WI: Mutual Film Corp v. Ohio recognizes film as art/The Hays Code is not established?

"Give me the bird! Give me the bird!"

"If the Hays Office would only let me, I'd give 'im the boid all right!"


The Wiki entry on Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio. And the TV Tropes page on the Hays Code.

To cut it short, in 1915 the Supreme Court of the United States had, in a landslide 9-0 decision, ruled motion pictures (live action, animation, what have you) to be a purely commercial endeavour and not art, in other words not protected by the First Amendment.

Fast forward 15 years. Scandals surroundings several big Hollywood stars and a growing public opinion that films were becoming too lewd and violent clashed together to form a movement in Congress to set up a national censorship board in America. To combat this, the major studios in Hollywood formed what became known as the Hays Code, to be enforced by the Hays Office. They would voluntarily censor their own product to show the public and the government that they didn't need censorship and could police themselves (if you have to live by rules, it's better to set them yourself). It worked, and the Hays Code dominated motion picture in America until the early-'50s, before gradually being neutered in its ability to restrict films and eventually replaced by the MPAA Film Rating System in 1968. This is often regarded as the start of 'New Hollywood', in all its filthy, tacky glory.

What if, way back in 1915, the Supreme Court had a change of heart, instead ruling 9-0 in favor of Mutual Film Corp on the premise that film was art and defended by the First Amendment? Would this stop any serious attempt to create a censorship board, and in turn Hollywoods OTL reaction to it? How would film and animations differ under a 'censorship-free' '30s, '40s and onwards?
 
Drunkrobot said:
in 1915 the Supreme Court of the United States had, in a landslide 9-0 decision, ruled motion pictures (live action, animation, what have you) to be a purely commercial endeavour and not art, in other words not protected by the First Amendment.
AIUI, what the Court said was, the business of theatre operation was not art. IDK if it directly commented on the making of film. Whether it was (is, can be) possible to separate making & exhibiting a film, IDK, but IMO there was an argument to be made the film itself was protected, but regulation on the exhibiter wasn't. So, it's possible the Hays Code could've been challenged.

Then again, with no authority to enforce it, it could simply have been ignored, too...:rolleyes:
Drunkrobot said:
What if, way back in 1915, the Supreme Court had a change of heart, instead ruling 9-0 in favor of Mutual Film Corp on the premise that film was art and defended by the First Amendment? Would this stop any serious attempt to create a censorship board, and in turn Hollywoods OTL reaction to it? How would film and animations differ under a 'censorship-free' '30s, '40s and onwards?
It's very likely films are much racier, at first, until the puritanical twits start organizing boycotts & maybe even film burnings.:eek:

If Hollywood doesn't go overboard, tho, it's possible gangster films (or crime films generally) are more realistic. Maybe there are even films dealing with actual corruption in Chicago or L.A.?:cool: (Not quite "L.A.Confidential" or "Chinatown" or "Mulholland Falls", maybe, but...)

Maybe something like "Thunder Road" or "Dirty Larry, Crazy Mary"? (Or is a "car chase" film too soon for the '30s?)

You could also get schlock like "Child Bride"...:rolleyes: Or D-grade junk not unlike what Russ Meyer made....

It seems likely you'd get a lot more actresses starting out doing nude scenes.:cool: Would it mean Ida Lupino or Marilyn or somebody would, early in her career?:cool:

(P.S. While I take your point, I'd call it a "landmark", not a landslide, even if it did go 9-0.)
 
It's very likely films are much racier, at first, until the puritanical twits start organizing boycotts & maybe even film burnings.:eek:

If Hollywood doesn't go overboard, tho, it's possible gangster films (or crime films generally) are more realistic. Maybe there are even films dealing with actual corruption in Chicago or L.A.?:cool: (Not quite "L.A.Confidential" or "Chinatown" or "Mulholland Falls", maybe, but...)

Maybe something like "Thunder Road" or "Dirty Larry, Crazy Mary"? (Or is a "car chase" film too soon for the '30s?)
I agree that we'd generally have the fun trashy films.

But occasionally we'd have films which say, of course the government lies to sell a war. And of course they fit the facts to fit the theory, what the hell do you expect?

And every so often we might have a big sprawling film on the abuses which make labor unions highly appealing, the corruption of unions, etc, etc, etc, I mean, a big grand story almost like an epic.
 
I agree that we'd generally have the fun trashy films.

But occasionally we'd have films which say, of course the government lies to sell a war. And of course they fit the facts to fit the theory, what the hell do you expect?

And every so often we might have a big sprawling film on the abuses which make labor unions highly appealing, the corruption of unions, etc, etc, etc, I mean, a big grand story almost like an epic.

I'd guess no. 'Vice' in film back in the Post-War world could be broken down into four main categories: Drugs, sex, violence, and communism (and how the forth inspires/is inspired by the former three), guess which one the government took special offence to? The OTL Hays Office wasn't enough to avoid a witch hunt for socialist saboteurs, one that famously kicked Charlie frickin' Chaplin out of America. Any potential big budget tale about the plight of the workers and the responsibilities of the state is almost certain to be labeled 'subversive' and either forcibly canned or wrapped in so much red (hehe) tape that it never sees the light of day. At least, such would IMO be the case in the '50s and early '60s, before Vietnam and Détente.
 
Drunkrobot said:
I'd guess no. 'Vice' in film back in the Post-War world could be broken down into four main categories: Drugs, sex, violence, and communism (and how the forth inspires/is inspired by the former three), guess which one the government took special offence to? The OTL Hays Office wasn't enough to avoid a witch hunt for socialist saboteurs, one that famously kicked Charlie frickin' Chaplin out of America. Any potential big budget tale about the plight of the workers and the responsibilities of the state is almost certain to be labeled 'subversive' and either forcibly canned or wrapped in so much red (hehe) tape that it never sees the light of day. At least, such would IMO be the case in the '50s and early '60s, before Vietnam and Détente.
Yeah, the "Red Scare" (& to a lesser degree "Yellow Peril") films aren't going away. They're the ones protected by the preferences of the public. The contrary ones, TTL, might just get protection from SCotUS, tho, amid the hysteria. If there's a 1915 decision protecting film as art, don't you get the opportunity to point to it & say, "It's been decided"? Or is that a futile effort when faced with loons?:rolleyes:

I'm not sure how much of that was artistic & how much was broadly social, which is to say, would a pro-Socialist (or pro-union) film even get made until the '50s? In the Depression, the value of unions wasn't unequivocal or clear; in the '40s, there was war; so it takes awhile to get to a clear view. And then the "Red Scare" tipped the balance...

There's another thing that's nagged at me in this connection: if there's no Hays Code, but regulation on movie theatres, does it lead to Paramount being decided sooner? Or to the earlier case (name of which I can't recall...:eek:) going to SCotUS? If true, it could have serious impacts on exhibiters, the number of films made, & studios...:eek::eek:
 
I'd guess no. 'Vice' in film back in the Post-War world could be broken down into four main categories: Drugs, sex, violence, and communism (and how the forth inspires/is inspired by the former three), guess which one the government took special offence to?
There's no question that in the Cold War atmosphere of the 1950s, it would be the last one. In fact, the former three would be played as fruits of communism!

And okay, this might be the time to point out, Oh, how I wish the Post-War world had turned out differently where the Eastern and Western blocs competed in terms of economic development and positive PR, rather than terms of espionage, propping up dictatorships, and arming revolutionary movements. For example, whether Britain or the Soviet Union could do a better job industrializing and creating jobs in Tanzania, that kind of thing.

And speaking of unions, I think Walter Reuther maneuvered against communist elements in the '30s and '40s. Some of this was just the luck of the draw and the way various factions worked out. Later on, most unions felt they had to purge communists.

But unions remained a big deal in American till the late '70s, early '80s? You're free to put the best date on it you can. This is my best guess. But the decline has to do with the loss of industrial jobs, not ideology. And I think unions are still 15 or 20% of the American workforce? And if enough service workers decide to go the route of unionization and give it a try, that chapter has yet to be fully written!

Alright, this is going a long way to say, yes, anything that portrayed a heroic view of unions would be damn hard to make in the 1950s. Although some people are good at flirting the line and hinting and implying, and garnering a lot of publicity for this, so not impossible, just more by implication than full frontal, which often makes for a better story anyway.
 
Last edited:
GeographyDude said:
There's no question that in the Cold War atmosphere of the 1950s, it would be the last one. In fact, the former three would be played as fruits of communism!

And okay, this might be the time to point out, Oh, how I wish the Post-War world had turned out differently where the Eastern and Western blocs competed in terms of economic development and positive PR, rather than terms of espionage, propping up dictatorships, and arming revolutionary movements. For example, whether Britain or the Soviet Union could do a better job industrializing and creating jobs in Tanzania, that kind of thing.

And speaking of unions, I think Walter Reuther maneuvered against communist elements in the '30s and '40s. Some of this was just the luck of the draw and the way various factions worked out. Later on, most unions felt they had to purge communists.

But unions remained a big deal in American till the late '70s, early '80s? You're free to put the best date on it you can. This is my best guess. But the decline has to do with the loss of industrial jobs, not ideology. And I think unions are still 15 or 20% of the American workforce? And if enough service workers decide to go the route of unionization and give it a try, that chapter has yet to be fully written!

Alright, this is going a long way to say, yes, anything that portrayed a heroic view of unions would be damn hard to make in the 1950s. Although some people are good at flirting the line and hinting and implying, and garnering a lot of publicity for this, so not impossible, just more by implication than full frontal, which often makes for a better story anyway.
Your date of '70s & %today sound about right. Which is good for you but sucks for unions.:mad:

It occurs to me a film praising union purges of "Commie agitators" (essentially portraying a "tame" union) would go over reasonably well, & could manage to sneak in support. (That said, for a lot of right-wingers, Washington & Jefferson would be considered Socialsts.:eek::confused::rolleyes:)

It also seems we've gotten away from the OP...;)

Does the posited change actually move Hollywood in any given direction? Or just provide the freedom to do more? If it turns out there are more "scandalous" movies, is there a backlash?:eek:
 
Does the posited change actually move Hollywood in any given direction? Or just provide the freedom to do more? If it turns out there are more "scandalous" movies, is there a backlash?:eek:

One effect I figure could happen would be on the 'Spaghetti Western' genre. While the Hays Code keeping homegrown Westerns 'wholesome', studios in Europe, particularly Italy, had room to explore a grittier deconstruction of the Wild West. American critics had initially laughed off the likes of A Fistful of Dollars for their low budgets, but it ended up reviving the Western in a whole new form, less 'Wayne', more 'Eastwood'. With no Hays Code, some ambitious startup could've done A Fistful of Dollars in the actual Nevada, in the '50s.
 
I doubt that any amount of First Amendment protection for films would stop the Hays Code. The fear of *private* action--boycotts by groups like the Legion of Decency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Legion_of_Decency would be enough to make Hollywood cautious.

In any event, in 1915, any protection the Supreme Court gave to films would be far from absolute. It would no doubt recognize the right of Congress and the states to ban "obscene" films, and that would be defined a lot more broadly in the 1910's, 1920's and 1930's than it was a few decades later.
 
David T said:
I doubt that any amount of First Amendment protection for films would stop the Hays Code. The fear of *private* action--boycotts by groups like the Legion of Decency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Legion_of_Decency would be enough to make Hollywood cautious.

In any event, in 1915, any protection the Supreme Court gave to films would be far from absolute. It would no doubt recognize the right of Congress and the states to ban "obscene" films, and that would be defined a lot more broadly in the 1910's, 1920's and 1930's than it was a few decades later.
That seems frighteningly possible.:eek: I wonder, tho, if that's not true in the '60s & '70s, too. That is, self-censorship to prevent outright banning without it being codified, & some directors/writers (at least sometimes) willing to "push the envelope". Which leaves studios (if they aren't broken by Paramount) able to deny the really outrageous. Even Hitch OTL couldn't get "Kaleidoscope" made; it was too far out.:eek:

So, I wonder: do we get "A" films by the big studios, "B" films by the "Poverty Row" types, & "D" or "art" films that are really risqué but don't get banned because they're never seen outside art houses or markets that would accept them? (Or maybe occasionally banned, locally but not nationwide.)

End result? A bit more schlock, a bit more skin, a small number more of really radical (& really good) films, & overall, not a big cultural influence. Except Hollywood is more liberated... Maybe this doesn't lead to the boom in European films, or to the "director as artiste" period?
Drunkrobot said:
One effect I figure could happen would be on the 'Spaghetti Western' genre. While the Hays Code keeping homegrown Westerns 'wholesome', studios in Europe, particularly Italy, had room to explore a grittier deconstruction of the Wild West. American critics had initially laughed off the likes of A Fistful of Dollars for their low budgets, but it ended up reviving the Western in a whole new form, less 'Wayne', more 'Eastwood'. With no Hays Code, some ambitious startup could've done A Fistful of Dollars in the actual Nevada, in the '50s.
That makes a lot of sense. I'd push it back, tho: this could start in the '30s with the OTL B-movie or serial directors. Shoot them in Mexico in 6 days on a shoestring with a 60-65m running time... Imagine John Wayne as "The Man with No Name".:eek: Or John Huston doing "Pale Rider" or "Silverado".

TTL, would fewer restrictions see something like Peckinpah's "Wild Bunch' in the '30s or '40s? It seems likely when (if) Peckinpah came along, if he did it, it wouldn't be nearly such a shock.

Presuming the bar on violence &/or sex is higher in the '30s & '40s (thanks to just occasional radical films), how far would filmmakers push in the '60s? The '90s? Do slasher films end up happening earlier? Do films of the '60s go from nudity to outright porn?:eek: (There were a couple in the early '70s that weren't far from softcore...)
 
Personally I'm more interested in animation than live action (the quote in the OP actually comes from a Looney Tunes short :D). It's fairly well-known that Betty Boop suffered under the Hays Code, attempts to make her 'appropriate' diminishing what helped give her charm in the first place. With competition like the Fleischer brothers surviving, animation may not get the 'kiddy' label it did by the '70s-'80s OTL, and Disney may not quite attain market domination in America.
 
If we're talking about the Hays Code not being established, I remember a Kim Newman story where the Arbuckle scandal never happens, leading to William Hays declining to led an effort for the code, and a more obscene Golden Age of Hollywood.
 
Drunkrobot said:
Personally I'm more interested in animation than live action (the quote in the OP actually comes from a Looney Tunes short :D). It's fairly well-known that Betty Boop suffered under the Hays Code, attempts to make her 'appropriate' diminishing what helped give her charm in the first place. With competition like the Fleischer brothers surviving, animation may not get the 'kiddy' label it did by the '70s-'80s OTL, and Disney may not quite attain market domination in America.
AIUI, Betty suffered from the change to color, too. (Maybe that's "Roger Rabbit", tho.:p)

Given the quality of animation, I'd expect Disney to be dominant in any case.

If there are more-viable competitors, tho, you might see a shift toward more adult-audience animation. Not "Fritz the Cat":eek: (tho I wouldn't rule it out), but more like Princess of Mars or Sinbad or War of the Worlds. It would, however, depend on there being an animation studio willing & able to do the really high-quality work. AFAIK, only Disney was doing top-grade animation, regardless of the audience, & "Fantasia", the first feature not aimed at kids (IIRC) bombed.:eek: So you've got a real challenge on your hands....
 
It would, however, depend on there being an animation studio willing & able to do the really high-quality work. AFAIK, only Disney was doing top-grade animation, regardless of the audience, & "Fantasia", the first feature not aimed at kids (IIRC) bombed.:eek: So you've got a real challenge on your hands....

Maybe not in the '40s, but Warner Bros. could do a feature aimed at older viewers, opposed to the kid-friendly ethos at Disney (since the Looney Tunes were shorts usually watched before the main feature in a cinema, said feature often not being for kids at all, you could say that they already were making cartoons for adults). However, that might need a different management, one not quite so indifferent to its animation division (apparently, Jack Warner believed his cartoon unit made Mickey Mouse. I can't imagine owning something that big and being able to not give a shit that much about it.).

Well, one of Disneys stated goals with Fantasia was to get children interested in classical music. It's a shame it flopped as much as it did.
 
Did Fantasia have a main central storyline?

For example, someone wants something badly and has a hard time getting it, etc., etc., etc.

(and if you want the arc of character growth, what the main character wants can change slightly and subtly during the course of the story, or perhaps even more than slightly)
 
Drunkrobot said:
Maybe not in the '40s, but Warner Bros. could do a feature aimed at older viewers, opposed to the kid-friendly ethos at Disney (since the Looney Tunes were shorts usually watched before the main feature in a cinema, said feature often not being for kids at all, you could say that they already were making cartoons for adults). However, that might need a different management, one not quite so indifferent to its animation division (apparently, Jack Warner believed his cartoon unit made Mickey Mouse. I can't imagine owning something that big and being able to not give a shit that much about it.).
I'm not seeing Warners as doing it, somehow. Surely not with studio management so clueless.:eek::confused:
Drunkrobot said:
Well, one of Disneys stated goals with Fantasia was to get children interested in classical music. It's a shame it flopped as much as it did.
Yeah, maybe that was the problem: it was still, in its way, aimed at kids. IMO, even a film aimed at adults with that goal was asking a lot.:rolleyes: (CBC-TV couldn't get ratings broadcasting it despite being the only game in town...:eek::rolleyes:)
Did Fantasia have a main central storyline?

For example, someone wants something badly and has a hard time getting it, etc., etc., etc.

(and if you want the arc of character growth, what the main character wants can change slightly and subtly during the course of the story, or perhaps even more than slightly)
IIRC, it didn't: all vignettes. (That said, it's been an awfully long time...& I can't swear I ever saw the whole film.:eek:)

Had it been more "Sinbad" or "WotW", with a story, just animated...

I'm asking myself what made a great animation director, & did a feature length project require a different talent? Who in comics or comic strips might have been able to produce a story suitable? (The objectives & stylistic approach are alike.) Alex Raymond? Chester Gould? Could a desperate animation studio, perhaps Fleischer, have decided to take a risk on a "Dick Tracy" or "Phantom" (or "Superman" or "Batman", tho these would be more likely aimed at kids) animated feature? Much the same as Timely did with FF: "What have we got to lose, we're damn near broke anyhow?" And have it turn out a real success. Again, not quite "Fritz the Cat", but "mature audiences only", "sensitive viewers be advised" stuff: an animated "Watchmen", in effect.

Or maybe there's a version of "Fraidy Cat"? Proposed for Disney, it was to have chronicled the life of a frightened cat who had already lost three of his nine lives trapped in a Hitchcock-esque plot.
 
Last edited:
Top