After reading the Lord-Quigley Code proposal several times, it is abundantly clear that the government and Catholic Church did not approve of movies that contained sex, violence and crime, and did not consider them to be entertaining. Instead of judging a film based on its message, the code judged films based on content and believed that any film with these types of racy topics are not acceptable for society. In general the document’s overall message was not only stereotypical but unclear in its descriptions about these taboo subjects. I feel anyone that reads this document will interpret its meaning differently. I also imagine that the film industry had a difficult time understanding what exactly was allowed to be filmed, because of the code’s ambiguity.
In addition to how vague the code was, I also felt that it was overly religious in its assumption that everyone who reads it has the same moral values and beliefs. An example of this, is in the beginning of the code, where it states that all “mankind recognized that entertainment can be harmful or helpful” which is a statement that cannot be tested or measured because it is an opinion (Black. 302). Another example of how the document was too religious, is whenever the code used phrases such as “moral obligation” or “moral importance.” (Black. 302, 303) The word “moral” is closely related to things which are good, ethical, right and honest; and the code tries to make people feel guilty who want to make or see movies containing sex, violence or crime, because it goes against “moral” and religious standards. A person’s belief, regardless of their worldly status, should have no bearing on how an entire industry should behave. It is not the film industry’s responsibility to protect the entire world from crime.
I do feel however, that the document had good intentions, but in the process of trying to form a society that was refined and proper, it created a desire to break rules and do exactly what it told everyone not to do. The production of Scarface is a perfect example of this irony. Even with the script’s editing, the film was still a complete abomination to this proposal. One example of this is the film’s implication of incest between Tony, and his sister Cesca. According to Professor Thompson from George Mason University, the idea of incest was supposedly even more explicit in the original script. In the section labeled “SEX,” under “Reasons Underlying Particular Applications,” the code feared that the “sanctity of marriage and the home” would suffer, if the role of “passion” and “pure love” was misused. (Black. 306, 307) It also states that many people, especially criminals and children should not view overly sexual material because it will have a negative and “dangerous” impact on their “emotions” (Black. 307). Overall, I felt the main point of this particular section in the code that were trying to be conveyed were that; marriage is sacred, incest is morally wrong, and movies that are overly sexual or show marriage in a negative light are bad and dangerous for society.
