#the hays code

finished stranger things 5 vol 2 earlier and as a history and film/tv nerd i want to say some things; i feel like we as a society discredit the negative impact the hays code really did have on film/television and just society as a whole

for those unfamiliar because apparently there are a lot of people not aware of it: the hays code was this set of moral censorship rules hollywood followed from like the 1930s–60s that said what you were allowed to show in film/tv, and it was extremely conservative and homophobic. like it literally banned “sexual perversion” which was code for gay people existing on screen. if queer characters showed up at all they had to be jokes, villains, tragic, or punished by the narrative. no happy endings, no mutual love, no fulfillment whatsofuckingever. it had a bunch of other stupid rules too like nothing beyond simple kissing, no childbirth, no interracial relationships, clergy members couldn’t be villains/criminals, and more

even though the code technically ended decades ago, it absolutely fried the industry’s brain. studios learned “queer love = risky, controversial, financially dangerous” and that mindset just never fully left. so instead of outright bans you get shit like we do today. hesitation. subtext. plausible deniability. shows getting CANCELLED. executives all wanting to keep one foot in progress and one foot in conservative markets for $$$ which is why we’re STILL seeing this pattern of queer characters being allowed to feel but not be chosen, to confess but not be reciprocated, allowed to exist but not disrupt the “safe” status quo couple. in the context of stranger things, this is mileven

instead of committing, creators place failsafes in being vague so they are able to back out at the last second so no one can accuse them of being “too queer” or the opposite — queerbaiting. they balance on this grossly exploitative tightrope where queer audiences are emotionally invested and teased at possibilities of something but are never actually rewarded, while straight audiences are reassured nothing “fundamental” will “change”

and that’s where byler lives. in the margins, the implication, in the looks, the framing, the music cues, the fucking clothing colors, songs, the pining, the repeated emotional intimacy that is absolutely not accidental, the literal decade worth of carefully cultivating this dynamic… will’s feelings are canon, but they’re framed as quiet, internal, potentially unrequited, and from the very start of the show — literally episode one — it’s treated as something he’s expected to survive. the show still can’t even bring itself to say the words gay or lesbian out loud for christ’s sake. everything has to be implied, softened, or outsourced to metaphor. and yes sure it’s the 80s and this was reagan’s america, but i promise you people were still using those words, not just insults/slurs like fairy and fag like the show has in fact used. they can say it once. it won’t ruin the realism in a show about alternate dimensions, monsters, and magic, i promise.

and continuing on: will’s coming out itself is so loaded in a way that makes my skin crawl and i’ve already seen many others that feel the same. yes, a lot of what he said was so beautiful and aching and true, but the circumstances of it? just gross. he is forced into it by the manipulation of a monster that has been psychologically and physically and sexually abusing him since he was literally only twelve. a monster that specifically targets his sense of being “different,” of being “wrong”. difference = danger. difference = shame. and this really shows that his coming out isn’t intimate or chosen. it happens in front of a dozen people, including people he barely knows (murray, vickie, kali), under extreme emotional distress because he’s scared vecna will continue to use it against him and use visions of his loved ones reacting negatively against him. that’s not just unfortunate writing, that’s reflective of a long history of queer narratives where our truth is something dragged out of us under pressure instead of something we get to own

so when will calls mike “his tammy”, it doesn’t feel like positive storytelling, it feels like a slap on the wrist. like them telling us that rejection is essential for growth as if he hasn’t gone through enough growth already and has never ever had things go right for him. mike isn’t a prize to win, no, but it feels like the narrative is just saying “don’t worry, this love is small, survivable, one-sided. it’s just a little crush!” (one that’s lasted years and several seasons) which is ridiculous.

letting it be mutual and directing a new light on the emotional spine of the show and letting it challenge the “safe” pairing that’s been marketed and monetized for years? that’s their biggest fear

and the thing that really kills me is that they know what they’re doing. again: the zoom-ins, the lingering looks, gentle touches, interview upon interview of them telling us it would be worth it in the end and we would be happy etc. and guess what: queer baiting us. because yes, if this isn’t resolved in the final episode that is exactly what it will be. for the last ten years they have refrained from saying byler isn’t endgame which they could’ve done with simple “it’s unrequited” or what fucking ever, which they’ve had ample opportunity to do. instead they stayed vague with their answers and saying “we would see” pretty much, and being all suspicious, baiting us into sticking around by teasing us with hope and staying on that aforementioned tightrope.

so yeah. the hays code is dead, but its ghost is absolutely haunting us all including in stranger things, and in the way queer love is often framed as tragic, internal, or formative but never fulfilled. in the way the show wants credit for representation without taking the risk of commitment, and the way it flinches right at the moment where queerness would stop being subtext and start being text

and i think that’s why this hurts so much. because it’s not just about byler. it’s about watching the same pattern repeat over and over again but in different ways and pretending it’s progress when it’s really a standstill

like clearly the industry still flinches at the idea of letting a queer boy get the boy, even/especially when it’s central to the plot and drawn out for so long.

🎬 1933: Marguerite Churchill wears a racy gown for a publicity photo for the pre-code film, Girl Without a Room.

• Pre-Code Hollywood refers to the era in American filmmaking from the late 1920s to mid-1934, before the strict enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code (Hays Code). This period is known for its bold, often risqué content, including themes like promiscuity, drug use, and strong female characters, which were censored after 1934.

Let's take a quick look at an excerpt from the full ext of the Hays Code, shall we?

No picture should lower the moral standards of those who see it. This is done: (a) When evil is made to appear attractive, and good is made to appear unattractive. (b) When the sympathy of the audience is thrown on the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil, sin.The same thing is true of a film that would throw sympathy against goodness, honor, innocence, purity, honesty. note: Sympathy with a person who sins, is not the same as sympathy with the sin or crime of which he is guilty. We may feel sorry for the plight of the murderer or even understand the circumstances which led him to his crime; we may not feel sympathy with the wrong which he has done. The presentation of evil is often essential for art, or fiction, or drama. This in itself is not wrong, provided: (a) That evil is not presented alluringly. Even if later on the evil is condemned or punished, it must not be allowed to appear so attractive that the emotions are drawn to desire or approve so strongly that later they forget the condemnation and remember only the apparent joy of the sin. (b) That thruout the presentation, evil and good are never confused and that evil is always recognized clearly as evil. (c) That in the end the audience feels that evil is wrong and good is right

This is the same Hays Code that supported Nazis. This is the same Hays Code that forced Jewish artists out of Hollywood. This is the same Hays Code that targeted artists of color, queer artists, female artists, any artist who deviated from the white American Catholic ideal. And it was explicitly Catholic, which I explained in further depth here.

The idea that art has to have a clear moral, which lines up with the dominant morals of white American Christianity, is foundational to the Hays Code. If you sound like the Hays Code, you need to re-evaluate.

Censorship and moral codes enforced on art are never used for anything other than oppression. The second you try to dictate what is and isn't allowable in art, you side with people who will enforce those rules on marginalized people with no mercy and no hesitation.

Censorship does not create healthy relationships with media, even the censorship you might be tempted to think of as "good censorship."

Listen, I get it. I'm aroace. I don't like sitting through gratuitous sex scenes that do nothing for the plot and exist solely for the purpose of "being a sex scene in the movie". It's lazy writing and a cheap marketing ploy, to be sure, but don't try to fool yourself into believing that a return of the Hays Code will somehow only change this particular aspect of film, and that everything else will be allowed to flourish as a result.

Let's pretend that the Hays Code did come back. If that ever happened, what kinds of things could you expect from all film, going forward? Well, we're going to go on a journey. I'm going to go through the Hays Code (which you can find here in its entirety if you'd like to read it) point by point, and the following list is just what immediately comes to mind while doing that. I promise you, the full list is much, much longer.

Things you could look forward to if the Code came back:

You don't get any more sympathetic villains. The very first rule of the Hays Code is "the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin".

There will be no more characters who are happily allowed to live any lifestyle alternative to the Average American Nuclear Family With Dad And Mom And 2.5 Kids And A Dog. This includes everything from queer representation to just having a woman who doesn't want to get married (or, Heaven forfend, wants a divorce). Any characters who are living lives like this will either 1) have this rectified by the end of the story, usually by falling in love with the promise of marriage and a family, or 2) die.

There won't be any more criticism of the police or the government unless it comes from villains, at which point the criticism will be so cartoonishly over the top and miss the point so hard it isn't even criticism anymore. If a protagonist holds any of these views, they will very quickly be "set straight".

You won't have any more horror movies with any part of the horror coming from the portrayal of a character's death, because the Code prohibits murder shown in any context that people might theoretically be able to imitate or with any brutality whatsoever. The shower scene in Psycho pushed this rule almost to its breaking point.

All crime procedurals will be barebones by necessity, because even crime on property or non-violent crime (theft/robbery, arson, smuggling, etc) will not be allowed to be presented with any level of detail. Any sort of heist story will not exist for the same reason.

There will be no more action movies with guns in them, as the only presentation of firearms allowed will be "restricted to the essentials".

Not only can smuggling not be portrayed, basically everything about illegal drugs will be banned from film.

Characters will only drink alcohol in any form at all if it's critical to the plot.

No romantic affairs unless they're a vital plot point.

The ban on sex will not be limited to on-scene sex. There will be no kissing or even embracing that could be construed as "lustful", as well as no characters allowed to even hold themselves in a vaguely provocative manner. Also, the very act of seduction is banned, even if it's in a positive light.

Oh, hey, look, a good one: any rape must be essential to the plot, non-explicit in any capacity, and never used for comedy. You get one, Hays.

No more queer people. At all.

The Code explicitly bans the portrayal of "White slavery" and "miscegenation". Know what those are? "A white woman traveling in any capacity with a black man" and "any marriage between a white person and a black person".

No stories of anyone suffering from an STD.

No childbirth. You can't even say the word 'pregnant', and showing a woman who is pregnant is pushing your luck.

Good one number two: no depicting children in an even vaguely suggestive manner. So that's two, Hays.

The points on 'vulgarity' and 'obscenity' are so incredibly vague that basically anything objectionable is subject to being banned depending on the personal opinion of the person making the judgment. Also, no more jokes for parents in kid's movies, and that's not limited to sexual innuendo, because the obscenity clause forbids even the possible suggestion of something that might be considered objectionable even if only a small portion of the audience will understand it.

No profanity, for any reason.

There won't be any costumes that are considered immodest according to the standards of 1930. Also, you can't portray anyone undressing or being exposed to the point of indecency according to the standards of 1930.

No one will be allowed to dance in any way that isn't your basic Jr. High slow "save room for Jesus" type dancing. This includes, but isn't limited to, dances with any sort of sexually provocative moves. For context, it was this restriction that had people calling for Elvis Presley to be arrested and burning his records, because of that basic little back and forth hip movement he did. It wasn't even thrusting, it was mostly side to side.

There will be zero critique of religion. Doesn't matter why. On this note, the only acceptable portrayal of religious figures will be as wise, caring espousers of good advice and wisdom. No religious figures as villains or presented in a comedic light. Also, all religious ceremonies are to be respectful if portrayed and cannot be used for negative plot reasons.

If they show a married couple's bedroom, the couple must have separate beds, because you can't even suggest that a married couple are sleeping together.

Anything relating to the flag of the USA or patriotism will be required to be shown in a positive light. The same can be said of representations of other countries and cultures... according to the standards of 1930.

Good point three: no animal or child cruelty.

"Oh but isn't the next point good" no because "the sale of women" just means prostitution, so yeah, no more sex workers. And not just them actively working, you can't portray them at all.

Medical dramas and war dramas won't be able to portray surgery.

Now, yes, it's true that the Code goes on to clarify points, with things like "it's okay to sympathize with the person committing the crime, just not the crime itself", but these clarifications are always just there to make the Code seem less like a totalitarian dictatorship. Also, do you really think people are going to push their luck and possibly have their work subjected to severe third-party editing or, worse, flat out banned? Of course not. Filmmakers are going to err on the side of caution and not push anything.

You might be looking at this list and thinking, "but I know a lot of characters from the Code era that did all this stuff!" Right. I'm sure you did. And they were villains, by and large. And if they weren't, they were either fixed because it was a dramatic plot point, or they were punished with death.

I'm sure there are things on this list that you think are fine. But I'm just as positive that there's at least one thing that bans something you personally like. And I suggest you just stop for a second and think about all the media you like, and how many of them—under strict adherence to this code—would be banned.

Being in my 30s, some of these might be old or outdated enough to be obscure, but this would ban (or change past the point of recognition) things like Breaking Bad, NBC's Hannibal, Monty Python anything, V for Vendetta, James Bond, everything MCU and DCU, Ocean's 11, The Big Lebowski, The Boondock Saints, The Walking Dead, most every reality show in existence, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Substance, Straight Outta Compton, Heretic, Nosferatu, The Hunger Games, Percy Jackson, Salem's Lot, Boardwalk Empire, Wicked, The Passenger, Glass Onion and Knives Out, half of everything the Muppets have ever done, Smile, Skinamarink, The Babadook, Sister Act, The Blues Brothers, Gone Girl, X, Jurassic Park, Death Becomes Her, The Birdcage, Cabaret, Repo! The Genetic Opera, Mrs. Doubtfire, Smokey and the Bandit, Jaws, The Nun, The Amityville Horror, Reefer Madness, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Little Shop of Horrors, Moulin Rouge!, Les Miserables, Chicago, Hamilton, Adventure Time, The Menu, To Wong Foo, Paris is Burning, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, It, The Godfather trilogy, The Thing, Shakespeare in Love, Pirates of the Caribbean, Wilde, To Kill a Mockingbird, Fried Green Tomatoes, Murder She Wrote, and this is just what I can think of at the moment.

Even if you don't like or don't care about most of this list, you can't deny that this is a lot of things from a lot of different genres, many of which have almost nothing sexually provocative in them at all.

The Hays Code didn't make movies better. It isn't the kind of limitation that breeds creativity. The Hays Code existed explicitly to silence absolutely everyone that the Moral Majority didn't like, and I'm sorry to tell you this, but if you're on tumblr then there is a 98% chance that you are one of those people the Code sought to silence. It wasn't made for anyone's benefit except the people who made it and wanted to control as much of the culture as they could.

I feel like its a sort of spiritual successor to Some Like It Hot.

Some Like It Hot was an independent movie from 1959 in which two men dress in women's clothes to escape the mob. And this movie was made during the Hay's Code. Which was essentially a list of a bunch of rules of what you could and could not put in a movie. one of its defining rules being it-

prohibited a picture from "lowering the moral standards of those who see it"...

This meant that it could not show anything queer/lgbtq unless they are punished and die by the end (thus giving rise to the queer coded villain), sex could not be shown at all, there could be no moral ambuguity in films, etc etc. Some Like It Hot reveled in breaking these. In challenging what and what could not be in a movie. And yet it is still one of the greatest movies of all time. Thus giving rise to more movie makers to break the code and the eventual dissolution of the code.

Iron Lung is released when everything around us is being sanitized down and the internet is being broken in the name of "the children" (the same tactic the Hays Code used to be put into effect). It is an independent film which sees immense commerical success and was made by someone with genuine love for art. It revels in breaking the norms of current movies. A lot of the film is silence and stewing in what you are seeing. Deciphering what something means, you are not given all of the answers and things are left up in the air. It was made using practical effects instead of cgi and was made on a much smaller budget. It has none of the traits of typical blockbusters and was not backed by any major studio. And Hollywood hates that this is happening. That something is going against the norm. That a movie that goes against what a movie can and cant be has beaten all of their carefully crafted blockbusters with jingly keys in front of audience's faces. Going so far as to remove it from the list of top movies right now.

[Source]

Production Code Administration analysis of Strangers on a Train (1951)