The noted increase in
cinematic cross-dressing, homosexual undertones, and the increasing portrayal
of unmarried heterosexual relationships of the films of the teens and the
1920s, along with, one suspects, the increasing influence of foreign films such
as Carl Theodore Dreyer’s Michael, Alfred Hitchcock’s The
Lodger, Downhill, and Champagne, William Dieterle’s Sex in
Chains, W. G. Pabst’s Pandora’s Box, and Jean Cocteau’s The Blood
of the Poet did not go unnoticed by religious, governmental, and even film
studio conservatives.
In 1929 Martin Quigley, editor of the film
trade newspaper Motion Picture Herald and Jesuit priest Father Daniel A.
Lord created a code of standards, submitting it to the studios. In particular,
Lord was worried about the lure and effects of film of the nation’s children.
By February 1930 studio head Irving
Thalberg of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and others met with Lord and Quigley, worried
about direct governmental intervention, to establish a new set of codes. One
month later the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA)
agreed to the Code, intended, in particular, to limit films which were widely
distributed.
Divided into two parts, the code—much like
the 1927 list of “Don’t” and “Be Carefuls”—was divided into two parts, the
first a set of general principles prohibiting movies from “lowering the moral
standards of those who see them,” and a set of particular applications, a
specific list of prohibited activities. Strangely homosexuality and the use of
curse words were not even mentioned, presuming that they were included in the
restrictions.
Besides, homosexuals were included under
the description of “sex perversion.” The code sought not only to determine what
could be portrayed on screen, but also to promote traditional values. Sexual
relations outside of marriage—which were forbidden to be portrayed as
attractive or beautiful—were to be presented in a way that would not arouse
passion or appear to make them seem permissible. Any sexual act considered
perverted, including any suggestion of same-sex relationships, sex, or romance,
was ruled out.
All criminal action had to be punished,
and neither the crime nor the criminal could elicit sympathy from the audience.
Authority figures had to be treated with respect, and the clergy could not be
portrayed as comic characters or villains. Under some circumstances,
politicians, police officers, and judges could be villains, as long as it was
clear that those individuals portrayed as villains were the exceptions to the
rule.
The depiction of miscegenation (defined
only as sexual relationships between black and white races) was forbidden.
The entire document was written with
Catholic undertones, and stated that art must be handled carefully because it
could be "morally evil in its effects," and because its "deep
moral significance" was unquestionable. It was initially decided to keep
the Catholic influence on the Code secret. A recurring theme was "that
throughout, the audience feels sure that evil is wrong, and good is right.” The
Code also contained an addendum commonly referred to as the Advertising Code,
which regulated advertising copy and imagery.
In February 1930 Variety published
the entire Code, predicting that state film censorship boards would become
obsolete.
Jason Joy, head of the Committee until
1932 and his successor, Dr. James Wingate were, however “unenthusiastic” in
maintaining the Code, and were considered generally ineffective. For example,
Josef von Sternberg’s The Blue Angel (1930) was passed by Joy with no
revisions, while it was considered indecent by a California censor. With over
500 films a year to review and a small staff with limited power, Joy’s
committee, although negotiating numerous cuts from films, was more willing to
work with studios, which led, ultimately, with is being hired at Fox for his
writing talents. His successor Wingate simply couldn’t keep up with the pace of
films being produced. The Great Depression, moreover, led studios to seek out
racier material which might attract dwindling audiences to their films. By 1931
The Hollywood Reporter joked that “the Hays moral code is not even a joke
anymore; it’s just a memory.”*
Yet, the Code had an enormous effect,
nonetheless, particularly with the rise of Joseph I. Breen in 1934, who had
worked for the Hays Code committee since 1931. And the basic principles of the
1930 Code were still in place, with writers, directors, and studio producers
simply finding subtle ways to subvert some of the principles.
From 1930 to 1933 filmmakers began to
introduce a wide range of homosexual figures who, having no sexual role in
their films and standing apart from the general heterosexual plots of the
movies, nonetheless offered a stereotyped viewpoint of the sexual “other,” at
least allowing for the fact that gays and lesbians still did exist even though
the cinema had almost completely neutered them. And given the ugly vision of
producers, bosses, husbands, fathers, and other men in power in these early
Great Depression films, the sissies actually seem more capable and happier than
their heterosexual opposites. Yes, these gay figures are made to seem
ridiculous but they most emphatically know who and what they are.
n his Screened Out: Playing Gay
Hollywood from Edison to Stonewall, Richard Barrios describes the pansy
craze. Speaking of one of the major pansy actors, Bobby Watson playing the
character Paisley in Manhattan Parade, Barrios writes:
“As done to a crisp turn
Watson, Paisley was one of the most conspicuous of gay characters in sound
films thus far, setting the tone for portrayals of that Uncle Tommy of onscreen
gayness, the Pansy, Sissy, Fairy, Nance, Fruit, Queer. From early 1932 to mid-1934
and beyond, Hollywood reflected the (now-fading) pansy craze in earnest,
steadily codifying gay men onscreen by dress, manner, voice, and gesture. The
fedora hat, the gestures that alternately swept and minced, the little
mustache, the flower in the lapel—the pansy was as immediately recognizable
onscreen as he was on urban sidewalks (while millions of gay men and women
without a codified look were allowed to pass undetected). For women, there
would be less exposure, since the pansy craze had not been about male
impersonation. Nor were there verbal labels. The portrayals, however, were
numerous, and the look was even more distinctive than that of the men: jackets
resembling men’s waistcoats, starched shirts with neckties, close-cropped hair,
monocles, cigars.”
.jpg)
Pathé and Fox both decided to run the bit
in their newsreel which immediately became so popular, a true comic delight to
its audiences, that Paramount sent the same cameraman to another show for a
second round of “canine-devoted effeminacy.” Eddie Cantor even incorporated it
into his vaudeville show at the Palace.
While the skit might have been so popular
that it led some writers and producers to incorporate it into their films, I
truly doubt whether those incidents alone determined the vast number of “pansy”
and “lesbian” appearances in the films from 1930-1933. Indeed, the creators of
first films I write about below from 1930, could not even have known of the
1931 incident. And the pansy had already appeared as a character type in Ralph
Cedar’s The Soilers (1923), Howard Hawks’ Fig Leaves (1927), R.
E. Williamson and Joseph E. Zivelli The Wanderer of the West (1927),
Fred Niblo’s Way Out West (1930), and Richard Thorpe’s The Dude
Wrangler (1930) among others, all before the cameraman determined to
entertain audiences with his sissy dog lover.
In the selections from films below I have
attempted to summarize the appearance of such ancillary figures in a great
number of movies during this period, saving me from having to describe full
plot summaries of a few of the lesser films, particularly since the pansy or
Sapphic references were carried no further than the few moments of screen time
devoted to them. In more significant movies, however, I continue to describe
the entire plot since I have always argued that the context in which gay
characters in relationship to the heterosexual figures is of vital importance.
Films from this period which carried their
pansy figures further into their plots or subtly connected their central
character’s actions with the sissy boys and boyish girls, along with works that
featured their queer figures, are discussed outside this multi-page collation.
This gathering is simply a way of indicating just how extensive these
stereotyped visions of homosexual beings permeated the entire film industry,
even after the 1934 date which is generally seen as a serious attempt to
eradicate all non-normative sexual figures. In many cases even during these
years, several films’ original scripts along with their gay figures did not
survive the censorship, and after 1934 Joseph I. Breen and Will H. Hays often
demanded that such scenes from earlier films be excised. Although some of these
have been restored in several cases we have left only the censored versions.
Like the Afghanistani Taliban, these individuals and their Codes permanently
deleted and defaced numerous works of US art and helped make gays invisible for
decades longer than what might have otherwise occurred.
*For my comments in the
above few paragraphs I have relied heavily on the well-written and informative
Wikepdia essay on the Production Code.
Los Angeles, November
30, 2025
Reprinted from My
Queer Cinema blog (November 2025).
No comments:
Post a Comment