Examining How the Production Code Changed the Nature of Gangster Films Hollywood
The Golden Age of Hollywood was an era of extreme financial and critical success for American cinema, the period produced such long-revered texts such as: Stagecoach (Ford, 1939), Gilda (Vidor, 1946), Rear Window (Hitchcock, 1954), The Adventures of Robin Hood (Curtiz & Keighley, 1938) and The Maltese Falcon (Huston, 1941)amongst an array of others. It was also a huge growth period for cinema, in not only American, but, global culture because of the invention of synchronised sound to film. This meant that The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) grew more concerned with the content that filmmakers were producing as they were aware of the lasting influence the texts they were producing could have on Americans. As a result of this, they produced the Motion Picture Production Code in 1930 which was “adopted by the studios in the first instance as a means of self-censorship to avoid the possibility of state censorship” (USA, 1930: 587). The Code restricted and outright censored items, actions, events and dialogue that were considered offensive by the creators of the Code – William Hays and its direct influence from the religious right Roman Catholics. The Code was not enforced after its initial publication in 1930 and was merely a guideline for filmmakers; this was until 1934 when the Code became enforced and all films required a seal of approval from the Production Code Administration. In other terms, “The Production Code became the industry’s guarantee that it manufactured “pure” entertainment” (Maltby, 2003: 61). In this essay I will be looking at how the Production Code changed the nature of Classical Hollywood’s products by examining one film made in the Pre-Code era – between 1930 and 1934 – and one during the enforced Production Code era after 1934. I will be looking at Scarface (Hawks, 1932) from the Pre-Code era as it is a notoriously violent gangster film that directly opposed many of the clauses of the Production Code. I will be comparing this with Casablanca (Curtiz, 1942) from the Production Code era as it is clear where the censors have prevented some of the intentions of the text, perhaps limiting its overall effect. However, there are moments within the text that begin to challenge the Code many years before its eventual demise circa 1968 and so it becomes an interesting comparison to see how the Code made filmmakers evade its rules in order to create meaning that they previously could.
Scarface and Casablanca are interesting texts to look at in relation to the Code due to Scarface being a gangster film with film noir elements and Casablanca belonging in the canon of essential film noir texts. A key feature in film noir texts are the depictions of crime and violence through gangsters and morally ambiguous lead characters but also sexual independence through the femme fatale character type. This is particularly relevant when discussing these texts in relation to the Code because “The Production Code was a set of guidelines for producers that stipulated what was and was not permissible in Classical Hollywood’s field of representation, particularly with regard to sexual and criminal subject matter” (Maltby, 2003: 62). Almost every element of the film noir ‘genre’ and certainly the gangster genre were a point of contention in terms of representation on film in the Code, Biesen summarises this best in his journal, Censoring and Selling Film Noir: “Hollywood’s moral blueprint for industry censorship, the Production Code, written in 1930, discouraged sex, violence and illicit activities in crime pictures such as gangster yarns and film noir” (Biesen, 2015: 2). This did not change the popularity of the two genres though, with film noir in particular becoming one of the most socially important and popular ‘genres’ towards the end of World War II and directly following the end of it in 1945. This is in direct contrast with the view of the genre from the MPPDA as “archive records indicate censors considered these films provocative, salacious and “sordid”. Hollywood studios walked a fine line between appearing to comply with Hays Office Production Code censorship while simultaneously pushing the envelope of its moral constraints, then hyping and sensationalizing censorable sex, violence and hard-hitting themes to sell noir films to the public” (Biesen, 2015: 1). The texts that were censored, perhaps, more than any other genre in Classical Hollywood received huge financial and critical acclaim from audiences and were mass produced by studios such as Warner Brothers. “The important historiographical point is that between 1930 and 1934, movie content was the site of this public anxiety, this moral panic, rather than the cause of it” (Jacobs & Maltby, 1995: 2). Warner Bros. produced Casablanca which fit in with its distinctive house style of gangster pictures and film noirs also producing Little Caesar (LeRoy, 1931)and The Public Enemy (Wellman, 1931), two of the most significant gangster films released in the Pre-Code era alongside Scarface.
Scarface was released in 1932, two years after the Production Code was written but 2 years prior to it becoming enforced. It is a gangster movie following the criminal exploits of Antonio Carmonte (Paul Muni) in the gang warfare in Chicago. Although the film was released prior to texts requiring a seal of approval from the PCA, the organisation still had a large influence on the text and demanded certain aspects of the text be altered. The PCA ordered a condemnation of gangster lifestyle be implemented at the start of the text so as to make the narrative they would then show in the text look more unappealing, unattractive and subject to punishment. The effect of the Code was already becoming apparent in the Pre-Code era, however the text managed to escape with representations of gangster lifestyle that wouldn’t be replicated in cinema until the Code began to be challenged after World War II. The Code itself states it restricts texts where: “the sympathy of the audience is thrown on the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil, sin. The same is true of a film that would throw sympathy against goodness, honor, innocence, purity or honesty” (USA, 1930: 599). This is then the representational problem that Scarface found itself battling as the audience identifies most with Carmonte, the lead gangster and protagonist of the picture who in summary does fall on the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil and sin. “The backlash against the [gangster] genre was a function of its representational content – that is, the fact that the films were built around bad-guy characters who achieve great wealth and success by being ruthless and violent. The problem the gangster film posed for the industry principally lay here, in putting the gun in the hand of the criminal. […] By putting the guns in the hands of criminals and building pictures around those characters and their bloody deeds, the industry, to its critics, was making pictures that lacked a voice for morality” (Prince, 2003: 90). The battle with this text and the Code is that censors attempted to cut the film but because it was not completely enforced, Hawks didn’t follow them all to the extent that the MPPDA wished. He released the film with some changes to follow the Code and not cause the religious right to boycott the industry. Within the text there is a depiction of the real-life Valentine’s Day Massacre – where members of a rival gang were gunned down on Valentine’s Day, 1929. Within this scene, heavy automatic artillery is still utilised by gangster characters and multiple men are killed using chiaroscuro lighting to create shadows of their frames – a key feature of the film noir genre – directly challenging the Code and its strict guidelines on the depiction of murder and the method of that murder in cinema. Hawks still however still made cuts to the text and made sure that the actions of Carmonte were punished as the Code states they should be. “Within its effort to locate an acceptable moral voice within the gangster cycle, the PCA would aim to position all three early classics – Little Caesar, Public Enemy and Scarface – as exposes of the criminal menace to society” (Prince, 2003: 92). Therefore, at the end of the film, Carmonte is shot by the law who become the heroes of the narrative for stopping another criminal, but it could be argued that the audience still relates the most to Carmonte as it is his story that has been told, not that of police enforcement against crime and gangsters.
On the other hand, Casablanca was made in the midst of World War II in 1942 when the Production Code had become enforced by the PCA. However, this was also an extremely popular period for film noirs, such as Casablanca. The text focuses on Rick Blaine’s (Humphrey Bogart) casino in Casablanca, an area filled with refugees from World War II hoping to escape to neutral-America; this includes a resistance leader, Victor Lazlo (Paul Henreid) who is vital to the progression of the Allies in the war. The text both follows and challenges the Code in various ways. For example, in a scene between Blaine, Lazlo and Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman) discuss the letters of transit to allow Lazlo to escape Casablanca, Blaine states: “She tried everything to get them and nothing worked. She did her best to convince me she was still in love with me but that was over long ago” (Curtiz, 1941). This is an example of the text following the Code by implying actions that happened out of the events shown; the connotations suggest that Lund engaged or attempted to engage in a sexual manner with Blaine in exchange for the papers. This would directly contrast the idea, from The Production Code, that the sanctity of marriage should be upheld in all Classical Hollywood cinema. Curtiz may well have intended to show the scene of Blaine and Lund negotiating over the papers to exhibit the importance of the documents to the audience but instead it is only implied to avoid censorship from the Code. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that audiences disliked the censorship and could still gain dramatic effect from insinuations of events that would be prevented by the Code, such as the example just explored. “Spectators who accept the protocols are knowledgeable about what they have chosen not to consume and what they are willing to accept as compensations and rewards for that denial” (Staiger, 1991: 224)
On the other hand, Casablanca did contest the Code, primarily through the actions of Blaine in the third act of the text. It has been established that “the Code did forbid the portrayal of a hero of a film as a criminal, specifically listing some types of criminals, many of whom would be likely to commit violent acts, as characters who could not be heroes. The Code did not, however, restrict attractive or engaging characters from acting violently” (Timmer, 2011: 32). This is why it is interesting to look at the resolution in Casablanca – Blaine deceives Captain Renault (Claude Rains) and holds him at gunpoint in order to ensure the safe travel of Lazlo and Lund. Blaine, as the protagonist of the text, would be considered an attractive and engaging character and he certainly acts violently here but he also commits a crime and pulls the sympathy and identification away from the law, which the Code directly says should not be shown in cinema. Blaine then even proceeds to shoot and kill the antagonist of the text, Major Strasser (Conrad Veidt), but of course the wound nor blood are ever shown within the text in order to stay within the Code guidelines. With that in mind, Blaine still commits murder and is not punished lawfully or in any other capacity after the action and is instead saved by Captain Renault who states that “the usual suspects” for the crime should be gathered despite witnessing the crime. This completely goes against the Code and draws parallels to Scarface which was criticised by the PCA for showing similar events on screen, yet even Carmonte was punished for it. This film was produced at the height of the Production Code’s influence on film, yet Casablanca is a text that managed to escape censorship in some capacity when others were restricted. Arguably, this is because “violence and political content shunned by the Production Code was allowed during the war to promote propaganda in Casablanca” (Biesen, 2015: 2). However, the Code was still under effect during the production of Casablanca which got its seal of approval from the PCA. In addition, the film featured no title stating that the film contained violence and propaganda as Scarface got for its depiction of the gangster. The Code still restricted the violence that was shown as discussed in the essay and still upheld the other rules within it.
In conclusion, the Production Code changed Classical Hollywood’s products by enforcing its rules after 1934 which meant that texts such as Scarface,which were renowned for showing explicit content and rectifying some elements of the texts by producing title cards or punishing those characters that went against the Code, were no longer produced in Hollywood. Casablanca was one text that managed to make some decisions regarding crime and other ‘offensive’ material that was permitted by the PCA, however this was in a sea of other Classical Hollywood texts that were censored even more so than Casablanca was. The Code was a way of censoring film to prevent the format presenting topics and dialogue that would have created great anxiety within a society packed with loaded political, religious and cultural tension and in reflection succeeded in keeping the entertainment within film suitable for an undifferentiated audience. There is always the idea that “the peculiar physical characteristics of cinema produce effects that are inevitably erotic, scopophilic and potentially transgressive” (Maltby, 2003: 487) which is why some elements of texts could be seen as needlessly censored or ‘slipping past’ the Code during its enforcement; including those that I have mentioned from Casablanca.
The PCA would continue to enforce the censorship of texts using the Code until it was challenged much more by texts produced in the 1950s and 1960s. “United Artists, for example, bypassed the Code by taking Otto Preminger’s The Moon is Blue (Preminger, 1953) and The Man with the Golden Arm (Preminger, 1955) to theatres without a Code seal of approval” (Prince, 2003: 144). This paved the way for texts, particularly as the culture changed in the 1960s, to challenge the PCA to let more mature texts be released after revisions to the Code were made: “Lolita (Kubrick, 1962) and other releases demonstrated that the Production Code Administration could tolerate strong language and even approve pictures about sexual aberration” (Leff & Simmons: 2001: 249). There were revisions were made in 1966, but the Code was beginning to come ineffective and foreign cinema that wasn’t bound by the Code’s restrictions was becoming more and more popular with audiences. A great example of the influx of European cinema in American theatres combined with the withering power of the PCA was “in 1967, [when] MGM chose to release Blow-Up (Antonioni, 1966) without a Code seal rather than cut it, and its commercial success further undermined the Production Code Administration’s effectiveness” (Maltby, 2003: 177). This culminated in 1968 when the Production Code was replaced with the Ratings System that is still in place in contemporary cinema, allowing filmmakers to produce texts with more mature content and themes that were explicitly shown within the text. This eventually led to a Scarface (De Palma, 1983) in 1983, a remake of the 1932 original that had all of the actions, events and dialogues permitted because the Production Code could no longer censor texts as it had done to the two case studies that I have looked at in this essay.
References:
Antonioni, M. (Director). (1966). Blow-Up [Film]. USA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Biesen, S. C. (2015). Censoring and Selling Film Noir. Between, 5(9), 1-22.
Curtiz, M. (Director). (1941). Casablanca [Film]. USA: Warner Bros.
Curtiz, M., & Keighley, W. (Director). (1938). The Adventures of Robin Hood [Film]. USA: Warner Bros.
De Palma, B. (Director). (1983). Scarface [Film]. USA: Universal Pictures.
Ford, J. (Director). (1939). Stagecoach [Film]. USA: United Artists.
Hawks, H. (Director). (1932). Scarface [Film]. USA: United Artists.
Hitchcock, A. (Director). (1954). Rear Window [Film]. USA: Paramount Pictures.
Huston, J. (Director). (1941). The Maltese Falcon [Film]. USA: Warner Bros.
Jacobs, L., & Maltby, R. (1995). Rethinking the Production Code. Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 15(4), 1-3.
Kubrick, S. (Director). (1962). Lolita [Film]. USA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Leff, L. J., & Simmons, J. L. (2001). The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code (2nd ed.). Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.
LeRoy, M. (Director). (1931). Little Caesar [Film]. USA: Warner Bros.
Maltby, R. (2003). Hollywood Cinema (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Preminger, O. (Director). (1953). The Moon is Blue [Film]. USA: United Artists.
Preminger, O. (Director). (1955). The Man with the Golden Arm [Film]. USA: United Artists.
Prince, S. (2003). Classical Film Violence: Designing and Regulating Brutality in Hollywood Cinema, 1930-1968. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Staiger, J. (1991). Self-Regulation and the Classical Hollywood Cinema. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism, 6(1), 221-234.
Timmer, J. (2011). Restricting Portrayals of Film Violence to Reduce the Likelihood of Negative Effects in Viewers: Did the Framers of the Motion Picture Production Code Get It Right? Journal of Popular Film and Television, 39(1), 29-36.
USA. (1930). Code to Govern the Making of Talking, Synchronised and Silent Motion Pictures (Motion Picture Production Code). In S. MacKenzie (Ed.), Film Manifestos and Global Cinema Cultures: A Critical Anthology. (pp. 587-605).
Vidor, C. (Director). (1946). Gilda [Film]. USA: Colombia Pictures.
Wellman, W. A. (Director). (1931). The Public Enemy [Film]. USA: Warner Bros.
Connor Clarke Film 