For as long as there have been moving pictures, there have also been attempts to regulate their content. The first court case surrounding moving pictures has been recorded as early as 1897 and many more were to follow. While film was thus always subjected to scrutiny from various groups, the 1920s saw a more fervent battle for control over censorship which resulted in the formation of the 1930 Production Code remaining in effect until 1968.
Lee Grieveson’s study Policing Cinema: Movies and Censorship in Early-Twentieth-Century America comprehensively describes long-lasting battles over movie content regulation and the discussion of the function of cinema. Yet, he is among many scholars who sees the 1915 Supreme Court decision in the case “Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio” as the culmination of these struggles as it proved “the validity of state censorship.” Justice McKenna is quoted ruling that “the exhibition of moving picture is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded … as part of the press of the country, or as organs of the public opinion.” This ruling was not only significant for the increased state and city censorship which followed, but it also fueled censorship demands by various parties including religious groups, social reformers, politicians, and journalists who all called for the elusive concept of morality.
The road from this first ruling which titled the film industry as a business to be regulated towards a formal censorship with the aim of restoring morality manifested in the so-called Production Code in 1934 will be the focus of this paper. The first part will consist of an analysis of the various parties involved in the attempt to regulate movie content in order to expose the individual motives behind their requests as well as their practices to reach their goal of censorship.
The following part will then deal with the question of how well the reformers were able to realize their goal of censoring the movies during the first years of the 1920s. The questions posed above will mainly be studied on the basis of guiding works written by Gregory D. Black, Francis G. Couvares, Stephen Vaughn, Lee Grieveson and Leonard J. Leff. Analyzed sources will include newspaper articles, state review board standards, studies on audience behavior, and an original text written by a direct participant of the 1920 censorship struggle, MPPDA president William Hays.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Demanding Morality, Calling for Censorship
2.1. State Censorship Boards
2.2. Reform Groups
2.3. The `Hays Office´
3. Morality Restored? Impacts of early 1920 Film Censorship
3.1. Filmmakers and Actors
3.2. The Hays Office and the Need for a Formal Production Code
4. Conclusion
5. Works Cited
Objectives and Themes of the Study
This paper examines the complex struggle for film censorship in the United States during the 1920s, analyzing the motivations and practices of various interest groups, state regulators, and the film industry itself to define and enforce a mainstream concept of morality in movies.
- The role of state censorship boards and their differing regulatory standards.
- The influence of social reformers, religious communities, and women's organizations.
- The establishment and strategies of the Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA).
- The effectiveness of self-regulatory measures like "The Formula" and the "Don'ts and Be Carefuls."
- The transition toward a formal Production Code by the end of the decade.
Excerpt from the Book
2. Demanding Morality, Calling for Censorship
A 1922 New York Times article concedes that “we all are interested in matters of sex and crime; but we hold it highly indecorous to go beyond certain narrow limits in exploiting either… The American public wants its movies passionate but pure.” Even though this statement underlines the difficulty in pleasing audiences’ desires for film content while preventing to cross over an invisible and indistinct line of a certain degree of “purity,” a non-negotiable call for regulation is made apparent. That this forcefully demanded regulation was not driven by a uniform set of principles and proposed procedures is exemplified in Couvares’ depiction of the different groups involved: “Economic and cultural elites could not agree on what to do about Hollywood: some promoted the close regulation of movies by custodians of conservative morality; others promoted the free market of ideas and amusements; still others looked to education and `cultural adjustment´ to bring movies and moral into closer alignment.” The following chapter will attempt to expose various motivations behind censorship as well as manners of regulation by looking at state censor boards, the interest groups of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union as well as religious communities, and the Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association, groups that were closely interrelated with one another in the heated debate about film censorship.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter contextualizes the emergence of film censorship in the 1920s, highlighting the industry's growth into a mass-consumed medium and the subsequent societal concerns regarding its influence on morality.
2. Demanding Morality, Calling for Censorship: This section investigates the various stakeholders—including state boards, reform groups, and the MPPDA—that sought to regulate movie content and the motivations behind their conflicting moral standards.
3. Morality Restored? Impacts of early 1920 Film Censorship: This chapter analyzes the efficacy of early industry self-regulation, such as the "Don'ts and Be Carefuls," and explores the resistance from filmmakers leading to the eventual push for a formal Production Code.
4. Conclusion: The concluding chapter summarizes how the lack of a universal definition of morality necessitated a transition from informal self-regulation to a formalized code backed by new stakeholders.
5. Works Cited: This section provides a comprehensive list of primary and secondary sources utilized in the analysis of 1920s film censorship.
Keywords
Film Censorship, 1920s, Morality, MPPDA, William Hays, Motion Pictures, Reform Groups, State Censorship Boards, Production Code, Social Influence, Audience Behavior, Cultural Values, Self-Regulation, Entertainment Industry, American Culture.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the struggle for control over film content in the United States during the 1920s, focusing on the attempts to define and enforce morality in movies through censorship.
Which groups were most active in calling for film censorship?
The most vocal groups included state censorship boards, women’s organizations like the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), and various religious communities.
What was the main research goal of the author?
The goal was to investigate the competing motives of parties involved in censorship and to evaluate whether self-regulatory measures were successful in achieving "moral" standards in film.
Which scientific methodology was applied in this study?
The study utilizes a historical analysis of primary sources, including newspaper articles, industry guidelines, state board standards, and secondary literature by established film historians.
What topics are discussed in the main body of the work?
The work covers state-level censorship, the activities of moral reform groups, the creation and public relations strategies of the Hays Office, and the eventual transition to the formal Production Code.
Which keywords best characterize the research?
Key terms include Film Censorship, 1920s, Morality, MPPDA, William Hays, and Self-Regulation.
What role did the "Hays Office" play in this context?
The Hays Office (MPPDA) acted as a mediator and public relations body for the film industry, attempting to pacify critics and prevent federal intervention by implementing voluntary guidelines.
Why did the early informal guidelines like "The Formula" prove insufficient?
These guidelines lacked enforcement power and sanctioning mechanisms, which led many film producers to ignore the requested changes as they prioritized financial success.
How did the role of the Catholic community change toward the late 1920s?
The Catholic community, particularly through figures like Martin Quigley, became significantly more influential in the late 1920s, eventually shaping the formal Production Code.
- Quote paper
- Amelie Meyer (Author), 2012, “The American public wants its movies passionate but pure”. The Question of Morality in American Film Censorship of the 1920s, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/537937
