Jump to content

Talk:Hays Code

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People with cane's were gay?

[edit]

http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/27/t/000395.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Decision

[edit]

I removed the following. Strictly speaking, the Miracle Decision had no impact on the Production Code. The Code was never a First Amendment issue since it was put into place by the film industry itself. Thus, it was self-censorship and not governmental censorship. The Miracle Decision really only applies to govenmental censorship. --Jeremy Butler 18:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Finally, the 1952 Miracle Decision occured where the Supreme Court of the United States reversed its previous decision and officially ruled that film was a artistic medium that was entitled to protection under the First admendment."
Perhaps this information should be briefly added, perhaps parenthetically, in the same paragraph discussing the Mutual Film decision? As the article now reads, I think readers are in danger of drawing the (very wrong) conclusion that the Mutual Film decision stands to this day, therefore films are not First Amendment speech. Matt Fitzpatrick 00:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

`149.171.91.189 (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I think this is a particularly badly written article.149.171.91.189 (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glorifying the American Girl

[edit]

The article includes a shot from "Glorifying the American Girl", which I assume is because it is pre-Hays and the showgirl is topless, but the article doesn't specifically mention why this was included. Is there a specific reason this was chosen? I personally never heard of the film. Is it representative of what was happening at the time, which prompted the Code or was it somewhat unusual, but more and more frequently occuring in films? Please note, I am NOT objecting to the picture, just want it to be placed in context. Thanks Jimaginator 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do G, M, R, and X, GP, PG, .... mean?

[edit]

Would somebody familiar with the code please add a bit saying exactly what these codes mean? Thanks!!! AMackenzie (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • G - General - all audiences admitted
  • PG - Parental Guidance - parental accompaniment is recommended for those under 18
  • R - Restricted - noone under age 18 (age may vary by jurisdiction) admitted without accompaniment by an adult
  • X - don't remember the "title" but "nobody" under age 18 was to be admitted by the theater management
  • M - I surmise it meant "mature themes" or something to that effect
GBC (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Unencyclopedic Content

[edit]

While the films in the tagged section are notably influenced by the Hays Code, it appears that they are written in an entirely unprofessional, POV, unencyclopedic manner, almost as if ranting. The passages are long analyses of trivial details that could perhaps still be referenced or included but in a different manner. Any help would be appreciated. 208.0.108.69 (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the "Coded Films" Articles - I removed one but what the heck are they doing here on this page? I came on to further research the Hays Code and find someone decides to have an entire portion of the page devoted to 4 movies with gay themes or what the author supposes are gay themes. Now I know why this site is not allowed for referencing for any papers.

There is hardly any information about the pre-code films (before 1934) or much about Joseph Breen and his Breening techniques.

As for the person who answered the question regarding the MPAA ratings - Why the heck would you answer if you were unsure? M stood for mature audience. It preceded GP that stood for General with Parent and was replaced by PG that stands for parental guidance. X never stood for anything - it was adults only and usually contained nudity or sexuality (Last Tango In Paris was rated X). You were right - R stood for restricted, but it is anyone under the age of 17, not 18.

I appreciate the author who wrote extensively about 4 movies (out of hundreds of thousands that were coded) put effort into their work, but they are out of place on this page. They should be moved to a page about gay themed movies during production code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.53.186 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this deletion. While it is a rather large removal, I actually agree with IP editor that the excised text has really nothing to do with the Hays Code which in fact is not even mentioned. This is an article on an important subject, with much source material available, so there is no need for large chunks of extraneous essay type text. I realize there is a reflexive tendency to revert such wholesale deletions by IPs, but please discuss here before doing so. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a subsection on Kings Row. As I find other sources on other movies, I'll add to this article, as subsections if significant enough. As I said before, I agree with the edits removing mini-essays on films that had nothing to do with the Hays Code. However, removal of large segments of material without explanation is usually reverted as vandalism. Please be sure to use proper edit summaries and explanations on this page, when removing content in the future. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The “Enforcement” section is a mess. Organizationally, it reads as though paragraphs were randomly placed, and flow is non-existent. Made the following changes: 1. Removed two sentences about US Customs prohibiting the movie “Ecstasy”. Information does not seem relevant. 2. Minor - Changed location of “Enforcement of the Production Code led to the dissolution of many local censorship boards.” to preceeding sentence (more relevant location). 3. Minor – changed location of RCA offices to previous paragraph (more relevant location). 4. Minor - Changed location about Betty Boop to previous paragraph (more relevant location). 5. Minor – merged information about Cassablance to the previous paragraph; this is used to illustrate the subject of the previous paragraph and is not needed as a stand-alone paragraph. 6. Removed information about the Tweety cartoon. This doesn’t add any new information or further the subject matter and, though interesting and technically relevant, is inappropriate in the body of the article. 7. Removed sentence about “The Moon is Blue” early in “Breen Era” section. This sentence was irrelevant in its location, and topic is discussed later in the article. 8. Removed subsection about “King’s Row.” While it is a good illustration, the length and location are awkward. Further, there is no indication as to why this is an example important enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Did it have an impact on the content or application of the code? If so, this information should be delineated. If not but inclusion is desired, perhaps a section dedicated to such examples should be created and this included as a subsection within. 9. Though content was preserved, “Political censorship” was eliminated as a subsection. Subsection applied to one paragraph, and not any other content within it. 10. Subsections are based upon chronology, which is great. However, most of the information towards the end of the “Breen Era” relates to the weakening and elimination of the production code. I feel this information is bettered centralized. Therefore, moving to “Final Years” subsection and renaming “Decline of the Production Code.” This increases localized relevancy and also enhances readability. 11. A lot of minor edits, mostly relating to location of content, within “Decline” subsection. 12. Though content was preserved, removed subsection heading for “The Pawnbroker.” Though there is a lot of information on this film, its own subsection is unnecessary when folded in “Decline” subsection. It also enhances readability by flowing more smoothly into the next section, which is a continuation of the “Decline” subsection. Geno the Great (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Motion Picture Production Code Aervanath (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hays Code should be changed to Production Code: this term is much more commonly used both on the internet and in written literature; also it is more inclusive and descriptive of the articles contents as Hays Code properly refers only to the version administered by Will Hays during his term of office and not to the later revisions. Wran (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted a note at Wikiproject Films to spur some discussion here. Please don't move it until there is a consensus. I tend to agree with you, though I would lean in favor of Motion Picture Production Code. Stetsonharry (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original title was Production Code and it was moved to Hays Code. Production Code is too vague to be used as a title by itself. I agree Motion Picture Production Code or even Hollywood Production Code would be better. LargoLarry (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that vagueness is a reason to avoid using a title. There are many articles that use the title of a given topic, and it's not necessarily clear from just reading the title what it is. For example, looking at The Cell, you wouldn't know from the name itself what it is. So I don't think it's really grounds for naming... we can use the lead section to explain what it is and what other names it has used. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that 'Motion Picture Production Code would be best, the only advantage of Production codê is that it's shorter. Wran (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I know only three editors have participated in this discussion, but there has been sufficient notice of it. I'd certainly not object to moving to Motion Picture Production Code if there are no further objections. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the code in question applied to US films only, I think the more specific Hollywood Production Code suggested by LargoLarry is a better choice. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point. My concern is that "Hollywood Production Code" does not seem to have been actually used very much to refer to the code, whereas Motion Picture Production Code has been. Thus we would in effect be almost coining a phrase, rather than reflecting existing usage. We certainly can make it clearer in the lead of the article, if necessary, that this refers to U.S. films only. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that Production Code is a good article title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Remember that we can create redirects of all suggestions above and identify the various terms in the article's lead section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess then the question would be what would be the most common usage. "Production code" gets more Google hits, but a lot of those seem to be unrelated to films, and encompassing of "Motion Picture Production Code." I see that the latter usage is employed by Brittanica [1] Stetsonharry (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, I did not look too closely at the search results. I thought that "Production Code" was pretty stand-alone. "Motion Picture Production Code" seems appropriate, especially with how Britannica does it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, then let's wait a bit longer to see if anyone drops by, and if not, let's move to Motion Picture Production Code. A word on the edits to the Kings Row subsection: I removed an account of a meeting with the Hays office that was reported in Otto Friedrich's City of Nets, and which I inserted in this article some weeks ago. I did that because I found a far more authoritative account of the meeting, quoting the contemporaneous memos, in a book on Warner Brothers by Rudy Behmer. Someone reinstated the Friedrich stuff and I reverted. Please let it stay that way, as what Friedrich has is an incorrect paraphrase. Thanks. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • what exactly do you think is incorrect in the quotes from Friedrich and why do you think so? Wran (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are already a host of redirects for Hays Code, with Hollywood Production Code, Motion Picture Production Code, and United States Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 as notable alternatives. Since the article is only about the Code in force between 1930 and 1967/8, any of the ones I listed are fine, and it would be just as fine to leave it alone. With all the redirects of interest already in place, a move borders on being a moot point. 67.101.6.225 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • True, many redirects, but I think the initial point is correct that this is not an optimal title for this article. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except within the movie industry, "Production Code" is unclear. At first I thought that it meant the text of a production version of a computer program, until I read the article; or it could mean a code about the making of any of many sorts of things. Motion picture production code? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vandalism with "penis"

[edit]

There's vandalism throughout this Wikipedia page with the word penis.

Well played, vandal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.230 (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

This is an example of an article where strict neutrality doesn't work well, because it prohibits discussing matters that need discussion (either within the article, or in referenced material). The "unfortunate" thing about the Production Code is that it forced film makers to show some degree of wit and creativity, rather than pandering to the lowest tastes of the audience. I am absolutely against censorship, but I also realize that censorship (or at least minimal levels of taste and discretion) can result in better motion pictures. This needs to be addressed. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly related to previous comment, but dealing with POV. I removed the italicized material from the paragraph below:

  • In 1922, after some risque films and a series of off-screen scandals involving Hollywood stars, the studios enlisted beacon of rectitude and Presbyterian elder Will H. Hays to rehabilitate Hollywood's image. Hays, who was later nicknamed the motion picture "Czar", quickly tarnished his sterling image by lying before the U.S. Senate, although the American people seemed unconcerned that Hays was less noble than imagined. Hollywood in the 1920s was expected to be somewhat corrupt, and many felt the movie industry had always been morally questionable. Political pressure was building, however, with statesmen in 37 states introducing almost 100 movie censorship bills in 1921. Hays was paid the then-lavish sum of $100,000 a year.[1]

My reasoning was that "beacon of rectitude" sounds snarky but provides no real info about Hays, and the part about lying to the Senate does not include helpful detail; for example, what exactly Hays lied about! This change was reverted earlier, and while I think the part about lying to the Senate could be included if more info were included, I see no reason to keep the "beacon of rectitude." Philip K Glass (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Doherty. pg. 6
[Added reflist-talk template ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)][reply]

What does "heavy" mean in the in the codes context?

[edit]

25. Excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a "heavy."

I have no idea what this means.

Xylon.doulas (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it means a bad guy or a bully. RJ4 (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the definition in MW (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heavy), it could mean a villain as in the suggestion above, but that doesn't make any sense in the context. By the same source, it could also mean "a dignified or somber character", or "someone or something influential, serious, or important", which really does click. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.118.230 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quotebox (?)

[edit]

No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards
of those who see it.  Hence the sympathy of the audience should
never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.

Correct standards of life shall be presented on the screen,
subject only to necessary dramatic contrasts.

Law, natural or human, should not be ridiculed,
nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

—"Principles Underlying the [Production] Code," 1930[1]

This quotebox might be useful, but I couldn't figure out where to put it so that didn't mess-up the page →

~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Couvares, F. G.(1998). "Hollywood and the culture wars". American Quarterly 50(1), 192-200. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved January 5, 2013, excerpt from Project MUSE database.

Ah-ha!

[edit]

So this is what the line in the early, pre-Sylvester Tweety Bird cartoon is referring to. One cat forces the other to climb a ladder to grab the baby bird out of the nest. He gets to the top, and the one on the ground is yelling at him to "Get the bird, stupid! Give me the bird! Give...me...the...bird!" The other cat looks at the audience and quietly mutters "If the Hays Office would let me, I'd give 'im the boid alright!". So much for Looney Tunes being for children (it wasn't, of course). Does anyone think this would be useful in a "Popular culture section", or something?AnnaGoFast (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Thou Shalt Not"

[edit]

Is a picture of the famous "Thou Shalt Not" poster available? That would be a good addition to this article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Motion Picture Production Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]

Is there anything about the legacy of the code? I Think this would be super interesting and what its long term effects on American cinema were. dh74g3y (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 July 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. As the most common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion Picture Production Code → Hays Code – I think that Hays Code would be the WP:COMMONNAME for this article. I didn't realize that there was already a requested move discussion (from 2009) when I tried to boldly move this page, so I'm starting this discussion to see if consensus may have changed. I will say that even the lead of the article brings up that it's popularly known as the Hays Code. There's also plenty of reliable sources that describe it as the Hays Code [2][3] (specifically stating that it's "commonly known" as this), [4][5][6], etc. Clovermoss (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The document under discussion is officially called the Motion Picture Production Code. The article could be crosslisted, but calling it the Hays Code is misleading, as Hays only began the Production Code Administration and did not oversee the enforcement of the Code. That was done by Joseph Breen and Geoffrey Shurlock. 73.182.29.19 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but official names are not the same as the Wikipedia policy about common names. We have articles like J. K. Rowling instead of Joanne Rowling, etc. Wikipedia:Official names might be useful to read to understand this a bit more. I'm not disagreeing with you :) The article would still mention that it was also known as the Motion Picture Production Code. Clovermoss (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be moved. Nobody refers to it as the "Motion Picture Production Code" and I didn't even know what the official name of the code was. Giving it a legalistic name simply softens it while the Hays Code is what everybody knows it by. Jon698 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The point made by Jon698 above is incorrect. I don't have particularly strong views on this, but there is plenty of evidence that the code is widely referred to as the "Motion Picture Production Code" in reliable sources and industry literature. This is true of both potential names. The code may be popularly known as the "Hays Code", I don't think anyone would contest that, but Motion Picture Production Code is the official name and the move should only go ahead if there is clear evidence that "Hays Code" is the de facto name i.e. it is more common than the official name. WP:COMMONNAME states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". I suspect this is probably the case but so far no actual evidence has been presented to that effect. Betty Logan (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Betty Logan: What specifically are you looking for? I provided 6 sources that use the Hays Code to refer to it and there's countless others. But I don't exactly participate in move discussions often so if there's some way to prove that this is the common name other than what I'm doing, I'll look into it and try to do so. I know my ancedotal experience doesn't mean much in the scheme of things, either, even if I've only ever heard Hays Code (even if this is the official title/policy and what it's referred to by people in the film industry). Clovermoss (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get the "ngrams" data please? The data presented so far presents evidenced support for the move. If the ngrams back that up I'll happily support the move. Betty Logan (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hays_Code&oldid=1207596468"