Most folks with even a cursory knowledge of American film history knows about the Hayes Code. In brief: the Hayes Code was implemented by the film industry in the early 1930s primarily to avoid government censorship and to attempt to rehabilitate the film industry image after a series of scandals. The guidelines were (nota bene) prohibitions; it was a list of things that should be avoided for a film to be exhibited.

Most film-goers roll our eyes now at how ridiculous the proscriptions seem to us now. The general rule was no profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic or realistic violence, sexual persuasions rape. More specifically, the code forbade:

1. Pointed profanity—by either title or lip—this includes the words God, Lord, Jesus, Christ (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd, and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled;
2. Any licentious or suggestive nudity—in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;
3. The illegal traffic in drugs;
4. Any inference of sex perversion;
5. White slavery;
6. Miscegenation;
7. Sex hygiene and venereal diseases
8. Scenes of actual childbirth—in fact or in silhouette;
9. Children’s sex organs;
10. Ridicule of the clergy;
11. Willful offense to any nation, race or creed;

First instituted (by not seriously applied) in 1930, it was finally enforced in 1934 after a series of films and events, including the original Scarface, Baby Face, Freaks, and the films of the irrepressible Mae West. (This interim is known as the pre-Code era, and its film are fascinating. But that’s another story….). Film scholars are of varying opinions about its effects; some decry the limitations it imposed, while others have applauded the creative work that the restrictions forced upon the filmmakers.

We now have a new set of rules, however, for the awards race starting next year. These are limited to films wanting to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. But these are not prohibitions; they are demands, and they stealthily threaten the creative process as much as the Hayes Code did.

There have always been rules regarding eligibility for various Academy nominations. To be considered for a nomination, films that are not in the shorts category must be at least 40 minutes or more, and must show in a “commercial motion picture theater” at least a week in some major cities. Nothing new or unusual here.

But now, there is a new form to be filled out if you want Best Picture nomination consideration. It’s called the “Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry” form, and the Academy’s new attempts at social engineering rival, if not completely surpass, the Hayes Code. There are four standards listed by the Academy, and a film must meet two of them to be considered for Best Picture. The curious can read more specifically about these standards at https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards

But here are some of the must-haves that a producer can choose from :

• One of the lead actors or “significant supporting actors” is from an underrepresented rated racial or ethnic group.
• At least 30% of actors not submitted for Oscar nominations must be from at least two underrepresented groups (specifically, women, a racial or ethnic group, LGBTQ+, and people with cognitive disabilities, or who are dear or hard of hearing).
• Main storyline or theme is about one of these groups mentioned above.

Other standards are that at least two of the creative leadership and project team members (e.g., casting director, cinematographer, composer, costume designer, etc.) must be from the underrepresented groups.

Other standards include the paid apprentices/interns and those in training or crew development, and those involved in development, marketing, publicity and distribution.

For those wondering what/who constitutes the underrepresented groups, here is what the Academy lists:

• African American / Black / African and/or Caribbean descent
• East Asian (including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian)
• Hispanic or Latina/e/o/x
• Indigenous Peoples (including Native American / Alaskan Native)
• Middle Eastern / North African
• Pacific Islander
• South Asian (including Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Indian, Nepali, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan)
• Southeast Asian (including Burmese, Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong, Indonesian, Laotian, Malaysian, Mien, Singaporean, Thai, and Vietnamese)

The stated goals of the Hayes Code were purported to promote traditional values and respect for the law and morality, with the hopes that the government wouldn’t come in to censor. Right needed to be seen as right, wrong as wrong, and there was no “getting away” with the breaking of the law, etc. (Again, the effects of the Code and its eventual lifting in the late 1960s, is another story.)

The new goals are ostensibly to address the Academy’s historical lack of diversity, for which the industry, and of course the entire country, is guilty. The history of the Academy in this area is deplorable, but has been representative of big business and society’s historical weaknesses. That’s an explanation, not an excuse. Officially, the rules “are designed to encourage equitable representation on and off the screen in order to better reflect the diversity of the movie-going audience.”

So much for goals of audience satisfaction, good art, artistic freedom, or successful business.

Best Actor Oscar winner Richard Dreyfuss (The Goodbye Girl, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind) has not always been the most sensitive of commentators, but I tend to agree with his opinion here: “[Film is] an art. No one should be telling me as an artist that I have to give in to the latest, most current idea of what morality is. What are we risking? Are we really risking hurting people’s feelings? You can’t legislate that,” Dreyfuss said . “You have to let life be life. I’m sorry, I don’t think there is a minority or majority in the country that has to be catered to like that.”

An unnamed (because they are intelligent and want to keep working) director said the following: “It’s completely ridiculous. I’m for diversity, but to make you cast certain types of people if you want to get nominated? That makes the whole process contrived. The person who is right for the part should get the part. Why should you be limited in your choices? But it’s the world we’re in. This is crazy.”

There are so many reasons find oneself on the spectrum of suspicious to appalled. How does one enforce this? How does one define “equitable” or “underrepresented”? How does one determine proper group representation of an individual artist? How does this affect casting, or the hiring of  qualified technical personnel? It’s been stated that The Godfather and Schindler’s List may well have not qualified for a Best Picture nomination (an award they each won) if they’d had to abide by those restrictions. Without going into specifics (because I am intelligent and don’t want to deal with the blowback), we’ve already seen the shoehorning in of the underrepresented in scenes that do not flow at all with the films that they are ostensibly “a part of”. The whole set-up would be ripe for an SNL skit if they had the nerve.

We are now in a new age of cinematic tokenism. In contrast to the Academy’s stated goals, this new approach may well end up making a mockery of its stated goals and of those it purports to include. Instead of Hays Code fear that often led to confusing motivations and identities (e.g. It Happened One Night, The Letter, A Streetcar Named Desire, The Bad Seed), we are risking substituting the enforced inclusion of actors and craftspeople that may not be the best qualified, and the forced inclusion of situations and side plots that are only there to reach for a chance at Oscar glory.

It’s not the goal of inclusion and representation that I have an issue with. Sometimes the best intentions end up saddling us with mechanisms that damage us in the long run. I applaud the progress the Academy (and even the Hollywood Foreign Press!) has made in the last few years. Many changes are long overdue.

What I object to with these new demands is the new ham-fisted (or should I say “iron-handed”) approach. Just as the Hays Code ended up being seen as the outmoded and limiting factor it was, so the new rules should be seen in the same light. It’s just that they are more dangerous than the Hayes Code in its ironically draconian approach to a legitimate issue that could have/should have been addressed in any other number of ways. Unlike the Hayes Code, let’s hope that it doesn’t take 30+ years to for this set of rules to disintegrate.