The Hays Code - General Discussion Discussion

[–] FredBurroughs (22283) 6 months ago

No, not necessarily. Great art can still survive institutionalized constraints. Here's a famous poster that's designed to violate every facet of the Hays Code:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thou_Shalt_Not_-_Whitey_Schafer_-_1940.jpg

Would you care to reformulate your premise into something less binary?

reply

[–] RoboReCop (3379) 6 months ago

Wow, that poster is one of the coolest things I've ever seen ('Thou Shalt Not').

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

No, I would not.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78561) 6 months ago

Obviously not.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

A logical fallacy if ever I've seen one! You have to explain, you can't just beg the question.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78561) 6 months ago

I made it all rather clear.
Perhaps reading comprehension is not a skill you have mastered or maybe you are trolling..?

I’m often here so explain yourself.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

If you can't put together a coherent thought beyond a dismissive logical fallacy, refrain from commenting on the intelligence of others. You're not in a position to cast such judgments.

I'll allow you the last word and considered this exchange concluded.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78561) 6 months ago

Cool, goodbye.
You seem like a total jerk off.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

Yes.

I know it's controversial to say among movie fans but artists need restrictions to overcome.

Unfettered artistry ends up like a lot of post modern art we see today with things being mistaken for trash or a banana being taped to a canvas.

Restrictions do create opportunities for purpose.

Plus, we had amazing movies released during the Hayes Code.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Most people would want way more from media content than the movies between 1930s and 1960s.

The Hays Code effectively banned profanity, banned nudity or suggestions of it, banned depictions of drugs or crime related to it, banned "sex perversion" (read: homosexuality depictions, or just any kind of sexual liberalisation), banned interracial marriages or relationships, banned depictions of childbirth, banned blasphemy "ridicule of the clergy" and being offensive.

If you think censorship is great, and helps art, then why the fuck didn't the USSR manage much more soft power during its time.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

Actually, they did, but most was produced by those who escaped. Don't forget the protection of Icons fostered by the Communist attempt to eradicate religion.

BTW, after the hayes code we got all of that and it created some good movies and a lot of bad movies
Now, due to very few restrictions, most movies are pretty bad because the creators have nothing to really say.

I reccommed an art history class or two if you have ti.e. you'll be surprised how awesome art can be under restrictions. To just assume it's censorship and evil is to really miss out on human ingenuity.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>Actually, they did, but most was produced by those who escaped. Don't forget the protection of Icons fostered by the Communist attempt to eradicate religion.

Yes, the USSR made content. Almost no-one watched it though. The USA and the west utterly crushed the USSR in global cultural and media influence. Why is this if censorship assists artistic quality?

>Now, due to very few restrictions, most movies are pretty bad because the creators have nothing to really say.

How many movies do you watch? And movies are declining in quality (arguably) for many reasons. The rise of TV is a huge reason for a start. It's way more complicated than hardly any state censorship.

And you want to return to the days where "blasphemy" and interracial relationships were banned from being depicted on film and TV?

>I reccommed an art history class or two if you have ti.e. you'll be surprised how awesome art can be under restrictions. To just assume it's censorship and evil is to really miss out on human ingenuity.

Again: The USSR made movies, imposed heavy censorship and the USA dominated them in terms of cultural global influence.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

And you want to return to the days where "blasphemy" and interracial relationships were banned from being depicted on film and TV?

Never said that. Just showing a comparison.

You're looking for examples in the USSR. Look at defector's art and writing and you'll get my point.

The US crushed Soviet art... and much was created during the hayes code. It's hilarious because people assume censorship evil yadda yadda. In reality, its temporary and leads to innovation that takes it away. We're seeing that now with the modern DEI codes causing failure is film appreciation.

We are under censorship even though we say otherwise.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>Never said that. Just showing a comparison.

Which is what the Hays Code had as "don'ts".

Are there any "don'ts" you support in the Hays Code?

>You're looking for examples in the USSR. Look at defector's art and writing and you'll get my point.

I'm not sure what the relevance of defectors from the USSR are. They're not in the USSR and not subject to its censorship.

>The US crushed Soviet art... and much was created during the hayes code.

And most wasn't. The US continued to crush the USSR after the Hayes code was abandoned.

>It's hilarious because people assume censorship evil yadda yadda. In reality, its temporary and leads to innovation that takes it away. We're seeing that now with the modern DEI codes causing failure is film appreciation.

And what innovation did it take away?

And you haven't answered me as to how many movies you've watched, nor commented on the rise of TV (and I think it's pretty obvious that TV (including streamers here) is way beyond the TV quality of the 50s and 60s).

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

Actually, the TV of the 50's and 60's is pretty awesome. Most people who say it pales in comparison failed to even see it. Give it a watch.

I think rape, incest, and most violence is unnecessary in film.

Defectors are important as that's how the art survived. Don't disrespect those you support.

You don't like the Hayes code. Point taken. But to deny artistry during that time a d the creative ways they got the ideas across is just a sign of ignorance.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>Actually, the TV of the 50's and 60's is pretty awesome. Most people who say it pales in comparison failed to even see it. Give it a watch.

In what way? Can I ask how up-to-date you are on modern TV? Most TV shows in the 50s and 60s were generic family sitcoms and westerns.

>I think rape, incest, and most violence is unnecessary in film.

In most non-violent settings, sure. But a lot of TV series and films are much more gritty and darker than they were in the 1950s and 60s.

>Defectors are important as that's how the art survived. Don't disrespect those you support.

Yes, but a USSR defector is not bound by the rigid censorship rules of the USSR. The actual media content made in the USSR had such limited global impact.

>You don't like the Hayes code. Point taken. But to deny artistry during that time a d the creative ways they got the ideas across is just a sign of ignorance.

I didn't say there wasn't creativity then. I said that the Hayes code didn't help it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

I didn't say there wasn't creativity then. I said that the Hayes code didn't help it.-

This is where we disagree. I say it did as it created better editing, use of suggestion, and subtext as it had to happen.

Modern TV is still just as crappy as it was then only we get more violence and nudity on screen. The storytelling is still similar. You just didn't pay attention to the old stuff because you probably thought it was all hokey sitcoms.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>Modern TV is still just as crappy as it was then only we get more violence and nudity on screen. The storytelling is still similar. You just didn't pay attention to the old stuff because you probably thought it was all hokey sitcoms.

What modern TV have you actually watched?

I think TV shows like Dark, Mr. Robot, Black Sails, The Leftovers, Westworld (s01 at least), Succession, Severance, The Expanse, Shogun are leaps and bounds beyond the 50s and 60s. Nothing like those shows really existed then.

There's creativity in evading sensors, to be sure - but it's a narrow context. I think people who can impressively evade censors can do better to not have to think about them in the first place with their art.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

After reading your list of shows, I can assure you that we have very different taste.

I turned each of those shows off due to their modern troupes and characters.

The 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's were leaps and bounds better than those moder pieces of soap opera claprtap.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>The 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's were leaps and bounds better than those moder pieces of soap opera claprtap.

Why? What makes those shows I listed bad?

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

1. Political correctness is wrought in them
2. It uses cliffhangers like soap operas and the serials of the 50's and 60's.
3. The only thing they have that separate them is nudity and violence.

It's still the same story tropes, just with lazy writing trying to be edgy.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

1. Examples please.

2. You think any use of a cliffhanger in anything is automatically bad?

3. Really? Name me a TV series like any of them (sans the nudity and violence) in the 1950s and 60s.

>It's still the same story tropes, just with lazy writing trying to be edgy.

Be specific please. "Bad" or "lazy writing" is such an ineffectual unfalsifiable complaint when applied to any media.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

No. They suck. You Don need examples because you wouldn't agree either.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

So you personally, despite hardly watching any of these shows by your own admission, are the objective authority on their quality?

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

Yep.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

So you're basically a complete narcissist who thinks they cannot be wrong about anything, or that maybe their opinions can be rooted in preference rather than any kind of objectivity.

reply

[–] Melton (5571) 6 months ago

Just a heads up BuckleBilly. If you’re caught noticing the obvious wokification of modern entertainment the Skavau-bot gets activated and goes on a gaslighting mission to convince you there’s-nothing-to-see-here.

His basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks include relentlessly asking stupid questions to make you run around finding evidence to prove the patently obvious until you get exhausted, and constant straw-manning of your position.

Just in case you were in danger of taking him seriously.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

I don't. Once you see they're a fan of westworld and Mr. Robot, you know they don't actually think about the story.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

I'll await your actual measured coherent criticism of Westworld and Mr. Robot. Or is the entire world wrong and you, personally, right?

And you'll note, specifically, that I referenced only the first season of Westworld.

reply

[–] Melton (5571) 6 months ago

Totally. If Skavau ever appears I recommend you ignore his little interrogations and just kick him around for your own amusement.

Here, let me show you. Skavau, say some typical obnoxious, tedious shit…

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

By "kick him around" you mean just hurl cut and paste comments you've made time and time again, ignore any points I've made, or any points the person I'm arguing with might have made (incase you find yourself accidently agreeing with a self-admitted fascist, as you did) and throw out childish insults and accusations in the idea that this apparently makes you look good and me look bad.

reply

[–] Melton (5571) 6 months ago

Reeeeee!!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

That's a new response from you, but as usual completely lacking in any actual content or points.

reply

[–] Melton (5571) 6 months ago

🤣

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

It's funny when you two go at it. Far more entertaining than your TV shows.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

You genuinely have the emotional maturity of a child if you actually find that type of content entertaining.

reply

[–] Melton (5571) 6 months ago

🍆

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

Sure. You two are funny because you're both so similar. Same coin, different sides.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Not really. I actually make a point of directly trying to address points than just making blanket statements and demonising anyone who tries to scrutinise them. Indeed, that is the specific part that him and some others on here take specific umbrage with. There are also a lot of other behavioural differences.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

Lol. Sure

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Yes. It's what I am lampooned for on here by some.

How far exactly did you get into Westworld and Mr. Robot? And why do you think both of those shows, at least Westworld S01 have such strong critic AND audience reputations?

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

Actually, what 60's and 50's shows did you watch and I want specifics rather than sweeping comments poo pooing them.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

I haven't watched any really. All I said was that the vast majority of 50s and 60s TV shows were family sitcoms, westerns and cop shows. These are shows I am simply not interested in, to put it bluntly. If someone really likes classic westerns then I can understand them preferring the 1950s and 60s.

I am however much more into speculative fiction: sci-fi, fantasy. Dystopian content: dictatorships, post-apocalyptic settings etc. These types of shows simply could not really exist in the 50s and 60s due to lack of money, technology or interest.

It is all subjective, to be sure - but I think its quite hard to argue that TV was more diverse than it is now.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

Lol. So you Don't know what your talking about. Thanks for the confirmation. You are Melton #2

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Am I wrong in my assessment of the content primarily made in the 1950s and 60s for TV?

Was it not all mostly westerns, cop shows and domestic sitcoms?

Can you really, honestly claim that the types of shows made then are just like the types of show made now?

----

Can you name me any shows like Mr. Robot or The Expanse or Warrior made in the 50s and 60s?

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

Yep, you're wrong and you need to watch a little classic TV. Ni, I won't give you any more on your crap shows. You wouldn't accept it.
Skavy, you jumped in with assumptions and sweeping statements. You accused others of doing just as you did.

That's why I've been laughing at you. I won't justify my opinion any more with you.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>Yep, you're wrong and you need to watch a little classic TV.

Name me some dystopian, post-apocalyptic, political sci-fi tv shows from that period. You have genuinely entered the realms of fantasy if you're honestly claiming that the average type of TV serial made in the 50s and 60s was similar to the average type now.

They were fundamentally different in themes, genres, style, pacing, length. In almost every single way.

>I won't give you any more on your crap shows. You wouldn't accept it.

And can I laugh at you for calling modern TV shows crap without any elaboration beyond vague subjective generalities?

reply

[–] Melton (5571) 6 months ago

Another person you singularly failed to gaslight, and who now knows you to be a complete twat.

Your winning personality and linguistic prowess are working wonders 🤣

Now write some egomaniacal twaddle to cope with your utter humiliation…

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Almost all of your posts in the last 24 hours have been about me. Rent free.

You are genuinely obsessed and need to see a shrink. I don't even mean that for effect. I think you're in a deeply unhealthy mindset.

>Now write some egomaniacal twaddle to cope with your utter humiliation…

What makes this egomaniacal? You are genuinely obsessed with me. That's the public record. You follow me around on the forum and reply not to me (although you do sometimes) but to anyone I'm responding to.

reply

[–] Melton (5571) 6 months ago

What makes this egomaniacal? You are genuinely obsessed with me.

🤣

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Do you honestly think that's a reach?

reply

[–] Melton (5571) 6 months ago

What a crock of shit! 🤣

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

The irony of this response is that it is in itself, completely content-free. And you are literally on record for complaining repeatedly about me questioning people, to try to get to the nub of what they think and why they think it. Or trying to bait them into really revealing what they think.

reply

[–] Melton (5571) 6 months ago

😃👍🏻

reply

[–] Melton (5571) 6 months ago

Imagine Skavau at a party 🤣

A markless shitstain would have more personality.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

I see your rate of replies about me has increased. Are you now going to spend hours and hours of your time just following me around and trying to goad me?

Like, you think it's healthy for someone on an internet forum to live in your head rent free?

Also I'm not really sure that someone who cries about "muh woke" when talking about any form of media is exactly what someone might call the life of any party to be honest. I imagine your preferred style of party would be prior to the sexual revolution of the 60s. Very prudish.

reply

[–] Melton (5571) 6 months ago

👏🏻🤣

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>Just a heads up BuckleBilly. If you’re caught noticing the obvious wokification of modern entertainment the Skavau-bot gets activated

At no point in this discussion was "wokification" even referenced. It's about the Hayes Code from the 1950s.

>His basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks include relentlessly asking stupid questions to make you run around finding evidence to prove the patently obvious until you get exhausted, and constant straw-manning of your position.

"Stupid questions" that as usual, you won't be able to name.

And I won't take seriously the complaints about me from a man who now devotes his entire life, his reason for existing to follow me around on a forum spreading misinformation about me. And someone who apparently thinks that depicting poor immigrants as anything other than criminals is inherently propaganda.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) 6 months ago

Defectors are important as that's how the art survived

Despite censorship, Soviet cinema -- and that of the entire Eastern bloc, actually -- was far more artistic than studio system Hollywood was ever permitted to be. Soviet cinema permitted and encouraged auteurism. Hollywood was, for the most part, a fairly bland, assembly-line popular entertainment factory. It was difficult for anyone with a personal vision to thrive in that environment. Plus ça change.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

And yet as the restrictions came off, we saw more than just Hollywood in the USA involved in the creation of content in the USA and west. And other forms of media content to such as TV and music.

Also to be fair, since we're talking about the Hayes Code era - there still was a lot of censorship in the USA film industry during this time.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) 6 months ago

Well, as I said in a previous post, when the studio system (and its concomitant production code) broke down, Hollywood entered its most artistically creative period.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

I'd also argue that contemporary examples are more relevant.

Contrast the global soft power of Japan and South Korea as compared to China.

China pumps out a lot of media. But it commands much less global attention relatively speaking than Korea or Japan.

reply

[–] jk90us (8243) 6 months ago

So you’re defending censorship?

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

Nope. I'm defending creativity in the midst of censorship.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) 6 months ago

No. I think creativity can sometimes thrive despite censorship, not because of it. (See also the Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak new wave).

Also, Hollywood was clearly more creatively interesting in that period between the studio system and the production code breaking down and the introduction of the blockbuster model in the 1980s.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

Some predictable replies here.

reply

[–] parkerbot (10724) 6 months ago

Personally I don't need to see it - a director who can show me someone getting killed or boning without actually showing, is far more creative in my book.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

But equally very visceral, dark settings would require more than that in some cases.

The Hayes code effectively bans all adult romance, erotic or sexual themed shows and films. Severely kneecaps all gangster films. Makes zombie films and post-apocalyptic/dystopian content that naturally has dark content and settings impossible. Makes it hard to produce content critical of the USA. Bans any and all interracial relationships.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

I agree. I find it weird that people still have the knee-jerk reaction that somehow not allowing explicit violence or sex on the screen is some kind of crime against humanity. I grew up thinking the code was silly, but I don't think getting rid of it necessarily improved movies (and, in fairness, there are some movies, such as Clockwork Orange, that might not be the same without the lack of supervision the code provided, but then we are forced to ask--what would a director like Kubrick do if he had to imply all the things Clockwork Orange deals with).

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>I agree. I find it weird that people still have the knee-jerk reaction that somehow not allowing explicit violence or sex on the screen is some kind of crime against humanity.

What are you on about? It's a visceral reaction against the prospect of state censorship. No-one is saying a production may not choose of their own volition to not include sex or violence. That's up to them, and depending on what they're trying to do, the audience they want, it makes a lot of sense.

> I grew up thinking the code was silly, but I don't think getting rid of it necessarily improved movies (and, in fairness, there are some movies, such as Clockwork Orange, that might not be the same without the lack of supervision the code provided, but then we are forced to ask--what would a director like Kubrick do if he had to imply all the things Clockwork Orange deals with).

This code also included bans on "blasphemy" and interracial marriages. You all for that too?

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13184) 6 months ago

I once did the thread on the MODERN Hays Code here. :)

reply