INTRODUCTION
The landmark piece of legislation, titled “The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930”, but more commonly known by its pseudonym “The Hays Code” after its pioneer Will H. Hays, begins thus:
If motion pictures present stories that will affect lives for the better, they can become the most powerful forces for the improvement of mankind
Almost a century later and this basic force has been contorted into a honey-laced serrated dagger that has been slipped, and continues to be pushed, deeper into our minds every day by the leviathans of modern-day Hollywood; entities who long ago shook off the shackles of morality and decency as they bent the knee to liberalism and the nafs [base desires] of the masses.
The Muslim response has been non-existent, with little to no serious or systematic efforts that reach general audiences and are able to push back on this tsunami of sludge that threatens to drown us and is drowning the next generation as we speak.
One of the reasons for this comes down to long-standing fear of the fiqhi (legal) minefields that surround this topic. These traps are numerous, and the danger of slipping into them is ever present. It’s a serious issue that is standing in the way of progress, a dark cloud that follows all who choose to enter this field around, always ready to drag us down with nagging thoughts and worries. And we are quite justified to be afraid, as the story of this Code illustrates.
It goes without saying that I’m no faqi (jurist) and I will absolutely not rule things halal or haram in this piece. What I want to do instead is to introduce a framework for serious discussions on this topic by analysing The Hays Code and seeing where we can borrow and adapt from it, to insha’Allah maybe create something of benefit to aspiring visionaries. Let’s start.
A Brief history
The “The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930” was a set of industry guidelines for the self-censorship of content that was applied to most motion pictures released by major Hollywood studios in the US from 1934 to 1968. Its popular name came from Will H. Hays, the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA). Under his leadership, the code was adopted and enforced from 1934. It spelt out a list of acceptable and unacceptable content for motion pictures produced for general audiences in the US.
Its origins lie in a series of scandals that rocked Hollywood after the so-called Roaring Twenties, a period of cinema characterised by films beginning to include racy, adult content on screen and stories of drugs, alcohol, partying, and overindulgence off-screen. These scandals, that included the alleged rape and murder of a Virginia Rappe by a prominent movie star, Roscoe Arbuckle, and the murder of William Desmond Taylor, caused widespread condemnation from the religious (mainly catholic), civic and political organisations. Many felt that Hollywood was morally questionable, and there was enormous political pressure to clean up. Once the Great Depression hit at the tail end of the ’20s, people had less money to spend to see films, and so studios tried to lure people in with more salaciousness, sex, violence, drinking and glamorous violence (E.g., Scarface)
It was into this ultra-liberal and morally bankrupt black hole that the Hays Code was conceived. Faced with legislators in 37 states pushing legislation for film censorship, the industry itself chose self-censorship. The reason for this was because of the possibility that all the different states would come up with their own codes and so distributors would have to make multiple versions of the same film, so self-Censorship was deemed the easiest option. The actual code of standards was created by a Jesuit priest, Father Daniel A. Lord, and a Catholic layman Martin Quigley, and submitted to the studios by them. Several studio heads met with the pair, and after some revisions, agreed to the code’s stipulations, whereupon it was enforced until its eventual abandonment in 1968.
The code died a slow death. At the beginning, the enforcers of the code had the power to force studios to edit films before release, as illustrated by the famous first instance of this power being used where nude scenes were removed from the master version of the 1934 film Tarzan and His Mate. Likewise, famed director Alfred Hitchcock’s Rebecca had to have its plot changed from the novel it was based on, as the main character getting away with murder at the end was a flagrant violation. In another famous case, the male lead of 1942s Casablanca was forced to nobly renounce his adulterous love to the female lead at the end of the film, in one of its most famous scenes.
But very quickly films began to mock and flout the rules either through loopholes, as in the case of 12-year-old child actresses nude scene in 1938s The Child Bride, or open defiance, as in 1943s The Outlaw which was refused approval due to the film’s advertising displaying the female leads body in a highly explicit manner, but was later released to the general public after the censors were persuaded it didn’t beak the rules. The financial success of these films weakened the code’s power, and they gradually grew more explicit.
In the 50s, American cinema was hit by competition from post-war Europe, whose films were not bound by the code. These films featured much more sexual content, including content challenging traditional gender roles and the inclusion of homosexual behaviour. These films were readily devoured by audiences, having not seen content like this since the 20s. American films that followed suit by adopting salacious themes became smash hits, such as Billy Wilders Some Like It Hot (1959). The case of The Pawnbroker (1964) signalled the death of the code. Its approval, despite it containing explicit nudity, was announced as a “special and unique case” and was the first film with such nudity to be given Production Code approval. But it was viewed as a victory for the film’s producers, who had pushed for an unedited version to be released.
These events, combined with a prevailing liberal attitude in the postwar years, led to the creation of the modern content rating system we know today (PG, PG-13. R, etc) and the final abandonment of the code
ANALYSIS
The era of the Hays Code offers us a remarkable insight into the psychology of cinema and the troubles of enforcing morality on the masses.
I would like to take some time to highlight some noteworthy (and some obvious) points:
- Sin is attractive, and its inclusion increases sales. The Prophet SAWS told us that Hell is surrounded by temptations, and this is shown clearly. Sexually explicit depictions are especially alluring, and it requires intense effort on the part of writers, directors, actors, and studio executives to not cave to the base desires of the people.
- Heavy handed enforcing of strict rules will always fail. People’s initial reaction to commands is to disobey, and the tighter you clamp down, the more loopholes and flagrant violations will occur. It requires time and a light-handed approach with love to change the audience’s mind, and people need to be spiritually level and moderate to enter this field.
- The slippery slope is real. When fighting the devil, to give into popular demand is to invite disaster; he will drag you to Hell one step at a time.
- Religious influence is the only thing that can stand in the way of moral degradation. But it doesn’t need to be explicit. Some mocked the rules as catholic preaching stamping down on a free art form, yet the universal values of family, integrity, good character, and “doing the right thing” still power many of the blockbusters we see today (E.g. Star Wars, Spider-Man, Avatar 2)
- The modern situation is dire. Read any article about the Hays Code and you will encounter descriptions of an archaic, repressive, backward set of rules that crushed Hollywood’s creativity, and it was only after liberation from these oppressive regulations that the true values of freedom and feminism and LGBT could finally be told. This somehow ignores the fact that the so-called “Golden Age of Hollywood” overlapped with this time period (1927-1969) and created masterpieces such as Orson Welles Citizen Kane (1941), regarded as one of the best of all time. In fact, a director from the time said the code “had a very good effect because it made us think… we had to be clever. And it usually turned out much better than if we had done it straight.”
The code
I didnt want to bloat this article by pasting in the full Hays Code, so I will link to a PDF that you can click to download here
ANALYSIS
First of all, it needs to be noted right away that Part II (Sex) subsections 5 and 6 are totally rejected by Islam and Muslims. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, and The Prophet SAWS said that no Arab is better than a Non-Arab and no Non-Arab better than an Arab except through their closeness to God.
Now let’s look at the rules of the Code. I’ll give a small summary to save space, and include notes:
General Principles:
- Films should not lower the moral standards of viewers
- The correct life should be promoted
- Natural/Human law should not be ridiculed
These principles seem worthy, except 3 which we should change to “Allah’s law should not be ridiculed”.
Particular Applications:
- Â Crimes against [Allah’s] law shouldn’t be presented as sympathising crime over the law
   a. Murder, Revenge, Brutal Killings, Theft, Arson, Smuggling, Drug Trafficking,
        Alcohol
It’s obvious that a large proportion of the drama and excitement of films comes from these acts, however the point, and I think it’s justifiable to a certain degree, is that they should always be cast in a negative light and never celebrated or glorified. This means that villains should be defeated by the forces of good, or else taste the evil of their actions. Also, excessive brutality should not be shown, and
instead, only hinted it.  However, a point could be made that Allah may allow a transgressor to wander free in this life, to await worse punishment in the next, so as long as this is indicated, this rule wouldn’t need to be stringently applied. - Sex
a. Sanctity of Marriage should be upheld
b. Adultery or fornication should not be shown as acceptable or the norm
c. No explicit depictions of the act
d. Not introduced when not essential to the plot
e. Avoid excessive or lustful kissing
f. Seduction or Rape
       i. Never more than suggested and only if essential
      ii. Not a subject for comedy
     iii. Perversions of any kind are forbidden
      iv. Sexual hygiene is not a subject to be shown
       v. Actual childbirth shouldn’t be shown
      vi. Children must be protected from nude scenesThis is one of the biggest causes of blatant filth in modern cinema, and simultaneously one of the thorniest yet easiest issues for Muslim Filmmakers. All of us can agree that exposing of the Awrah for both men and women, as defined in the Sharia, is totally forbidden. Likewise, interactions between unrelated actors cannot include physical contact such as kissing, and even touching hands is discouraged. Obviously, sex scenes are not to be considered.
Dress guidelines are addressed later in the code, so for now we’ll talk about sex/romance in terms of the plot. The trouble for Muslim storytellers, especially those addressing the wayward youth, is that these stories are often the most relatable. Everyone can name a romantic comedy or a heart-throb subplot. Even we can’t escape the Ertugrul-Halima-Gokce love triangles of our own so-called “Islamic” cinema. I don’t know where the line is drawn on what romantic plots can be allowed, but on a solid basis, if presented, marriage should be the only end and the end that the characters pursue, illicit relations should be rejected or not considered, and under no circumstances can there be any displays of egregious sexual content. The other parts of the rules all seem valid enough.
- Includes 4 and 5. Generally vulgar/obscene/profanity-laden speech. Vulgarity is defined as disgusting but not evil subjects. Obscenity is gestures/jokes/suggestions. Profanity is curse-words. All should be avoided.
Valid rules. There is a nasty trend nowadays where foul-mouth characters swear for absolutely no reason like it’s normal vocabulary in situations and scenes that do not even warrant it, and this definitely plays a part in the foul speech of people today. Should be avoided.
- Included in 3
- Included in 3
- Costume
a. Complete nudity is never permitted. Includes silhouette or any lecherous/licentious behaviour of character
b. Undressing scenes are avoided and not used save where essential
c. Indecent exposure is forbidden
d. Dancing or costumes intended to permit undue exposure or indecent movements are forbiddenNudity guidelines as above. This section almost entirely concerns women, so let’s address that for a second. There are some on the more conservative side who would forbid women from appearing in films at all.
There is a case to be made for this, as the male gaze is for sure the more unrestrained of the two, and it may be safer to protect our women’s modesty full stop rather than risk things happening if they were on-screen. However, a counterargument for this is that, especially in the modern day, young girls are in need of feminine role models more than ever before as they’re brainwashed by their feminist family, friends and society. The praiseworthy traits of motherhood, haya, and respect for their male mahrams has been all but lost and if the only place they may see these positive traits is in relatable, well-written, engaging female characters on-screen, then this should be seriously taken into account.
Now assuming that women are present on screen, the next contentious issue is their appearance. The shari’ definition of awrah can easily be worked with on-screen (following the opinion that the face isn’t included), but the real thorn is the Hijab. Its obligatory status is generally accepted, but if this were to translate on screen, the types of stories written would have to be restricted to an unworkable degree. For example, even if we wanted to make a film about a sister accepting Islam, she would have to be wearing a Hijab the whole time, which makes no sense.
One solution I can see is the use of wigs, which cover up the actress’s real hair and which could then be stylised with hats etc to cover more. In terms of clothes, almost all cases requiring tight/skimpy clothing would be against guidelines anyway, so loose clothing should suffice insha’Allah
- Dancing
a. Anything with indecent exposure, passions, or movements are forbiddenDancing generally speaking, I’m not sure about. These rules above are obviously valid, however could someone classify the spear show the Abyssinians did in the Masjid that The Prophet SAWS and Aishah RA watched as a type of dance? Not sure. With rules such as no mixing, no touching between genders, no revealing outfits, then maybe?
- Religion
a. Religion or religious clergy cannot be ridiculed or shown as villains
b. Ceremonies of other faiths should be respectfully handledThis one is interesting. B I would tend to agree as a default ruling, but A may not. The Prophet SAWS said to not insult other peoples’ gods so that they do not insult Allah out of ignorance. Perhaps I would modify it to say Islam specifically cannot be ridiculed or shown as villainous, or if it is that the villains repent or else are shown to leave Islam, and it’s best to avoid referencing other modern-day religions, and if mocking an outlandish religion like sun-worship, to keep it intellectual and high class.
- Locations
a. The treatment of bedrooms must be governed by good taste & delicacyÂ
I think this applied in spirit not in letter, as nowadays the bedroom can be used for loads of things, it doesn’t really have a sexual allure about it. But those connotations should be avoided, and obviously more heavily connected locations, such as bars, casinos, brothels, etc should be avoided.
- National Feelings
a. Flags & histories/customs of peoples of different nations should be respectedÂ
Again, rather in spirit than in letter. This rule prevented films that mocked Nazi Germany from being made, so as a rule of thumb it should apply, but exceptions should be made where applicable.
- Titles
a. Indecent/Obscene Titles shouldn’t be usedSelf-Explanatory, and no issues, although if an insult is earned, there shouldn’t be a problem as long as it doesn’t descend to cursing.
- Repellent Subjects
a. Encompasses all manner of gore, violence, cruelty, promiscuity, gruesomeness
b. They should be carefully limitedThe subject matter may need to be addressed, such as in historical stories, but the point is to not go overboard and descend to the level of gratuitousness.
Notes
Music:
The biggest omission of the code is that of music. The writers of the code saw no issue with it, but it is probably the biggest issue for us. I won’t declare a decision, but I want to mention a few things.
Firstly, it is a fact that sound is half of a film, and its score has as much, if not more, power than the visuals in order to influence an audience’s emotions and even receptivity to different ideas. No-one can come and say that a version of Interstellar‘s docking sequence without Hans Zimmer’s No Time For Caution playing over it is the same, and has the same effect, as a version with it.
Secondly, the recent fad of “Vocals Only” soundtracks from Muslim Artists in response to this issue is, in my opinion, problematic to say the least. Even putting aside the electronic manipulation used that is pretty much the same as that used in actual pop music, if you just listen to them, it’s pretty obvious that if it sounds like music then it probably is.
My only thought is that perhaps film score can be classified differently to pop, as no-one goes and listens to a film score by itself, and it is effectively a part of the film and not a separate entity. The harms of illicit lyrics, indecent exposure, dancing, bad company, drinking, etc that accompany pop are non-existent, especially if the film it’s in is pushing positive values.
Content Maturity:
Notwithstanding these guidelines, it’s also important to make a distinction between kid’s movies and adult movies. The distinction does not lie with the raciness or graphicness of the content, as we would obviously not allow nudity even in an “adults” film, but with the maturity of themes and ideas presented in the story or events. For example, a faithful retelling of the Sack of Baghdad by the Mongol Raiders would require a maturity level much different to that needed for a light-hearted action-adventure as the themes are not suitable for children. The content rating may not be that dissimilar between kids and adult films, but the context is and calls for a different mode of filmmaking for a different audience.
Application of The Code:
The biggest reason for the code’s downfall was its application. A centralised office had full control over all films and would approve or disprove of films by matching them to the letter of the rules and then rubber-stamping them. For example, the line about not portraying other countries institutions in a negative light prevented a number of anti-Nazi films being produced. This method of rigid application of rules needs to be avoided; reasonable exceptions should be allowed to be made when necessary, provided that they do not breach any major tenants of Islam of course.
Wider Considerations:
Films are not made in a vacuum. They are released to the general public, and in doing so often build entire sub-cultures around actors and other crew members through advertising and social media. Muslim Filmmakers need to be aware of this and realise that even if a particular actress is covered up for the duration of the film, her social media may not be. This mismatch between a character exemplifying good on-screen and an actress showing the opposite in her personal life can be devastatingly confusing for a young girl trying to do the right thing. A lot of care needs to be taken when making these public decisions, and our goals can backfire if we’re not careful when making
them.
The Code:
Any Muslim code applied at a high level should not be made public. Its existence should be a secret so that no chance is given for attack by the media and legislators.
Conclusion
On page three of the code, under the section “Reasons Supporting the Preamble of the Code”, the authors write the following (emphasis not mine):
Theatrical motion pictures… are primarily to be regarded as ENTERTAINMENT
Mankind has always recognised the importance of entertainment and its value in rebuilding the bodies and souls of human beings
But it has always recognised that entertainment can be a character either HELPFUL or HARMFUL to the human race, and in consequence clearly distinguishes between… entertainment which tends to improve the race… [and]… entertainment which tends to degrade human beings.
Hence the MORAL IMPORTANCE of entertainment is something which has been universally recognized. It enters intimately into the lives of men and women and affects them closely; it occupies their minds and affections during leisure hours; and ultimately touches the whole of their lives. A man may be judged by his standard of entertainment as easily as by the standard of his work.
So correct entertainment raises the whole standard of a nation.
Wrong entertainment lowers the whole living conditions and moral ideals of a race.
My intention for this piece is not to provide a definitive set of rules for all Muslim Filmmakers to follow the world over. I have no authority to do as such. However, my hope is that this is picked up by someone of more knowledge and expertise than I and is modified, edited, and improved upon so that we can feel secure in moving one step closer to challenging the titans, reclaiming our stories, and then, with Allahs help redirecting them to a population sorely in need of light in all this darkness.
May Allah aid you and me to the right path.
Ameen