The Hays Code, so aptly named for its former Postmaster General and Head of the Hollywood Self Regulatory Committee William Hays, was a basis of rules laid down in order to enforce morality, integrity and decency to the degenerate and incredibly influential productions of the 1930's Hollywood Film Industry. The Code was an attempt to appease the Church, who's cries of indecency and immorality threatened to censor and ultimately destroy the creative element of Hollywood. Instead of allowing the Church to set their own censorship upon the productions, they devised the Hays Code.
"The Code sets up high standards of performance for motion pictures producers. It states the considerations which good taste and community value make necessary in this universal form of entertainment. Respect for the law, respect for every religion, respect for every race and respect for every Nation." William Hays.
The Code covered things impermissible on the Hollywood screens.
-Homosexuality
-Curse Words
-Interracial Relations
-Unpunished Crimes or Sympathy for Criminals
-Portrayal of Figures of Authority or Religion in a Bad Light
-Sex outside of marriage could not be made to be morally acceptable
-Scenes of Passion and Sexuality
The basic theme was "That throughout, the audience feels sure that evil is wrong and good is right."
However, the Committee found it very hard to actually enforce these codes, lacking the lawful ability to forcibly change films in the early stages of the Code. Some films were made specifically to mock and denounce the creation of the Code. Such as Cecil B. DeMille's "The Sign of the Cross"(1931), a very direct and purposefully invoking movie containing scenes of naked women, seduction and other things the code directly forbade, not to mention the direct plot behind the movie was intended to strike at the heart of the Catholic Church which the Code was made to appease.
My personal view on the affair is mostly undecided. I feel as though some moralities should be kept close to the heart, despite whether its depiction is merely a decidedly false idealism of what we wish society could be like. I also feel that freedom of expression should extend to include whatever the imagination can entail, and that no single thing is above ridicule. I definitely believe that the rating system in place today in order to separate films to their audiences is a much more effective method than the Hays Code was. If anything, I believe that the Hays Code created an early form of 'the allure of the taboo' into our society that exists even to this day. You want what you can't have, what's forbidden is the most tempting. The outbreak of immoral movies and their popularity as a response to the Hays Code's induction is a testament to this idea.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Race of Humanity.
It's easy enough in an 'enlightened' day and age as we live in today to claim racial prejudice to be intolerable. But even as we live day by day, even the most self-proclaimed politically correct of us allow predisposition and stereotype influence our actions, choices and opinions. Race is far from the only or even most serious or common stereotype recognized the world over, but it is no less present in our daily lives than what tv shows we watch.
When I was first presented the idea of the influence of stereotypes on our decisions and dispositions in life, I thought the way so many of you must be right now. Incredulous. How could I, a person who is so open-minded, allow such a shameful and outdated view of the world effect me in any way?? But, urged past my initial defensive response, I began to actually consider the racial variety of my life.
An overwhelming majority of my close friends are caucasian, only one individual even outwardly representing his Spanish heritage. Sure, I have friends of ethnicity, but none of which I could truthfully consider to be close, and none nearly so many as those that are white. But, I thought, this could simply be a lack of opportunity rather than a disposition against making such friends. I did grow up in a white family, with white friends in a white neighborhood with a white school most of my life. Perhaps personal acquaintance wasn't the best measure.
What about media? The monster that is almost always responsible for any of our ingrained predispositions, from what movies/shows are good to what people and places we personally have never seen are like. I realized that every single TV show I watch has a white protaganist and a predominately white cast. From 'House' to 'Serenity' to 'How I Met Your Mother'. Sure, one could argue that there are differences in styles between ethnicities in shows on TV, but it still seemed strange to me.
How much does media influence growing up really effect us in our daily lives, how we perceive the world and choose to interact with it? How many false images of how things are do we pick up from Hollywood's money-grubbing views? From small things like the Hollywood Myths disproven on Discovery's 'Mythbusters', to larger things like cropped reports and testimonials regarding national and international matters.
Over the years Racial Disparity has been claimed to have become more and more distant, especially in the major forms of mainstream media. But I feel there is still much intolerance in the world that can be chalked up to simple sales-based propaganda.
I gained a bit of introspective on myself through this topic and feel better for being made aware. I will no longer take opinions of things I know little about for face value. I truly wish to know something for myself rather than repeat what I've been told like a media drone. I will try my best to not adhere to dispositions and stereotypes, whether in race or status or anything. We are all of one race, one Humanity. The Human Race.
When I was first presented the idea of the influence of stereotypes on our decisions and dispositions in life, I thought the way so many of you must be right now. Incredulous. How could I, a person who is so open-minded, allow such a shameful and outdated view of the world effect me in any way?? But, urged past my initial defensive response, I began to actually consider the racial variety of my life.
An overwhelming majority of my close friends are caucasian, only one individual even outwardly representing his Spanish heritage. Sure, I have friends of ethnicity, but none of which I could truthfully consider to be close, and none nearly so many as those that are white. But, I thought, this could simply be a lack of opportunity rather than a disposition against making such friends. I did grow up in a white family, with white friends in a white neighborhood with a white school most of my life. Perhaps personal acquaintance wasn't the best measure.
What about media? The monster that is almost always responsible for any of our ingrained predispositions, from what movies/shows are good to what people and places we personally have never seen are like. I realized that every single TV show I watch has a white protaganist and a predominately white cast. From 'House' to 'Serenity' to 'How I Met Your Mother'. Sure, one could argue that there are differences in styles between ethnicities in shows on TV, but it still seemed strange to me.
How much does media influence growing up really effect us in our daily lives, how we perceive the world and choose to interact with it? How many false images of how things are do we pick up from Hollywood's money-grubbing views? From small things like the Hollywood Myths disproven on Discovery's 'Mythbusters', to larger things like cropped reports and testimonials regarding national and international matters.
Over the years Racial Disparity has been claimed to have become more and more distant, especially in the major forms of mainstream media. But I feel there is still much intolerance in the world that can be chalked up to simple sales-based propaganda.
I gained a bit of introspective on myself through this topic and feel better for being made aware. I will no longer take opinions of things I know little about for face value. I truly wish to know something for myself rather than repeat what I've been told like a media drone. I will try my best to not adhere to dispositions and stereotypes, whether in race or status or anything. We are all of one race, one Humanity. The Human Race.
Morality vs Vision.
Usually, there's a very granite line between fiction and reality, between what's truth and not, especially in films, books, and media. At least, that's what most people feel they believe. The majority of people will tell you that they feel lying, even in small definitions of the word, is wrong and shameful. However, 'White Lies', small exaggerations or omissions of the truth, shape our daily lives in order to better let us tolerate the drone of routine. It's much the same with film and media. Small exaggerations and alterations to the way things are in actuality to make them seem more exciting and entertaining, the essence of the industry.
Taking a specific example: Documentaries. A more specific criteria: the documentary 'Nanook of the North'.
This film was widely hailed as the 'first documentary', covering the daily routine and life of a small tribal community. However, as the years passed, certain discrepancies to reality came to light. Some things small, such as the use of outdated spears and bows in place of their more modern and presently used firearms, or the custom construction of a 3 walled igloo to accommodate the use of the ancient bulky film equipment. Other things were much more substantial, such as the false name of the main character Nanook, his fabricated "Family", or the exaggeration of his death shortly after the filming due to famine/starvation.
Smaller changes can be excused using basic explanation. The use of the outdated weaponry was to symbolize the tribal life before western influence. The construction of the false home was unavoidable, since the ancient equipment would not be able to get enough light for a shot were the igloo not custom built with it in mind. However, some of the larger, more serious differences can only be explained through selfish convenience. The name of the character to be easier on the tongue and more recognizable. The family to make him easier to relate to. The exaggeration of his death in order to bring sympathy towards the film. All were tactics designed to better suit the future sales and fame of the documentary.
This is where personal opinion obscures the definition of what should be allowed and what not. Obviously circumstance can morally balance indiscretions in some cases, such as to bring awareness and help to a subject that might otherwise be ignored. This particular instance is not a solid example of this, but can be argued to have been done in order to better make western civilization aware of the differences and hardships of the 'savage' lifestyles they knew so little about.
It all comes down to personal opinion, as with most anything to do with the interpretation of any form of media. I believe the film was, despite its faults, very informative and crucial to the early awareness of non-western, tribal communities and life. Should it be called a documentary by the standards of its time or today's? Perhaps not, if you would like to make a distinction between a documentary and a fairly accurate depiction with real subjects. I, however, cannot condemn the reasons behind trying to raise empathy and interest for the film and what it portraits.
Smaller changes can be excused using basic explanation. The use of the outdated weaponry was to symbolize the tribal life before western influence. The construction of the false home was unavoidable, since the ancient equipment would not be able to get enough light for a shot were the igloo not custom built with it in mind. However, some of the larger, more serious differences can only be explained through selfish convenience. The name of the character to be easier on the tongue and more recognizable. The family to make him easier to relate to. The exaggeration of his death in order to bring sympathy towards the film. All were tactics designed to better suit the future sales and fame of the documentary.
This is where personal opinion obscures the definition of what should be allowed and what not. Obviously circumstance can morally balance indiscretions in some cases, such as to bring awareness and help to a subject that might otherwise be ignored. This particular instance is not a solid example of this, but can be argued to have been done in order to better make western civilization aware of the differences and hardships of the 'savage' lifestyles they knew so little about.
It all comes down to personal opinion, as with most anything to do with the interpretation of any form of media. I believe the film was, despite its faults, very informative and crucial to the early awareness of non-western, tribal communities and life. Should it be called a documentary by the standards of its time or today's? Perhaps not, if you would like to make a distinction between a documentary and a fairly accurate depiction with real subjects. I, however, cannot condemn the reasons behind trying to raise empathy and interest for the film and what it portraits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)