1st Amendment

Scarface, at the time of production, was viewed by many critics as an extremely violent movie. The movie incorporated alcohol, loose girls, incest, and of course plenty of violence. Compared to the movies today, Scarface seems mild, however, during the 30s; Scarface was the first of its kind. Movies were a new form of media in general; the viewing of “immoral” material had been deemed a potential societal problem. Like many new forms of media, such as the Internet, regulation is always a dilemma. The Hay’s Office was simply trying to prevent a moral uprising; however the restrictions imposed limited the freedom to express artistically.  Howard Hughes had to alter the movie to fit a certain moral mold, thus changing his original idea.

 

The First Amendment is in place to prevent undue censorship. Freedom of speech is extended to everyone, if that form of speech does not relay harm. The Hay’s Office confused ‘moral degradation’ with overall harm of the public. Watching Scarface does not harm anyone directly, whether Scarface is okay to watch is up to the consumer to decide.  The Hay’s Office changed the scope of the film, changed the ordinal intent of the film. This form of censorship is illegal, and only forms as a median to preach personal religious beliefs.   

1st Amendment & Virginia Declaration – Jon M

During the1930s gangster films upset critics and citizen groups was because they feared that the movie industry might glorify crime and gangsters and mock the judicial system as the Code said “Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for it’s violation. ” ( qtd in Black, 108).

I think that censorship of violence is dependent on whether or not you think movies would fall under the category of freedom of the press. Usually when we think of freedom of the press we think of news media more often then movies which are meant to be entertainment. I think that movies should too an extent be protected by freedom of the press. If there is a scene that is offensive people can be warned about it, but everybody shouldn’t have to miss a movie just because some people might be offended. Howver if a overwhelming number of the population don’t like a particular film then it would make censorship more acceptable.

1st Amendment & VA Declaration

After reading Black, I feel that citizens groups were upset by Scarface because according to them it glorified violence. Scarface was one of the first real gangster movies that showed violence even though it wasnt graphic. In the book Black, it states that the movie Scarface was “the most vicious and demoralizing gangster picture” ever produced. I could see how back then people thought it was horrifying because even though violence was on the news and other sources, critics did not approve of Scarface because they believed it promoted violence.  

 The Bill of Rights  and the 1st Amendment was listed so that citizens and the goverment could follow by rules and regulations, but I dont feel like the government did their job with censorship to the full extent. In the Bill of Rights it says that the Congress will not interefere with people speech, but yet the Hays Office went through multiple changes before the first airing. This censorship was unjust and I believe to have violated these laws. Maybe if the censorship allowed the movie to air with out all the changes then people could realize what these gangster are doing to innocent people.

1st Amendment & Virginia Declaration- Andrea R.

After reading Black, we have learned that many Hollywood films  such as Scarface have been censored before being released. This limitation, however goes against our Bill of Rights and The Virignia Declaration of Rights that stress the imporatance of our freedom of speech.

Although our freedom of speech was limited because of censorship limitations, it is important to take into consideration the time period in which these changes and rights were violated. We must consider that the Hays Office  strived to protect viewers from taboo issues that were  being openly exposed to society.

bill of rights/declaration

In Black, gangster movies upset a lot of citizen groups and movie critics. Father Daniel Lord thought that violent movies would teach youth how to commit crimes (Black 124). Another man named Elmer T. Peterson told Will Hays that violent movies such as Billy the Kid would promote disrespect for the law among children, and lead to an increase in juvenile delinquency (Black 107). The critics truly thought that crime would cause crime among the viewers. Moral guardians thought that gangsters should be banned from the big screen (Black 108). Critics and citizens felt that this kind of material should be banned from the big screen. Not for adults, but because of the children that could potentially watch it and become criminals in the long run.I do not think that the censorship such as seen in Scarface is consistent with democratic principles. This is because in the first amendment, it states that people have the freedom of speech. Movie scripts are a story that a writer makes. He should be able to write whatever he wants down. If a director likes it, he should be able to make a movie out of it. We have the freedom to do that in today’s society. Now a days we have a rating system. What children can and cannot see is completely up to the parent or legal guardian. In the bill of rights section 12 it also states that freedom of press is a strong support of liberty and shouldn’t be restrained by the government. It should be protected. Movie critics and citizen groups trying to censor others people form of art and writing should not be allowed.

1st A & VA Declaration-Michelle P

When reading Black, we learn about two young boys in New Jersey who decided to play a game of Cops and Robbers to imitate the movie The Secret Six.  Unfortunately, these boys decided to reenact the movie with a real gun which tragically ended in the death of one of the two.  Does this make the filmmakers who worked on The Secret Six responsible for this child’s death?  Or could we even go so far to blame Hays for not censoring or better yet abolishing the movie all together?  In my opinion it wasn’t the filmmaker or Hays’ fault.  While some movies can be overly brutal, we tend to think that most people are educated enough to not “try it at home.”  However, this (especially in the case of children) is not the case; and furthermore, when a tragedy occurs for reasons beyond our control we blame who we can-which for a parent who just lost their child, this is understandable.  Therefore, because of this incident it is easy to see why Scarface didn’t make its debut until 1932.

 

            As Americans we don’t always live by our democratic principles.  For instance, we create a Bill of Rights that protects free speech, but then when a child dies or someone ends up in the hospital because they imitated a movie, a wrestling TV show, or many of the scenes seen on MTV, many citizens try to have that production banned.  Therefore, to try and understand why the Hays Office added, revised, and cut scenes from Scarface isn’t that much of a stretch.  Unfortunately, however, this film landed itself on the “questionable” list like so many before its time.  While we still can’t blame Hays for what happened to the young boys in New Jersey, as storytellers, and even more as citizens of this country, Scarface’s creators should have been able to develop any kind of world they wanted.  Instead of creating an opening prologue and additional scenes Hays should have just slapped a “Rated R” on the film to warn people about what they were going to see.  This at least would have coincided much more with our democratic principles.

1st Amendment & Virginia Declaration- Laura M

After reading Black, it discussed why gangster movies upset critics and citizen groups.  One being that it glorified gangsters and their life style.  They thought it would “harm the American children” and they should be banned from the screen.

No, I don’t think the censorship of the kind we see in the production history of Scarface is consistent with democratic principles.  It went against freedom of speech and did not allow the producers to film what they wanted to show.

1st Amendment & VA Declaration-Lindsay C

After reading Black, I learned that gangster movies upset critics and citizen groups because they believed that these types of movies, glorified violence. In the words of the Harrison’s Reports, as stated by Black in his book, the movie Scarface, was “the most vicious and demoralizing gangster picture” ever produced”(Black. 124) Another publication against movie violence was Parents Magazine who“demanded a national boycott of gang films” altogether. (Black.129) These publications along with many other critics believed violent films poisoned the minds of society by promoting crime and acts against the government. Nonetheless, despite all the bad press, Scarface still proved to be a major box office hit, and guilty pleasure for millions of people.

However, even with the success of the film, I feel the use of censorship during the production of Scarface in 1932, completely violated the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights clearly states that Congress should not interfere with a person’s ability to express themselves through the use of speech, press, or peaceful assembly. Yet, the Hays Office still had the movies undergo numerous changes and alterations before it allowed the film to be released to the public. In my opinion, this kind of bigotry and disregard for human rights is morally wrong and should not be tolerated.

*1st Amendment and Virginia Declaration*

The 1931 Scarface: the Shame of the Nation was called “‘the most vicious and demoralizing gangster picture’ ever produced.” (QTD by Black 124) But assuredly the most prominent reason for the upsetting effect gangster movies had on the public was that these kinds of motion pictures were “‘misleading, contaminating and often demoralizing to children and youth.’” (QTD by Black 109) People were deeply scarred from Al Capone and so they were concerned about their children seeing these films and thinking these actions were okay, or maybe even cool. Then these gangster figures would be emulated, and perhaps a chain reaction of budding criminals would erupt throughout the youth of the nation. Parents also wished for their children to practice good morals and values – and certainly gangsters were not good examples for that either. For women’s organizations and religious groups especially, the sight of the gangster on the big screen flouting the traditions of hard work, sacrifice, and respect for any institution of authority was a hard thing to look at and not speak out against. Some people thought that juvenile delinquency was directly caused by Hollywood’s creations. And these people were not too far off; some, particularly men, were influenced by the exciting visage of the rich gangster with all of his guns. And any incident with such violence that occurred could have been blamed on the associations made by Hollywood – the media would flare up and infuriate the parents and good citizens of the country even further. So I can understand why people would have been somewhat angry with production companies: they needed someone to blame for what seemed like the country’s downfall.

In the Bill of Rights and in the Virginia Declaration of Independence, both Amendment I and Section 12 of the documents enumerate the importance of freedom of the press. And it was stated that the only time that the freedom of the press would be in jeopardy would be in a time of a despotic government. They are rights of the people created to allow change for whenever it is needed in the government itself; the press are there to enforce that: they will call attention to something that needs reform or speculation. Amendment I also mentions that everyone has the right to: freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. This means that when a large group of people join together, they can say anything they want and need to, as long as it is within reason and doesn’t do harm to people. There is more power in numbers, and it is yet another example of our democracy. Censorship organizations, as well as plain citizens, were most certainly within their rights because they believed that some Hollywood depictions did harm to the young minds of the nation who were exposed. But the movie producers were also right, because they were only exercising their right to free speech. They thought the public should be forced to see what gangsters were doing to innocent individuals, so that perhaps more citizens would take matters into their own hands and bring their indignations straight to the government.

1st Amendment & V.A. Declaration

Critics and citizen groups were highly upset at gangster movies because critics and citizen groups did not want anything that “would promote disrespect for the law among children, and lead to an increase in juvenile delinquency” (Black 107). Many critics felt that movies glorified the bad guy too often and shined a negative light on the good guy. During this period, urban gangs were growing and profiting heavily from the bootleg alcohol trade. A lot of money could be made and these factors contributed to a big jump in violence in many states. Although citizens groups acknowledge that violence was a part of their daily lives and could be seen on the news, the groups did not want movies to contribute any realistic depictions or to promote any additional violence. With America already having difficulty dealing with real life issues, parents “held that movies dealing with their lives would harm American children” (Black 108).

           If I were to go by the letter of the law, censorship placed on gangster movie producers was not consistent with the principles in the Bill of Rights or the Virginia Declaration of Rights. In both bills, they stress that importance of freedom of speech and the freedom to express them without any restraints. The censorship placed on Scarface was unfair and in violation of these laws. This kind of censorship is inconsistent with democratic principles.