My personal response to the Code:
Lord and Quigley are taking on the difficult task of defining art, morality, and motion pictures, all in one document. However, two of these things are defined individually and culturally, while the third is a physical representation of the other two. Their task is all but impossible, but they recognized that something needed to be set in writing in order to create a kind of peace between the motion picture companies and the general public.
For example, the movie Scarface, when considered from the point of view of Art, would be a dark, violent piece that speaks to a more primitive part of the soul. It screams of man’s desire for power over others, at almost any cost. A painting of an epic battle hanging on a wall, neatly framed, does not have the same influence, as fewer senses are involved. There is no motion, no sound to give the viewer a greater sensory experience of the idea represented.
As entertainment, Scarface is exciting. There’s a lot of movement, and a lot of noise. People get to see a world full of fancy cars, clothes, and parties. They laugh at the antics of the secretary, cry with Tony’s family, and scoff at Lovo’s cowardice. A lot happens in a short period of time, and a lot of emotions are invoked. As motion pictures go, this movie has nearly everything.
From a moral standpoint, Scarface is a film that comes up lacking. Greed, hatred, lust, and envy are all given prominent billing. Even the police might be considered slothful for their slow unwillingness to capture Tony and put an end to his gang and his misdeeds. The opening titles add the only hint of morality by saying “Look what happens if we stand by and do nothing.”
The proposal recognizes motion pictures as an art form, as well as entertainment, and also point out its influence on viewers and the way they act and react to the ideas. It states that because some people may not understand what they are seeing, it is the studio’s obligation to establish moral standards to prevent anarchy, chaos, and the downward spiral of humanity. To me, this is futile, because it is the responsibility of religion, family, and local community to establish morals, not the entertainment industry of an entire nation. Also, because each community defines its own morals, there is no way for the motion picture studios to be able to represent all of these ideals.
My component of the group 1’s report:
Section Two of the Lord-Quigley Code Proposal takes the following positions:
- Motion pictures are an art form, because they represent the thoughts, emotions, morals and experiences of the artist.
- Art has an intimate effect on the viewer, because it has the potential to influence its audience to do good or evil.
- Motion pictures have the ability to reach a mass audience far more quickly than other art forms.
Whether the creators of motion pictures intend it or not, motion pictures have a moral influence over a wide audience, and so the creators have a moral obligation to present their ideas with care.
Part 3: As an art form, the movie Scarface is very eloquent; as entertainment, it’s thrilling; but from a moral standpoint, it comes up short. In order to satisfy all three components of a ‘good’ motion picture, changes had to be made to the script to satisfy the moral obligation of the studios to the public.
