Boxoffice Pro - February 2020

NOT SO FAST!
Fairbanks cautioned about new tech.
questions about the social responsibility of films.
The National Recovery Administration in Washington proposed a 10 percent
tax on admissions in 1932, prompting a surge of local tax legislation. This was the
beginning of a long battle against government interference in the film industry.
According to owner/editor Ben Shlyen, in 1935 there were more than 140 bills in one
(unnamed) state alone that targeted the movie business.
Boxoffice Pro was at the forefront of the fight against that taxation. Its
contributors thought that government regulation and heavy taxation were the
product of exaggerated reports of box office revenues. In an article dated February 23,
1935, Shlyen called the tax legislation a “discriminatory nuisance.” The magazine led
letter-writing drives, inviting exhibitors to press their representatives to fight taxation
bills. Just as taxation issues were making headlines, so were concerns about local
minimum wage bills, child labor laws, and other economic measures that were seen as
potentially harmful for exhibition.
At the same time, there was ongoing discussion among writers, exhibitors, studio
executives, religious groups, and women’s clubs about the impact of films on society.
One of the issues was the question of realism. The popular successes of The Grapes
of Wrath, The Plow That Broke the Plains, and other “Dust Bowl Pictures” proved
that movies were not resilient only because of their escapism value but also for
depicting the reality of the Depression. But were these pictures going too far? Was it
“propaganda with a message” as producer Jimmy Roosevelt—Franklin D. Roosevelt’s
son—thought of The Grapes of Wrath?
No other regulation captured these debates better than the Motion Picture Code
(1930–66), also called the Hays Code, which established a set of voluntary guidelines
for producers. The Hays Code, named after its creator Will H. Hays, president of the
Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (now the MPAA), was enacted
in March 1930 and effectively introduced censorship. With its series of “Don’ts” and
“Be Carefuls,” producers were called upon to obey “moral standards,” not ridicule
the law, and avoid vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, and sex. Self-censorship and state
censorship boards became the norm.
However, there were acts of resistance. Howard Hughes fought hard to stop the
censorship of Scarface, accusing his censors of “ulterior and political motives” (May 5,
1932). While Hughes ultimately succeeded, it was harder for other movies. There was
a lot of buzz in our pages concerning the educational film Birth of a Baby, which, in
the end, censors deemed only suitable for specialized medical audiences.
In an April 8, 1930 editorial, written right after the adoption of the Code, Shlyen
applauded the maturity of the industry, especially because he saw the proliferation of films
with sex and violence as a threat. He wrote, “When an industry sets out to clean its own
house it is a virtue that deserves to be applauded. When it sets rules for itself to follow and
follows them, it merits lauding to the skies.” In 1934, the Code had “its teeth sharpened,”
“MILITANT LABOR UNIONS”
Frank Capra was SDG president.
THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW
Executives weighed in at Boxoffice.
FEBRUARY 2020 / 71