Das Bolt

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you my Magnum Opus: After Thoughts on the Hays Code.

Now, some readers might be temped to ask: “Wait a minute, didn’t you just add some stupid youtube clip to a post you stole word-for-word from a better blogger? ”  

Well, it’s an honest question, and I’ll try my best to give it an honest answer.  First off, did I mention it’s a clip of the Dramatic Chipmunk?

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/a1Y73sPHKxw" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Note the clip's Hammett-esque nature... we see the chipmunk’s expression, but do we know what he's thinking?

-------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so after class I thought I’d investigate more into the “Hays” or “Production Code” set by the MPAA back in 1930. Anyway, incase this interests anyone else, I’ll just post the principles and my thoughts on some of them.Principles:

1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.-I can’t help but think of the SNL skit featuring Tina Fey discussing Georgians changing the text books from “dinosaurs” to “jesus horses.”

2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.

3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

These principles are set to the “particular applications” such as vulgarity, sex, obsenity, religion, ‘dances’, and I even think “national feelings” (burning of the flag) was another.Of course, I had a lot of objections to many of the categories… but especially the very first one of “crimes against the law.” Standards were different then, I understand… but still. It’s fascinating to me how some directors got around these things… even in The Glass Key.

I. Crimes Against the Law
These shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the crime as against law and justice or to inspire others with a desire for imitation.1.

Murder

a. The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation.

b. Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail.

c. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified. (Does this sound like a commandment to anyone?)

2. Methods of Crime should not be explicitly presented.

a. Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc., should not be detailed in method.

b. Arson must subject to the same safeguards.

c. The use of firearms should be restricted to the essentials. (The essentials?!)

d. Methods of smuggling should not be presented.

3. Illegal drug traffic must never be presented.

4. The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot or for proper characterization, will not be shown.
– scenes of Jeff drunk in the bar of the Glass Key?

We didn’t have time to delve too deeply into it in class, so I wanted to write my thoughts on The Glass Key‘s ending here.  Given its open-ended nature, there are numerous plausible interpretations. Here’s what I came away with:

It seems to me that the “open door” at the end of the book is a reference to Janet’s nightmare about the snakes in the cabin.  If you recall, Janet tells Ned about a dream/nightmare she had about the two of them at a snake-filled cabin in the woods. In her initial account, she said that she and Ned were able to lure the snakes out of the cabin and take refuge in it. Ned accuses her of making it up. Janet tells him that he’s only partially right. 

Finally, at the beginning of the final section of the book, Janet tells Ned what really happened in her dream:  having shattered the glass key while unlocking the door, they were unable to keep the snakes inside and they slithered out all over them.

How does this relate to the “open door” that Ned Beaumont stares at fixedly in the last sentence of the book? Well, in betraying Madvig (who leaves the apartment a shattered man), Ned has cast off the power, influence, and protection that came with being associated with him. Ned no longer has refuge against his gambling addiction, the police, his enemies in the criminal underworld, or even Madvig himself — the snakes on the other side of the door.

It’ll be interesting to read what others thought of it.