Monica Sandler
Aug 25, 2017 · 3 min read

You have misrepresented some elements this history and of Breen’s career that I hope I can help clarify and give you a couple of sources to look at. I’m a doctoral candidate at UCLA who has written on activities inside of the Advertising Advisory Council, a smaller department inside the MPPDA. Here are a few bullet points to consider:

  • First and foremost a discussion of creativity and expression during this era is mute. At this time, Hollywood moviemaking was not covered by the first amendment. In 1915 the court case Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio declared that “the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit” (quote from the case: 236 U.S. 23) and thus was not a medium for free expression. While I heavily disagree with this view, it was not overturned until 1952 and so when we analyze content produced and Hollywood’s later self-censorship it must be understood within this context.
  • The crackdown in Hollywood on content occurred as a choice from Hollywood, which you do address. However, the MPPDA formed in the early twenties after a series a massive scale scandals; they are mostly a PR organization and censorship was a PR move. By the late 20s, when lists of dos-and-don’ts were first put out by the org, films were in fact being censored across America and that was effecting box office revenue for most studios. The code was a guide to help executives not get their film’s banned. (See more: Raymond Moley, The Hays Office)
  • Hollywood did not take a financial dive in the early thirties because of some constructed Breen controversy, it took a dive because it was the Great Depression and their were many many many factors that lead to the situation. Also, just to make it clear, Breen did not write the code, he enforced it.
  • While many MPPDA employees maintained strict moral compasses, their job was to serve the industry. Other employees also had been know to denounce Hollywood — they were there because they had perspective on the complaints of protesting groups. Breen’s Catholicism put him in a position to talk to many of the faith based groups railing against movies. Even with his religious views, he also understood the industry’s perspective on content and economic focus; thus he was an amazing mediator. Also, prior to heading the PCA he was one of the most hardworking employees across anywhere in Hollywood. I presented on some of the MPPDA’s work before 1934 at an academic conference last year; I’ve spent months sifting through the org’s archival documents: the man was working on everything, the go-to guy around the office, and it’s incredibly impressive. Breen did not originate the idea of the PCA (that was from a much larger consensus of people, in particular that guy William Hays who like ran the MPPDA) but rather he was placed in charge because of his proven work ethic and great success as a mediator with both Hollywood and Hollywood’s protesters. (Take a look at Thomas Doherty’s Hollywood’s Censor: Joseph I. Breen and the Production Code Administration for information about what the head of the PCA actually did and about the productive and significant work Breen accomplished.)

I cannot write all of Breen’s career out in a small comments section — but he is much more complex than he seems. Yes, there were huge elements of sexism and racism within the PCA’s regulations. You actually could not show pregnancy in any capacity on screen — some of these rules emerged from Breen, some of them came from elsewhere. Leah Jacob’s book The Wage’s of Sin excellently describes issues of gender and censorship — and gets into the history of the MPPDA’s content crackdown. It’s an excellent read that I highly recommend. Hope this was helpful.

)

    Monica Sandler

    Written by