The Sign of the Cross (1932)

I only recently became aware of this film and its infamous role in ushering in thirty years of censorship of the American film industry. Cecil B. DeMille's The Sign of the Cross has been credited with being single film most responsible for making mandatory the Hays Code, which banned any film that would lower the moral standard of any person viewing it. I wondered what could possibly have been so damaging to the moral sense of the viewer about this movie that it could have had such a chilling effect, and yet had such broad appeal as to be a profitable studio release. And really, I wondered if the House of 1,000 Corpses of the 1930's could have a similar effect today, and whether I would be morally damaged by the act of watching it. Here is my analysis, which contains several spoilers, to warn anybody into 30's cinema, or you can just skip to the last two paragraphs (I know I wouldn't read this boring rambling).

The odd thing, given its place in history, is that it's such a wholesome story. It features very pure and wholesome Christian heroes who choose righteousness over evil, and celebrates their inevitable triumph over paganism and their heavenly reward, without the slightest bit of irony or cynicism. And despite all that the answer to my question was yes, it was highly morally damaging. The darkest reaches of my psyche, full of lust and rage, were certainly stimulated by watching this deeply immoral film, and God I loved it.

The film is set during the reign of Emperor Nero, in the immediate aftermath of the great fire that destroyed much of Rome. Nero deflects suspicion by blaming the Christians, and ordering them all rounded up. All the Christians are forced underground, while Roman soldiers pursue them relentlessly and torture them for information on their friends and family and fellow worshipers. The Christians are noble, human, and sympathetic heroes, suffering religious oppression of the worst kind. This makes the notorious nature of the film that much more amusing, since it's so wholeheartedly pro-Christian in its themes, strongly playing on the idea that Rome's Christians may be suffering, but their faith is rewarded by the eventual triumph over pagan cruelty modern audiences know is coming.

Meanwhile, the Romans are extraordinarily decadent bed-hopping fools. Half of the immorality of this film comes from the hedonism of the Romans, particularly the Empress Poppaea, sleeping with half of Rome and inviting gossipy neighbors to strip down and enjoy a nice bath with her in a giant, frothy tub of donkey milk. Every time Claudette Colbert's nipples came peeking out of the milk, I'm sure it was another nail in the coffin of freedom of expression in cinema, and her command to Vivian Tobin to “Take off your clothes and get in here,” certainly can't have helped.

The film's main story centers around one particular good Christian woman, Mercia, and the Roman Consul Marcus Superbus. Marcus has shown some rare moral fiber by fending off the advances of Empress Poppaea (no doubt because of her ridiculous bangs), and when he becomes smitten with Mercia, he uses his influence to keep her family from being rounded up, since she's hot. Tension builds between Marcus, trying to save the woman he's loved for five minutes, and Poppaea, who is determined to have Marcus all to herself and figures bumping off his Christian hoochie-mama is a necessary first step.

Marcus attempts to convince Mercia to accept the inevitable slaughter in the Coliseum of her fellow Christians, and to just renounce her faith and hide out with him in his house, where he's throwing a giant party. Marcus tries to convince her to abandon a cruel god who wants all his followers to just calmly parade like lambs to the slaughter. Mercia will not yield to temptation, and so Marcus in frustration allows his fellow pagan party-goers to mock her and seduce her to their hedonistic lifestyle. Eventually Marcus's party is cut short, as the music is drowned out by the hymns the Christians are singing as they are marched through the street past Marcus's house on their way to the Coliseum. Mercia then smugly announces that her place is with the doomed Christians.

The seduction of the hedonistic Romans once again damaged my moral character, although in this case particularly I should stress this is only from the perspective of a Hays Code censor. The most sinful woman in Rome, Ancaria, for the amusement of the rest of Marcus's guests, mocks Mercia by singing The Naked Moon. This mainly consists of dancing erotically, running her hands over Mercia and kissing her neck, singing her song about love, while the hyperstimulated party crowd make out and paw themselves. When the Christian singing comes into earshot, it breaks the erotic spell and Mercia smugly puts on a sad, chaste smile, while Ancaria cowers in fear. Jesus is a sure-fire cure for tempting, hot girl-on-girl action, but after dismissing his frightened party guests, Marcus is only prevented from attempting to rape Mercia in an attempt to make her stay by the arrival of Roman soldiers who take her away. The whole scene is full of sexualized violence, as Mercia is intimidated by Ancaria's dancing and the oversexed Marcus's sense of power, and my moral character was seriously weakened by this film's temptation to secretly enjoy it while frowning outwardly along with Mercia.

What really gives the film its shock value though is the arena, which I suppose on reflection couldn't actually be the Coliseum, what with it not being built yet. The Romans are once again shown as hedonistic, petty people bickering over seats and gorging themselves while the Christians sublimely await their brutal, horrible deaths by reading from scripture and consoling one another. When the games begin, the Romans are treated to the sight of several rounds of bloody combat while different crowd members laugh and cheer, turn away in horror, or simply sigh in boredom and pore over their programs. All the fighting is shown in all its brutal glory, including swordsman, pygmies with spears, and most bizarrely men with spiked gloves repeatedly punching each other and spitting out teeth and blood. DeMille puts his audience in the arena, savoring over the fighting, and he lingers on the dying gladiators suffering the boos of the crowd, bringing us as close as he can to the brutal, now forbidden spectacle.

This would not be all that remarkable, certainly not by modern standards, except for when the Christians begin to enter the arena. Generally the Christians are matched up in losing situations with wild animals, and a few are sacrificed individually, for instance men are staked down and trampled by elephants, who then drag their bodies away. The big finale for the Romans is a mass feeding of Christians to lions, where the Christians all march out placidly, humming Christian hymns, while the lions are driven into the arena by their handlers. The actual scenes of lions attacking Christians, with a broad panorama of several scenes of people being eaten, is actually quite shocking in their realism.

The most striking images are of women wearing nothing but garlands tied around her in a spiral in a very decorative sort of bondage motif. One is staked out on the ground with some supports to keep her prone body a few inches off the ground, while hungry crocodiles his and saunter towards her, and she screams in terror, waiting to be eaten. Another woman, shown here, has her hands bound to the top of a pole, with the same rope of garlands barely covering her breasts and genitalia, while a gorilla menaces her. In the finale, another woman is shown tied up in the same situation while lions eat all the screaming Christians around her. These scenes are highly sexual, and imply the brutal deaths these women are about to suffer. This is just like the combination of sex and death in modern slasher movies, only since it's done by somebody competent, this is actually pretty moving, and starts blood flowing into all the dark recesses of the mind. Seriously, I was all set to find a Christian woman to sacrifice before my phone rang and I lost my train of thought.

The film's primary story concludes here, as Empress Poppaea has ordered that Mercia be held behind to go out last, so Marcus will see her die horribly and achieve closure. Mercia comforts a boy who is afraid to go out, despite the prodding of soldiers, but convinces him to go out singing and be happy because he's going to heaven and she'll be there with him again soon. He walks out singing, and then his voice is abruptly cut off. Marcus arrives to try and dissuade her from going to her death, but instead Mercia converts him to Christianity and they both walk out into the arena, while the doors close behind them and rays of light falling on the doors illuminate a patch in the shape of a cross. The fatalism and willingness to die of the Christians is certainly unnerving,

There are several elements that make this feel so wrong, one is obviously the sexualized violence, both in the barely covered women being terrorized in the arena, but also the near molestation earlier in the Naked Moon dance. This really does entice the audience to enjoy the growing horror, and so do the cheering and laughing spectators. The thing that really makes it feel so visceral is the way DeMille makes sure to linger on the horror and anticipation of the victims, as they wail or whimper but can't look away from the advancing animals, or as they curl up under the claws of the lions. He lingers again over the last grimacing gasp of breath and then concludes each round of slaughter by showing the still, bloody bodies. The familiar reaction of the crowd, where some laugh and clap while some look ill, is a disturbing reminder of ourselves, while watching this on film we are tempted to be horrified and entertained, and showing people a side of themselves they aren't ready to see will always run afoul of censorship. The question that could have been asked by this film is most visible in the third reaction mixed into the crowd: boredom. Some people are too desensitized and impatient to even pay attention, lacking any real empathy or capacity to really grasp what is going on, and those are the truly frightening people, not those who enjoy it but the people who turn their heads in disinterest.

So the eventual conclusion I came to was startling and dismaying. Over the next few years following the release of this film, the events of the plot actually happened. A religious minority was blamed for the leading problems of the day, rounded up and murdered according to the whims of their jailers, and nobody really much cared. When the St Louis tried to dock in Florida, we sent all its passengers back to Europe to be murdered. This film was a chilling warning about human nature and the events to come, and what we all as spectators would probably do, and the forces of censorship in the United States thought it would lower our moral standard? This is really why I zealously oppose censorship, and why I sometimes dig into certain unsavory topics with a seeming lack of propriety. But mostly it's because I'm an idiot. (At least I'm honest.)