- Has the quality of writing declined since the repeal of the Hayes Code?

Has the quality of writing declined since the repeal of the Hayes Code?

Markzilla - Sep 9, 2003 12:35 am

Edited Feb 19, 2005 4:19 am

Kent and I had a discussion at Thermopylae Redux as to whether movies of the 30's, 40's and 50's were of better quality. I thought I'd reprint the germane parts of our conversation here and solicit comments. Kent, aside from the first two posts I trimmed the conversations down to this topic due to space considerations. I saved it to a Word file if you'd prefer I printed the entire conversation verbatim.

************

Kent Stallard - Jun 4, 2003 12:32 pm (#20 of 234)

Markzilla: I'm not a huge movie fan, and have probably seen relatively few films compared to most people my age. I am certainly not as qualified as you obviously are to critically analyze film. One of my problems is my tendency to take everything at face value--I miss a lot of the underlying symbolism and allegory present in many movies. ('OH--so THAT'S what they meant by that!' ;-) )

I love comedies, usually the more inane and satirical, the better. Silly stuff such as parodies like Airplane, Blazing Saddles, etc. and more restrained flicks like Arthur (a brilliant script, IMO) and Groundhog Dog (comedy with a message).

I'm not much into the typical action, shoot-em-up films--I find them too formulaic and trite, for the most part. Although occasionally they're good for mindless diversion.

I suppose I prefer dramas which take a more realistic approach. One all-time favorite of mine that comes to mind is Tender Mercies (stellar performance, IMO, by Robert Duvall).

I asked you about the classics because my wife is a huge fan of the old movies, and therefore I've seen quite a few of them. Her contention is that contemporary films rely too heavily on graphic dialogue, violence, sex, etc. to capture the audience's attention. Whereas the older films had to rely more on plot development, well-written screenplays, etc. Your thoughts?

*********

Markzilla - Jun 4, 2003 4:35 pm (#21 of 234)

It's been said of Duvall that he's the American Olivier and you wouldn't get an argument from me. Tender Mercies was an excellent movie and Duvall certainly deserved the Oscar for that performance. He wrote the songs he played in that movie, a bit of trivia for ya.

I used to feel the way your wife did about older films. It seems sensible that the inability to rely on stock devices such as gratuitous violence or explicit sexuality that writing would come to the fore; however formulaic writing was as rampant in the "golden age" of films as it is today. Many of these films went by the wayside, deservedly, as many of the more graphic, contemporary formula flicks which are poorly written will also fade over time. I do lament the fact that films without explicit language are rare; this makes it difficult to find decent family fare. This is mostly due to the specious striving for verisimilitude by directors and writers. Even lighter fare such as comedies have more than their fare share of offensive language. Personally, this doesn't bother me but it limits options for more sensitive and discerning viewers and in my opinion, such language offers nothing to the narrative and is often altogether unnecessary.

It's a double edged sword. On the one hand, you know that if you're watching a movie made before 1960, that even the most sensitive individual won't be offended. On the other hand, the scope of film making was restricted in matters of tone and narrative in respect to what could actually be explored in an artistic sense. Verisimilitude was non-existent; films were stylized, polished ciphers of life with which a viewer couldn't relate except in the most oblique manner. They didn't feel grounded in reality. Which is *fine*, it was purely entertainment. It was stifling as a means of expression in both an artistic and didactic sense. This isn't to say that artistic films weren't made, but they were extremely limited as to how a concept could be presented. The reason for these limitations was the Hayes Code, which was instituted by the studios in 1930 as a result of several scandals to protect themselves from possible government censorship. The rules were so strict that many films rated General today would have been ruled unacceptable. For instance, if an unmarried couple found themselves on a bed (fully clothed, of course), one foot must be on the floor at all times. Trite, ridiculous, but these types of rules governed what was acceptable in the cinema until 1960. It was forbidden to show a woman's navel. This is why in some old Arabian films, women wore gems in their navels, it was a way of getting around the code. In 1968 the Hayes code was replaced by the current rating system, the result of lawsuits and protests over the Swedish film "I Am Curious Yellow" and the influx of European cinema, much of it risqué. This, of course, opened the floodgates to the current point where anything goes. There are times when the judicious use explicit violence, language or sex are entirely appropriate. All too often, particularly in the case of language, it's used gratuitously. The viewer becomes inured and the profound effect such devices should have becomes lost; the white noise of trite cliché.

Formula writing has always been around. Movies have always been, are, and always will be a business, first and foremost. Studio executives have no IDEA what ideas will be successful, this is why when a film is successful, there's a rush to duplicate that success. Demographically, the industry caters to 14-25 year old males, which explains the proliferation and ubiquitousness of mindless, comic book action films. This being said, many fine films are made that would never have seen the light of day in the "golden age" of film. Taking a temporal liberty, films like "The Piano" or "Schindler's List" or "Raging Bull" would never have been considered, and if they had been made they would have been altered to be more palatable, more entertaining.

On the other hand, what would "Casablanca," "Citizen Kane" or "Double Indemnity" look like if they were made today? "Lawrence of Arabia" is one of my favourite, all time films. The homosexuality was dealt with in a circumspect manner. There was no explicit violence, no profanity. The cinematography, writing, score, acting, art direction, direction... everything about this film is perfect. If it were made today, would it have become an "action" flick like that Godawful, execrable Pearl Harbour? What would it have become in the hands of Oliver Stone, I wonder? Would Lawrence have been given a female love interest to get the ladies' asses in the seats? Perhaps "Titanic" on the desert? I cringe to think of it.

************

Kent Stallard - Jun 4, 2003 5:33 pm (#24 of 234)

Markzilla:

I do lament the fact that films without explicit language are rare; this makes it difficult to find decent family fare. This is mostly due to the specious striving for verisimilitude by directors and writers.

Agreed. In some contexts, the lack of profanity would be profoundly unrealistic. In all too many cases, though, the saturation of it is also decidedly unrealistic. (Believe it or not, a significant portion of the population can construct a complete sentence without resorting to use of the "F-word"!)

Personally, this doesn't bother me but it limits options for more sensitive and discerning viewers and in my opinion, such language offers nothing to the narrative and is often altogether unnecessary. Even though many would probably consider me as a rather prudish, strait-laced religious type, the fact is that I'm very familiar with all of those naughty words. The banality of them is as much of a turn-off as anything.

On the one hand, you know that if you're watching a movie made before 1960, that even the most sensitive individual won't be offended. I understand your point and agree with it, but don't you think this statement is true with regard only to today's audiences? For example, the 1967 film Guess Who's Coming To Dinner was considered offensive to a large portion of the population, despite the fact that now its largely idealized presentation of interracial relationships seems almost quaint. On the other hand, The Birth of a Nation (1915), while controversial to an extent at its release, would likely be considered far more offensive to contemporary audiences. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems to me that there have been cutting-edge, even 'offensive,' films in nearly every era. Would you agree?

It was stifling as a means of expression in both an artistic and didactic sense. This isn't to say that artistic films weren't made, but they were extremely limited as to how a concept could be presented.

True. But don't you think that depicting reality was not really the goal of most filmmakers of that era? The 'talkies' originated under social conditions marked by the Great Depression, WWII, etc., which meant that the movies became a vehicle of escapism. At least that's my perspective. How much of the cinematic approach then was due to the Code, and how much to the prevailing sociological and cultural situation?

*************

Markzilla - Jun 5, 2003 7:09 am (#32 of 234)

I have to agree with you in respect to your point on offensive films being found in any period. you give a beautiful example with Birth of a Nation. There are many Warner's Brothers cartoon that haven't been seen in years due to the stereotypical, pre-war rendering of blacks with big lips, interested only in watermelon and shucking work. Only a hard core bigot would find these entertaining today.

True. But don't you think that depicting reality was not really the goal of most filmmakers of that era? The 'talkies' originated under social conditions marked by the Great Depression, WWII, etc., which meant that the movies became a vehicle of escapism. At least that's my perspective. How much of the cinematic approach then was due to the Code, and how much to the prevailing sociological and cultural situation?

In the U.S. movies were purely in the business of entertainment. It wasn't until the influx of European films and the advent of the "auteur" school of film-making that the cinema in America started opening up to the artistic aspects of film making. The business was fairly solid in it's support of the federal government and prevailing social attitudes. The pendulum has swung to the other extreme, IMHO. The government is oft depicted as evil, run by amoral drones with Machiavellian motivation. I guess the difference since the late 60's is the revelation that film can be more than pure entertainment, that it can be used for social commentary to explore the human condition in a deeper sense than previously attempted. Convention doesn't provide the confinement in respect to technique, narrative, commentary or theme which marked earlier films. The range and availability of types of films has been widened.

Also, not to digress, but what are your thoughts about Polanski? Are you pleased that he's free to make films like The Pianist; or disgusted that he's not behind bars?

He's a pederast. He's a great film maker and I'd love to see him make movies under the auspices of a work-release program or as a community service. I liked "The Pianist," it's an excellent movie but my life hasn't been changed. These are just movies, after all. Sometimes I get into trouble with cineastes because I'll argue there are no, truly "important" movies, in a general social sense. They're important to the industry, but not to society as a whole. I'm thinking of films that are generally trumpeted as "important." It could be argued that propaganda films like Leni Riefenstahl's paean to National-socialism "Triumph of the Will" could be considered an important film. If there are important films, then I'd reserve that title for films like Bambi and other children's fare. Children are impressionable, films do have a personal impact on them. As adults, our path's and outlooks are pretty well ingrained.

****************

Kent Stallard - Jun 5, 2003 11:46 pm (#35 of 234)

In the U.S. movies were purely in the business of entertainment. It wasn't until the influx of European films and the advent of the "auteur" school of film-making that the cinema in America started opening up to the artistic aspects of film making.

So did the influx of European fare lead to the demise of the Code--or did the demise of the Code lead to the influx of European movies?? Didn't the inroads made by the growing popularity of TV also prod the film industry to take more chances?

The business was fairly solid in it's support of the federal government and prevailing social attitudes. The pendulum has swung to the other extreme, IMHO.

Interesting and accurate observation. Any film nowadays that doesn't show a cynical attitude toward the government would come across as propaganda. For example, my cynical attitude was annoyed with, and I was greatly disappointed with the denouement of The Contender (2000), because I felt it was far too idealized, despite the fact that at the heart of the plot was a nasty smear campaign.

****************

Markzilla - Jun 6, 2003 7:06 am (#38 of 234)

Kent:

So did the influx of European fare lead to the demise of the Code--or did the demise of the Code lead to the influx of European movies?? Didn't the inroads made by the growing popularity of TV also prod the film industry to take more chances?

The influx of European films led to the demise of the Code. Hollywood was not about to censor itself if foreign films not following the same rules were to be shown generally in American theaters. The film industry has always been contemptuous of television. It's never played a role in their thinking except except for the fact that film actors were never allowed to take television roles for the longest time, or face being ostracized from their main source of employment. Ironically, it was television that saved the Academy Awards from death back in the 50's. I won't go there, the Academy is another topic altogether that would take up too many K's.

Any film nowadays that doesn't show a cynical attitude toward the government would come across as propaganda. For example, my cynical attitude was annoyed with, and I was greatly disappointed with the denouement of The Contender (2000), because I felt it was far too idealized, despite the fact that at the heart of the plot was a nasty smear campaign.

I only saw The Contender once, it was extremely irritating to me so I never bothered to watch it again. I tend to be more critical if the writing is skewed to break the boundaries of the the film's internal logic, or is advancing an agenda that lacks veracity in the way it's presented. SPOILER Highlight to read: I was fine until the climax and denouement, I just couldn't buy Joan Allen's undergoing the depredations she did merely over a lofty, moral principle given the fact she was innocent. Holding out for a time, yes, but if she doesn't proclaim her innocence in a general sense then the entire point becomes moot as not addressing the question smells of evasion and guilt. It felt like a case of the character mouthing the screenwriter/director's philosophy, which I don't find engaging unless it holds in a narrative sense. I didn't feel this did.

Yet another situation which has seen a complete reversal in our era--now, the media conglomerates which own the studios use their TV, print, radio, etc., empires to shill their films.

Coporate nepotism is rampant today, but I think overall there is more tolerance for dissenting opinion. Michael Moore still manages to make films, television shows and books despite his wild assertions and some would say, irresponsible methods. The industry is more collaborative now, the days of one man monopolizing the industry and ruling with an iron fist have passed, I think. I *think*.

*****************

I know this is a long post, but we covered a lot of areas and the reason I wanted to pull it over is we have an astute crew, I wanted to get everyone's thoughts on this topic and thought it might generate some discussion. Has writing declined since the bad old Hayes Code days?

Nope, not gonna get dragged into this one. by Okiecub - Sep 9, 03 (#1 of 49)
Spoilsport... by Kent Stallard - Sep 9, 03 (#2 of 49)
lol by Okiecub - Sep 9, 03 (#3 of 49)
however formulaic writing was as rampant in the "g... by Money23 - Sep 9, 03 (#4 of 49)
Kent: You know a lot about movies, Kent!.. by Markzilla - Sep 9, 03 (#5 of 49)
Zilla: I have many thoughts on that iss, just noth... by Okiecub - Sep 9, 03 (#6 of 49)
Go to it!.. by Money23 - Sep 9, 03 (#7 of 49)
Yeah!.. by Markzilla - Sep 9, 03 (#8 of 49)
O.K... by Okiecub - Sep 10, 03 (#9 of 49)
O.K... by Okiecub - Sep 10, 03 (#10 of 49)
The seven words you can't say on television... by Markzilla - Sep 10, 03 (#11 of 49)
Next time you're in court arguing a bad decision t... by Okiecub - Sep 10, 03 (#12 of 49)
Hmmmm... by Markzilla - Sep 10, 03 (#13 of 49)
You hit the nail on the head, and may not have rea... by Okiecub - Sep 10, 03 (#14 of 49)
"That's the stupidest ruling I've ever heard... by Markzilla - Sep 10, 03 (#15 of 49)
Yes, but that's exactly my point... by Okiecub - Sep 10, 03 (#16 of 49)
He's an exceptionally gifted rabbit... by Markzilla - Sep 10, 03 (#17 of 49)
I think there's more crap today, but I think that'... by Okiecub - Sep 10, 03 (#18 of 49)
I'm not saying that expletives don't have their pl... by RLF - Sep 10, 03 (#19 of 49)
I don't like "nigger" or "cunt"---I'd list them as... by Money23 - Sep 10, 03 (#20 of 49)
Years ago, when my niece was 2 or 3, I was having ... by RLF - Sep 10, 03 (#21 of 49)
Okie: That was awesome!.. by Markzilla - Sep 10, 03 (#22 of 49)
I've got to go looking for that book, it looks lik... by RLF - Sep 10, 03 (#23 of 49)
A-HA!!!.. by Okiecub - Sep 11, 03 (#24 of 49)
Anyone who doesn't love Calvin and Hobbes is inhum... by RLF - Sep 11, 03 (#25 of 49)
I agree!.. by Markzilla - Sep 11, 03 (#26 of 49)
:P by Okiecub - Sep 11, 03 (#27 of 49)
Eliminate the "coarse language" thang... by Markzilla - Sep 11, 03 (#28 of 49)
I believe I already answered that... by Okiecub - Sep 11, 03 (#29 of 49)
Ohferpete'ssake... by Markzilla - Sep 11, 03 (#30 of 49)
I think it's been a double edged sword... by Money23 - Sep 11, 03 (#31 of 49)
I think if a writer can write around foul language... by RLF - Sep 12, 03 (#32 of 49)
True... by Money23 - Sep 12, 03 (#33 of 49)
Okie, I apologize!.. by Markzilla - Sep 12, 03 (#34 of 49)
nyet by Okiecub - Sep 12, 03 (#35 of 49)
datphan by Markzilla - Sep 12, 03 (#36 of 49)
Well, personally I think the great writing of 1930... by A Rush - Oct 3, 03 (#37 of 49)
Hello Rush!.. by Markzilla - Oct 3, 03 (#38 of 49)
I second that!.. by Money23 - Oct 4, 03 (#39 of 49)
It almost seems that there's been a return to writ... by A Rush - Oct 4, 03 (#40 of 49)
BTW thanks for the generous welcome... by A Rush - Oct 4, 03 (#41 of 49)
Hi, A Rush!.. by Kariann Hopes - Oct 4, 03 (#42 of 49)
That's a good point, Rush... by Markzilla - Oct 4, 03 (#43 of 49)
Yes, there are some great people here and great to... by Kariann Hopes - Oct 5, 03 (#44 of 49)
Urban or I will take the offenders out to the wood... by RLF - Oct 6, 03 (#45 of 49)
WHA---?!.. by Money23 - Oct 6, 03 (#46 of 49)
visions of the NYPD and a broomstick by Okiecub - Oct 6, 03 (#47 of 49)
Ay CARAMBA!.. by Markzilla - Oct 7, 03 (#48 of 49)
datphan by Okiecub - Oct 7, 03 (#49 of 49)