity and influence on children following the Roaring '20s, well, of course, the film industry was going to concede to their demands in order to avoid controversy. By the late 1920s, there were over 18,000 theaters in the US, most of which were independently owned, and 63% of those theaters were in rural American towns with a population well under 100K. While the urban moviegoers led more connected and diverse lives, and therefore were open to more out-there plots and diverse narratives that push the envelope, rural moviegoers preferred simple stories with wholesome morals. Even though the people preferring conservative films are comparatively few,

the fact was that it was more theaters overall who had to contend with their tastes, and the studios were beholden to that majority. To make things even more complicated, a lot of the theaters were directly owned by the studios, like Universal, RKO, and Warner Brothers. So the studios who mainly had theaters in urban cities could afford to make more risky movies, whereas midwestern and southern areas had more theaters owned by Paramount or Fox, so the films coming out of those studios catered to more rural interests. God forbid the people who go to church regularly see accurate depictions of stories literally in the Bible, but what do I know? But the consequences were functionally enormous. The role of women in film became a watered-down hellscape more often than not. The first open mainstream Hollywood depictions of lesbians wouldn't come until

until 1982's 'Personal Best' and interracial relationships on screen weren't shown until 1965's 'Patch of Blue.' Jule Selbo writes in 'Screenwriters Who Shaped the Pre-Code Woman and Their Struggle with Censorship,' In 'The Philadelphia Story' (1940), charismatic and strong-minded Tracy, played by Katharine Hepburn, learns a proper and good wife must support her husband despite his faults and weaknesses, and only in learning to do so will she experience self-worth. In 'Casablanca' (1942), Ilsa, played by Ingrid Bergman, tells Rick he must do her thinking for her. In 'All About Eve' (1950), Margo Channing, played by Bette Davis, learns that a successful career is not enough; a woman can only sustain lifelong happiness with a loving husband by her side.

The woman of dangerous or unapproved ambition was often relegated to film noir roles in the 1940s. The 1950s female was taught in home economics classes across America that the care of children and husband was expected women's work: 'have dinner ready, prepare the children. Touch up your makeup. Never complain.' You know what's funny? The Hays Code kind of ended because everyone started ignoring it. Films like 'Bonnie and Clyde,' 'Some Like It Hot,' and 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?' shirked the threats of the production code, and were big successes with audiences, proving to the industry that people were ready for more adult, immoral material. 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?' in particular, landed a prominent death blow to the Code, when MPAA president Jack Valenti presided over some of the script changes, and felt

uncomfortable with what he called, quote, the odious smell of censorship, leading to the development of our modern rating system: G, PG, PG-13, NC-17, R, and X. This way, rather than changing films, there could instead be an advisory, so people know exactly what they're getting into. Joseph Breen retired in 1954, and the Academy gifted him with a Lifetime Achievement Award. And this may seem incredibly odd. Joseph Breen entered the Hollywood scene in the 1930s with a specific goal in mind, to use his Catholic moral superiority to purify Hollywood of its evil Jewish influence. But in the end, Hollywood proved to be a much more complicated issue for Breen's initial plans. Sure, he succeeded in heavily censoring a great deal of films, but he also, despite everything, grew to

love Hollywood just a little bit. Against his will, he was given grace by the people he was trying to control. His coworker, Jack Vizard, reflected on this, writing, Towards the end of his career, I asked Joe why he didn't write the story of the Code. He waved off the suggestion with a touch of irritation. 'Jack,' he said, 'I have too many friends in the industry, and I wouldn't want to say anything to embarrass them.' I think the same thing happened to him as happened to me. I came running down out of the theological hills, where I was studying for the priesthood, to save the world from the Jews. They reciprocated by saving me from myself. Nostalgia for the pre-Code films of sin came around when television began rerunning those old movies, and what once was a frightening

endorsement of vice and a danger to the youth, was now instead a remarkable landscape of an era when the American dream and American ideals were challenged in the biggest way in history until that point. Never before had women been depicted so colorfully, never had stories been so exciting, and frightening, and titillating. What else do we expect from a medium so new, which had only just found its voice -- literally. In my opinion, the Silent era and pre-Code era of Hollywood is some of the best of the best. It's honest and truthful and revealing in a way that pictures under the Hays Code weren't. And don't take that as hate on the Golden Age of films. I, of course, love those too. But this comparatively short era had a lot of spirit despite the odds, and despite the undiscerning slice of the censor's shears.

When I watch Mae West films, I get a glimpse at years of Hollywood that could have been -- but let's not forget to appreciate what was. Thank you for learning with me about the Code and the little movies that persisted. Have you seen any pre-Code films, and do you have any favorites? Let me know in the comments below. Don't forget to head to the description to buy a copy of my graphic novel biography about Claude Cahun, 'Liberated.' Also, the Mae West quotes were done by my friend Amber Ortolano. She's amazing. Please go check out her stuff; it's linked in the description below. Thank you, Amber; you're the best Mae West a YouTuber could ever ask for. Mwah. And until next time, wash thy hands, wear thy mask, and if you get caught between two evils,

Pick the one you've never tried before. ♪ electronic baroque piano outro ♪

The Scandalous Films of Pre-Code Hollywood

Kaz Rowe

헤이즈 코드가 할리우드에 미친 영향

1930년에 제정되어 1934년부터 시행된 헤이즈 코드는 대공황 당시 도덕적 갈등을 겪고 있던 할리우드 영화를 규제하는 것을 목표로 했습니다.

헤이즈 코드의 지침은 모호했기 때문에 다양한 해석이 가능했고 코드 이전의 파격적인 영화가 제작될 수 있었습니다.

헤이즈 코드가 할리우드에 미친 영향은 널리 오해되어 왔으며, 그 진정한 영향력과 초기 사운드 영화의 거친 특성은 종종 간과되어 왔습니다.

무성 영화 제작 시대에는 퀴어 배우와 감독들이 대거 등장하면서 주제적으로 복잡하고 대담한 이야기들로 가득했습니다.

1915년 대법원의 판결로 검열 위원회와 프로덕션 코드가 설립되었습니다.

1927년 토크 픽처의 등장은 영화 제작에 기념비적인 변화를 가져왔으며, 종종 무대 연극과 유사하고 더욱 도발적인 주제를 도입하는 새로운 스토리텔링 시대로 이어졌습니다.

1930년 프로덕션 코드가 할리우드에 미친 영향

할리우드 사제로 알려진 다니엘 로드는 영화의 도덕적 영향력에 대한 우려로 1930년 제작 규범을 시행하는 데 중요한 역할을 했습니다.

1929년 논란이 된 영화 '메리 듀건의 재판'은 분노와 비판을 불러일으키며 강령의 제정으로 이어졌습니다.

코드 제정 이전 시대에는 의지가 강하고 성적으로 해방된 캐릭터가 전통적인 사회적 역할에 도전하는 등 여성 표현에 변화가 있었지만, 퀴어성은 공개적으로 묘사되기보다는 암시적으로 드러나는 경우가 많았습니다.

초기 할리우드에서 퀴어 표현이 미친 영향

초기 할리우드 영화에서 퀴어 여성은 레즈비언 주제와 스타의 성 정체성에 대한 암시를 마케팅 전략으로 사용한 초기 할리우드 영화에서 대표성을 찾았습니다.

마를린 디트리히와 그레타 가르보 같은 캐릭터의 묘사는 그들의 퀴어 관계에 대한 그럴듯한 부정 가능성을 제공했습니다.

코드 이전 시대의 악명 높은 인물인 메이 웨스트는 성 규범에 도전하고 성적이고 독특한 캐릭터로 할리우드에서 여성 역할에 대한 기준을 높였습니다.

초기 할리우드에서 검열의 영향

메이 웨스트는 도발적인 영화로 검열에 도전했지만 결국 1940년 할리우드를 떠났습니다.

진 할로우와 그레타 가르보 역시 추문적인 역할로 논란을 일으켰고, 이로 인해 도덕적 타락에 대한 비난이 여자 주인공들에게 쏠렸습니다.

대공황이 사회에 미친 영향은 영화에서 날것 그대로의 정직한 표현에 대한 요구로 이어져 결국 1934년 헤이즈 코드가 시행되는 계기가 되었습니다.

브린과 헤이즈 코드가 할리우드에 미친 영향

브린의 강한 개성과 논란의 여지가 있는 행동은 냉전 시대의 보수주의와 계급적 불안감으로 인해 30년 동안 할리우드의 내부 감시를 형성했습니다.

1930년에 제정된 헤이즈 코드는 엄격한 영화 승인을 부과했으며 미국 개신교와 가톨릭 협회의 영향을 받았습니다.

이러한 노력에도 불구하고 품위 군단과 다른 단체들은 영화 산업을 통제하기 위해 고군분투했고, 결국 좋은 홍보를 우선시하며 평소와 같이 사업을 계속했습니다.

헤이즈 코드가 할리우드에 미친 영향과 유튜브와의 유사점

할리우드의 역사는 종종 멜로드라마로 그려지곤 하는데, 헤이스 코드의 영향력은 오늘날 YouTube의 광고 적합성 기준과 유사합니다.

두 제도의 모호한 가이드라인은 자체 검열과 알고리즘을 둘러싼 일반적인 신화로 이어졌습니다.

폭넓은 시청자를 위한 엔터테인먼트의 건전화를 목표로 한 제작 규범은 궁극적으로 영화에서 여성과 다양한 관계의 묘사에 영향을 미쳤으며, 이는 수십 년 동안 지속된 중요한 결과를 낳았습니다.

1940년대에는 야망을 가진 여성들이 종종 필름 누아르 역할에 캐스팅되었고, 1950년대에는 전통적인 성 역할이 장려되었습니다.

'보니 앤 클라이드', '누가 버지니아 울프를 두려워하랴' 같은 영화가 그 권위에 도전하면서 헤이즈 코드의 영향력은 약해졌고, 현대적인 등급 분류 체계로 이어졌습니다.

할리우드 정화를 목표로 했던 조셉 브린은 결국 영화 산업을 사랑하게 되었고, 1954년 복잡한 유산을 남긴 채 은퇴했습니다.