Personal Responce

Films during the 30’s were produced and available for all to watch cheaply and frequently; this new median of expression had the potential to change the minds -or so they thought- of anyone who had a nickel and some time to spare.  The Lord-Quigley Code had the difficult task of defining what was morally appropriate for the American pubic to view. The Lord-Quigley Code, understandably, used the easiest reference on the ethically correct: the Bible. Group C, focused on page 305, how the films should portray criminals and the law. The Code enforced that films support the natural law of what is good and evil and the consequences of the two. Good guys should win, and the bad guys should always lose. Evil and wrong doing should be quelled by a righteous, just, and organized law. The Code was simply protecting natural law by rejecting “wrong entertainment” that might �lower the whole living conditions and moral ideals of a race� (Black, 302). The Code, had to deal with what  they t hought was unclean art, instead of censoring form selective audiences, or leaving it up to the American pubic, they blocked everything out completely. This had an immense effect on films created thereafter, deflecting the original intent in order to satisfy the Code. The purpose of the Code is clear, however, the censorship of films for everyone, especially to the extent that the Code brought it too was extreme. The films lost the honesty behind the story, losing the entire point of creating the film in the first place. Group 3 was assigned pg 305; it defined, basically, how films should portray the law and the criminals who break it. The Code stated that the law should not be presented as unjust and the criminals should not be portrayed in a positive light. Many members in my group believed that the Code had reason to enforce this rule; however the public has the right to differentiate what is wrong and right. Specifically to our section, some members believed a story should be portrayed just as the creators intend regardless of whether or not it represents the law or crime appropriately, because there is a difference between media (news) and film. Film is a form of expression, to tell a story, not relay facts.  The public understands this and can make moral decisions based on their own moral guidelines. Two priests cannot dictate what everyone should watch and believe. The main disagreements between our members was whether the Code was needed at the time, our mindsets are far too modern to understand the impact the films may have had on the public in the 30s. After reading the Code many times, everything, during the 30s, seemed to be offensive, however one thing we all agreed on was the Code is simply to harsh to continue to enforce.

Working Draft of the Lord Quigley Code Proposal

Ashley Dyson

Part 1 Assumptions about film and entertainment

In this section, it tells how theatrical motion pictures are regarded as entertainment only. And as entertainment, it can either be harmful or helpful to people. Entertainment can be helpful to people when it intends to improve the human race. It can be harmful when degrading humans. There is a huge moral importance when this form of entertainment can enter immediately into the lives of men and women. The code then compares theatrical motion pictures to art, books, newspapers, and plays. In regards to art is seen as important when lifting humans to higher levels. This is portrayed by good music, great paintings, and poetry. It is seen as morally evil through the portrayal of unclean art, indecent books, and suggestive drama. In relation to books, books describe and film vividly presents to the public. Film reaches eyes and ears and presents a reproduction of actual events. The same goes for newspapers. In regards to plays, films have a much larger audience than a play. In conclusion because of films popularity, vividness, appeal, and presentation, there are larger moral responsibilities for motion pictures.

I feel that the code is looking out for the best interest of the people, but it is not upholding the rights for the first amendment. I think that if someone has a problem with the content of the movie, they shouldn’t watch it. If they do, then it’s their problem.

Part 2 General Principals

 

In this section, it tells how no motion picture should be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Evil should not be made to look attractive and alluring. Sympathy from the audience should not be towards that of the evil. Motion pictures should make the audience feel that evil is wrong and good is right. Movies should show the correct standards of life. Through this it builds character and develops high ideals in the audience. The law in motion pictures should not be ridiculed and the court system should not be presented as unjust.

I think how people view movie has to do with their upbringing. If they were not taught what is right and what is wrong then they are highly likely to be confused by what they see in the movies. Children for example are highly likely to imitate things they see in movie or television because they are still in their learning process. Again, when a parent sees what a movie is about they should make the choice whether or not it is acceptable for their children’s eyes.

An example in Scarface are the scenes of corruption of law officials which were cut. The code states that there should be no scenes which reflect poorly on the government and the court system. Mrs.Camonte’s feelings towards her sons gang activity is also a part of this code. This is because she disapproves of his lifestyle. Even if he has fancy cars, money, and clothes, it is considered evil and wrong to his mother.

 

Part 3 Reasons Underlying Particular Applications Preliminary

In this preliminary to the section it talks about sin and evil. Sin and evil are part of life so they can be used in film as dramatic material. But if used, it must be distinguished between sin which repels by its nature, and sins which often attract. It also says there is a careful distinction between film for the general public and film for a limited audience. This is in regards to adult only material and other film. Adult only material could be handled by the minds that are more mature can understand the subject matter without it causing harm to them. There was no such film separation back then though.

I don’t know what to say about this part. They want the sin and evil in movies to appear to be unattractive again. They also say that “adult only” movies can only be handled by those of a mature mind. This seems like a sort of rating system. But they didn’t even have different movie theaters for limited audience and general public.

 

Reasons Underlying Particular Applications

In this section it just lists a bunch of things you cannot do in films because it is morally wrong. Teaching crime and making criminals seems heroic is not justified. Revenge is not justified. Drug trafficking shall not be presented in any form. Liquor should never be excessively presented. In regards to sex, a love triangle should not be represented in regard for the sanctity of marriage. Impure love is wrong and should not be presented as attractive, or as a subject of comedy. Must not be presented in a way to arouse the audience or make them curious. Vulgarity, obscenity, and profanity are not permitted. Nudity or semi-nudity is not moral. Even thought the nude body is seen as beauty, it is not appropriate for film. Nudity cannot be permitted as necessary for a plot. Dancing is recognized as an art form. Except when the dances suggest sexual actions. In regards to religion, ministers will not be made villains or comical characters in order to keep respect for the minister. Certain locations shall not be seen because they are directly connected to sexual life and sexual sin. The nation is entitled to consideration and respectful treatment in regards to film content. Titles presented must comply with ethical practices. And lastly, repellent subjects should never offend good taste.

 

This section is pretty much just listing more no no’s in regards to film making. It highlights on costumes, dancing, sexuality, and profanity. Again I think that it is going against the First Amendment. If someone thinks they will be offended by the material in a movie, they should stay at home.

 

In Scarface, this code comes into play again with the original scripted incest plot between brother and sister. Because of this code, it had to be cut out. But the movie is still open to interpretation of the audience. He could be an overprotective brother or a filthy gangster having incestual relations with his younger sister.

 

 

Hays Code- Joe S

Individual:
The Hays code was an early attempt to justify and establish the method and guidelines for what was appropriate to show to the general public. This was before a rating system was established and was in many ways a precursor to the rating system that exists today. Because this came at a time where very little precedent existed for regulating films and there were also free speech concerns an attempt was made to justify the guidelines being put forth in the code and that element is apparent throughout it. I think the guidelines were reasonable and just like we have today, there has to be some restriction on publicly accessible content.

Group:
The code is relevant to Scarface on a more obvious level because changes were made to the film at the behest of the Hays office and this is the Hays Code. So it is relevant being that Scarface is a film where you can see the underlying guidelines being expressed in the film and the changes made to it as you can also see ultimately expressed in the code. Our group focused on the first section of the code in which the justification for the need of guidelines is laid out. The same reasons given to make changes in Scarface are laid out in this section of the code. The effects of graphic violence, sexual content and who the audience would be are all things which exist in the code and influenced changes made in Scarface.
Free speech and the character of film as a medium of entertainment and art were both issues which existed at the beginning of this industry. A distinction was drawn between film and for example literature. Film was said to be potentially much more influential because it presented concrete images and later sounds where the imagination had solely provided for before. Also, there was the general idea that less educated or poorer people were far less likely to read literature and would also be very easily influenced by film because of both the method and ease of how it told the story. Advocates for censorship were particularly concerned with what messages young people and less educated people were getting from film. This is generally laid out in the code and led to modifications of Scarface, for instance how criminals in relation to the government are portrayed.

*Hays Code-Individual Response*

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.

Personal Response to Lord-Quigley Code Proposal

The Lord-Quigley Code can be hard to understand because it was written in the 1920’s and our views on censorship today are very different from back then. When I first read this code, I agreed with a lot that was being said in the beginning of the proposal. “Entertainment can be of a character either HELPFUL or HARMFUL to the human race” is something that is very much involved with making movies. I agree with that quote because even though characters are only acting, it can be very detrimental to people in the audience. This code uses a lot of judgement, and even though I agree with some of it, it is based off of opinion, and everybody has their own opinion. Because of the way that this code was written, Blacks visions on entertainment and censorship can seem wierd to people today and make us wonder why they thought like this.  

Personal Response- Group

Our group read the section on “Sin and Evil”, Crimes, and Drug and Liquor Trafficing. These sections are a very big issue in today’s society, and are also used to make stories for movies. In this part of the code, it explains that these categories should not be used to promote, but should look natural.

Black expresses that the audience shouldnt be able to get use to crimes, drugs and sin. I think that in the 1920’s and 1930’s he felt that if people saw violence a lot in movies then it will make it okay for people to do in real life. I don’t agree with Black because a lot of people watch movies with violence and dont feel the need to go out and do cruel things to people. I do feel that Black’s point of view on violence is true in todays world. Not only do a lot of the movies have violence in them, but we have a lot of violence in today’s world. Maybe if we cut down on promoting violence, then maybe we would’nt have as many violent crimes.

If a viewers mind is already set on doing something illegal or harmful, then not producing a movie is going to help save that person. Yes a movie can show violence and have an impact on somebodies perspective on life, but if a person has lived his or her entire life doing wrongful things, then a movie is not going to have any control over it.

Personal Section

Black explains that drug traffficing and liquor should not be brought to the attention of the audience. Black feels that the any type of drug use should not be presented in any form. Black also feels that Liquor should “never be excessively presented even in picturing countries where its use is illegal”, only in moderation. I do not agree with this because if movies didn’t show what liquor and drugs could do to people, then the viewers could be more tempted to try new things. I am not saying that all people will try drugs and alcohol, but if we didnt have movies on real life events, then the society might not have a good idea on what goes on in the world.

 In scarface, Camonte sells alcohol to people as a job. The movie shows what happens during trafficing and how it is an extremely dangerous thing to be involved in. Scarface promotes alcohol in the movie, as well as drug trafficing. I feel that it was a good example in a way because if proved that if a person did not pay the right amount of money, or snitched somebody out then their life would be in jeopardy. I feel that if you want to be involved with something as dangerous as that, then go ahead and do it. I do not feel like movies that show real life choices will have a bad affect on the audience.

Lord-Quigley Code – Group 4 – Neil B

Response to the Entire Lord-Quigley Code Proposal

The Lord Quigley Code was a proposal that was created to discuss the need for a more efficient and effective way for the content that comprised motion pictures be held to a higher standard in regards to portraying negative material, as well as instructions on how to do this. This code was written in the 1930’s America, a time very different from that which we live in now. The influence of religion and the morals and values that it represent, played a much larger role in a society that felt the need to in many ways shelter and protect a certain way of life. This code, created by a group of people from differing parts of the Catholic church, was meant as a means for conserving the ideals, ethics and principles of life that were so strongly believed by so many people in this conservative society of the American 1930’s.

The code goes on to explain how motion pictures are an art form, which need to be held responsible for how they affect their audience, just as any form of art is responsible. It even claims that motion pictures need to be held to an even higher standard and be more careful of their overbearing effects on the masses, since motion pictures can effect such a large audience so quickly through the new avenue of art it created. The code argues that motion pictures can so quickly affect so many people, in such a vivid presentation in comparison to the words and still images that dominated the art world for so long, that they need to be more carefully controlled in the messages they portray then ever before.

According to the code, certain “unacceptable” evils and crimes need be put forward very carefully, and at times, not be depicted at all. “The important objective must be to avoid the hardening of the audience, especially those who are young and impressionable,” is the overbearing statement of the code. Whether you are referring to violence, sex, crime or the many other things that can be seen as an evil, censors were concerned that these things can bring done the society they were wishing to protect.

It was interesting to see how much the world has changed in the perspective of what is socially acceptable in life and the equal change that has occurred concurrently in the ways that films are censored (or rather rated nowadays). Society has become much more open to expression over the years, and our acceptance of morally and ethically material in different forms of art, such as motion pictures. Along with this change, there has also been more of an emphasis on personal responsibility in understanding these forms of art, which has grown exponentially since the time when this code was put together. It is definitely an intriguing look into life in such an interesting time in American history.

My Group’s Section:

Reasons Underlying Particular Applications
Preliminary: I-III & Crimes Against the Law: I

The section that my group focused upon specifically contained the concepts of how “Sin and evil enter into the story of human beings and hence in themselves are dramatic material”(Black 306). This is describing how in real life there are sins, crimes, violence, sex, and many other “evils” that play a part in the lives of all people. Therefore these same sins will play a part in any piece of “dramatic material” that is depicting real life in some way.

This section talks about how the authors of the code feels there are certain sins that are inherently bad or “naturally repulsive” (such as murder, lying, cruelty, etc) that an audience will automatically see as repulsive. On the other hand, there are some sins that can at times be confused by audience members to be attractive or alluring in nature (such as organized crime, revenge, banditry, etc) which the code then goes on to describe as the sins that “need real care in handling, as there response to human nature is obvious” (Black 306).

I agree with the code on this topic, in that even still today this distinction can be seen between these two kinds of sin and that both of these types of sins should never be undertaken by any person in the real world. However, I disagree with the fact that this type of sin need to be discouraged at all costs, including creative integrity. No matter if it is 1934 or 2008, an piece of art such as a film needs to be able to fully expressed.

Section III describes the idea of using a specific theater to display movies with reprehensible actions, characters or plots, or as they referred to them, these “sins and evils”. I believe that this is something that can still be seen in today’s rating systems., where there are age limits set on certain movies that contain certain material. Even though the code calls for using entirely different theaters, as opposed to the same theaters with restricted showings, the connections can definitely be drawn between the two concepts.

Comparison of My Group’s Section to Scarface

The 1932 production of the motion picture Scarface had numerous instances where the Lord-Quigley code proposal seemed to overlap in concept. In Part I of Crimes Against the Law specifically, there can be seen a close connection with the production history of Scarface and the Lord-Quigley Code. This part of the code explains how teaching the methods of crime should not occur in a motion picture ever, yet the entire plot of Scarface is a depiction of Tony Camonte’s life in organized crime, which vary from depicting how he went about shaking down club owners to Camonte murdering people such as his own boss before he takes over control of the gang.

When the film was produced, there were large number of issues that producer Howard Hughes ran into when trying to release the film, mainly that the censors demanded that the film be edited to depict the life of a gangster in a more negative light. They felt that it was necessary to remove the heroic spin from the life a gangster like Camonte in order to decrease the desire for others to imitate such a negative lifestyle.

A specific instance where the censors forced change in the film’s production is the different potential endings that the film almost had. The ending that most people saw at times in theaters is actually the second one that they filmed, and it depicts Tony Camonte as being much more afraid and less enthusiastic in his final gun battle with the police before he is apprehended, sentenced and hung by a proper court.This is very different from what has become known as the alternate ending, which is in fact the originally filmed ending. In this ending, Camonte psychotically shoots at the police with Cesca enthusiastically helping him load guns before he goes out in a blaze of bullets.

The differences in these two endings demonstrate many of the areas that the Lord-Quigley Code discusses, namely Cesca not being enthusiatic and Tony not being so proud and crazy, the removal of Tony’s nearly heroic exit in a blaze of glory and lastly the court system promoting proper justice through a trial. These difference demonstrate how censors thenhad already begun to implement the ideas that are put forth in the Lord-Quigley Code Proposal.

 

 

Hays Code (Individual) Michelle P

 Personal Response:

 

 Considering the American Society in the 1930s it isn’t hard to understand why the Quigley Code was created. As a whole Lord Quigley focuses on all the vital aspects that most censorship boards and the Catholic Church had concerns with. He begins by noting that a motion picture is first a form of entertainment that can be either helpful by improving the human race or harmful which tends to degrade human beings. He later continues this same pattern by noting that motion pictures are also a form of art which can be morally good or evil. I agree with the idea that art can portray good and evil. However, I disagree that entertainment improves or degrades the human race. The morally good or evil aspect makes sense because art is just a representation of reality. In reality we have both good and bad. It’s part of nature, so it is easy to “fictionalize” on screen. But, it almost seems kind of silly to me to say that the portrayal of good and evil on screen created even more good and evil in reality-it’s going to be a part of life no matter what.

Group  Section:

 

This whole argument brings me to the section of the code called Reasons Underlying Particular Applications. The first part of this section deals with sin concerning crimes against the law such as murder, theft, cruelty, etc. Quigley begins by noting that sin and evil enter into the story of human beings and in themselves are called dramatic material. However, this material must be distinguished between sin that is of human nature and sin that is created to attract. I think these lines support the idea of art. It is impossible to reject the idea of murder and say that it will never happen. It is a natural evil, and thus should be represented in some way on screen. However, while I don’t think that murder in films will inspire a general audience to go out and start killing other citizens or in any way degrades the human race, I will agree with Quigley that crimes as significant as murder should not be made appealing unless it is based on a true story of an actual person’s life. Films appealing to crime should only be viewed by a limited audience, particularly an audience not including children since they are the least educated about what’s real and not real.

My Component of Group Section:

 

Within Reasons Underlying Particular Applications we will learn about Crimes Against the Law stating that the treatment of crimes must not: teach methods of crime, inspire potential criminals with a desire for imitation, or make criminals seem heroic and justified. This section isn’t saying that sin can’t be part of a film because we know that it is a part of life and in a film termed dramatic material. However, Quigley is quick to note what cannot arise from this material. For example, banks get robbed every year-people get desperate for money and it happens. This section is merely saying don’t teach the audience how to rob a bank and don’t make it seem appealing. Furthermore, don’t make the character that’s robbing the bank seem heroic or justified no matter how dire the situation is. I agree with Quigley that sins occur, and that they shouldn’t exactly seem appealing. I think most people would agree that if someone’s going to rob a bank, their doing it for a pretty desperate reason and that person probably knows the consequences of their actions before hand. However, while these crimes shouldn’t seem appealing, tons of characters rob banks in countless movies and not everyone that watched that film went out and robbed their local bank. A filmmaker shouldn’t encourage crimes unless it’s a reflection of a true story, but at the same time filmmakers, censors, the Catholic Church and everyone in between should respect the intelligence of the audience, with the exception of children, to know that these crimes are wrong and shouldn’t be imitated in reality.

The Code

Personal Response: 

Although the intent of this code is in the right place, there seem to be many flaws throughout this code and some may feel that it violates human rights. The code states that “motion pictures are very important to as art” but yet separates it from art and puts movies in its own category, with its own set of laws (Black 303).  One of the main objectives I have with this particular code is that many sections require the use of judgment and, as we all know, judgment varies from person to person. One might view things differently and be influenced in a different way than the next person. The fact that this code could be open to numerous interpretations would give this code a shaky foundation.

I agree that “the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrong doing, evil or sin” (Black 305). We, as an audience, should never be forced or fed ideas into thinking that crime pays. I also agree with the code that evil should not be portrayed in an alluring light and that “the audience feels sure that evil is wrong and good is right” (Black 305). I concur that no movie should poke fun at the law and that religion ministers should not be placed in comedic scenarios. It would hard to take a minister serious if all he could do is make you laugh. With that said, what makes a person laugh and the level in which one sees someone in a comedic stance is left to interpretation. One of the flaws I see with the code is that it is looking at movies and entertainment as a boost and states that movies “raises the standards of a nation” (Black 302). Movies should not be an educational tool used to raise standards but used for its primary purpose, which is to entertain. It seems that this code is placing a lot of America’s problems on movies and gives films an inflated influence on young criminals.

The main issue I have is that this code seems one-sided and doesn’t represent America well. The code leaves many of its sections to interpretation. The difference between sin and evil is in the eye of the viewer. Our section of this law requires people to use there judgment when separating which sins they feel repel and “sins which often attract” (Black 306).

 Group Contribution Below:            

            I feel strongly that when the film makers of the 1930’s started making distinctions between general distribution and limited audience films, it was that distinction that was the starting point for the idea of a rating system. Our present rating system could have been the end result of this early classification system. During the draft of this code, it was normal for the practice of “the showing of a certain film to “Adults Only” (Black 306).  Although many felt it was “only partially effective”, it was definitely a step in the right direction. The fact that Scarface had numerous endings could be viewed as act to please numerous audiences and to comply with this code.

Lord-Quigley Code- Teresa S.

My Response to the Entire Lord-Quigley Code

The Lord-Quigley Code was created by Father Lord, and it explained rules for censoring films in the 1920’s. Lord believed that without censorship, violent movies such as gangster movies would, “teach the youth how to commit crimes (124).” One of the problems was that the local film industries and censorship boards used their own disgression on what was “appropriate” and what exactly the code meant. The results among the states were different.

It is very difficult to comprehend the censorship that went on in the 1920’s and in the 1930’s because we have a completely different mindset than the people did at this time. Therefore, we might not ever understand the way that they thought and we might not ever understand why they really wrote the Lord-Quigley code.

My Response to the Group’s Section

“…avoid the hardening of the audience.” Black is saying do not let the audience get used to sins such as murder and brutality. I don’t understand this because if you see murder and brutality enough times in the movies, then you will get used to it. It doesn’t mean all the kids that watch the movie are going go start murdering people.

Sins that attract need “real care in handling.” Black is saying that sins that “attract” need care in handling because people/ children might be attracted to the sin and be tempted to mimic their behavior. I agree with the statement that these types of sin need more care in handling because these types of sins are easier to mimic without guilt.

“Crimes must not…inspire criminals with the desire for imitation.” I don’t understand this because I don’t think that you can control a viewer’s “desire for imitation.” This is trying to control something in the audience’s mind that you cannot possibly control.

My Component of the Group’s Report

Sins enter into the story of human beings, so it is dramatic material. Sins which repel need to be distinguished from sins that attract. Sins which repel include murder, most theft, lying, hypocrisy, and cruelty. Sins which attract include sex, sins of apparent heroism, daring thefts, and organized crime.

“…avoid the hardening of the audience.” Black is saying do not let the audience get used to sins such as murder and brutality.

Sins that attract need “real care in handling.” They need more care in handling because people/ children that are attracted to the sin might be tempted to mimic their behavior.

There were a couple of agreements in our group on the subject of this section of the Lord-Quigley code, but there were no disagreements. I agree with the girl in my group that said that the Lord’s Code makes it seem like the audience does not know how to separate real life from the movies. Just because the audience watches a gangster movie does not mean that everybody in the audience is going to become a gangster.

The group agreed with my statement that we have a completely different mindset of the people in the 1920’s, and this is what makes it difficult to understand such censorship decisions as this code.

Hays Code -kate

Granted the Lord-Quigley was more lenient than other material we have read, I still completely disagree with everything it outlines. I don’t believe that the film industry should be censored, regardless of the material and content of the film. There are better solutions which can be made than to simply cut scenes. The code seems to make most of its decisions based on what is appropriate to be viewed by children. This is a very limiting guideline. Also, there are concerns about “uneducated people” wanting to immitate the immoral acts they see in movies. I think this is a terrible stereotype and to assume that only uneducated people commit crimes and sin is completely ridiculous. Also, it seems that the film industry is commonly used as a scapegoat when such acts are committed. The code also outlined that films should not serve to make the life of criminals alluring or involve material which makes the audiences sympathy lie with the criminal. In terms of Scarface, the code seems to be loosely applied. The alternate endings are a main distinction of the code being applied to the movie. Had no code been established, the original script ending would have shown Camonte’a lifestyle to  be far more appealing. However, the alternate endings ruined any appeal the lifestyle of a gangster may have. The scenes of corruption of law officials which were cut are also addressed in the code. The code states that there should be no scenes which reflect poorly on the government and the court system. Furthermore, Mrs. Camonte’s feelings towards Tony also is addressed in the code. Her feelings about her son leave a strong impression on the viewer and help to assure us that if his mother cannot even seen the good in him, then there must be no good present. The incest plot also comes into play in regards to the code. Incest is considered a taboo and seen as immoral, which is a clear violation of the code. However, there are parts of the code that don’t seem to have been applied to the production of Scarface. For instance, Every person in group 3 agreed that they felt bad for Tony Camonte at the end of the film. The code states that the audiences sympathy should not lie with the criminal or anti-hero. However, the audience commonly will side with Tony Camonte because we are rarely exposed to his character flaws. We never really see him murder people or commit other crimes, with the exception of Guino. Due to a lack of so called “immoral” scenes, Tony Camonte is portrayed as nice guy with a sense of humor. Had we been exposed to his criminal ways, our sympathies would have lied else where. The humor which is used throughout the film is also key to our opinion of the gangsters. It serves to humanize them, thus making them more appealing. The code seems to be loosely applied to Scarface, but there are certain instances where Scarface seems to have slipped by the censors.