The Lord-Quigley Proposal was mostly created because Quigley thought that both the Catholic Church and the Hollywood movie industry could both benefit from an alliance. Connecting this proposal to the time period in which it is written, I think that there are some valid arguments made here, but I also believe that every individual has their own opinion of what is moral and what isn’t. Because movies became the “art of multitudes”, something had to be done, since local censorship groups just seemed to be making things too complicated, what with there being so many carrying a large variety of slightly differing values. The code enumerates that many things are possible in movies that are not possible in books, because the action is actually happening, and the audience is emotionally drawn to specific characters and scenes. Using artful images, dialogue, and setting, most anything can be accomplished in the movies – and this made religious officials especially nervous. Basically, Lord and Quigley wished for evil to be made to appear unattractive, and goodness to look like the preferred method of living. I think this code was a very good start for what later became the movie ratings system regulated by the federal government because certain aspects are outlined as better or worse than others, like types of crimes (murder is worse than theft, etc.), nudity, and sexual acts. But I think certain ideas are too difficult to control, like if the dancing is too sexual, or specific attitudes toward different religions and countries. What I see as wrong with this code is the fact that it is so specific with banning certain behaviors and ideas. But there is always the context to think about. What’s more, the writers of the code are generalizing about the population, saying that these ideas will promote bad behavior and morals. But what really provokes these things is the personal background, relationships, and genetic makeup of the individual. If someone wants to kill, a movie is not going to convince them to rethink their actions. I believe that the only thing that could truly prevent all horrible types of crime is how the individual is brought up by their parents, and what kinds of peers that person surrounds themselves with, as well as the area that they grow up in. If one is surrounded by crime happening all the time in a poor neighborhood, they may be driven to kill because of other people’s actions toward them. Or if one is mentally disturbed and never received the affection they needed from their parents, then it is likely this person will want to hurt others because of the damage that has already been done to them. The ratings system we are using today is incredibly different from the Lord-Quigley proposal, mostly in that it is a lot less detailed – it just names a specific audience that should or should not see the movie. This leads me to believe that it is harder to enforce specific behaviors or actions in today’s age because the ratings system is pretty vague and so guarantees free speech. If a film is rated G, then it can be seen by anyone (General Audiences) and usually movies with this rating are children’s films, like Disney productions. If it is rated M, it means that only mature audiences should view the film content, but this rating is not defined by a specific age, like the ratings PG-13 and R (which means you have to be 17 to view the content). There is also the PG rating, which means that some of the portrayed material might be unsuitable for children, but still no more information is enumerated here. Basically, the ratings system today is a lot more relaxed and open to interpretation, giving parents the authority to determine what is right for their children to see and what is inappropriate for their age range.
