Chuck is right - it's important to reiterate that the Production Code (hereafter "the Code") was not a law, nor was the Production Code Administration (the PCA, aka the Hayes Office) a government body. The Code was developed by the major studios and aimed solely at THEIR product. In essence, it "internalized" federal, state, and local censorship laws into a sort of corporate policy aimed at producing films that would NOT be censored by external authorities once they were released in theaters (although this still did sometimes happen). Perhaps it's better to think of the Code as "self-regulation" rather than "censorship," in that the former is a voluntary effort by the producers of films and the latter is legal force brought to bear on those producers by representatives of government.
The major studios had their own labs, who would, of course, never have turned over footage to legal authorities. And in the majority of cases, the PCA's goal was to intervene at the script level, or even the treatment level (or, going further back still, the point at which a studio was considering purchasing the rights to a play or novel), so that "objectionable" footage wouldn't be shot in the first place. Independent labs that confiscated or turned over footage were, as Chuck notes, acting in relation to censorship laws, and not handling industry footage but films that were independently made - including experimental films - and thus not shaped at all by "the Code." Distinguishing between the Code and censorship laws might seem like splitting hairs, but it's actually an important distinction for a number of reasons. From the perspective of cinema history, too many writers have acted as though "the Code" was a draconian measure forced on Hollywood from the outside (i.e. a law or set of laws), which was not really the case. This notion underwrites claims that Hollywood filmmakers were nobly trying to load their films with politically and socially progressive messages and imagery in the name of art, and were supressed by the prudish and reactionary censors. Hollywood was always driven by profit, and when titillating or otherwise controversial stories and images drew more and more public ire (and thus became less profitable), the Code was created as a public relations measure, intended first and foremost to protect the financial interests of the studios. Okay, I'll get down off my soapbox now. Jonathan On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Chuck Kleinhans <chuck...@northwestern.edu> wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Sasha Janerus wrote: > > It's worth bearing in mind that the Code engendered indirect, de facto > censorship on the level of availability and reliability of lab services. The > legit labs would routinely destroy, confiscate or forward to law enforcement > materials they deemed prurient or deviant. Don't know what sort precautions, > if any, Markopoulos took, but would be interested. > > > I really don't think this activity by labs had anything to do with the > Production Code. Rather it had to do with criminal law and existing > statutes on obscene and pornographic image material. To fail to turn this > material over to police was itself a criminal act. As indeed, today, it is > required that all such labs in the US, alert legal authroities if still and > moving image material of children in sexual situations is discovered. > > Chuck Kleinhans > > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
