The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930

After movie stars dying of drug overdoses, murders and crime happening in Hollywood, it's no wonder people created local censorship boards and cut out parts of movies to be more suitable to watch in their communities. Hollywood studios and Will Hays joined together to form a list of "don'ts and be carefuls." 

As there was no punishment, official government censorship was needed. So a new code was created.

"The code sets up high standards of performance for motion-picture producers," Hays proclaimed about the new code. "It states the considerations which good taste and community value make necessary in this universal form of entertainment."

The full code is here.

A brief overview of the code:

The major principles governing the code from 1930 onward:

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

Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.

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

Prohibitions on:

- Nudity

- Suggestive dances

- Discussions of sexual perversity

- Nudity

- Superfluous use of liquor

- Ridicule of religion

- Miscegenation

- Lustful kissing

- Scenes of passion

The code was mandatory for filmmakers, if they wanted their film to play in theaters. "Howard Hughes threw a well-publicized fit when his western The Outlaw was kept out of theaters — not for its content alone but because the film's advertising focused attention on Jane Russell's cleavage." - Bob Mondello, NPR

Hitchcock's film, Notorious (1949), found a loophole in the Production Code. One of the rules was that an on-screen kiss could not last longer than three seconds. In Notorious, Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant kiss, then stop, then kiss again, while staying intimately close to one another. This scene made the film known for having "the longest kiss in cinema history." Watch it below:

In 1959, the man who enforced the rules of the Production Code said that if a "moral conflict" provided "the proper frame of reference," a Code-approved film could deal with any topic except homosexuality. The next year, Some Like It Hot came out. With Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis, disguised as women and fending off male suitors, the production code disintegrated. And the number of attendees at the theaters proved they did not mind.

About a year later, the MPA realized a rating system for audience awareness would work better than a censorship system. 

The Film, Frank, and How It Portrays Mental Illness

I recently saw Frank, written by Jon Ronson and Peter Straughan, at Cinemapolis. Directed by Lenny Abrahamson, Michael Fassbender plays Frank, a rock star based loosely on Chris Sievey, an artist who performed in the '80s and '90s under the name Frank Sidebottom while wearing a fake head, and who Jon Ronson toured with at the time.

Chris Sievey (the inspiration) and Jon Ronson

I know what you're thinking, "Michael Fassbender wears a fake head the whole time? You mean, we don't get to see his beautiful face?" I thought it was crazy, too. But there is meaning behind it.


First of all, as I said, Frank is inspired by Frank Sidebottom, who did actually wear a fake head. Second of all, the character of Frank in the film has severe mental illnesses that cause him to want to wear this fake head and do other sad things. The dark comedic moments complement the serious undertones of this film. A lot of people don't understand mental illness or have a lot of misconceptions. It's a very taboo topic that people don't like to talk about. I think Frank touches on that and portrays mental illness in a very accurate and powerful way.

The Wire interviewed writer Jon Ronson to discuss this portrayal of mental illness and the parallels between fiction and reality. Here are a few great quotes from Ronson:

"...It just interested me so much, that kind of beautiful naïveté when you’re young and see the tortured artist as being fabulous, and then when you’re faced with the reality of being with a tortured person and it’s not at all fabulous. It’s not fabulous to the person and it’s not fabulous to the people around the person."

"It felt like it probably would have been irresponsible to make this film that says you should aspire towards torment and mental illness because that’s where the great art comes from, when usually it’s the opposite of that."

"People have kind of strange relationships with mental illness... We love nothing more than to declare other people insane. We always want to turn [mental illness] into something that it isn’t, so one thing I really wanted to do in the film was turn it into something that it is. The reality of what it’s like. Toward the end of the film Jon gets everything that he wants, he gets Frank to himself and it’s like What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? It’s really bad. He’s stuck with this damaged person and it’s not like the way he wants it to be at all."


There's a scene in the film in which Jon meets Frank's parents. Jon asks about Frank's upbringing and asks if something traumatic happened since he has mental problems. Frank's parents reply with something along the lines of, "No. He's had a normal life. It's just his brain doesn't work properly." Also, when Jon assumes his mental illness is the cause of his brilliant artistry, Frank's mother says, “the torment slows him down.”

NPR writer Tomas Hachard writes a great review of Frank, stating: 

"For most of Frank, Abrahamson walks this potentially offensive line largely by playing it as part of Jon's ignorance: At the cabin, Jon excitedly explains, "I have found my abusive childhood, my mental hospital, that which pushes me to my furthest corners." The film quite clearly means to deride the notion — heard particularly when discussing outsider art or musicians like Daniel Johnston, who Abrahamson has said also inspired the film — that mental illness can somehow be a path to boosted creativity...

Yet toward the end, there are suggestions of a lack of compassion for some of these characters. After letting the audience think it's OK, if not necessarily tasteful, to laugh at jokes about attempted suicide, the story shifts and we are left to question if there was ever any humor in it at all. Whether the film fully accomplishes this transition from comical (and almost sneering) to empathetic is its own open question. My vote says it does, but it's a fine line, one that Frank necessarily risks overstepping with its complex, but worthwhile, attempt at being facetious, satirical and emotionally bare all at once."

I agree with Mr. Hachard whole-heartedly and highly suggest you see it to decide for yourself.

NPR Tiny Desk Concerts

For as long as I can remember I have been listening to National Public Radio, whether it is news stories Prairie Home Companion, or the occasional Car Talk. Now four or five years ago NPR started up a Youtube series called Tiny Desk Concerts. The title of the series really sums it up but I will go into a little more detail. NPR invites in various bands, ranging from folk singers all the way to rappers, to perform an acoustic session of sorts behind a "Tiny Desk". Sometimes there is only one person performing other times there are twenty people, and these performers play their music in front of the office members. These performances are then recorded and put on to Youtube for everyone to watch and enjoy.

I have just recently started watching these videos and they are so well done and enjoyable to watch, especially from a film students perspective. Now from what I can tell, is there are either two or three videographers recording the show, one getting a wide shot on a tripod of the artists playing, and the two others focus on getting close ups of the performers faces, guitar fret boards etc. The videos are always edited together in a very clean yet creative way. The really impressive part is the audio piece. Keep in mind they are recording in a standard office. The last time I went into an office I don't remember there being acoustics like the ones in Ford Hall. Recording one person performances is one thing but to get crisp beautiful sound when there are horns, a string quartet, vocals and guitars going is a completely different task. The specific band I am referring to is Mother Falcon. 

Mother Falcon is a 20 person chamber pop band, yes this sounds weird but in fact they are one of my favorite bands. The members play many different instruments and tend to be a loud band. Yet when they were invited into NPR the only recording device I could see was a single shot gun mic placed a few feet in front of them. The sound for this performance was impeccable. Granted they are a very professional radio station but still an impressive feat nonetheless. The link below is to Mother Falcons performance and though it may not seem very interesting I strongly suggest you watch it purely for the example of pristine audio recording. I will also post a link to the Macklemore Tiny Desk Concert if that seems more appealing. 

I hope you enjoyed my little rant along with the awesome web series that NPR produces.

Tiny Desk Concert: Mother Falcon

Tiny Desk Concert: Macklemore

Public Domain

As creators of media we deal with copyright law and public domain very often. At a student level it can be as simple as finding a good royalty free song or sound effect. But this can make or break a television studio.

This October break I drove to Burlington Vermont to visit a friend at UVM. It’s a 5-hour drive through a lot of radio dead spots, but while seeking through the stations I found an NPR story about television I found interesting. The program started by quoting television exec’s that fantasized about how great it would be to create a Twilight or Harry Potter television show. The royalty’s would be ridiculous and obviously impossible. The program then quoted the creator’s of the new television show Grimm asking “What can we do that is in public domain?”

I actually found the exact radio program again and you can read it or listen to it here. The two shows talked about in the show are Grimm and Once Upon a Time.

But this whole issue brings up a controversial point, why pay writers or creators when you can take a public domain story that has already been created for free, a story that has already been widely accepted and praised by the public. Snow White, The Three Musketeers, Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland, The Bible. The list goes on and on.