I have been slow to get to this part of my Hays code obsession, for more than one reason. An important one is that the current US political scene grabbed my attention and distracted me(and might so do again); but the main one is that it seems a difficult part of my, uh, study(!!)and I couldn’t figure out how to start. I have concluded that whatever you’re writing, if you’re having this problem, the thing to do is, hey, just start-There are two possibilities–it will help or it won’t.

I’m going to bet, for now, anyway, it will. I was going to take a fairly structured and maybe disciplined approach to this, particularly with what movies I would use as examples. But this turned out to be too restrictive from my point of view, too restraining on my choices of what to write about. I will mention a few principals or patterns I(and others)have seen in films over the yeas and maybe offer the occasional opinion. I’ll get to some specific films and issues. The choices may be a bit arbitrary seeming, but they may lead me to the things that matter. I will likely get push back and that would be welcome. It would be fun to hear from other movie fans.

First of all, one of the big changes in really old movies, say from the early Hays Code days, and films of the late 20th and 21st century is the way stories are told. This is not always easy to define because in old moves there were often flashbacks(There’s a Bogart film– the name of which I forget–in which one critic identified 2 or 3 flashbacks within flashbacks) And today you still get the straightforward chronological story, note the fairly recent Oscar winner, “The Green Book.” But by and large there has been a tendency to play with time and to favor non-linear storytelling in recent decades. Earlier, despite the occasional flashback, the stories were more directly told and for some, perhaps many, easier to follow.

This points up a another big change around the same issue. Older movies tended to have what I would call a stronger narrative drive to them. That is, they were put together so that the story kept rolling along and the audience kept wondering something like, “What next?” This was particularly true in mystery/suspense type films, but could often be found in others as well. This is largely a matter of writing and editing, and of course direction since the director to some degree directs the writers and editors along with the actors, and he also largely gets to decide “what to leave in and what to leave out”(Thank you, Mr Seeger).

Of course if you’re watching a lousy story, one that’s unchallenging, unintelligent and unfunny, better pacing, etc doesn’t help much. You just get a slightly less boring version of a cruddy movie. But I think a lot of movie fans will know what I mean, when I say that the story telling makes a difference that is obvious when you compare movies of say the 50’s and the 90’s and later. This has nothing obvious to do with the Code and censorship, and maybe nothing at all to do with them, but I mention it because it is one of the easiest ways to define the differences between many newer and older films, and because in different art forms, certainly the movies, style has a lot to do with meaning.

Regarding what “replaced” the code, it was, of course, the rating system. This is purely advisory, like the Code it has no coercive powers. Its job is to advise the public about what a movie is like and for whom it might be suitable. Without going into great detail(if you want that, see the very good Wikpedia article on this), the code began in the late ’60’s with the Ratings of G(suitable for all) M(Mature audiences) R(Resricted to those 16-later changed to 17-and over) and X(no one under 17 admitted). Over the decades since there have been a number of changes so that now we have G, PG(parents cautioned), PG-13(parents strongly cautioned) R, and NC-17 which replaced X when the latter came to be considered a synonym with pornography).

The ratings are issued by the MPA(the MPPA’s newest name)after presumed due consideration. There are sometimes quarrels about ratings and complaints from film makers, but usually they do not reach the height they did during the Hays Code’s time. The system seems to me to have a slightly lower profile than the Hays Code did, but still to be important in the movie-making process. It also seems to have a little bit less of the feeling of being real “censorship” since it is clearly intended as advisory. The whole scene is calmer than in the old days, which may be due to inputs of good sense and balance, or to the fact that as one ages, the past frequently seems more colorful and interesting.(They had faces, then, didn’t they?)

There are, as suggested, several ways to do this. I am going to start by comparing movies which are similar in story or theme–and seeing where that leads us.

One or my favorite movies is “The Razor’s Edge,” W Somerset Maugham’s novel which has been done twice, 1946 and 1984. I have seen both versions several times. The critics tend to say the first one is a great movie. I agree, so I’m with the critics at least 50%. But they usually have condemned the remake as merely a mess, a shadow of the first one. I agree only partially. It is indeed kind of a mess, but an ambitious and at times glorious mess. The story, about a young man in search of himself and the secrets of life(good luck, Larry)is told almost exactly the same in each film as far as the plot goes. But as Larry Darrell searches and learns, we get a somewhat different impression in the second film. The world is not as simple as portrayed in the first version(I don’t mean that Maugham’s world was “simple” but that it was more explicable and both challenged and supported conventional wisdom–The second one does more of the former) and the anomalies and compromises are real. Searching does not always lead to finding everything.

Very importantly, when looking at our particular subject, the new freedom allowed after the Hays Code was gone, permitted a more honest and less sanitized portrayal of alcoholism, violence, sex, loss and the unresolved and tentative nature of so many of our human relationships. While the original is not exactly unrealistic about them, the remake looks them in the face. Life is messy and the remake acknowledges this. Unfortunately the remake itself reflects the messiness not only in its story but to some degree in its style, which was likely not necessary. My guess is that most viewers will prefer the original. I have to say that I agree, but I applaud some of the changes that made the second one, to some degree more realistic. It gave it a noble try, but came out a bit short in the end. I’d give the original an A and the remake a B-, a flawed but noble effort. I have more to say about these two films but now is not the time. Perhaps later?

To take a look at a different genre, how about anti-war films? I’m going to compare “Paths of Glory” (1957) and “1917”(2019). The former was one of Stanley Kubrick’s earlier films and his directorial discipline and talent are clear. The story moves from scene to scene with confidence but without hurry. It unfolds as a military tragedy about an ambitious French General with more or less no noticeable conscience or morals at all, and a field commander colonel who was a trial lawyer in civilian life. He defends three soldiers charged with what amounts to dereliction of duty(really treason, a capital crime) at the front and his defense of the soldiers and condemnation of the proceedings constitute the most important and moving part of the film which is absolutely devastating in its portrayal of horror of armed combat.

“1917” was done by Sam Mendes one of the better of recent directors and director of the magnificent “American Beauty” earlier in his career(and perhaps more on that later). “1917” concerns two British soldiers who are ordered to pass through German occupied territory to get a message to a British commander at the front. The message is intended to countermand earlier orders, which if carried out would lead to a disaster.

Most of the film consists of a long series of incidents showing the terror, perhaps slightly relieved at times by boredom, of their efforts. The message is finally delivered with what results I will leave you to find out. This one is well worth seeing, and I was disappointed when it failed to take the Best Movie of the Year Oscar. It, too, captures the futility and misery of warfare and it does it straightforwardly. It is perhaps a little more graphic than “Paths” in showing the violence of war(although most of it is not actually battle scenes).

It is, nonetheless, not quite so gripping to me as “Glory” is. I am uncertain of exactly why this is, but it does have something to do with what I mentioned above, the different ways movies have now of story telling. There is nothing wrong with the way “1917” told its, story. Mendes is an admirable director. But Glory is still just a bit more compelling, partly due to the gut wrenching performance by Kirk Douglas(as the colonel/defense attorney) and others, and, I think, partly because of that narrative drive thing that I mentioned previously.

To try two more of my favorite films–how about “All About Eve”(1950–height of the code’s power)and “The Killing Fields(1984-well into the time of the ratings system)?

The very provocative film critic Pauline Kael once said “Eve” was not realistic and resembled nothing real in life or show business. I don’t know about show business never having been involved other than as a fan. About life–well, it’s arguable. This is one of the most shrewdly entertaining films(Kael’s words, I do believe)ever done and if you’re like me it will hold you glued to the screen time after time. Anne Baxter(Best Actress Oscar) is superb as the at first naive(or at least naive seeming), then ambitious, then semi-monstrous Eve. Gary Merrill, Celeste Holm(always one of my favorites), George Sanders. incomparable Bette(Davis), Hugh Marlowe and Thelma Ritter all contribute with star-era gusto. Marilyn Monroe has a small role including an hilarious exchange with Sanders.

The whole thing is a delicious mixture of show biz backstage drama, plotting, counter-plotting, betrayal, nastiness, overwhelming envy, and other such things that make life or at least story telling about it so exhilarating. The ending is a masterpiece of turned tables and irony. So enjoy it, realistic or not.

“The Killing Fields” lost out to “Amadeus” for the Oscar which in my opinion was a mistake. However great a film about music and genius the latter was, it was not as compelling as “Fields.” It told the true story of an American reporter(Sydney Schanberg)-and his Cambodian journalist friend, Dith Pran. They get caught up in Cambodian politics and the vicious civil war of the 1970’s. This was the era of Pol Pot who was apparently one of the true monsters of the 20th century, short of Hitler and Stalin in numbers of victims, perhaps, but not in mercilessness or vengefulness.

This is a tough story, about war, terror, honor, betrayal and friendship. It spares little in sheltering the audience from the details and you leave it more or less shell shocked yourself, but somewhat exhilarated by it’s sheer excellence and the survival of human decency seen at the end. Although I love “Eve” I think this one is “better” as a piece of film making and to be honored for its serious and gut wrenching treatment of a serious story. So, when I make these comparisons, sometimes the older film wins, and sometimes the newer one.

I guess I could go on with these comparisons but I won’t–not now, anyway. I have noted the differences in Hays era films and those that came later and cited a few examples. All of these films I have mentioned here are terrific movies and all worthy of your attention. One thing I note is that despite the “moral” change in the Hays era films and the later ones, that is not the thing that most affects my feelings about them. It is more about the way the stories are told and the accessibility of its meaning to the audience. In some ways, to maybe repeat myself here, it is more style than content.

My immediate inclination is to go for the old ways and say movies were “better” with the Hays Code, not necessarily because of it but, perhaps incidentally to it as a matter of the attitudes–and technology–of the times. I am still inclined , when I see the date of a movie that’s going to be on TV, to feel more anticipation if it was made in the “golden age” when the “star system” was in effect, than if it was made in, well, the past decade or so. This is partly a matter of nostalgia, of course, but it’s more. And I have to mention, just in passing some examples of why some will think me wrong. For example–“Out of Africa,”(which, of these, most closely resembles a Hays era movie in style), “American Beauty,” “The English Patient,” “Brokeback Mountain.” “True Grit,”(Coen brothers’ remake) and “No Country for Old Men.” These are all great films and I would like to see them all again. I commend them all to your attention, and I may elaborate on this later on in another blog. They are all excellent arguments as to why I may be wrong. Most, if not all of the above, would have been impossible at the height of the Hays Code, they simply would not have gotten through without changes, some of them fairly important. (Actually, after reviewing my work here, one of the people inclined to think I might be wrong is me.)

I also need to just mention one more of the greatest films ever, “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”(1988), directed by Philip Kauffman from Milos Kundera’s novel(same title). I will not attempt to explain the story, but it has to do with sex without love, sexual love, personal identity, honor, and freedom/totalitarianism. Oh, yes, and Man’s place in the universe is more or less considered and reflected on, and at least noted in passing. I know this must sound like a messy, possibly pretentious hodge-podge and my reaction to the book was pretty much that. But I saw the film first and perhaps could not help being disappointed with the book. With the steady hand and mind of Kauffman behind it the film(which covers only about 1/3 of the book-for good reason in my opinion)pulls all this together. At the beginning you might think you wound up mistakenly watching a soft core porn film, (though one with a smashingly beautiful musical score); by the end you’ve had both your intellect and your emotions challenged, drained and moved to the point of exhaustion.

I mention this movie here not only because I love it, but because of the loveliness and lovingness of the early sex scenes, and of the fact that at the end it ascends to a level of humane and philosophical wonderment seldom matched in films or elsewhere. Sometimes, when reflecting on it, I wonder if Kauffman didn’t read into this story more than Kundera intended to put there, and if so, well, kudos to Kauffman. The film would not have been the same without the sex scenes, the philosophical musings and the indefinite, gut wrenching conclusions(or at least hints, anyway) about the human condition. It would never had made it unscathed through the Code.

I think it is almost time to start something like a summation. For openers it is –now obviously– difficult to say that movies were better then or are better now. They are different, however, and the differences sometimes give us considerable leeway in deciding which is greater; unfortunately these are ways that are always somewhat arbitrary and appear possibly temporary. It is to some extent a matter of taste, but, I think, not just taste. It may have a lot to do with your sense of history, but then as a frustrated professional historian and and one time history teacher I would be inclined to think so, wouldn’t I? So maybe it comes down to your personality, or your experience or your values you have had inculcated in your, or otherwise acquired, in your journey up to now.

I will note at this point that as I mentioned to a slight extent earlier, some seem to feel that the Hays Code made great films and great art in films, impossible, or at least badly limited it. This is patently untrue as should be obvious from where we’ve been in these three articles. Just look at the lists of great films from the mid-’30’s to the mid-’60’s. No, great films and great art were not prevented. What was somewhat limited was the breadth of the expression of human experience. This did not necessarily always limit greatness. Note that in some cases it may have enhanced it as we saw possible in “Casablanca.”

It is also true, however, that there were a few cases where the codes limits were an interference. I have argued above that “From Here to Eternity” would have been even greater without the code’s restriction. I do not at this point change my mind on this matter. And frequently, the Hays guys made themselves look foolish, as noted above–the Twin Beds, rule, etc.

I close this with two more perhaps not very significant observations. The more important one is that while there are still many over-the-top movies with respect to sex and violence, the incidence of them seems to have declined a bit in the past decade. I’m not sure what this means or whether it’s good, bad or indifferent. But I do think it’s true. The old obsessions with sex and violence(occasionally combined) have not and likely will not disappear, but they have faded somewhat. Of course they were replaced by obsessions with movies about guys driving wildly around town and smashing of up cars(a different kind of violence) and, after that had its day, with innumerable films about “super” heroes, and incredible technology, apparently fighting the good battle, but looking somewhat soporific to me based upon the previews.

I guess that the bottom line for me is that I slightly prefer the old style. This is likely due to mostly to age and experience, that is the films I experienced when I was young and more impressionable(I hope)than now. But I am perfectly aware of the fact that a lot of those old films were fairly bland, not to say silly, and certainly I do not deny the genius of Sam Mendes and other great directors of present day.

So, take you pick and if you are so inclined let me know what you think. I hope to go on enjoying moves, old-fashioned, new-fashioned or whatever. I hope you will all do the same. (I will save the promised short bibliography for one post, a bit later)