The other day, I was talking to a friend about the MPAA, those loathsome morality police who took a good idea (parental notification of adult movie content) and corrupted it to become a puritanical cabal that dictates what we get to see in the theater.But let's leave that rant for another day.
Talking about the MPAA, I was reminded of the Comics Code Authority, a nongovernmental group that was chartered in 1954 to excise any trace of adult content from comic books.
I remembered three things about the Comics Code Authority:
1. They were created in reaction to "Tales from the Crypt" types of comics that reveled in the grotesque and salacious.
2. Their stamp was on every comic I bought as a kid, at least until the 1990s, when their power waned with the introduction of independent comic shops.
3. Their morality was strict, eliminating all references to sex and gore.
But after our MPAA chat, I decided to read up on what was actually in the Comics Code. And as you will see below, what I found was a nightmare document of such reactionary zeal, it made Joseph McCarthy seem kinda lukewarm about communists.
Let's read a few highlights from the original code!
On the portrayal of crime:
• Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.
• Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.
• In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.
(No wonder comics always seemed so predictable!)
• The crime of kidnapping shall never be portrayed in any detail, nor shall any profit accrue to the abductor or kidnapper. The criminal or the kidnapper must be punished in every case.
(Wouldn't this negate half the comic plotlines out there? Dr. Octopus alone seems to have kidnapped Spider-Man's entire family at some point. I guess by "detail," they meant specifics on realistic ransoms and such.)
On semantics and design:
• The letter of the word "crime" on a comics magazine shall never be appreciably greater than the other words contained in the title. The word "crime" shall never appear alone on a cover.
• No comics magazine shall use the word horror or terror in its title.
My personal favorite:
• Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism and werewolfism are prohibited.
(That's right, no zombies or vampires. The restrictions were eventually lifted on vampires and other "literary" monsters, but zombies were still banned.)
Just plain weird:
• Special precautions to avoid references to physical afflictions of deformities shall be taken.
On boobies and proper coverage thereof:
• All characters shall be depicted in dress reasonably acceptable to society.
(Like spandex and adamantine armor.)
• Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.
(For some reason, this always makes me picture a 1950s film-noir femme fatale leaning against a wall, smoking a cigarette while wearing one of those Carmen Sandiego hats.)
• Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.
(It's true. This is what all women look like.)
On sweet sweet lovin:
• Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at or portrayed. Violent love scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.
• The treatment of love-romance stories shall emphasize the value of the home and the sanctity of marriage.
• Passion or romantic interest shall never be treated in such a way as to stimulate the lower and baser emotions.
• Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.
(I'm thinking this was the one cited in the code's ban on homosexuality.)
In 1971, the code was revised after Stan Lee's government-backed storyline about drug abuse was nixed by the Comics Code Authority. This highlighted the fact that even a negative mention of drugs was forbidden.
But the code still pretty much read the same.
In 1989, the code was overhauled dramatically, to the point that it was almost
indecipherably permissive. Here's a telling sample:
• Scenes and dialogue involving adult relationships will be presented with good taste, sensitivity, and in a manner which will be considered acceptable by a mass audience. Primary human sexual characteristics will never be shown. Graphic sexual activity will never be depicted.
But by this point, the code was nearing the end of its days. In 2001, Marvel created its own ethical policy. New comic companies like Image (home of Spawn) didn't care a bit about comic code approval.
Wikipedia gives this update:
As of 2007, DC Comics and Archie Comics are the only major publishers still submitting their books for CCA approval, and in the case of DC, only books from its Johnny DC and DC Universe superhero lines, with DC Universe titles sometimes published without Code approval.
OK, so now that I've trashed the longstanding comics code (which, I have to admit, never really inhibited my enjoyment of comics as a kid), I feel I should address the big-picture issue: Should there be morality guidelines for popular media?
I think Marvel did the right thing by creating a code for its own publications. That way, a parent can generally be confident that a kid reading Marvel titles won't be exposed to anything too jarring. (Unless they grab a copy of Marvel Zombies, in which case that kid is going to be messed up for life.)
But it obviously comes down to an issue of individual parenting. In my ideal world, groups like the MPAA and the Comics Code Authority would exist to help make people aware of what's featured in a certain work instead of creating artificial limits on what could be included in, say, an R-rated film.
Will all this change soon when I have a daughter? Probably so. But I doubt I'll ever get to a point where I think it's a good idea for anyone to tell me what art I should or shouldn't be able to see as an adult.
