Basic HTML Version
Movie codes in the 1930 's
were based on the Ten
Commandments . Since the
new rating system evo/ved
in 1968, there has been no
guide for movie content-
only a warning rating.
by
Dona ld Schroeder
and
Neil
J.
Colton
"SOPHISTICATHD
SEX ...
drinking
scenes ... divorce, scduction, the
use of drugs wcre presented in
film after film as symbols of the fashion–
able Jife." The same movie critics said
the film medium was portraying "false
sex standards, incitemcnt to sexual emo·
tion, glorification of crime and criminals,
and dcbasing brutality."
This may sound like an indictment of
today's films, but the decade of this crit–
icism was not the 1970's nor the 1960's,
but the 1920's.
The Morality Pendulum
Today's pell-mell rush to the obscene
and brutal is not an unprecedented
trend in American movies, though today
the execution of this trend is a science
in itself. The pendulum swung greatly
in that direction during the Great Jazz
and Flapper Era after World War
I.
Jt
was an age of new ideas about freedom
' '
eve
and
sex.
It had its short skirts,
Charleston, drugs and speakeasies.
From the beginning of silent flicks at
the turn of the century to today's multi–
miUion dollar spectaculars, there have
been attempts to exploit and captivate
audiences with baser attractions. With
the ebb and flow of public morality
carne waves of criticism and attempts at
movie content regulations.
Early in the century, public alarm
caused state and local laws to be passed
censoring or outlawing certain films ex·
ploiting violence or lewd behavior in
movie arcades or nickelodeons. Therc
was a confusing lack of uniformity and
effectiveness. Many movie-makers, sens–
ing the strong probability of govern–
ment interfereoce and control, decided
they had better devise some means of
regulating themselvcs. In 1927, because
of the added introduction of sound in
movies, a list of "Don'ts" and
"Be
Carefuls" was subscribed to voluntari ly
by sorne of the bigger movie produc–
ers, but it was tacitly ignored.
Then in 1929 the Great Depression
struck.
The Foundation of the 1930
Code
Jack Vizzard, in his book,
See No
Evil,
describes a mood of guilt felt by
many - as if the American nation was
being punished by a Supreme Power for
its excesses.
Thc forces of religious influence had
already proven they could pack a terrific
wallop and make a film a financia!
disaster by boycott.
This led producers to the unifying
principies upon which to write a set
of guidelines for movie productions.
"Creating a systematic code did not in–
volve matters of theology, concerning
which there are differeoces among reli–
gions of the world.... The moral prin·
ciples observed in drafting the Code
were based on the
Ten Commandments.
For that reason, the Code . .. was uni–
versally accepted by all members of the
Western Religions"
(The
Hay's
Office
4
by Raymond Moley, p. 71).
Even this code was slow to take ef–
fect, until 1934, when the Catholic Le–
gion of Decency was formed to review
and rate films and present the threat of
boycott by its massive church member·
ship.
The Code, of course, never really
became effective because individuals dif–
fered in their idea as to what constituted
a breaking of the Ten Commandments.
The Code did give movie censors a
powerful intluence through a produc–
tion seal. Without the seal, the majority
of movie theaters (most of which at
the time were owned by movie com–
panies) would not show the film.
A penalty of $25,000 was Jevied on
any subscribing member who tried
..
•