Editing National Legion of Decency (section)

=== Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA)===
After several risqué films and a series of notorious off-screen scandals involving Hollywood stars, political pressure was increasing, with legislators in 37 states introducing almost one hundred movie censorship bills in 1921. Faced with the prospect of having to comply with hundreds, and potentially thousands, of inconsistent and easily changed decency laws to show their movies, the studios chose self-regulation as the preferable option. In 1922, the [[Motion Picture Association|Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA)]] was formed. [[Will H. Hays]] was named the association's first president.<ref name=Leff>{{cite book |title=The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code |last1=Leff |first1=Leonard J. |last2=Simmons |first2=Jerold L. |year=2001 |publisher=University Press of Kentucky |isbn=0813190118 }}</ref> The goal of the organization was to rehabilitate the image of the movie industry in the wake of the [[Roscoe Arbuckle|Arbuckle]] scandal and amid growing calls by primarily Protestant groups for federal censorship of the movies.<ref name=walk>[https://walkoffame.com/will-h-hays/ "Will H. Hays", Hollywood Walk of Fame, Hollywood Chamber of Commerce]</ref> "Hiring Hays to “clean up the pictures” was, at least in part, a public relations ploy, and much was made of his conservative credentials, including his roles as a Presbyterian deacon and past chairman of the Republican Party."<ref name=walk/>

In 1924, Hays instituted "The Formula", a loose set of guidelines for filmmakers, to get the movie industry to self-regulate the issues that the censorship boards had been created to address. "The Formula" requested that studios send synopses of films being considered to the MPPDA for review.<ref>Prince, Stephen (2003). ''Classical Film Violence: Designing and Regulating Brutality in Hollywood Cinema, 1930–1968''. Rutgers University Press, p. 20 {{ISBN| 0-8135-3281-7}}</ref> This effort largely failed, however, as studios were under no obligation to send their scripts to Hays's office, nor to follow his recommendations.

In 1927, Hays oversaw the creation of a code of "Don'ts and Be Carefuls" for the industry. This list outlined the issues that movies could encounter in different localities. Again, despite Hays' efforts, studios largely ignored the "Don'ts and Be Carefuls," and by the end of 1929, the MPPDA received only about 20 percent of Hollywood scripts before production,<ref name=Leff/> and the number of regional and local censorship boards continued to increase. However, a number of the items listed would become part of the later Code.<ref name="Hollywood">[https://books.google.com/books?id=4OBepfVJOeEC&pg=PA301 Lewis, Jon. ''Hollywood V. Hard Core: How the Struggle Over Censorship Created the Modern Film Industry''. NYU Press, 2002 pp. 301–302] {{ISBN|9780814751435}}</ref>

====The Production Code====
[[Martin J. Quigley]] was publisher of ''Exhibitors Herald-World'' (a trade magazine for independent exhibitors). [[Daniel A. Lord]] was a Jesuit priest who had served as one of the technical consultants on [[Cecil B. DeMille]]'s 1927 ''[[The King of Kings (1927 film)|The King of Kings]]''.<ref name=endres>[https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/554/faith-focus/dan-lord-hollywood-priest Endres, David J., "Dan Lord, Hollywood Priest", ''America'', December 12, 2005]</ref> Quigley drafted Lord to write a code for motion pictures. With the blessing of [[George Mundelein|Cardinal George W. Mundelein]] of Chicago, Father Lord authored the code, which later became known as "The [[Production Code]]", "The Code", and "The Hays Code". It was presented to Will Hays in 1930 and privately circulated by the MPPDA.<ref>[https://mppda.flinders.edu.au/people/496 "Martin Quigley", MPPDA Digital Archives]</ref>

The studio heads were less than enthusiastic but after some revisions, agreed to make The Code the rule of the industry, albeit with many loopholes that allowed studio producers to override the Hays Office's application of it. One main reason in adopting the Code was to avoid direct government intervention.<ref>Prince (2003), p. 21.</ref> Tasked with enforcing the code was the Studio Relations Committee, which very soon was overwhelmed by the number of films to view. The committee had a small staff and not much influence. Without the power to compel the editing of content deemed problematic, it was left with attempting to persuade the studios to make changes. From 1930 to 1934, the Production Code was only slightly effective in fighting back calls for federal censorship. The SRC was considered generally ineffective.<ref>Doherty, Thomas Patrick. ''Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema 1930-1934''. New York: Columbia University Press 1999. {{ISBN|0-231-11094-4}}, page 8</ref> Lord considered the code a failure.