Final Research Paper Plan/ Revised Plan Bashir Ahmad

I have altered my original plan of parallel reactions to new forms of media, and how these actions were manifested via censorship and regulation. I have now decided to focus only on internet regulation in developing nations that have governments with authoritarian leanings. I will explore how these respective nation’s population have grown more bold in their criticism of the government as they grow more educated and are exposed to new medias and are given outlets for opinion and dissent that these medias provide. I will discuss how the internet is a powerful political tool for criticism and dissent and how governments acknowledge this threat and have taken measures to censor and regulate internet traffic and speech. In the end I believe that the internet will prove to erode the influence of the state and governments will in the future be forced to accommodate dissenting opinions.

Bashir Ahmad Response to Minnow

What I took from the court cases that are provided is that Minnow is trying to prove through precedent that the first amendment is not an absolute freedom and that there are restrictions on what can be said particularly in reference to children. He uses cases like the one Pacifica where free speech must be restricted at certain times of the day where children are most watching television. He opens the debate on how adult material should not enter the realm of children, I believe this to be his main point and that regulation is needed so that media does not abuse it’s first amendment freedom and blanket bomb the public with material that could prove to be harmful to children if viewed. He is making the case that media is abusing first amendment rights and that we must use the first amendment ourselves to speak out against this abuse.

Bashir Ahmad – Denby

I have to agree with much of what Denby speaks about. Life is complex and the good guys don’t always win and the bad guys dont always lose. Each of us in our own lives has experienced this. I agree with Denby that art should not be censored this way. However, I do not believe that everything coming out of Hollywood today is art. In fact I think it is quite apparent what is the fulfillment of someones creativity and what is entertainment for the masses. Applying a guideline like the production code for films like these is fine in my book as I can see how they can be interpreted as solely business. However, the position of art versus business is easily debatable and it can lead to a slippery slope, who gets to decide what is art and what is a mass production money maker? I do not and cannot believe in the censorship of all media, but I cannot get away from the fact that I believe film media to be a very powerful tool in shaping peoples reality, one that can be used for good or one that can be toyed with irresponsibly with reckless abandon.

Hays Code – Group 1 Response

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.

Lord-Quigley Code Bashir

My personal response to the code is that the code is very well written and is not a blatant in it’s censorship as one might think. The code is also well organized, it first defines the role of entertainment, why a code is needed and how film differs from other forms of entertainment using sound logical reasoning, which although one may not agree with it, it still follows a rational path in its method. After that the code then goes into a case by case basis further examining particular themes that should be portrayed in a certain manner. I think it is interesting and also very obvious that a lot of thought went into this code. Not merely in the 1900’s but for the past few hundred years as the idea’s I’m assuming are based on a rational towards entertainment that the catholic church obtained after a long period of analysis.  In my honest opinion I think some of the guidelines laid out in the code are very applicable today if not in the move industry than in advertisement which can be seen by all children and adults. In the past I now understand that movies were mass produced and so this code did not have a conception of a movie theater that had an “R” rated picture that would I.D all viewers. In conclusion I think that the code was not unreasonable and its underlying attempts are still relevant for us to consider today.

My personal section was “Reasons for supporting preamble of code” part III, section A-D. the section of the code outlines that film has certain moral obligations because of its special class of entertainment and the credibility that people place in it. I think it is important to note that even today people will, as a standard of evidence, state “I saw it on TV” to support their claims.

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.

1st Amendment and Virginia Declaration

From the Black reading it seems that the movie upset critics and citizen groups because film was a relatively new form of media and the realism that is inherent in film worried critics because it was seen as a more persuasive media then print. Gangster movies upset the critics and citizen groups because of the realistic portrayal of gangsters. Luxury, power and woman were some of the short term benefits of being a gangster and critics did not want these to be a motivator to youth or immigrants to emulate.

I am on the fence in regards to film censorship because to a large degree I can agree with the early assumption that film is a low form of entertainment. However I believe that SOME film is a low form of entertainment especially those films which target youth. I will not be able to make a more concrete opinion until I read some more studies on the effects of film and media in general on individuals especially youth. In regards to political, academic, religious views etc I do not believe the government has any role is regulating what ideas are put forth regardless of how ridiculous they may seem.

Bashir Ahmad – Scarface 3 endings

The first scripted ending which was not filmed had Camonte coming out his hideout with guns blazing. What sticks out in my mind about this ending was the fact that even after Camonte is shot dead he is still pulling the trigger on an empty pistol. To me this shows extreme viciousness, like a rabid animal still trying to come after you even after it is close to death. To me this does not glorify Camonte at all to anyone but those who would admire to be this brutal in the first place. This also fits in with how Camonte was supposed to be presented as a complicated human but nonetheless extremely violent human being who was not afraid of anything or anyone.

The two other endings show Camonte as a coward which I personally don’t think fits in well with the rest of the movie. I especially don’t like how he becomes terrified of the police once his sister dies when in other scenes he becomes enraged when he sees other men kissing his sister. I don’t understand that, for someone to kiss his sister sends him into a violent fit but to shoot and kill her makes him afraid.

So my position to the first question as to whether or not the first ending glorifies Camonte is that it does not. That the original ending simply flows with the character development that we see throughout the movie.

The difference in the two filmed endings, one in which he is gunned down trying to run and the other in which he is hung by the judicial system is that, for one the first ending is much more gradual and at least makes an attempt to show Camonte as at first being himself and crazed shooting at the police and then slowly become a coward while the second ending with the hanging is much more contrived and goes through the scenes much to fast. As to whether or not being shot in the street or being hung changes my view of Camonte, I can’t say that it does because he already strays from his character by suddenly becoming a coward and at that point it does not matter how he is killed. In the first scene he runs away terrified and in the second he faces his comeuppance and willingly goes with police. The only difference is is that in one scene justice is served by the police right then and there on the street and in the other he goes through the judicial system but in both Tony come away a coward not acting anything like he did for the previous parts of the film.

Scarface-Camonte

I am a fan of the 1983 rendition of Scarface and so it was very enjoyable watching the original which I had not known about. To be quite honest I expected a very amateurish production with over the top scare tactics via Reefer Madness, however this was not the case. My reaction to the film and analysis of the main character Tony Camonte is therefore in relation to previous reactions from watching the remake of the movie.

In both the 1983 Scarface and the original the viewer is for the most part fixated on the character of Tony Camonte (Montana). In both movies this character is played beautifully but I must admit with some surprise that it is in the original version where I find the character more appealing. The 1983Tony is also an engrossing character but in my opinion there was such a history of gangster films before the release of the 1983 Scarface that the characterization of gangsters in film, though by no means standard, could be argued to be formed in the same mold. In the original scarface we see possibly the film industries perception of what a gangster should be like from real events as opposed to what has previously been portrayed on screen. I think this reason gives the original Tony an even more unique persona than the latter, and the acting done by Paul Muni relies heavily on facial expressions which I think was more of an art form in older film than it is now.

I don’t believe the film glorifies violence and gangsters however it does portray them as individual people who can be liked and disliked based on their personality as opposed to one dimensional villains used to scare children.

Introductions

My name is Mirza Bashir Ahmad, however I go by my middle name only. I was born in Pakistan and moved to the United States at the age of three. I’m 25 years old and I live in Great Falls and commute to school every day. I have one brother and two sisters one of which just got married last month in Pakistan. I am a Global Affairs major with a concentration in the Middle East and I graduate this May. Before coming to George Mason I served in Iraq as a medic in the National Guard and I will finish up my contract in April. My hobbies are martial arts and upon graduating I am moving to Thailand to train and fight full time and from there I plan to continue to travel around the world doing the same with the possibility of graduate school a couple years after my graduation this coming May.