“Art is neither moral nor immoral; it’s just art.” How often have I heard some variation on this idea since beginning my journey of researching and writing about the Motion Picture Production Code! It’s basically the belief that art, whether it’s a painting, a play, or a film, is amoral. People have long used it against people of faith who have tried to place restrictions on entertainment, saying that they are pushing the agenda of their religion.
This accusation is especially persistent regarding the aforementioned Production Code because of its strong ties to the Catholic Church. Commonly called the Hays Code, this list of guidelines about acceptable film content was written in 1930. It officially governed Hollywood’s onscreen morality from 1934, when the Production Code Administration (PCA) was formed, to 1968, when it was replaced by the modern Rating System. For the first 20 years, the PCA held the film industry to the Code’s high standards because of strong leadership. Sadly, the next 14 years saw a steady decline in Code-enforcement because of poor leadership at the PCA.
Immoral, Amoral, Unmoral, Nonmoral
To determine whether films are a moral issue or not, we must define the words used to define morality. The Third Edition of “The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary,” published in 1969, defines the difference between “immoral,” “amoral,” “unmoral,” and “nonmoral:” “‘Immoral,’ ‘amoral,’ ‘unmoral,’ and ‘nonmoral’ agree in meaning not moral. The immoral person violates moral principles knowingly; he is consciously wicked, dissolute, evil, etc. The amoral person lacks the sense of right and wrong, and thus may violate morality without evil intent. Unmoral and nonmoral mean not within the realm of morality; a baby is unmoral, meteorology is a nonmoral study.”
According to these definitions, films are unmoral in and of themselves because they are inanimate objects. A film, like any work of art, has no sense of morality and thus can neither be immoral nor amoral. However, no work of art can rightly be called nonmoral. Unlike meteorology, art stems directly from the human imagination, so it is a reflection of his mind and soul. It is usually intended for entertainment, education, inspiration, and pleasure of others. Stories present people and their actions, either real or fictional, and they are intended to evoke thoughts and feelings in their viewers. While the film itself may not be immoral, the images and incidents it includes may be immoral and may produce immoral reactions.
A Christian Background
The Motion Picture Production Code was written by Martin J. Quigley and Father Daniel A. Lord. Quigley was the publisher of motion picture trade paper publications, based out of Chicago, who dedicated a lot of his time outside of the office to his Catholic faith. He had gone to religious seminary as a young man before deciding to serve God as a married layman with a family instead of as a priest. His life’s work was primarily secular, but his strong sense of Christian morality is evident in the articles he penned for his papers. As early as 1915, he frustratedly wrote about the folly of the censorship he was seeing on the silent films of the day. He repeatedly insisted that this artistic butchering could be avoided if films were made according to a standard of decency in the first place.
Martin Quigley didn’t act upon this idea until 1929, when Chicago Catholics were in an uproar over the scandalous early talkie “The Trial of Mary Dugan.” Amidst the shouting for boycotts and the demand for censorship, Quigley presented a rational, practical solution to the problem: a Code to govern the making of films. The idea was enthusiastically received by the group of moral-minded Catholic businessmen, clergy, and social activist laymen. They agreed he should write the document, and he was assigned Father Daniel Lord as his writing partner. Father Lord was a priest from St. Louis, Missouri, who had served as a religious consultant on Cecil B. DeMille’s “King of Kings” (1927). The result was the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930.
A Religious Consideration
Why is it called the Hays Code instead of the Quigley-Lord Code? When Will H. Hays presented the Code to Hollywood and eventually the moviegoing public, he introduced it as his own work. As a politician, he thought it would be better received if it were written by a Presbyterian like himself than a group of fervent Catholics. At that time, many Americans felt that the ancient structure of the Catholic Church was a medieval relic which was incongruent with the democratic society of the United States. He wanted the document to be accepted as a set of rational moral principles which all reasonable, decent people would accept.
You don’t have to be Catholic to appreciate and agree with the content rules presented in the Code. You don’t even have to be a Christian. Anyone who values traditional values should appreciate the Code.
Since the Code and film censorship have fallen out of favor, Christians of all denominations have wondered whether entertainment falls under the jurisdiction of a religious issue. I think the answer is perfectly presented by Philippians 4:8, King James Version of the Bible:
“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
