Motion Picture Herald (Jan-Mar 1954)

MOTION PICTURE HERALD MARTIN QUIGLEY, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher Vol. 194, No. I MARTIN QUIGLEY, JR., Editor January 2, 1954 THE CODE DISPUTE by MARTIN QUIGLEY SAMUEL GOLDWYN in a letter to Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Association, asserts his belief that “the time has come when it is imperative to bring the Production Code up to date.” He further remarks that “in the almost quarter of a century since the Code’s adoption, the world has moved on. But the Code has stood still.” Mr. Goldwyn’s voice is one of authority in the motion picture industry and one of towering prestige with the amusement-seeking public the world over. It is unfortunate that the Goldwyn voice is now raised in chorus with that continuing cabal of clamor against the Code by those who seek the destruction of all restraints and standards in motion picture entertainment dedicated to the maintenance of decency and morality. Mr. Goldwyn has not, I am sure, intended any such purpose. In fact, in the Johnston letter he states, “It is only through sound self-regulation that, as an industry, we can avoid the excesses that lead to unbridled censorship.” But the public position which Mr. Goldwyn now assumes inevitably will have the effect of lending the weight of his influence to the comfort and support of those who, despising all regulation, want to tinker with the Code to the point of making it nothing other than a sham and a pretense. To say that the Code ought to be brought up to date sounds on the face of it as an entirely reasonable observation. The world moves on and institutions and individuals who want to be abreast of the times must keep up with the procession. However, any such dictum applies to customs and conventions. It most emphatically does not apply in the area of morality. Principles in the area of morality are as unchangeable as are the pertinent principles in the area of mathematics. Theft, perjury, adultery and all of the other serious infractions of the moral law are morally wrong now, always have been and always will be. A code that would drift with any current of contrary thought would be a fraud. Hollywood has been distantly familiar with the Code for nearly a quarter of a century. It would seem that such a span of time would have been sufficient for both Hollywood and all other elements of the industry to come to understand its essential character. But very little in this direction has actually happened. If this were not so it would not be popular to talk vaguely about “bringing the Code up to date.” THE Code document consists primarily of the application of moral principles, based on the Ten Commandments, to the subject matter of motion pictures. The duty of the Production Code Administration is to apply the principles of the Code, in an advisory manner, to the scripts and pictures which producers submit. Secondarily, the Code document consists of a number of regulations based on matters of policy and expediency. With respect to the primary — and in effect the essential part of the Code — to call for its revision is tantamount to calling for a revision of the Ten Commandments and the moral order of the Western world which is rooted in the Ten Commandments. It does appear that in the private lives of many persons such a revision has indeed been effected. But it is hardly to be argued seriously that if an individual or a group chooses to declare the Ten Commandments out of date and in need of revision to meet the conditions of the modern world any such attitude makes the Decalogue invalid. As to the secondary and impermanent part of the Code, consisting of a number of regulations based on policy and expediency, this has been subject to revision and amendment frequently throughout its entire life. Incidentally, it is this part of the Code which has caused much criticism to be visited upon the Code as a whole. That this should be so is indeed proper and logical because some of the policy regulations which have been in effect have been plain silly, such as the regulation against the use of the words “Hell” and “Damn.” To Mr. Goldwyn and to other serious and responsible critics of the Code the question might well be asked, “Just what do you want revised in the Code and what is the thought and language of the revision you seek?” IF the revision requested from whatever source involves an alteration of a moral principle based on the Ten Commandments the answer must be an emphatic “No.” Failing to make this answer the Association would become party to so emasculating the Code as to make it a hollow pretense which would betray its own and the public interest. If the critics of the Code want a change in the regulations based on policy and expediency let them state what changes are wanted and to what purpose. At the present time there are pending for adoption by the Association a group of policy amendments ; others might likewise be considered. But if other changes in this category are to be considered it will be necessary for their sponsors to speak, not in vague, general terms, but in specific language. Obviously to discuss the Code or any part of it in specific language serious study, and not merely casual acquaintance with the document, is imperative. Over the misty vista of these many years Mr. Goldwyn remembers himself as “one of the initiators of the Code” in his letter to Eric Johnston. Simply for purposes of historical accuracy, he is reminded that the Code was not initiated by anyone in Hollywood. As Mr. Goldwyn will recall from this reminder it was originated and brought to Hollywood by the person whose name is signed to these lines. If Mr. Goldwyn should view any of the lines in this discussion as vehement, I am sure he will ascribe this to parental ardor and not unfriendliness. Also for the purpose of historical accuracy, it should be noted that Mr. Goldwyn, from the time of the meeting of the producers association in January, 1930, at which the Code plan was first submitted, was an interested and constructive supporter of the Code idea and its administration. This record is proof of his loyalty to the principle of self-regulation and an assurance that when the dust of the current debate subsides he will be found standing staunchly on the side of that kind of a Code which makes for decency in motion pictures and a good name for the industry.