Excerpts from Maltby, “The
Production Code and the Hays Office,” Grand Design 37-72
Their version of events adheres to the requirements of a familiar early
Depression Hollywood story, in which the industry appears as a fallen woman,
led by economic hardship into immoral behavior and a fall from grace. Being a
Hollywood story, there is a happy ending when Hollywood, the fallen woman, is
rescued from sin and federal censorship by virtuous hero Joe Breen riding at
the head of the Catholic Legion of Decency. The culmination of the Legion's
campaign against immoral movies, the July 1934 agreement between the MPPDA and
the Roman Catholic hierarchy to fully implement the Production Code, is
regarded in these "official" accounts as a watershed separating the
two halves of the decade. (39)
The account offered here revises this history in a number of respects. In
suggesting that the issues and motivations behind "self-regulation"
were more complex and were determined more by economic considerations than by
matters of film content, it also argues that the events of July 1934 are best
seen not as the industry's reaction to a more or less spontaneous outburst of
moral protest backed by economic sanction, but as the culmination of a lengthy
process of negotiation within the industry and between its representatives and
those speaking with the voices of cultural authority. (40)
Relocating the Code and its
administrators as integrated participants in Hollywood's processes of
production, rather than its philistine and picayunish villains, is in itself a
contribution to a deeper understanding of how the motion-picture industry
operated in practice. In viewing the Production Code as part of the much larger
overall activity of the MPPDA, this account also integrates issues around the
control of content within the broader concerns of the period about the movies
as a cultural institution. Using this broader perspective, we can offer some
revisions to the accepted history of Hollywood in the 1930s that, in
particular, allow us to recontextualize questions of
whether films produced in the early 1930s were "subversive" either in
their intent or effect. Rather than identifying a clear-cut distinction between
films produced before 1934 and those produced after, a recognition that the
Code as a system of conventions was gradually developed during the early 1930s
suggests that it is more appropriate to see "the Golden Age of
Turbulence" as a period in which a system of representation acceptable
both to the industry and to the cultural authorities to whom it deferred was
negotiated. Those negotiations were clearly not concluded with the agreements
of July 1934; questions of detail remained subject to constant discussion, and
issues of broad principle, including the implementation of the Code itself,
were as open to revision in the late 1930s as they had been earlier in the
decade. (70-71)
Like other Hollywood conventions, the Production Code was one of several
substitutes for detailed audience research. Having chosen not to differentiate
its product through a ratings system, the industry had to construct movies for
an undifferentiated audience. While the Code was written under the assumption
that spectators were only passive receivers of texts, the texts themselves
were, out of the straightforward economic logic of what Umberto Eco has called
"the heavy industry of dreams in a capitalistic society," constructed
to accommodate, rather than predetermine, their audiences' reactions. In its
practical application, the Code was the mechanism by which this multiplicity of
viewing positions was achieved. Once the limits of explicit
"sophistication" had been established, the production
industry had to find ways of appealing to both "innocent" and
"sophisticated" sensibilities in the same object without
transgressing the boundaries of public acceptability. This involved devising
systems and codes of representation in which "innocence" was
inscribed into the text while "sophisticated" viewers were able to
"read into" movies whatever meanings they were pleased to find, so
long as producers could use the Production Code to deny that they had put them
there. Much of the work of self-regulation lay in the maintenance of this
system of conventions, and as such, it operated, however perversely, as an
enabling mechanism at the same time that it was a repressive one. (40-41)