Group 1
Bashir Ahmad
Elaine Brown
Priya Kumarraj
Andrea Retamoso
1. A summarization of the first part of the Lord-Quigley Code Proposal, the section entitled Reasons Supporting Preamble Of Code. Our group split this section into four parts for summary.
Section I. (by Andrea R.)
Theatrical motion pictures are primarily to be regarded as ENTERTAINMENT.
a. Entertainment which tends to improve the race, or at least to recreate and rebuild human beings exhausted with the realities of life.
b. Entertainment which tends to degrade human beings, or the lower their standards of life and living .
The moral importance of entertainment affects men and women closely, therefore correct entertainment standard of a nation.
Wrong entertainment lowers the whole living conditions and moral ideals of a race.
Section II. (by Elaine B.)
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.
Section III. (by Bashir A.)
A-D
Section A states that film appeals to all strata of society and that there is no heirarchy of low film and high film as opposed to music which many could categorize in this way, for example classical vs. pop music. I believe this assumption is not a valid one anymore as films are targeted towards specific audiences.
Section B states that films can be showed to large groups of people anywhere at anytime. I believe this to be a valid point that has significance. it is important to note that around the same time mass media in the form of advertising, flyer’s, billboards came about. Along with film this form of media was used for propaganda during wartime for the reason of its quick dissemination.
Section C states that these two reasons make making films for different classes of people difficult. As stated earlier I don’t think this to be relevant anymore.
Section D is about how film differs from books. Books require using your own imagination which would then depend on the intellect and state of mind of the individual. With film the work is already done for you. I can see the reasoning in this statement but I cannot form a concrete opinion regarding whether or not I agree.
Section III, part 2 (by Priya K)
E-H
Newspaper vs. Film
– Newspaper describes events with facts as they are taking place, whereas film shows how the events took place, and brings those events back to life.
Play vs. Film
– There are some things that are possible in a play that are not possible in a film.
§ Movies are far reaching than plays.
§ Plays are shown to smaller audience whereas films to larger audience.
§ Films bring the character and the story closer to the audience than plays because of size and “movie magic”.
§ When people watch movies, they become involved with the actors and actresses that they get them confused with the characters the actors play. Movies make it hard for people to determine what is real and what is fake.
Small communities
– Movies easily reach people in small communities, who live far from ethical and moral standards of people from the cities.
– Movies tap into people’s emotions more intensely because of the way it is presented.
– In summary, movies attract mass audience by the way they are presented, so films have a larger moral responsibility than any form of entertainment.
2. While discussing the code, Group 1 came to several conclusions regarding the code’s meaning and value.
Our group agrees on the following:
– The code has relevance today
– Why the code was established and was needed
– The code can be a good and/or bad influence
– Films are different from other forms of entertainment( books, art, etc) at that time
– We agree to disagree that the intentions of the artist do not necessarily have the same effect on the mass audience
3. Commentary from Group 1 on how changes made to the movie Scarface are relevant to the first section of the Code Proposal
(Andrea R.)
Moral is what is relevant to the changes made in Scarface. The incest plot was changed in the effort to prevent viewers from taking such event as literal and not with the sole purpose of entertainment intended by producers.
(Priya K.)
Although people would have read about gangsters in the newspapers, watching gangsters in movies has a different effect on people. Incidents in Scarface had to be tweaked because movies have the larger moral responsibility to teach the audience the outcomes of the chosen lifestyle. Because it was hard for people to make a clear distinction between real and unreal, the additions in the movie were a way to send a warning to the people: “Do not try this at home.”
(Elaine B.) 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.
February 19, 2008 at 12:56 pm |
The strength of Group 1 can be found in their organization. However, a lot of the writing is word for word. They seem to be stating what they have read and not really expanding upon the material. This posting may not be classified as a “summary” because of its extremely long length. We could read the book in the same amount of time it takes to read this post. Another strength can be found in their section on disagreements and agreements. The bullets make their reactions more clear. The reader is made aware of the feelings of the group in a clear manner. We also like their “agree to disagree” conclusion. The code is covered completely in this post and we have no questions about it. The Scarface part in regards to the code is also done appropriately. Group 1 discusses the changes made in Scarface for the purposes of morality. The incest plot is addressed. However, they address “incidents in the movie” without giving any clear examples. Group 1 could have also addressed the scenes that were added about the government. Those scenes also had a “moral obligation,” such as the scenes which were cut that had corrupt government officials.
February 19, 2008 at 1:09 pm |
Group 2; Ahmad, Denis, Joe
The use of bullets was an effective way to summarize about the content of your section of the code and also was effective in getting your opinions and interpretations across. The section of the code this group focused on was covered very well. The only disconnect which exists in the report is the transition for the analysis of the code and it’s applicability to Scarface, more could have been said about the code and how it was relevant to Scarface. I think that this came out more in your individual responses than in your group report.
February 19, 2008 at 1:16 pm |
Group 4’s Comment: Dee, Teresa, Ashlee, Michelle
I feel the setup needs to look like one whole summary. Some of the weaknesses I notice:
-sections can be unclear, need to distinguish what are words from code and wrotes from writer
-who classifies films as degrading or raising to morale
-section III(C):need more detail as to how the two reasons make it difficult?
Strengths
-section II was concrete, I agree that creators do have a morale obligation, but do they have to abide by it?
-The overall coverage of the code is good, just need to make it look like one piece of work
If movies are considered “entertainment”, then why does this code seem to look at films as an educational tool to raise morale?
February 19, 2008 at 1:16 pm |
Comments by Lindsay. C- Group 5
I thought your group did a fantastic job organizing your group report. I also especially like how you summarized what the section was referring to and wrote down what the actual code said. It made it a lot easier for me to critque your work.
My only criticism is that I thought your opinions of what the code meant to you in the beginning were a little unclear and could have been a little more detailed. Forinstance, I was a little confused by what you meant about “correct” and “wrong” entertainment in Section one.
Also, in section two, your group only stated what the code said in your own words. An opinion on whether you agreed or disagreed with what the code said did not appear to be given, or if it was, it was also not as clear as it could have been. Did you agree that the film industry has a moral responsibiliy to “present their ideas with care”(Andrea . R)? So, oveall I thought all the responses could have been more detailed!