Talk:Pre-Code Hollywood

Potential undue weight given to questionable source

Of the 381 unique inline citations throughout the article, 45% are attributed to Thomas Patrick Doherty's Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930-1934. Yesterday, I spent time updating the paragraphs on the film Freaks, as, in addition to the outdated or offensive language, the explanations of the film were woefully inaccurate.

The first issue was that the editor(s) misunderstood Doherty's writing, but further than that, the editor(s) couldn't differentiate between reliable fact in Doherty's text and his opinions. The article previously included the following line: "There is also a group of Pinheads, who are depicted as fortunate in that they are not mentally capable enough to understand that they disgust people." Through its directness of the editor's personal interpretation, this sentence managed to be a more offensive version of its source: "The pinheads are lucky: mentally retarded, they do not know what the rest of the world thinks of them." (p. 313) But Freaks includes no scene indicating this. The film portrays the disabled characters simply as human beings. This is merely the author's opinions about people with microcephaly, and the editor misunderstood it as a fact of the film's story or content.

Aside from further describing his disgust with disabled persons when writing about an inclusive film, the second issue lies in Doherty's questionable understanding of the material he's discussing. Doherty writes of a pivotal scene in Freaks: "After the marriage, around a long table for the wedding dinner, the assembled freaks chant, 'Gooble-gobble, gooble, gobble, one of us, one of us, now she is like one of us.'" (p. 315) An inaccurate quote. Doherty continues, "Drunk on wine, Hans passes out and Cleopatra [his bride] carries her insensate husband across the threshold, like a small child, to the honeymoon bed." (p. 315) But it is also a major story point that Hans never drinks during the celebrations and is entirely sober, as he narrowly avoided the poisoned drink he was given. The character is undeniably awake, as he even speaks. It's as if Doherty never saw the film, and instead transcribed someone else's hazy memory. It draws into question the reliability of any claims made in this article regarding content of the films, so long as they are relying on Doherty as a source.

It's possible that his content regarding Pre-Code laws, dates, or regulations are accurate, but I'm wary to put much faith into someone who couldn't be bothered to verify the content of a one-hour film. We should probably find additional supporting sources for any claims supported by this source. – Primium (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems a bit nitpicky and retroactively activist. Also, its A LOT of WP:OR you would need sources to discredit the book based on some claims not some retroactive activism based on your own interpretations. Since I am the one who did approximately 90% of the work here and its been abandoned, I would not expect much to be done here in any manner regardless. AaronY (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Opening line is contradictory

The opening line is currently:

"Pre-Code Hollywood (1927–1934) was an era in the American film industry that occurred between the widespread adoption of sound in film in 1929[1] and the enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code censorship guidelines (popularly known as the Hays Code) in 1934."

The "(1927-1934)" was added without any additional source cited on January 2, 2023. That time range contradicts the rest of the line, which says pre-code Hollywood began after "the widespread adoption of sound in film in 1929", rather than 1927. I don't know if either is correct. My intuition is that both are wrong, and it originally simply meant the Hollywood film-making era before the Hays Code was adopted in 1934, but I don't have reliable source defining the term prior to Wikipedia defining it as beginning in 1927 or 1929 or some other year, so I'm not going to pick which definition might be correct.

If someone does want to resolve this, I'd be cautious of misinterpreting references to pre-code Hollywood between a given date range, like Doherty's 1999 book "Pre-code Hollywood: Sex, immorality, and insurrection in American cinema, 1930–1934". It's unclear if the title is suggesting pre-code Hollywood was from 1930-1934, or it's suggesting the book is focused on the 1930-1934 period during a longer (perhaps decades-long) period of pre-code Hollywood. My intuition is the latter, but again, I don't have a reliable source saying that, so an argument could be made that the era didn't begin until 1930, as well.

The term "pre-code Hollywood" seems to have been popularized around the time Doherty's 1999 book and LaSalle's 2000 book were published, and had been kicking around for a couple years while Doherty's still being written; the NY Times mentioned the title in a 1997 article, "Incest as a Selling Point". Although Google Snippet View shows it being used in a 1950 editorial about the television code, and a 1965 Newsweek article with a caption reading "Fun in pre-code Hollywood, 1926".

-Agyle (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. I made this edit. I think it's an improvement, but if there are concerns that pre-code didn't start until 1930, more edits may be needed. Wracking ^talk! 20:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"Strong female characters"

The phrases "strong female characters" and "stronger female characters" are currently used in the lead section, but not explained. The meaning of "strong female character" in this context should be clarified. Is it a subjective term? Is it a film industry term? What does it mean? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There is uncited prose throughout the article, particularily in the "Home media" section.
• At over 14,000 words, WP:TOOBIG states that it probably should be split. I think there is information that can be removed from the article or summarised more effectively.
• There are several external links: can some of these be removed per WP:ELNO?

Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I had intended to split this up and shrink is why I made the daughter articles, but I am not active so this didn't and wont happen obviously. AaronY (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Pre-Code Hollywood

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

At over 14,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends summarising, splitting and removing article prose. There are also some uncited statements, particularily in the "Home video" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.