Hi there:
I originally put this in the visitor writers thread but moved it to here. I think it's out of his realm.
How was the code abolished. Was it just disavowed one day, or was it a gradual decline over the years? Here is my reasoning in asking:
Watching movies throughout the 40's and 50's, plots and circumstances were basically bland, the only really noticeable change was in womens' fashions. The pre-code movies had no underwear, flimsy evening gowns that revealed more than the average nightgown, but post code everything became cotton and linen, with slips and all sorts of camouflage. Then suddenly in 1959 along comes Some Like it Hot with Marilyn appearing in two stage costumes that were decidedly see through. How did they get away with it? I recall my shock at seeing these dresses on the big screen and know it was my first run-in with such a sight. I did remember her outfit in Bus Stop, but even that was lined and covered a lot.
So, was there a definite stopping point to the code? or simply a drawing away from it?
Thank you,
Anne
Ending codes
Ending codes
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
I'd be really interested in seeing an answer to this one too, but I have a feeling it's as simple as it had become less and less viable to keep it and it had become less and less effective over time.
While there are great names in world cinema from day one, it was Hollywood by the thirties. Look at the great films of the 30s or the 40s and you'll find that most (not all) are American studio product. By the 50s that just wasn't the case any more.
Sure, there were still American classics but the rest of the world had caught up and even overtaken in so many ways because it was so much more free to explore things. Someone posted links to Top 100 lists of the 40s and 50s in a thread on this site. Count up the foreign films: they should quantify that point nicely.
Also in the golden era of Hollywood, there wasn't much American cinema made outside of it. By the late sixties, independents were coming in to make waves: Russ Meyer, Roger Corman, Sam Fuller, John Cassavetes...
While there are great names in world cinema from day one, it was Hollywood by the thirties. Look at the great films of the 30s or the 40s and you'll find that most (not all) are American studio product. By the 50s that just wasn't the case any more.
Sure, there were still American classics but the rest of the world had caught up and even overtaken in so many ways because it was so much more free to explore things. Someone posted links to Top 100 lists of the 40s and 50s in a thread on this site. Count up the foreign films: they should quantify that point nicely.
Also in the golden era of Hollywood, there wasn't much American cinema made outside of it. By the late sixties, independents were coming in to make waves: Russ Meyer, Roger Corman, Sam Fuller, John Cassavetes...
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
While I would agree that American films were pretty dominant in the 30's and 40's, you have to take into account WWII and the fact that many studios were unable to operate freely (or at all in this period). You also have to realize how many directors and actors left Europe to come to Hollywood, which also made for less talent in Europe from which to draw. However, Renoir turned out some of the greatest films of all time in the thirties alone.
I do think that American films by the 50's were being left behind a bit, and the success of films like Bicycle Thieves (1948) helped in a small way to abolish the Code when De Sica refused to let the sequence with Bruno urinating against a wall be edited out for American audiences. Naturally they resisted, but De Sica was adamant about BT being shown unedited, and distributers had to use his cut or nothing. In the end, the industry caved and other filmmakers realized if they had a great film on their hands, they could tell the commission to go to blazes.
American films began to really take chances and push limits in the early 60's with Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf? (1966) finally taking on the Code outright and credited for it's toppling.
I do think that American films by the 50's were being left behind a bit, and the success of films like Bicycle Thieves (1948) helped in a small way to abolish the Code when De Sica refused to let the sequence with Bruno urinating against a wall be edited out for American audiences. Naturally they resisted, but De Sica was adamant about BT being shown unedited, and distributers had to use his cut or nothing. In the end, the industry caved and other filmmakers realized if they had a great film on their hands, they could tell the commission to go to blazes.
American films began to really take chances and push limits in the early 60's with Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf? (1966) finally taking on the Code outright and credited for it's toppling.
Last edited by Mr. Arkadin on December 19th, 2007, 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some may agree that DeSica was correct in wanting his film left uncut, but on the other hand, look what it did - - - who ever heard of Bicycle Thieves? I know I didn't. Anyway, our American views may be kind of puritan, but look at what has happened to movies since the code was enforced. Even with the new ones in place, theater owners don't pay any attention and our movies are 75% unwatchable. Thank God for the other 25%. Additionally, due to the HUAC a lot of our writers and directors left here to go to other places to work, and many never returned until the 70's when the ban was lifted from them.
Anne
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
Actually, I think it's called The Bicycle Thief, and it's considered by many to be one of the films that first got U.S. audiences interested in foreign films.
As far as the code goes, I think it had begun to erode in the late 50's, due to sly and sneaky films like Some Like It Hot and The Apartment. And by the time of Bonnie And Clyde, with it's unprecedented scenes of violence, it was basically obliterated.
As far as the code goes, I think it had begun to erode in the late 50's, due to sly and sneaky films like Some Like It Hot and The Apartment. And by the time of Bonnie And Clyde, with it's unprecedented scenes of violence, it was basically obliterated.
-
Lzcutter
- Administrator
- Posts: 3149
- Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:50 pm
- Location: Lake Balboa and the City of Angels!
- Contact:
I think the ending of the Breen Code came about more because of the changing tastes in movies.
We tend to forget that American society and cultural began changing in the Post-War years. America moved from being a rural, agricultural society to a more urban, technological driven society.
The Civil Rights movement began in the early 1950s in the South.
In Hollywood, the movie moguls were aging. They were either retiring, dying or as they aged they became more rigid in their beliefs. They were trying to fight television, the teen age market that was proving itself much more than just a passing fad.
The Supreme Court made the studios change the way they distributed films. No longer did the studios own the theaters. This, in turn, would make it harder to for studios to write off under-performing pictures. This in turn contributed to the demise of the studio system. Studios began to take a long, hard look at the corporate bottom line and cuts had to be made to keep the studio going in the wake of losing the theaters. This was a seismic change in the way Hollywood did business.
They terminated contracts not just with the folks behind the camera but in front of the camera as well. Stars such as Jimmy Stewart and others began working as independents. This allowed them more artistic freedom. No longer were they constrained by the Studio to play constricting, formulaic roles they had been playing all their careers. Stewart and Anthony Mann pioneered the change in Stewart's on-screen character with their westerns.
Other stars such as Wayne formed their own production companies.
It was a time of great social change that would culminate in the 1960s.
Hollywood was undergoing change, Foreign films were becoming much more accepted by movie goers who didn't mind reading subtitles, the directors and stars of the studio era were getting older and those stars moved into character roles and left the romantic leads to the new generation.
Directors of the studio era were not only getting on in age but also began retiring.
But most of all it was the social and cultural changes in America that dictated the changing tenor of the movies.
Having lived through WW2 and the aftermath and seeing what evil could be done made going back to the Andy Hardy type movies of the Pre- and War years almost impossible. Americans were changing in their attitudes. Living under the threat of the Cold War and the idea of nuclear war fostered a climate of fear, Americans wanted movies that addressed the fears and concerns they had. The Civil Rights movement allowed movies to look at the way we discriminated not only against people of color but people of faith.
As we grew up after the War, we wanted the movies to grow up with us.
And that meant, ultimately, losing the Breen code. By the 1960s, a married couple sleeping in twin beds seemed not only quaint but laughable as the majority of Americans were willing to admit that they really did sleep together. The Post War baby boom had proven that.
As for movies today, they are just an out-shoot of the changing cultural influences of our society. The movies are more corporate today than at any other time in Hollywood history. Studios are owned by national and international media conglomerates that are all focused on the bottom line.
We have become a very youth and celebrity driven society and the leaps and bounds that technology has made in just the last thirty years keeps everyone on their toes trying to adjust to the latest, greatest invention.
The movies are a reflection of the times we live in. They have always been that way.
That so many mediocre movies are being made says a great deal not only about youth obsessed Hollywood and their constant appraisal of the bottom line but about us as a society as well.
We tend to forget that American society and cultural began changing in the Post-War years. America moved from being a rural, agricultural society to a more urban, technological driven society.
The Civil Rights movement began in the early 1950s in the South.
In Hollywood, the movie moguls were aging. They were either retiring, dying or as they aged they became more rigid in their beliefs. They were trying to fight television, the teen age market that was proving itself much more than just a passing fad.
The Supreme Court made the studios change the way they distributed films. No longer did the studios own the theaters. This, in turn, would make it harder to for studios to write off under-performing pictures. This in turn contributed to the demise of the studio system. Studios began to take a long, hard look at the corporate bottom line and cuts had to be made to keep the studio going in the wake of losing the theaters. This was a seismic change in the way Hollywood did business.
They terminated contracts not just with the folks behind the camera but in front of the camera as well. Stars such as Jimmy Stewart and others began working as independents. This allowed them more artistic freedom. No longer were they constrained by the Studio to play constricting, formulaic roles they had been playing all their careers. Stewart and Anthony Mann pioneered the change in Stewart's on-screen character with their westerns.
Other stars such as Wayne formed their own production companies.
It was a time of great social change that would culminate in the 1960s.
Hollywood was undergoing change, Foreign films were becoming much more accepted by movie goers who didn't mind reading subtitles, the directors and stars of the studio era were getting older and those stars moved into character roles and left the romantic leads to the new generation.
Directors of the studio era were not only getting on in age but also began retiring.
But most of all it was the social and cultural changes in America that dictated the changing tenor of the movies.
Having lived through WW2 and the aftermath and seeing what evil could be done made going back to the Andy Hardy type movies of the Pre- and War years almost impossible. Americans were changing in their attitudes. Living under the threat of the Cold War and the idea of nuclear war fostered a climate of fear, Americans wanted movies that addressed the fears and concerns they had. The Civil Rights movement allowed movies to look at the way we discriminated not only against people of color but people of faith.
As we grew up after the War, we wanted the movies to grow up with us.
And that meant, ultimately, losing the Breen code. By the 1960s, a married couple sleeping in twin beds seemed not only quaint but laughable as the majority of Americans were willing to admit that they really did sleep together. The Post War baby boom had proven that.
As for movies today, they are just an out-shoot of the changing cultural influences of our society. The movies are more corporate today than at any other time in Hollywood history. Studios are owned by national and international media conglomerates that are all focused on the bottom line.
We have become a very youth and celebrity driven society and the leaps and bounds that technology has made in just the last thirty years keeps everyone on their toes trying to adjust to the latest, greatest invention.
The movies are a reflection of the times we live in. They have always been that way.
That so many mediocre movies are being made says a great deal not only about youth obsessed Hollywood and their constant appraisal of the bottom line but about us as a society as well.
Lynn in Lake Balboa
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
It was known here in America as The Bicycle Thief, but it's original title was Bicycle Thieves. The title makes a big difference in our understanding of the film and it's characters, but I won't ruin the story for those who might not have seen it.Le Tigre wrote:Actually, I think it's called The Bicycle Thief, and it's considered by many to be one of the films that first got U.S. audiences interested in foreign films.
Thanks for that tidbit, Mr. A. I only knew it by the American title, and I'd say it makes a huge difference...Mr. Arkadin wrote:It was known here in America as The Bicycle Thief, but it's original title was Bicycle Thieves. The title makes a big difference in our understanding of the film and it's characters, but I won't ruin the story for those who might not have seen it.
-
jdb1
Lynn, your analysis of the Code phenomenon is very well-reasoned.
I would add that I feel the Code itself was a reaction to the perceived "loosening" of morals brought about by the excesses of post-WWI prosperity and the dramatic change in the status and behavior of women that resulted.
The image women of the 1920s was so radically different in just about every way from the images of pre-WWI. The films of the 20s and early 30s showed us independent, carefree, gainfully employed, and sexually unfettered women unimaginable a mere 10 years before. Women had the kind of power they had never before had, and their cinematic counterparts showed us sometimes accurate, and sometimes highly exaggerated examples of what America thought its women had become.
In the early 30s, after the first flush of excitement about sound films wore off and movies turned away from fluff and back to more "adult" themes, women were shown as sexual power mongers who used their wiles to get the better of men and got away with it. Think of Stanwyck in Baby Face. This year's showing on TCM was the first time I've seen this movie, and I thought it was a clear example of how the empowerment of women was viewed (and unfortunately still is in some circles). In fact, I found it somewhat allegorical. Stanwyck used what was considered a women's means to get power, but she could just have easily been using corporate intrigue. Only - that wasn't a woman's province at that time.
There was, and always will be a segment of the population who feels disturbed and threatened by such a thought, and there are are women as well as men who feel that way. The Old Order was threatened by the New Woman, and something had to be done to stop it. The social changes were happening everywhere, but one thing most people had in common was going to the movies. So, if this behavior could be stopped on screen, women should get the message, and get back where they belonged. Isn't it enough that we gave them the vote? So the Production Code was furiously lobbied for and implemented. But, like Prohibition, there are some things that just don't work in the long run. Change may come in fits and starts, but it always comes. Whether or not any changes we undergo are for the better is to be determined by subsequent generations. Most of us now see the Production Code in a way its contemporaries probably did not.
I would add that I feel the Code itself was a reaction to the perceived "loosening" of morals brought about by the excesses of post-WWI prosperity and the dramatic change in the status and behavior of women that resulted.
The image women of the 1920s was so radically different in just about every way from the images of pre-WWI. The films of the 20s and early 30s showed us independent, carefree, gainfully employed, and sexually unfettered women unimaginable a mere 10 years before. Women had the kind of power they had never before had, and their cinematic counterparts showed us sometimes accurate, and sometimes highly exaggerated examples of what America thought its women had become.
In the early 30s, after the first flush of excitement about sound films wore off and movies turned away from fluff and back to more "adult" themes, women were shown as sexual power mongers who used their wiles to get the better of men and got away with it. Think of Stanwyck in Baby Face. This year's showing on TCM was the first time I've seen this movie, and I thought it was a clear example of how the empowerment of women was viewed (and unfortunately still is in some circles). In fact, I found it somewhat allegorical. Stanwyck used what was considered a women's means to get power, but she could just have easily been using corporate intrigue. Only - that wasn't a woman's province at that time.
There was, and always will be a segment of the population who feels disturbed and threatened by such a thought, and there are are women as well as men who feel that way. The Old Order was threatened by the New Woman, and something had to be done to stop it. The social changes were happening everywhere, but one thing most people had in common was going to the movies. So, if this behavior could be stopped on screen, women should get the message, and get back where they belonged. Isn't it enough that we gave them the vote? So the Production Code was furiously lobbied for and implemented. But, like Prohibition, there are some things that just don't work in the long run. Change may come in fits and starts, but it always comes. Whether or not any changes we undergo are for the better is to be determined by subsequent generations. Most of us now see the Production Code in a way its contemporaries probably did not.
-
Moraldo Rubini
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: April 19th, 2007, 11:37 am
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Nice to see Ladri di biciclette popping up in here. That made my top 25 in CinemaLover's recent contest.
I'm betting that the rise of television had a lot to do with the dissolving Breen Code. The studios were losing audiences to the boob tube and the moguls were desperate to find ascpects of cinema that television couldn't provide. Wider screened epics could woo them in, but they couldn't produce 52 of them per year. So if they brought some reality to films it would lend another dimension to storylines that tv wouldn't. Suddenly Fred MacMurray could have extramarital affairs (The Apartment), the word "virgin" could find itself in a script (The Moon is Blue), and rumor of a lesbian relationship could come forth (The Children's Hour).
I'm betting that the rise of television had a lot to do with the dissolving Breen Code. The studios were losing audiences to the boob tube and the moguls were desperate to find ascpects of cinema that television couldn't provide. Wider screened epics could woo them in, but they couldn't produce 52 of them per year. So if they brought some reality to films it would lend another dimension to storylines that tv wouldn't. Suddenly Fred MacMurray could have extramarital affairs (The Apartment), the word "virgin" could find itself in a script (The Moon is Blue), and rumor of a lesbian relationship could come forth (The Children's Hour).