Drucker, Jerry. "Hays Code: Out-Psyched by Hitch." Los Angeles Times 28 Oct. 1979: w4. Proquest Historical Newspapers. University of Pennsylvania. 7 Apr. 2008.

    When North by Northwest was released, the Hays Production Code still had incredible influence. Any film that did not have the official seal was essentially locked out of the major distribution and exhibition avenues. Only two films had ever bypassed the code and despite their box office successes, few studios were willing to risk losing the seal of approval. The code was incredibly strict involving moral standards, and thus sexual and violent undertones needed to be minimized to ensure the Board's approval. This article was written by an insider who had the opportunity to sit inside the Board's screening room as they watched Psycho. It became immediately clear that strong changes were needed; however Hitchcock was known for being unwilling to compromise his autonomy in filmmaking. Thus a strong negotiation ensued in which certain shots were traded with others until the film eventually passed muster.

    This showdown between the censors and Hitchcock was inevitably an escalation from his previous film North by Northwest. Full of sexual innuendo and provocative scenes, the Board had objections to many of the frequent references to intercourse throughout the film. Hitchcock carefully avoided overt discussion, often substituting the word "love" for "sex", and using imagery to imply action (for example, a shot of passionate kisses cuts to a shot of their train entering a tunnel). The final cut of the film was risqué for the time period, but managed to successfully hide the sexual references from younger and uncultured minds, which was no doubt a critical hurdle for Hitchcock to overcome in order to obtain the seal for the film.  The symbolism and innuendos created require a much more engaged viewer, which ultimately helps to maximize the effects of suspenseful situations.

Asimow, Michael R. “Divorce in the Movies: From the Hays Code to Kramer vs. Kramer.”
Legal Studies Forum 24.2 (2000): 1-62. (available for download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=214869)

    This article by Asimov catalogues the appearance and depiction of divorce in American cinema from the 1930’s to the 1980’s. He discusses the important of film history as tool to understanding previous generations and their morals, values, and social goals. Asimow pays particular attention to the influence of the Hays Code and Production Code Administration on film and changes in its effectiveness, composition, and reputation among filmmakers and the public. As a legal professional, Asimow identifies other important legal shifts that changed divorce in cinema. Asimow also relates the depiction of divorce in cinema to the cultural context of the time, including changes in gender roles, the feminist movement, and the overall increase in divorces over the past half-century. In addition, Asimow deals with the religious, specifically Catholic roots, of the code and cinema censorship and demonstrates how movies trailed behind the progressivism of the middle and late twentieth century. The last third of the article focuses on an analysis of Kramer vs. Kramer as it relates to the depiction of divorce in America cinema. Asimow praises the film as an exemplary piece that accurately deals with the complications of divorce, including interfamily conflict and how such conflict is dealt with through family law. He enumerates the most essential qualities of a dramatic piece focused on the modern institution of marriage and divorce and explains in detail how Kramer vs. Kramer, uniquely deals with each.
    This article relates to the research topic as it places Kramer vs. Kramer in a cinematic and historical context. In addition, this article is particularly useful in its assessment of the movie because of its clear but thorough assessment of what is necessary in a movie such as Kramer vs. Kramer. Finally, the article contrasts well with Malloy’s “Kramer vs. Kramer: A fraudulent view” as Asimow praises the movie for the exact same aspects that Malloy criticizes it.