View source for Hays Code

{{Short description|U.S. film studio self-censorship rules (1930–1967)}}
{{redirect2|Production Code|Hays Commission|TV episode numbering|Production code number|the 1937 investigation by Arthur Garfield Hays|Ponce massacre}}
{{Use American English|date=March 2023}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2023}}
[[File:Motion Picture Production Code.png|thumb|200px|Motion Picture Production Code]]

The '''Motion Picture Production Code''' was a set of industry guidelines for the [[self-censorship]] of content that was applied to most  motion pictures released by major studios in the [[Cinema of the United States|United States]] from 1934 to 1968. It is also popularly known as the '''Hays Code''', after [[Will H. Hays]], president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) from 1922 to 1945. Under Hays's leadership, the MPPDA, later the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the [[Motion Picture Association]] (MPA), adopted the Production Code in 1930 and began rigidly enforcing it in 1934. The Production Code spelled out acceptable and unacceptable content for motion pictures produced for a public audience in the United States.

From 1934 to 1954, the code was closely associated with [[Joseph Breen]], the administrator appointed by Hays to enforce the code in Hollywood. The film industry followed the guidelines set by the code well into the late 1950s, but it began to weaken, owing to the combined impact of television, influence from foreign films, controversial directors (such as [[Otto Preminger]]) pushing boundaries, and intervention from the courts, including the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]].<ref name="mcgmain">McGilligan (2004), p. 376.</ref><ref name="H:325">Sperling et al (1998), p. 325.</ref> In 1968, after several years of minimal enforcement, the Production Code was replaced by the [[Motion Picture Association film rating system|MPAA film rating system]].

==Background==
[[File:Thou Shalt Not - Whitey Schafer - 1940.jpg|alt=Thou Shalt Not, a 1940 photo by Whitey Schafer deliberately subverting the Code's strictures |thumb|''Thou Shalt Not'', a 1940 photo by [[Whitey Schafer]] deliberately subverting some of the Code's strictures]]

In the 1920s, Hollywood was rocked by a number of notorious scandals, such as the murder of [[William Desmond Taylor]] and the alleged rape of [[Virginia Rappe]] by popular movie star [[Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle]], which brought widespread condemnation from religious, civic and political organizations. Many felt that the [[film industry]] had always been morally questionable,<ref>''Encyc. of World Biog.: Suppl.'' (2001), "Will Hays" entry</ref> and political pressure was increasing, with legislators in 37 states introducing almost one hundred [[film censorship]] bills in 1921. In 1922, as they were faced with the prospect of having to comply with hundreds and potentially thousands of inconsistent, easily changed decency laws in order to show their films, the studios chose self-regulation as the preferable option, enlisting [[Presbyterian polity#Elder|Presbyterian elder]] [[Will H. Hays]], [[United States Postmaster General|Postmaster General]] under former President [[Warren G. Harding]] and former head of the [[Republican National Committee]],<ref name="SS190">Siegel & Siegel (2004), p. 190.</ref> to rehabilitate Hollywood's image. The move mimicked the decision that [[Major League Baseball]] had made in hiring judge [[Kenesaw Mountain Landis]] as [[Commissioner of Baseball (MLB)|League Commissioner]] the previous year to quell questions about the integrity of baseball in the wake of the [[Black Sox Scandal|1919 World Series gambling scandal]]; ''[[The New York Times]]'' even called Hays the "screen Landis".<ref name="ah">Yagoda (1980), [https://www.americanheritage.com/hollywood-cleans-its-act?page=1 "Hollywood Cleans Up&nbsp;..."]</ref>    Hays was paid the lavish sum of $100,000 a year {{USDCY|100000|1922}},<ref name="DH6" /><ref>Gardner (2005), [https://books.google.com/books?id=0QsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA92 p. 92].</ref> and served for 25 years as president of the [[Motion Picture Association of America|Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America]] (MPPDA), where he "defended the industry from attacks, recited soothing nostrums, and negotiated treaties to cease hostilities".<ref name="DH6">Doherty (1999), p. 6.</ref>

In 1924, Hays introduced a set of recommendations dubbed "the Formula", which the studios were advised to heed, and asked filmmakers to describe to his office the [[Plot (narrative)|plots]] of films they were planning on producing.<ref name="Pr20">Prince (2003), p. 20.</ref> In 1915, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] had decided unanimously in ''[[Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio]]'' that [[free speech]] did not extend to motion pictures.<ref>Jowett (1989), p. 16.</ref> While there had been token attempts to clean up the films before (such as when the studios formed the [[National Association of the Motion Picture Industry]] (NAMPI) in 1916), little had come of the efforts.<ref>Butters Jr. (2007), p. 149.</ref> [[New York (state)|New York]] became the first state to take advantage of the Supreme Court's decision by instituting a censorship board in 1921. [[Virginia]] followed suit the following year,<ref>Butters Jr. (2007), p. 148.</ref> with eight individual states having a board by the advent of sound film,<ref>LaSalle (2000), p. 62.</ref><ref>Vieira (1999), pp. 7–8.</ref> but many of these were ineffectual. By the 1920s, the New York stage, a frequent source of subsequent screen material, had topless shows, performances filled with [[curse word]]s, adult subject matter, and sexually suggestive dialogue.<ref name="But187">Butters Jr. (2007), p. 187.</ref> Early in the sound system conversion process, it became apparent that what was acceptable in New York might not be so in [[Kansas]].<ref name="But187" /> Filmmakers were facing the possibility that many states and cities would adopt their own codes of censorship, necessitating a multiplicity of versions of films made for national distribution. [[Self-censorship]] was deemed a preferable outcome.

In 1927, Hays suggested to studio executives that they form a committee to discuss film censorship. [[Irving Thalberg|Irving G. Thalberg]] of [[Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]], [[Sol Wurtzel]] of [[Fox Film Corporation]], and E. H. Allen of [[Paramount Pictures]] responded by collaborating on a list they called the "Don'ts and Be Carefuls", based on items that were challenged by local censor boards. This list consisted of eleven subjects best avoided and twenty-six to be handled very carefully. The list was approved by the [[Federal Trade Commission]] (FTC), and Hays created the Studio Relations Committee (SRC) to oversee its implementation;<ref name="Vieira_p8">Vieira (1999), p. 8.</ref><ref>Prince (2003), p. 31.</ref> however, there was still no way to enforce tenets.<ref name="ah" /> The controversy surrounding film standards came to a head in 1929.<ref name="La1">LaSalle (2002), p. 1.</ref><ref name="Bu">Butters Jr. (2007), p. 189.</ref>

==Pre-Code ==
In a resolution passed on June 29, 1927, the MPPDA codified lists of "don'ts" and "be carefuls" into what they colloquially called their "Magna Charta".<ref name="donts">{{Cite web |date=June 29, 1927 |title=Record #365 |url=https://mppda.flinders.edu.au/records/365 |access-date=July 14, 2020 |website=MPPDA Digital Archive}}</ref> Many of these would later become key points in the Code.<ref name="Hollywood">Lewis (2000), [https://books.google.com/books?id=4OBepfVJOeEC&pg=PA301 pp. 301–302]</ref>

===Don'ts===
"Those things which are included in the following list shall not appear in pictures produced by the members of this Association, irrespective of the manner in which they are treated":<ref name="donts" />

{{blockquote|
# Pointed profanity{{--}}by either title or lip{{--}}this includes the words God, Lord, Jesus, Christ (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd, and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled;
# Any licentious or suggestive nudity{{--}}in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;
# The illegal traffic in drugs;
# Any inference of sex perversion;
# [[Sexual slavery#White slavery|White slavery]];
# [[Miscegenation]];
# [[sexual health|Sex hygiene]] and venereal diseases;
# Scenes of actual childbirth{{--}}in fact or in silhouette;
# Children's sex organs;
# Ridicule of the [[clergy]];
# Willful offense to any nation, race or creed; 
}}

===Be Carefuls===
"Special care [must] be exercised in the manner in which the following subjects are treated, to the end that vulgarity and suggestiveness may be eliminated and that good taste may be emphasized":<ref name="donts" />

{{blockquote|
# The use of the Flag;
# International Relations (avoid picturizing in an unfavorable light another country's religion, history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry);
# Religion and religious ceremonies;
# [[Arson]];
# The use of firearms;
# Theft, robbery, [[safe-cracking]], and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, et cetera (having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron);
# Brutality and possible gruesomeness;
# Technique of committing murder by whatever method;
# Methods of smuggling;
# [[torture|Third-Degree methods]];
# Actual [[hanging]]s or [[electric chair|electrocution]]s as legal punishment for crime;
# Sympathy for criminals;
# Attitude toward public characters and institutions;
# [[Sedition]];
# Apparent cruelty to children and animals;
# [[Livestock branding|Branding]] of people or animals;
# The sale of women, or of a woman [[prostitution|selling her virtue]];
# Rape or attempted rape;
# [[wedding night|First-night]] scenes;
# Man and woman in bed together;
# Deliberate seduction of girls;
# The institution of marriage;
# Surgical operations;
# The use of drugs;
# Titles or scenes having to do with law enforcement or law-enforcing officers;
# Excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a "[[villain|heavy]]".
}}

==Creation==
In 1929, Catholic layman [[Martin Quigley (publisher)|Martin Quigley]], editor of the prominent trade paper ''[[Motion Picture Herald]]'', and [[Society of Jesus|Jesuit priest]] Father [[Daniel A. Lord]], created a code of standards<ref name="Sm38">Smith (2005), p. 38.</ref> and submitted it to the studios.<ref name="DH6" /><ref>Jacobs (1997), p. 108.</ref> Lord was particularly concerned with the effects of sound film on children, whom he considered especially susceptible to their allure.<ref name="Sm38" /> In February 1930, several studio heads, including [[Irving Thalberg]] of [[Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]], met with Lord and Quigley. After some revisions, they agreed to the stipulations of the Code. One of the main motivating factors in adopting the Code was to avoid direct government intervention.<ref>Prince (2003), p. 21.</ref> It was the responsibility of the SRC (Studio Relations Committee, precursor to the PCA) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/production-code-and-hays-office|title=The Production Code and the Hays Office|access-date=July 28, 2024}}</ref> headed by Colonel Jason S. Joy, a former [[American Red Cross]] Executive Secretary)<ref name="Vieira_p8" /><ref>Flinders Inst. profile.</ref> to supervise film production and advise the studios when changes or cuts were required.<ref>LaSalle (2000), p. 63.</ref><ref name="DH8">Doherty (1999), p. 8.</ref> On March 31, the MPPDA agreed it would abide by the Code.<ref name="DH2">Doherty (1999), p. 2.</ref> The production code was intended to put a limitation on films which were distributed to a large audience, making it more difficult to appeal to all individuals in the audiences.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tratner|first=Michael|date=2003|title=Working the Crowd: Movies and Mass Politics|journal=Criticism|volume=45|issue=1|pages=53–73|doi=10.1353/crt.2003.0035|s2cid=144810867 |issn=1536-0342|url=https://repository.brynmawr.edu/engl_pubs/6|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

==Contents==
The code was divided into two parts. The first was a set of "general principles" which prohibited a picture from "lowering the moral standards of those who see it", so as not to wrongly influence a specific audience of viewers including, women, children, lower-class, and those of "susceptible" minds, called for depictions of the "correct standards of life", and lastly forbade a picture to show any sort of ridicule towards a law or "creating sympathy for its violation".<ref name="LeffSimmons90" /> The second part was a set of "particular applications", which was an exacting list of items that could not be depicted. Some restrictions, such as the ban on homosexuality or on the use of specific curse words, were never directly mentioned, but were assumed to be understood without clear demarcation. The Code also contained an addendum commonly referred to as the Advertising Code, which regulated advertising copy and imagery.<ref>Doherty (1999), p. 107.</ref>

Homosexuals were ''de facto'' included under the proscription of sex perversion,<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Noriega|first=Chon|date=1990|title="Something's Missing Here!": Homosexuality and Film Reviews during the Production Code Era, 1934–1962|journal=Cinema Journal|volume=30|issue=1|pages=20–41|doi=10.2307/1224848|issn=0009-7101|jstor=1224848|s2cid=146910873 |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/707328|url-access=subscription}}</ref> and the depiction of [[miscegenation]] (by 1934, defined only as sexual relationships between black and white races) was forbidden.<ref>The Production Code of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America stated by 1934 that "miscegenation (sex relationship between the white and black races) is forbidden" (Part II, Item 6).</ref> It also stated that the notion of an "adults-only policy" would be a dubious, ineffective strategy that would be difficult to enforce;<ref name="DH7">Doherty (1999), p. 7.</ref> however, it did allow that "maturer minds may easily understand and accept without harm subject matter in plots which does younger people positive harm".<ref name="DH11">Doherty (1999), p. 11.</ref> If children were supervised and the events implied elliptically, the code allowed "the possibility of a cinematically inspired thought crime".<ref name="DH11" />

The code sought not only to determine what could be portrayed on screen, but also to promote traditional values.<ref>Butters Jr. (2007), p. 188.</ref> Sexual relations outside marriage, which were forbidden to be portrayed as attractive or beautiful, were to be presented in a way that would not arouse passion or make them seem permissible.<ref>LaSalle (2000), p. 65.</ref> Any sexual act considered perverted, including any suggestion of same-sex relationships, sex or romance, was ruled out.<ref name=":0" />

All criminal action had to be punished, and neither the crime nor the criminal could elicit sympathy from the audience,<ref name="ah" /> or the audience must at least be aware that such behavior is wrong, usually through "compensating moral value".<ref name="LeffSimmons90" /><ref>Black (1996), pp. 41–42.</ref> Authority figures had to be treated with respect, and the clergy could not be portrayed as comic characters or villains. Under some circumstances, politicians, police officers, and judges could be villains, as long as it was clear that those individuals portrayed as villains were the exceptions to the rule.<ref>LaSalle (2000), p. 64.</ref>

The entire document was written with Catholic undertones, and stated that art must be handled carefully because it could be "morally evil in its effects", and its "deep moral significance" was unquestionable.<ref name="DH7" /> It was initially decided to keep the Catholic influence on the Code secret.<ref name="Bl43">Black (1996), p. 43.</ref> A recurring theme was "that throughout, the audience feels sure that evil is wrong, and good is right".<ref name="ah" />

==Enforcement==
===Pre-Code Hollywood===
{{Main|Pre-Code Hollywood}}
[[File:The Kiss (1896).webm|thumb|left|''[[The Kiss (1896 film)|The Kiss]]'' (1896), starring [[May Irwin]], from the [[Edison Studios]], drew general outrage from moviegoers, civic leaders, and religious leaders, as shocking, [[obscenity|obscene]], and immoral.]]
[[File:Great train robbery still.jpg|thumb|A famous shot from the 1903 film ''[[The Great Train Robbery (1903 film)|The Great Train Robbery]]''. Scenes where criminals aimed guns at the camera were considered inappropriate by the New York state censor board in the 1920s, and usually removed.<ref>Prince. pg. 24</ref>]]

On February 19, 1930, ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' published the entire content of the Code, and predicted that state film censorship boards would soon become obsolete;<ref name="B4445">Black (1996), pp. 44–45.</ref> however, the men obliged to enforce the code—Jason Joy (head of the committee until 1932) and his successor, James Wingate—were generally unenthusiastic and/or ineffective.<ref name="DH8" /><ref name="B5051">Black (1996), pp. 50–51.</ref> ''[[The Blue Angel]]'', the first film the office reviewed, which was passed by Joy with no revisions, was considered indecent by a California censor.<ref name="B5051" /> Although there were several instances where Joy negotiated cuts from films and there were definite—albeit loose—constraints, a significant amount of lurid material made it to the screen.<ref>Jacobs (1997), p. 27.</ref> Joy had to review 500 films a year with a small staff and little power.<ref name="B5051" /> He was more willing to work with the studios, and his creative writing skills led to his hiring at Fox. On the other hand, Wingate struggled to keep up with the flood of scripts coming in, to the point where [[Warner Bros.]]' head of production [[Darryl Zanuck]] wrote him a letter imploring him to pick up the pace.<ref>Vieira (1999), p. 117.</ref> In 1930, the Hays office did not have the authority to order studios to remove material from a film, and instead worked by reasoning and sometimes pleading with them.<ref name="Bl52">Black (1996), p. 52.</ref> Complicating matters, the appeals process ultimately put the responsibility for making the final decision in the hands of the studios.<ref name="DH8" />

[[File:Frankenstein's monster (Boris Karloff).jpg|thumb|left|upright|Actor [[Boris Karloff]] as Doctor Frankenstein's creation in the 1931 film ''[[Frankenstein (1931 film)|Frankenstein]]''. By the time the film's sequel, ''[[Bride of Frankenstein]]'', arrived in 1935, enforcement of the Code was in full effect, and the doctor's overt God complex was forbidden.<ref>Gardner (1988), pg. 66.</ref> In the first picture, however, when the creature was born, his mad scientist creator was free to proclaim [[Frankenstein (1931 film)#Pre-Code era scenes and censorship history|"Now I know what it feels like to be God!"]]<ref>Teresi, Dick. [https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/13/books/are-you-mad-doctor.html?pagewanted=2 "Are You Mad, Doctor?"], ''The New York Times'', September 13, 1988; accessed November 24, 2010.</ref>]]
[[File:DeMille - Sign of the Cross - Sacrifice in the Colosseum.png|thumb|From [[Cecil B. DeMille]]'s ''[[The Sign of the Cross (1932 film)|The Sign of the Cross]]'' (1932)]]
One factor in ignoring the code was the fact that some found such censorship prudish, owing to the libertine social attitudes of the 1920s and early 1930s. This was a period in which the [[Victorian era]] was sometimes ridiculed as being naïve and backward.<ref>LaSalle (2000), p. 20.</ref> When the Code was announced, the liberal periodical ''[[The Nation]]'' attacked it,<ref name="B4445" /> stating that if crime were never to be presented in a sympathetic light, then taken literally that would mean that "law" and "justice" would become one and the same; therefore, events such as the [[Boston Tea Party]] could not be portrayed. If clergy must always be presented in a positive way, then hypocrisy could not be dealt with either.<ref name="B4445" />'' [[The Outlook (New York)|The Outlook]]'' agreed and, unlike ''Variety'', predicted from the beginning that the Code would be difficult to enforce.<ref name="B4445" /> The [[Great Depression in the United States|Great Depression]] of the 1930s led many studios to seek income by any way possible. Since films containing racy and violent content resulted in high ticket sales, it seemed reasonable to continue producing such films.<ref>LaSalle (2000), p. 77.</ref> Soon, the flouting of the code became an open secret. In 1931, ''[[The Hollywood Reporter]]'' mocked the code and quoted an anonymous screenwriter saying that "the Hays moral code is not even a joke any more; it's just a memory"; two years later ''Variety'' followed suit.<ref name="DH8" />

===Breen era===
On June 13, 1934, an amendment to the Code was adopted, which established the [[Production Code Administration]] (PCA) and required all films released on or after July 1, 1934, to obtain a certificate of approval before being released. The PCA had two offices: one in Hollywood and the other in New York City. The first film to receive an MPPDA seal of approval was ''[[The World Moves On]]'' (1934). For over 30 years, virtually all motion pictures produced in the United States adhered to the code.<ref name="Doherty">Doherty (2006), [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901530.html "The Code Before&nbsp;..."].</ref> The Production Code was not created or enforced by federal, state, or city government; the [[Classical Hollywood cinema|Hollywood]] studios adopted the code in large part in the hopes of avoiding government censorship, preferring self-regulation to government regulation.

Father [[Daniel A. Lord]], a Jesuit, wrote: "Silent smut had been bad. Vocal smut cried to the censors for vengeance." Thomas Doherty, Professor of American studies at [[Brandeis University]], has defined the code as "no mere list of Thou-Shalt-Nots, but a homily that sought to yoke Catholic doctrine to Hollywood formula. The guilty are punished, the virtuous rewarded, the authority of church and state is legitimate, and the bonds of matrimony are sacred."<ref name="Doherty" /> What resulted has been described as "a Jewish-owned business selling Catholic theology to Protestant America".<ref>Scott (2004, 2010){{page needed|date=November 2015}}</ref>

[[Joseph Breen|Joseph I. Breen]], a prominent Catholic layman who had worked in public relations, was appointed head of the PCA. Under Breen's leadership, which lasted until his retirement in 1954, enforcement of the Production Code became notoriously rigid. Even cartoon sex symbol [[Betty Boop]] had to change her characteristic [[flapper]] personality and dress, adopting an old-fashioned, near-matronly appearance. However, by 1934, the prohibition against miscegenation was defined only as sexual relationships between black and white races.<ref>The Production Code of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc., 1930–1934, "miscegenation (sex relationship between the white and black races) is forbidden" (Part II, Item 6). No mention was made of miscegenation between whites and any race other than Black people.</ref>

The first major instance of censorship under the Production Code involved the 1934 film ''[[Tarzan and His Mate]]'', in which brief nude scenes involving a [[body double]] for actress [[Maureen O'Sullivan]] were edited out of the master negative of the film.<ref>Vieira (1999), p. 188.</ref> By the time the Code became fully functional by January 1935, several films from the pre-Code era and the transition period beginning in July 1934 were pulled from release exchanges (with some of them never seeing public release again), which led studios to remake some of its early 1930s-era films in later years: 1941 saw the release of remakes of ''[[The Maltese Falcon (1941 film)|The Maltese Falcon]]'' and ''[[Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941 film)|Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde]]'', both having had very different pre-Code versions released ten years prior.

The Hays Code also required changes regarding adaptations of other media. For instance, [[Alfred Hitchcock]]'s ''[[Rebecca (1940 film)|Rebecca]]'' could not retain a major element from [[Daphne du Maurier]]'s [[Rebecca (novel)|1938 novel]] where the narrator discovers that her husband (the aristocratic widower Maxim de Winter) killed his first wife (the titular Rebecca) and she makes light of it, since it followed Rebecca having strongly provoked and taunted him. As having a major character get away with murder and living happily ever after would have been a flagrant violation of the Code, Hitchcock's version had Rebecca die in an accident with Maxim de Winter being only guilty for hiding the facts of her death.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Varnam |first1=Laura |title=Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca |url=https://www.dumaurier.org/menu_page.php?id=143 |website=dumaurier.org |access-date=November 18, 2021 |date=August 2018}}</ref> The [[Rebecca (2020 film)|2020 remake]], not bound by the Code, restored du Maurier's original plot element.

The PCA also engaged in political censorship. When Warner Bros. wanted to make a film about [[Nazi concentration camps]], the production office forbade it, citing the prohibition on depicting "in an unfavorable light" another country's "institutions [and] prominent people", with threats to take the matter to the federal government if the studio went ahead.<ref>{{cite AV media | title=The Brothers Warner | date=2007 | people=Warner, Cass (director) | type=TV documentary movie | url=https://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Warner-Jack/dp/B002Y58G7S}}</ref> This policy prevented a number of anti-Nazi films being produced. In 1938, the [[FBI]] unearthed and prosecuted a Nazi spy ring, subsequently allowing Warner to produce ''[[Confessions of a Nazi Spy]]'' (1939),<ref>Holden (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=APjtGBMiSG8C&pg=PA238 p. 238].</ref> with [[The Three Stooges]]' short subject ''[[You Nazty Spy!]]'' (1940) being the first Hollywood film of any sort to openly spoof the Third Reich's leadership,<ref>Mushnik (2013), [https://nypost.com/2013/07/14/three-stooges-first-to-blast-hitler/ "Three Stooges&nbsp;..."], nypost.com; accessed December 18, 2016.</ref> followed soon after by ''[[The Great Dictator]]''.

Breen's power to change scripts and scenes angered many writers, directors and Hollywood [[media proprietor|moguls]]. Breen influenced the production of ''[[Casablanca (film)|Casablanca]]'' (1942), objecting to any explicit reference to Rick and Ilsa having slept together in Paris, and to the film mentioning that Captain Renault extorted sexual favors from his supplicants; ultimately, both remained strongly implied in the finished version.<ref>Univ. of Virginia (2000–01), [https://explore.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/show/censored/walkthrough/film1 "Censored"]</ref> Adherence to the Code also ruled out any possibility of the film ending with Rick and Ilsa consummating their adulterous love, making inevitable the ending with Rick's noble renunciation, one of ''Casablanca''{{'}}s most famous scenes.<ref>{{cite book|last =Harmetz|pages = 162–166 |first = Aljean|title = The Making of Casablanca: Bogart, Bergman, and World War II|publisher = Hyperion Books|date = 2002|isbn = 9780786888146}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last =Behlmer|pages = 207–208, 212–13 |first = Rudy|title = Inside Warner Bros. (1935-1951) |publisher = Viking|date = 1985|isbn = 9780670804788}}</ref>

[[File:Notorious1946.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Some directors found ways to get around the Code guidelines; an example of this was in [[Alfred Hitchcock]]'s 1946 film ''[[Notorious (1946 film)|Notorious]]'', where he worked around the rule of three-second-kissing by having the two actors break off every three seconds. The whole sequence lasts two and a half minutes.<ref name="mcgmain" />]]
Some of Hollywood's creative class managed to find positives in the Code's limitations however. Director Edward Dmytryk later said that the Code "had a very good effect because it made us think. If we wanted to get something across that was censorable... we had to do it deviously. We had to be clever. And it usually turned out to be much better than if we had done it straight."<ref>{{cite web|title=PBS American Cinema Film Noir|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8uCuKxe4yk| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131001213029/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8uCuKxe4yk&gl=US&hl=en| archive-date=October 1, 2013 | url-status=dead|website=YouTube|access-date=January 6, 2019}}</ref>

Outside the mainstream studio system, the code was sometimes flouted by [[Poverty Row]] studios, while [[exploitation film]] presenters operating on the territorial (state-rights) distribution system openly violated it through the use of loopholes, masquerading the films as morality tales or [[muckraking]] [[Exposé (journalism)|exposé]]s. One example of this is ''[[Child Bride]]'' (1938), which featured a nude scene involving a twelve-year-old child actress ([[Shirley Mills]]). 

Newsreels were mostly exempt from the Code, although their content was mostly toned down by the end of 1934 as the result of public outrage over the coverage of the killings of [[John Dillinger]] in July, and of [[Baby Face Nelson|"Baby Face" Nelson]] and three girls in the Blue Ridge Mountains, the latter two occurring during the same week in November,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Doherty |first=Thomas |title=Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality and Insurrection in Hollywood, 1930–1934 |publisher=Columbia University Press |year=1999 |pages=217–218}}</ref> not deviating much from the Code until World War II.  

However, the most famous defiance of the code was the case of ''[[The Outlaw]]'', a [[Western movie|western]] produced by [[Howard Hughes]], which was denied a certificate of approval after it was completed in 1941 since the film's advertising focused particular attention on [[Jane Russell]]'s breasts. When the film's initial 1943 release was shuttered by the MPPDA after a week, Hughes eventually persuaded Breen that this did not violate the code and the film could be shown, although without a seal of approval. The film eventually got a general release in 1946.<ref>Mondello (2008), [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93301189 "Remembering&nbsp;..."], npr.org; accessed December 18, 2016.</ref> The [[David O. Selznick]] production ''[[Duel in the Sun (film)|Duel in the Sun]]'' was also released in 1946 without the approval of the Hays Office, featuring several on-screen deaths, adultery and displays of lust.

The financial success of both films became deciding factors in the weakening of the Code in the late 1940s, when the formerly taboo subjects of rape and miscegenation were allowed in ''[[Johnny Belinda (1948 film)|Johnny Belinda]]'' (1948) and ''[[Pinky (1949 film)|Pinky]]'' (1949), respectively. In 1951, the MPAA revised the code to make it more rigid, spelling out more words and subjects that were prohibited. That same year however, MGM head [[Louis B. Mayer]], one of Breen's foremost allies, was ousted after a series of disputes with the studio's production head, [[Dore Schary]], whose preference for gritty "social realism" films was often at odds with the Hays Office. In 1954, Breen retired, largely because of ill health, and [[Geoffrey Shurlock]] was appointed as his successor.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_vlXAAAAIBAJ&dq=joseph-breen%20censor&pg=710%2C95570|title=Censors try tempering growing movie violence|author=Bob Thomas|publisher=Spokane Daily Chronicle|date=June 1, 1955}}</ref>

===Post-Breen era===
Hollywood continued to work within the confines of the Production Code throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, but during this time, the [[film industry]] was faced with very serious competitive threats. The first threat came from [[television]], a new technology that did not require Americans to leave their houses to see motion pictures. Hollywood needed to offer the public something it could not get on television, which itself was under an even more restrictive censorship code.

In addition to the threat of television, the industry was enduring a period of economic difficulties that were compounded by the result of ''[[United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.]]'' (1948), in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] outlawed [[vertical integration]] as it had been found to violate [[anti-trust]] laws, and studios were not only forced to give up ownership of theaters, but they were also unable to control what exhibitors offered.<ref>{{cite web |title=United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/334/131/ |website=Justia Law |access-date=23 June 2024 |language=en}}</ref>

This led to increasing competition from foreign films which were not bound by the Code, such as [[Vittorio De Sica]]'s ''[[Bicycle Thieves]]'' (1948), released in the United States in 1949. In 1950, film distributor [[Joseph Burstyn]] released ''[[The Ways of Love]]'', which included ''The Miracle'', a [[short film]] originally part of ''[[L'Amore (film)|L'Amore]]'' (1948), an [[anthology film]] directed by [[Roberto Rossellini]]. This segment was considered to mock the Nativity, so the [[New York State Board of Regents]] (in charge of film censorship in the state) revoked the film's license. The ensuing lawsuit, ''[[Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson]]'' (dubbed the "Miracle Decision"), was resolved by the Supreme Court in 1952, which unanimously overruled its 1915 decision (''[[Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio]]''), and held that motion pictures were entitled to [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] protection, and thus the short could not be banned. This reduced the threat of government regulation, which had formerly been cited as justification for the Production Code, and the PCA's powers over the Hollywood industry were greatly reduced.<ref name="H:325" />

[[File:Colony Theatre Ad - 2 September 1955, NW, Washington, D.C.png|thumb|right|U.S. theatrical advertisement from 1955 for [[Ingmar Bergman]]'s ''[[Summer with Monika]]'' (1953)]]
Two Swedish films, ''[[One Summer of Happiness]]'' (1951), and [[Ingmar Bergman]]'s ''[[Summer with Monika]]'' (1953) were released in 1955 as exploitation movies, their success leading to a wave of sexually-provocative European product reaching American theaters. Some British films, such as ''[[Victim (1961 film)|Victim]]'' (1961), ''[[A Taste of Honey (film)|A Taste of Honey]]'' (1961), and ''[[The Leather Boys]]'' (1964), challenged traditional [[gender roles]], and openly confronted the prejudices against [[homosexuals]], all in clear violation of the Hollywood Production Code.

Furthermore, the postwar years saw a gradual, if moderate, liberalization of American culture. A boycott by the [[National Legion of Decency]] no longer guaranteed a film's commercial failure (to the point several films were no longer condemned by the Legion by the 1950s), and several aspects of the Code had slowly lost their taboo. In 1956, areas of the Code were rewritten to accept subjects such as miscegenation, adultery, and prostitution. For example, a proposed remake of ''[[Anna Christie (1930 film)|Anna Christie]]'', a pre-Code film dealing with prostitution, was canceled by MGM twice, in 1940 and in 1946, as the character Anna was not allowed to be portrayed as a prostitute. By 1962, such subject matter was acceptable, and the original film was given a seal of approval.<ref>Schumach (1964), pp. 163–164.</ref>

Two 1956 films, ''[[The Bad Seed (1956 film)|The Bad Seed]]'' and ''[[Baby Doll]]'', generated great controversy involving the PCA. The first dealt with the deaths of children, including that of the "wicked child" protagonist Rhoda at the end, which had been the result of changing the ending from the original novel to abide with the Code's "crime must pay" rule. On the other hand, the second film was vociferously attacked by religious and moral leaders, partly because of its provocative publicity, while the MPAA attracted great criticism for approving a film that ridiculed law enforcement and often used racial epithets. However, the Legion's condemnation of the film did not attract a unified response from religious authorities, some of which considered that other films, including ''[[The Ten Commandments (1956 film)|The Ten Commandments]]'' (released that same year), had a similar amount and intensity of sensuous content.<ref>{{cite book|last=Haberski|first=Raymond J.|year=2007|title=Freedom to Offend: How New York Remade Movie Culture|publisher=University Press of Kentucky|location=Lexington, Kentucky|pages=84–86|isbn=978-0-813-13841-1}}</ref><ref>[https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/67860/baby-doll "Notes"] on [[TCM.com]]</ref>

[[File:Peachtree Art Theatre ads - 10 June 1955 - 28 March 1958.png|thumb|left|300px|U.S. [[art-house]] advertisements from the 1950s. Many Americans at the time turned towards racier and more provocative foreign films, which remained largely free from code restrictions.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Canby|first1=Vincent|title=FILM VIEW; The Flashbacks of a Festivalgoer |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/20/movies/film-view-the-flashbacks-of-a-festivalgoer.html|year=1992|page=1|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>]]
During the 1950s, studios found ways of both complying with the code, while at the same time circumventing it.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Vq5JpkX4rE8C |last1=Baumann|first1=Baumann |title=Hollywood Highbrow: From Entertainment to Art|year=2002|page=103|publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=0691125279 }}</ref> In 1956, [[Columbia Pictures|Columbia]] acquired an [[art-house]] distributor, [[Kingsley-International Pictures| Kingsley Productions]], that specialized in importing foreign art films, in order to distribute and capitalize on the notoriety of the film ''[[And God Created Woman (1956 film)|And God Created Woman]]'' (1956). Columbia's agreement with the MPAA forbade it from distributing a film without a seal of approval, but the agreement did not specify what a subsidiary could do. Thus, exempt from the rules imposed by the code, subsidiary distributors were utilized, and even created by major studios such as Columbia, in order to defy and weaken the code.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z7QhzlWkFowC |last1=Simmons|first1=Jerold|title=The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code |year=2001|page=227|publisher=University Press of Kentucky |isbn=0813190118 }}</ref> [[United Artists]] followed suit and bought art film distributor [[Lopert Films]] in 1958, and within a decade all the major studios were distributing foreign art films.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6iQGEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT40|last1=Cook|first1=Pam|title=The Cinema Book |isbn=978-1-8445-7193-2|year=2007|page=52|publisher=[[Bloomsbury Publishing]]}}</ref> 

Author Peter Lev writes:
<blockquote>Explicit sexuality became expected in foreign films, to such an extent that "foreign film", "art film", "adult film" and "sex film" were for several years almost synonyms.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Lev|first1=Peter|title=The Euro-American Cinema |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TG9ZAAAAMAAJ|year=1993|isbn=978-0-292-76378-4|page=13|publisher=[[University of Texas Press]]}}</ref><br></blockquote>

Beginning in the late 1950s, increasingly explicit films began to appear, such as ''[[Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958 film)|Cat on a Hot Tin Roof]]'' (1958), ''[[Suddenly, Last Summer (film)|Suddenly, Last Summer]]'' (1959), ''[[Psycho (1960 film)|Psycho]]'' (1960), and ''[[The Dark at the Top of the Stairs (film)|The Dark at the Top of the Stairs]]'' (1960), often dealing with adult subjects and sexual matters that had not been seen in Hollywood films since enforcement of the Production Code began in 1934. The MPAA reluctantly granted the seal of approval for these films, although not until certain changes were made.<ref>Leff & Simmons (2001), p. 231.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Nickens |first1=Christopher |last2=Leigh |first2=Janet |author2-link=Janet Leigh |year=1996 |title=Psycho: Behind the Scenes of the Classic Thriller |publisher=Harmony | page=112 |isbn=0-517-70112-X |url=https://archive.org/details/psychobehindscen00leig}}</ref> Owing to its themes, [[Billy Wilder]]'s ''[[Some Like It Hot]]'' (1959) was not granted a certificate of approval, but still became a box office smash, and as a result, it further weakened the authority of the Code.<ref name="Hirsch">Hirsch (2007) {{page needed|date=November 2015}}</ref>

At the forefront of contesting the Code was director [[Otto Preminger]], whose films violated the Code repeatedly in the 1950s. His 1953 film ''[[The Moon Is Blue (film)|The Moon Is Blue]]'', about a young woman who tries to play two suitors off against each other by claiming that she plans to keep her virginity until marriage, was released without a certificate of approval by [[United Artists]], the first production distributed by a member of the MPAA to do so. Preminger later made ''[[The Man with the Golden Arm]]'' (1955), which portrayed the prohibited subject of drug abuse, and ''[[Anatomy of a Murder]]'' (1959), which dealt with murder and rape. Like ''Some Like It Hot'', Preminger's films were direct assaults on the authority of the Production Code, and their success hastened its abandonment.<ref name="Hirsch" /> 

In 1964, the [[Holocaust]] film ''[[The Pawnbroker (film)|The Pawnbroker]]'', directed by [[Sidney Lumet]] and starring [[Rod Steiger]], was initially rejected because of two scenes in which actresses [[Linda Geiser]] and [[Thelma Oliver]] fully expose their breasts, and also because of a sex scene between Oliver and [[Jaime Sánchez (actor)|Jaime Sánchez]] that was described as "unacceptably sex suggestive and lustful". Despite the rejection, the film's producers arranged for [[Monogram Pictures|Allied Artists]] to release the film without the Production Code seal, with the New York censors licensing the film without the cuts demanded by Code administrators. The producers appealed the rejection to the MPAA. On a 6–3 vote, the MPAA granted the film an exception, conditional on "reduction in the length of the scenes which the Production Code Administration found unapprovable". The requested reductions of nudity were minimal, and the outcome was viewed in the media as a victory for the film's producers.<ref name="Leff1996">Leff (1996), pp. 353–76.</ref>

''The Pawnbroker'' was the first film featuring bare breasts to receive Production Code approval. The exception to the code was granted as a "special and unique case" and was described by ''The New York Times'' at the time as "an unprecedented move that will not, however, set a precedent". In ''Pictures at a Revolution'', a 2008 study of films during that era, [[Mark Harris (journalist)|Mark Harris]] wrote that the MPAA approval was "the first of a series of injuries to the Production Code that would prove fatal within three years".<ref>Harris (2008), pp. 173–76.</ref>

===Abandonment===
In 1963, MPAA president [[Eric Johnston]], who had previously "liberalized" the Code, died. The next three years were marked by a power struggle between two factions, which led to an erratic application of the Code. Finally, the "liberal" faction prevailed by 1966, installing [[Jack Valenti]] as the Association's new head. The chaos of the interim period had rendered enforcement impossible and Valenti, an opponent of the Production Code, began working on a rating system under which film restrictions would lessen, an idea that had been considered as early as 1960 in response to the success of the non-approved ''Some Like It Hot'' and ''Anatomy of a Murder''.{{Citation needed|date=March 2023}}

In 1966, [[Warner Bros.]] released ''[[Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (film)|Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?]]'', the first film to feature the "Suggested for Mature Audiences" (SMA) label. As the PCA board was divided about censoring the film's explicit language, Valenti negotiated a compromise: the word "screw" was removed, but other language remained, including the phrase "hump the hostess". The film received Production Code approval despite the previously prohibited language.<ref name="LeffSimmons90" />

That same year, the British-produced, American-financed film ''[[Blowup]]'' was denied Production Code approval for its various instances of nudity, foreplay and intercourse. [[Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]] released it anyway, under a specially-created pseudonym, Premier Productions. This was the first instance of an MPAA member company directly producing a film without an approval certificate. Also, the original, lengthy code was replaced by a list of eleven points outlining that the boundaries of the new code would be current community standards and good taste. Any film containing content deemed suitable for older audiences would feature the SMA label in its advertising. With the creation of this new label, the MPAA unofficially began classifying films.<ref name="LeffSimmons90">Leff & Simmons (2001), pp. 270–271; 286–287.</ref>

The [[Motion Picture Association film rating system|MPAA film rating system]] went into effect on November 1, 1968, with the four rating symbols: "G" meaning suggested for general exhibition (persons of all ages admitted), "M" meaning suggested for mature audiences, "R" meaning suggested as restricted (persons under 16 not admitted unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian), and "X" meaning persons under 16 would not be admitted. By the end of 1968, Geoffrey Shurlock stepped down from his post, and the PCA effectively dissolved, being replaced by the Code and Rating Administration (CARA), headed by Eugene Dougherty. The CARA would replace "Code" with "Classification" in 1978.<ref name="LeffSimmons90" /><ref>Doherty (2007), [https://books.google.com/books?id=mBAiYzRx5LQC&pg=PA334 p. 334].</ref>

In 1969, the Swedish film ''[[I Am Curious (Yellow)]]'', directed by [[Vilgot Sjöman]], was initially banned in the U.S. for its frank depiction of sexuality; however, this was overturned by the Supreme Court. In 1970, because of confusion over the meaning of "mature audiences", the M rating was changed to "GP" meaning "for general exhibition, but parental guidance is suggested", then in 1972 to the current "PG", for "parental guidance suggested". In 1984, in response to public complaints regarding the severity of horror elements in PG-rated titles such as ''[[Gremlins]]'' and ''[[Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom]]'', the "PG-13" rating was created as a middle tier between PG and R. In 1990, the X rating was replaced by "NC-17" (under 17 not admitted) because of the former's stigma, being associated with [[pornography]]; as the X rating was not trademarked by the MPAA (which expected producers would prefer to self-rate such product), it was soon appropriated by adult bookstores and theaters, which marketed their products as being rated X, XX and XXX.<ref>Fox, [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-27-mn-1406-story.html "X Film&nbsp;..."], latimes.com, September 27, 1990; accessed May 28, 2017.</ref>

As the [[American Humane Association]] depended on the Hays Office for the right to monitor the [[Set (film and TV scenery)|set]]s used for production, the closure of the Hays Office in 1966 also corresponded with an increase in animal cruelty on sets. The association did not regain its access until 1980.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Arnold|first=Jeremy|date=May 6, 2012|title=Jesse James (1939)|url=https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/18071/jesse-james|access-date=August 25, 2021|website=Turner Classic Movies|language=en}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[The Celluloid Closet (book)|''The Celluloid Closet'' (book)]]
** [[The Celluloid Closet (film)|''The Celluloid Closet'' (film)]]
* [[Censorship in the United States]]
* [[Chicago Board of Censors]]
* [[Classical Hollywood cinema]]
* [[Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters]], which served the same purpose for television series
* [[Comics Code Authority]], which functioned similarly for the comics industry
* [[Entertainment Software Rating Board]], which offers ratings for video games 
* [[Intimacy coordinator]], role that assists actors 
* [[List of pre-Code films]]
* [[Parents Music Resource Center|PMRC]], a similar group, which sought to control musical content with the [[Parental Advisory]] sticker
* [[Pre-Code Hollywood]]
* [[Pre-Code crime films]]
* [[Pre-Code sex films]]
* ''[[This Film Is Not Yet Rated]]''

==Notes==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==Sources==
{{Refbegin|colwidth=50em}}
* Arnold, Jeremy. [https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/18071/jesse-james#articles-reviews "Jesse James"]. ''Turner Classic Movies''. Retrieved December&nbsp;4, 2014.
* Black, Gregory D. (1996). ''Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies''. Cambridge University Press. {{ISBN|0-521-56592-8}}.
* Butters Jr., Gerard R. (2007). ''Banned in Kansas: motion picture censorship, 1915–1966''. University of Missouri Press. {{ISBN|0-8262-1749-4}}.
* [https://explore.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/show/censored/walkthrough/film1 "Censored: Wielding the Red Pen"]. Exhibit at the University of Virginia Library, September 2000 – February 2001. Retrieved November&nbsp;7, 2015.
* Doherty, Thomas Patrick (1999). ''Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema 1930–1934''. New York: Columbia University Press. {{ISBN|0-231-11094-4}}.
* Doherty, Thomas (May 20, 2006). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901530.html "The Code Before 'Da Vinci{{' "}}]. ''[[The Washington Post]]''. Retrieved February&nbsp;10, 2014.
* Doherty, Thomas Patrick (2007). ''Hollywood's Censor: Joseph I. Breen and the Production Code Administration''. [[Columbia University Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-231-51284-8}}.
* Flinders staff. [http://mppda.flinders.edu.au/people/254 "Col. Jason S. Joy profile"]. Flinders Institute for Research in the Humanities. Retrieved November&nbsp;7, 2015.
* Fox, David J. (September 27, 1990). [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-27-mn-1406-story.html "X Film Rating Dropped and Replaced by NC-17"]. ''Los Angeles Times''. Retrieved April&nbsp;17, 2014.
* Gardner, Eric (February 2005). [https://books.google.com/books?id=0QsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA89 "The Czar of Hollywood"]. ''Indianapolis Monthly'', pp.&nbsp;89–96. ISSN&nbsp;0899-0328.
* Harris, Mark (2008). ''Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood''. Penguin Group. {{ISBN|978-1-59420-152-3}}.
* Hirsch, Foster (2007). ''Otto Preminger, the man who would be king'' (1st ed.) New York: Alfred A. Knopf. {{ISBN|9780307489210}}.
* Holden, Henry M. (2008). ''FBI 100 Years''. Zenith Press. {{ISBN|978-1-61060-718-6}}.
* Jacobs, Lea (1997). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=RDe_Ksrr3JMC The Wages of Sin: Censorship and the Fallen Woman Film, 1928–1942]''. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. {{ISBN|0-520-20790-4}}.
* Jowett, Garth S. (1999) [1989]. {{" '}}A Capacity For Evil': The 1915 Supreme Court Mutual Decision". In Bernstein, Matthew. ''Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era''. Rutgers University Press. {{ISBN|0-8135-2707-4}}.
* [[Mick LaSalle|LaSalle, Mick]] (2000). ''Complicated Women: Sex and Power in Pre-Code Hollywood''. New York: St. Martin's Press. {{ISBN|0-312-25207-2}}.
* LaSalle, Mick. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090618074036/http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/precode.jsp "Pre-Code Hollywood"], GreenCine.com. Retrieved October&nbsp;4, 2010.
* Leff, Leonard J. (1996). [https://web.archive.org/web/20170923003832/http://www.cmcdannell.com/HollywoodHolocaustReading.pdf "Hollywood and the Holocaust: Remembering The Pawnbroker"]. ''American Jewish History'', (84) 4: 353–376. Accessed March 9, 2009. {{doi|10.1353/ajh.1996.0045}}.
* Leff, Leonard L. & Jerold L. Simmons (2001). ''The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code''. University Press of Kentucky. {{ISBN|978-0-8131-9011-2}}.
* Lewis, Jon (2000), ''Hollywood v. Hard Core: How the Struggle Over Censorship Saved the Modern Film Industry''. New York University Press. {{ISBN|0-8147-5142-3}}.
* [[Patrick McGilligan (biographer)|McGilligan, Patrick]] (2004). ''Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light''. New York: Harper Perennial. {{ISBN|978-0-06-098827-2}}.
* Mondello, Bob (August 8, 2008). [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93301189 "Remembering Hollywood's Hays Code, 40 Years On"]. ''[[NPR]]''. Retrieved April&nbsp;17, 2014.
* Mushnik, Phil (July 14, 2013). [https://nypost.com/2013/07/14/three-stooges-first-to-blast-hitler/ "Three Stooges first to blast Hitler"]. ''New York Post''. Retrieved April&nbsp;17, 2014.
* Prince, Stephen (2003). ''Classical Film Violence: Designing and Regulating Brutality in Hollywood Cinema, 1930–1968''. Rutgers University Press. {{ISBN|0-8135-3281-7}}.
* Scott, Henry E. (2004, 2010). ''Shocking True Story, The Rise and Fall of "Confidential", America's Most Scandalous Magazine''. Pantheon. {{ISBN|978-0-375-42139-6}}.
* Schumach, Murray (1964). ''The Face On The Cutting Room Floor: The Story Of Movie And Television Censorship''. New York: William Morrow and Company. {{ISBN|978-0-3068-0009-2}}.
* Siegel, Scott & Barbara (2004). ''The Encyclopedia of Hollywood'' (2nd edition). Checkmark Books. {{ISBN|0-8160-4622-0}}.
* Smith, Sarah (2005). ''Children, Cinema and Censorship: From Dracula to the Dead End Kids''. Wiley-Blackwell. {{ISBN|1-4051-2027-4}}.
* Sperling, Cass Warner, Cork Millner, and Jack Warner (1998). ''Hollywood Be Thy Name''. Prima Publishing. {{ISBN|1-55958-343-6}}.
* Vieira, Mark A. (1999). ''Sin in Soft Focus: Pre-Code Hollywood''. New York: Harry N. Abrams. {{ISBN|0-8109-8228-5}}.
* "Will Hays: America's Morality Czar". ''Encyclopedia of World Biography: 2001 Supplement''. Gale Research, Inc., 2001. {{ISBN|978-0787652838}}.
* Yagoda, Ben (February/March 1980). [https://www.americanheritage.com/hollywood-cleans-its-act?page=1 "Hollywood Cleans Up Its Act; The curious career of the Hays Office"]. ''[[American Heritage (magazine)|American Heritage]]'', 31(2): 12–21. Retrieved March&nbsp;19, 2014.
{{Refend}}

==Further reading==
* Gilbert, Nora (2013). ''Better Left Unsaid: Victorian Novels, Hays Code Films, and the Benefits of Censorship''. Stanford University Press. {{ISBN|978-0804784207}}.
* Lugowski, David M. (Winter 1999).  "Queering the (New) Deal: Lesbian and Gay Representation and the Depression-Era Cultural Politics of Hollywood's Production Code", ''Cinema Journal'' (38) 2: pp.&nbsp;3–35. {{JSTOR|1225622}}
* Miller, Frank (1994). ''Censored Hollywood''. Atlanta: Turner Publishing. {{ISBN|1-57036-116-9}}.
* Wittern-Keller, Laura (2008). ''Freedom of the Screen: Legal Challenges to State Film Censorship, 1915–1981''. University Press of Kentucky. {{ISBN|978-0-8131-2451-3}}.

==External links==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20111003143835/http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/censored/film.html Censored Films and Television at University of Virginia online]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20101016123629/http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatings_Cara/#/about/ Motion Picture Association of America: History and Film Ratings]
* [https://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/syllabi/w/weisenfeld/rel160/donts.html Complete list of the 36 "Don'ts and Be Carefuls" of 1927]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110222092920/http://artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html Complete text of the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (without the subsequent amendments)]
* [https://productioncode.dhwritings.com/multipleframes_productioncode.php The Production Code of the Motion Picture Industry (1930-1967)]
* [https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2003/feature-articles/pre_code_cinema/ More Sinned Against than Sinning: The Fabrications of "Pre-Code Cinema"]
* [http://www.talkingpix.co.uk/ArticleCensorship.html Talking Pictures website]: Article by Nigel Watson about film censorship issues accompanied by classroom activities for students
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20201202230803/http://members.chello.nl/~a.degreef/Filmnummers.html Numbered list of Production Code certificates of approval]
* {{YouTube|WAI6hWIWhVU|"Doin' the Production Code" at the 1980 Tonys}}

{{Censorship|state=autocollapse}}

[[Category:1930 establishments in California]]
[[Category:1930 documents]]
[[Category:1968 disestablishments in California]]
[[Category:20th century in American cinema]]
[[Category:Articles containing video clips]]
[[Category:Censorship of LGBTQ issues]]
[[Category:Codes of conduct]]
[[Category:Culture of Hollywood, Los Angeles]]
[[Category:Discrimination against LGBTQ people in the United States]]
[[Category:Film censorship in the United States]]
[[Category:History of Catholicism in the United States]]
[[Category:History of film]]
[[Category:History of racism in the cinema of the United States]]
[[Category:Homophobia in the United States]]
[[Category:LGBTQ-related controversies in film]]
[[Category:Motion picture rating systems]]
[[Category:Race legislation in the United States]]
[[Category:Self-censorship]]