It is from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “The Rainy Day” that the oft over-used phrase “into each life some rain must fall” appears. It is also the poem from which the title this blog post is taken. And that title — chosen on a day when a storm yet again makes its way up the East Coast of the U.S. — reflects a weariness that, while not necessarily found in the wind, is being felt by many this year when rain seemed to spoil every summer weekend, and is definitely dampening these early days of Fall.
There is no doubt that humans — like all life on the planet — depend on rain. But for our ancestors, the benefit may have been more than abundant crops or clean drinking water. Archaeologists now believe wet spells in the Sahara may have literally opened pathways for early human migration. Water-dependent trees and shrubs grew in the Sahara 120,000 years ago, suggesting that changes in climate helped early humans make their way out of Africa.
Most if not all ancient civilizations had rain gods. Rome had Jupiter Pluvius, and the Aztecs reputedly sacrificed their young to the rain god Tlaloc. And Egypt had Tefnut, goddess of rain, water and moisture (the result of parthenogenesis involving male bodily fluids outside of the womb, she’s kind of got all fluids covered).
Ancient Greeks, on the other hand, attributed weather changes and natural phenomena to observable actions of the gods — not so much the nature of the gods themselves. Lightning, for example, was a way for Zeus to show his rage — similar to Thor in Norse mythology banging his hammer. Both brought with them winds and rains when they were angry.
Still, whether it came from anger or divine benevolence, rain didn’t seem to make any among the ancients — for lack of better terms —sad. Not a mention from Aristotle. Nothing, apparently, from the Dark Ages, either, as I suppose they had more things to worry about than rain.
By the end of the Middle Ages, however, we begin to get rain as a metaphor for melancholy. In the early sixteenth century, rain becomes tied to a well-known song of longing in “Westron Wynde (https://interestingliterature NULL.com/2016/12/08/a-short-analysis-of-the-medieval-poem-westron-wynde/).”
At the dawn of the seventeenth century, Shakespeare’s “Feste’s Song from Twelfth Night (https://interestingliterature NULL.com/2018/10/07/a-short-analysis-of-festes-song-from-twelfth-night-the-rain-it-raineth-every-day/)” — with its refrain of “it raineth every day” — seems to echo the sentiment expressed centuries later by Longfellow: the aforementioned “into every life… blah blah blah.”
Still, the Renaissance man was not above taking the rain as literal portent of doom and gloom. Not long before Shakespeare wrote Twelfth Night, King James VI of Scotland believed witches had summoned storms that kept his bride, Anna of Denmark, from reaching Scottish shores. And in 1621, Robert Burton comes along with his Anatomy of Melancholy, finding a tie between mood and the weather in the forms of devils that can manipulate the weather to bring angst to troubled souls susceptible to thoughts of sadness.
To this day, we blame much on storms. And for good reason. A study (https://crashstats NULL.nhtsa NULL.dot NULL.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812139) based on data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2013 (Chapter 2, Table 26) showed that most weather-related crashes happen on wet pavement and when it rains (more so than fog or snow). And there are mountains of studies linking rain to changes in mood. According to one study (https://www NULL.researchgate NULL.net/publication/51572735_Come_Rain_or_Come_Shine_Individual_Differences_in_How_Weather_Affects_Mood), nearly nine percent of people fall into a “rain haters” category. They feel less happy on days with more precipitation. Another study (https://journals NULL.plos NULL.org/plosone/article?id=10 NULL.1371/journal NULL.pone NULL.0090315) found that rain even increased the number of negative social media posts.
As for blog posts, I’m sure there are many “confessional” entries devoted to feeling down on rainy days — just as there are countless songs (yes, The Carpenters come to mind). That’s not why I started this rumination. It’s just been a tremendously rainy couple of months. I don’t blame it on some whim of the divine. I’m not striving to force a metaphor, either.
The early years of talking motion pictures were not the glory days of wholesome family values. To the contrary, films of the “Golden Age” of Hollywood showed as much skin, violence, and all-around debauchery as your average gangsta rap video. Oh, and there were plenty of gangsters, too. And prostitutes. And murderers. Even a doctor who thought he was God.
In the period often referred to as “pre-code” Hollywood, a good motto for filmmakers would have been “Anything Goes (https://www NULL.youtube NULL.com/watch?v=Wd1w5tn040g)” — a Cole Porter song of the period. Indeed, for an actress like Ginger Rogers, “a glimpse of stocking” was really, nothing shocking in the 1930s, and — as early the 1920s, when “damn” was common in the intertitles of silent movies — writers did “use four-letter words.” Released in 1934, “Anything Goes” was an extremely successful musical, and the song, popular at parties. But the party for Hollywood would soon be over, as 1934 was also the year that enforcement of the restrictive Hays Code (https://en NULL.wikipedia NULL.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code) began.
Former Postmaster General Will Hays — for whom the code is named — started his crusade in 1922, during the age of silent films. Themes were quite adult in the age of the silent film. A world war and criminal element that came with Prohibition had hardened hearts to scenes of violence; and the roaring twenties brought with them a sexual promiscuity that had never before been seen in American society. But scandals like the arrest and trial of Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle on manslaughter charges enraged moralists; Arbuckle was aquited, but not before the newspapers of the day sullied his reputation and put all of Hollywood on trial. Social reformers, the clergy, and much of middle America began to blame Hollywood for societal ills. Bolstered by religious and civic leaders aghast at the content of (now) talkies, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) began to take notice. And Hays became its president.
In agreement that some restrictions be put in place, the film industry met with Hays’s office; the result was the introduction of his “Formula” in 1924. It asked that filmmakers to provide plots of films be provided to his office before production began. His efforts were somewhat futile at the beginning, but public sentiment forced the hands of studio heads just a few years later.
In 1927, the studios came together again to establish a list of thirty-six self-imposed “Don’ts” and “Be Carefuls.” These included everything from “licentious or suggestive nudity” to “ridicule of the clergy.” But there were no penalties or enforcement. Other crusaders like Martin Quigley (editor of the Motion Picture Herald) and a Catholic priest named Daniel Lord tried to impose their own codes in 1929. Of course, the Great Depression was more of a concern for most folks, and Hollywood saw itself as producing needed escape from the drudgery of daily life. For a few short months, no code would be enforced. But that all changed in 1930. In February of that year, several studio heads — including Irving Thalberg of MGM — met with Lord and Quigley. After some revisions, they agreed to the stipulations of a revised code. One of the main motivating factors in adopting this code was to avoid direct government intervention. So on March 31, 1930, the MPPDA agreed it would abide by the revisions.
Still, Hays had no real power.
In 1931, The Hollywood Reporter mocked the code, quoting an anonymous screenwriter who said “the Hays moral code is not even a joke… it’s just a memory.” For at least a few years, then, Hollywood’s little secret was that, pretty much, anything goes.
But by June 13, 1934, an amendment to the code established the Production Code Administration (PCA) which required all films released on or after July 1 of that year to obtain a certificate of approval before being shown.
Among the more infamous films made before June, 1934, the following five stand out as perhaps the most controversial.
SAFE IN HELL (1931)
Billed as a comedy, SAFE IN HELL tells the story of a New Orleans prostitute named Gilda (Dorothy Mackail, whose photo is seen in the marquee area of this post). Early on, she accused of murdering Val, the man who led her into prostitution. To help her evade the authorities, old boyfriend, Carl, helps smuggle her to safety on a Caribbean island. They are to marry, but he must leave on business, promising to return. Meanwhile, a Mr. Bruno — the island’s self-described jailer and executioner — makes advances on Gilda, as do many of the criminals on the island; Bruno even intercepts money and letters from the boyfriend in an effort to crush her spirits.
Soon, the audience learns that Val is not dead. Gilda is terrified, and given a gun by Bruno to protect herself. It comes in handy when Val tries to rape her. She kills him and then is put on trial for murder. A sympathetic jury is about to acquit her when Bruno threatens, regardless of verdict, to arrest her for possessing the murder weapon (it makes little sense, I know, but remember, Bruno pretty much controls the island). The sentence would have Gilda at his mercy, with the implication that she would have to perform sexual favors. Defying Bruno, Gilda returns to the judge and gives a false confession of killing Val. Presumably, she is so embarassed and humiliated byt the situation (and the movie itself), that she prefers execution. The film ends with Gilda being taken to the gallows.
Criticized in the press for being implausible, sordid — even depressing — the film did not receive many good reviews. Tonally, it is quite dark. Rape of the main character is a repeated threat throughout, and the ending is quite a downer. How anyone could have ever promoted it as a comedy is beyond me.
The plot of Universal’s FRANKENSTEIN is (or at least should be) well known. Sure, there’s the monster (innocently?) drowning a little girl (a scene cut from the original release in many states, including NY, MA, and PA) and the unease of costumed Karloff in a young woman’s boudoir, but it is when Colin Clive’s monster comes alive that the public was shocked — and not just by Jack Pierce’s brilliant makeup. Instead, it is Clive’s cry of “now I know what it’s like to be God,” that was scandalous.
The aforementioned states of New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania removed the line altogether from the film. The state of Kansas removed even more. FRANKENSTEIN was banned outright in several foreign countries — all of which makes one wonder which was worse to the audiences of the 1930s: a little girl’s murder, or a man who got a little too excited when he resurrected the dead.
RED-HEADED WOMAN (1932)
Seduction. Blackmail. Attempted murder. RED-HEADED WOMAN finds Jean Harlow (known, actually, for being blonde) as Lilian “Lil” Andrews, a woman from Ohio with little prospects who is determined to improve her station in life — even if it means destroying relationships along the way.
First, she breaks up her wealthy boss Bill’s marriage. The affair leads to her marriage to Bill. which Lil then uses as a stepping stone to be accepted in high society. But when the scandal doesn’t fit well with the high society types, Lil moves on and bedding Charles, a coal tycoon. When said tycoon throws a lavish party for her, Lil is humiliated by still not being accepted by the high society crowd (they apparently have really high standards). She then moves to New York, where she has yet another affair — this time with a French chauffeur named Albert. Bill has followed her, and after hiring a private detective, now has proof of his wife’s affairs. He confronts Charles with the evidence.
When Lil learns that Charles has become aware of her latest affair, she returns to Bill — only he has reconciled with his ex-wife. Filled with rage, Lil shoots him. Bill survives, but out of feelings for her, refuses to press charges. He does, however, divorce her.
Years pass, and Bill eventually sees Lil again, this time at a racetrack in Paris. in the company of an old Frenchman (the implication being that, yes, she has moved on to her next affair). The movie ends with Lil and her elderly companion getting into a limousine driven by Albert, who apparently is either not bothered by the new arrangement, or is maybe part of a threesome (ok, maybe I was the only one thinking that).
In its review, The Motion Picture Herald wrote: “Sexy, racy, bristling with snappy dialogue, funny, Red-Headed Woman is loaded with dynamite that can be dynamic entertainment, or an explosion of objections unless you handle it properly…” The film was a success, and oddly enough created a popular anti-hero out of Lil as an independent woman and female libertine. So confident in her skin, she spends much of the film in various states of undress. But it was the suggestion that a loose woman could succeed by acting so badly (pun intended) that rubbed some audience members the wrong way.
THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE (1933)
A film that created a commotion before filming even began, THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE was based on a highly controversial novel (Sanctuary) by William Faulkner.
In the film adaptation, the titular character, a young woman from a prominent Mississippi family, is raped and forced into prostitution by a bootlegger named Trigger. Trigger, a sort of backwoods gangster, is such a bad guy that he not only rapes Temple, but murders a young boy who tries to protect her. When another man is charged with the murder, Temple tries to leave Trigger, but he threatens her with bodily harm. She grabs his gun, and shoots Trigger dead.
After returning to her family, Temple is persuaded by a kindly lawyer to tell the truth about the first murder in front of a jury in order to save the defendant’s life. But Temple is ashamed of the rape and her time as a prostitute. She perjures herself in court, resulting in the execution of an innocent man.
Modern film critics and theorists have spent some time over the years debating if Temple’s actions are to be seen as the tragic result of being victimized, or the evolution in sin for a woman who enjoyed being a gangster’s moll but was ashamed of her own decisions. Certainly, the promotional materials of the time did not know how to “sell” the film. She is referred to as “the dramatic victim of her own desire” in an ad from the Beatrice Daily Sun in August 1933. Made to be the archetypal bad girl, she is given little sympathy and made to appear as if she brought the tragic events of her life on herself. The novel on which the film is based blurs such lines even further. But with rape and murder essential to their respective plots, it is easy to see how filmgoers and fans of the Hays Code would question if there were any clearly defined lines of morality at all?
GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 (1933)
Busby Berkeley’s lavish production numbers in GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 left little of the female form to the imagination. Costumes were deemed too skimpy, and dance routines, lewd. Ginger Rogers, dressed in little more than glittering coins shows off her, um, assets during her (quite literal) solo: “We’re in the Money.”
Based on a play that ran between 1919 and 1920, as well as a silent film in 1923 then a successful talkie in 1929, GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 was one of the highest grossing pictures in the year of its release. A fun-filled spectacle, it was light entertainment for an audience dealing with the Great Depression. In fact, many references to the Great Depression are made in the film, raising the ritz and glitz of the picture above the stark, depressing realities of everyday living. So how could this kind of entertainment raised the ire of those who wanted to institute a code of conduct for filmmakers?
Easy. The suggestion of easy women, to be precise.
The plot is pretty simple. Trying to find work in an industry out of step with everyday societal woes, four showgirls compete for roles in a new Broadway revue. When the show becomes a success, the girls find themselves accused of being gold diggers by the high society crowd. One girl, Carol (played by former vaudeville actress Joan Blondell), is outright labeled “cheap and vulgar.”
It all ends happily with three of the four girls married. But not before four major lavish musical numbers involving women in various stages of undress.
Some states heavily censored the racy “Pettin’ in the Park” routine where girls get soaked in the rain and have to change clothes behind sheer screens. Later, dozens of women lay about in the grass, getting groped by their suitors. A 9-year-old Billy Barty — who would later go on to television fame as the dwarf in Spike Jones’ ensemble — almost loses his ball up a woman’s skirt. It’s a little bizarre. And while it may seem innocent by today’s standards, the voyeurism and sexual innuendo were in definite violation of the code.
A year after the film’s release, the Code went into effect. More innocent musicals and light-hearted comedies would become popular. Much of sexuality and violence was implied, and truly adult themes were kept to the shadows.
Thus, the age of Pre-Code Hollywood came to a close. Films of the late thirties and nineteen forties were relatively tame. Moralists were happy that few couples shared beds, bad guys always got what was coming to them (often, off-screen), and bad girls? They were few and far between.
But, as it always does, culture shifts. A second world war would shake things up. Film noir, with its femme fatales, reintroduced the truly bad guy, and the sultry bad girl — like Ava Gardner in The Killers (1946). Post-war cinema laid the groundwork for the more mature offerings of the 1950s and 60s. A new wave of European cinema along with competition from a medium built for more wholesome entertainment — television — meant the Hollywood would once again openly challenge social mores. In all practicality, the return of sex, violence, and other adult themes to movies may have been motivated by the need to simply compete with TV and get butts back in the seats.
Otto Preminger alone would push boundaries with three of his films in the nineteen fifties: The Moon is Blue (1953) — with its adult themes of sexuality; The Man with the Golden Arm (1955) — openly about drug abuse; and Anatomy of a Murder (1959) — which dealt with rape and, as the title makes clear, murder. But it is with The Moon is Blue that Preminger came up against the Hays Code. From 1934 to 1954, Joseph Breen was the administrator appointed by Hays to enforce the code. The Breen office told Preminger that his screenplay violated the code for its open “treatment of illicit sex and seduction.” Preminger made changes. Breen’s office still objected, and Preminger went ahead and made the movie anyway.
Come the 1960s, more films challenged the code: Psycho (1960) — with its violence; The Pawnbroker (1964) — with nudity in, of all places, a concentration camp; and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) — full of what was deemed at the time to be foul language. Woolf? had the distinction of being the first to bear the “Suggested for Mature Audiences” label. The fact that it also won several Academy Awards (http://www NULL.tcm NULL.com/tcmdb/title/95743/Who-s-Afraid-of-Virginia-Woolf-/awards NULL.html) meant that, by 1966, filmmakers were becoming aware that audiences were ready for a change.
The Hays office would none too coincidentally close the year that Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? was released, and the MPAA film rating system we know today went into effect soon thereafter,