Final Paper: In-Class Discussion

My in-class discussion was with Michelle. We discussed each other’s thesis and she told me that I should combine my thoughts to make one complete thesis instead of having to different veiws in seperate paragraphs. Michelle also advised me that I could use more quotes and examples of how gangster films are unsafe in my paper. The advice I gave to her were mostly about her grammatical errors. Her paper had strong statistical information in it and I couldn’t help but agree with her thesis.

Final Paper Purposal: Dee Nouv

Developing Argument:

A movie in itself is just a movie, with no physical or mental capabilities. The movie cannot by itself cause any danger. The only way a gangster film can cause any danger is when combined with other factors such as imitation and stupidity. Danger then arises, not directly from a movie, but only from a series of events.

Expanding Options:

I need to give specific examples of factors that, when combined with gangster films, cause danger. I also need to tie in movie censorship and make include that in my thesis. I believe that restrictions and limitations placed on the film Scarface are in violation of our given rights, and could have easily been taken to court as well. There are some that say that films are dangerous and some that say films are not dangerous. Nevertheless, we all can agree that our rights are more important. To take away these rights would in turn cause more danger than any amount of films could ever cause.

Response to Culture Shock: Dee Nouv

I agree with Denby that life is complex, therefore art has to be complex as well. Denby also stated that images and movies should have positive lessons. I believe that is true but if we are trying to emulate life in art, then images and movies should contain negative potrayals as well because real life contains both of these types of lessons . It is true that “good should triumph” and “evil should be punished”, but that is not how reality works. To distinguish between good and evil is easier said then done. This opinion is a simple view to have, but to execute it and to make sure good will triumph is not an simple task. Even though movies are not supposed to teach moral values, many viewers can take something from a movie and learn from it, whether if it’s positive or negative.

Group 4 Report-Ashlee C, Dee, Michelle P, Neil, and Teresa

Reasons Underlying Particular Applications

 Sin and Evil: Teresa S

In the section of Reasons Underlying Particular Applications of the Working Draft of the Lord Quigley Code Proposal, Quigley writes “Sins enter into the story of human beings, which is known as dramatic material. However, sins which repel need to be distinguished from sins that attract.” For example, 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 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. Furthermore, 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.

 General versus Limited Audiences:   Dee N

Under the third numeral of this section Quigley discusses the general versus limited audiences. I feel strongly that when the filmmakers of the 1930s 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 an act to please numerous audiences and to comply with this code.

Crimes against the Law Part I:  Michelle P

Within the Application section of the code we also 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.

Crimes against the Law Part 2:  Ashlee C

To continue this idea of Crimes against the Law, Black explains that drug trafficking and liquor should not be brought to the attention of the audience. Black feels that any type of drug use should not be presented in any form. He 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 didn’t have movies on real life events, then the society might not have a good idea of what goes on in the world.

In Scarface, Camonte sells alcohol to people as a job. The movie shows what happens during trafficking and how it is an extremely dangerous thing to be involved in. Scarface promotes alcohol in the movie, as well as drug trafficking. 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.

Relationship to Scarface:  Neil B

With this being said, 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 a 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 enthusiastic 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 differences demonstrate how censors then had already begun to implement the ideas that are put forth in the Lord-Quigley Code Proposal.

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.

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.

Scarface-3 Endings: Dee Nouv

I believe that if this movie is made in present time, the scripted ending would be the one used to conclude the film. Although many people think that this ending glorifies Tony, it also shows you the high price that comes along with it. Living life in the fast lane could cost you your life, and gangsters know the risks they are taking. It is this characteristic that draws the audience to them; the fact that they would risk it all, something many Americans wish they could do at certain times. It is a shame that they never got to shoot this original ending. It is interesting that in the remake of Scarface, starring Al Pachino, the ending is similar to the original script in which Tony Montana comes out with his guns blazing. This ending is more accepted in our time because we our able to distinguish reality from fantasy more easily.

The “coward runs ending” is one that leads to an alternate, less glorifying death for Tony. It also shows the bond that he shares with his sister. Although it does not provide any more insight into the incest plot, it undoubtedly shows the commitment they owe to each other. This ending is shot exceptionally well. Tony is portrayed in a realistic way, acting hysteric and shooting crazily. The stair scene accomplishes its goal by showing Tony acting cowardly and begging to be spared. I believe that the reason for a “hanging ending” to be shot was the fact that Tony was still killed without going to trial and went out his way, which in some eyes, could be viewed as still glorifying Tony and gangsters.

 

Scarface & Camonte: Dee Nouv

I was unaware that the Scarface starring Al Pacino was a remake. I loved that movie because it depicted how people will do anything they have to do to survive. It follows the theme of “what will you do when your back is against the wall”. While watching the original film, it took me a while to get past the black and white setting because I have never been a big fan of colorless movies. After a couple minutes I got passed it. The sound was pretty good for their time even though you could hear some air in the background during some parts. The beginning scene started with an excellent camera angle, panning down the whole party area in one cut. That was probably a new and difficult thing to do back in the 1930’s. I noticed that when big Louis was shot, the killer acknowledged that he knew him by saying his name before he pulled the trigger. This made me think that this could be a possible inside job. I really liked the fact the director chose to only show his shadow because old movies were known for doing that. Also, I found it interesting that the killer was whistling because it was like nothing for him to shoot somebody, a typical gangster trait. Another thing that grabbed my attention was how the media added fuel to the fire by using a headline implicating the start of a gang war. They know that controversy sells, and that is something they still do today. The barbershop scene showed a little more insight because the barbershop worker is in cahoots with Tony. That showed you who he is rooting for. I found it hilarious how Tony showed bitterness towards the cops and didn’t bite his tongue one second. My favorite part was when he sparked his match on the officer’s badge, which was a form of straight disrespect. I think Tony represents what people want to say sometimes but don’t have the balls to say it. I believe that is what attracts people towards the gangsters and why people root for them sometimes. I don’t think the movie glorifies violence and gangsters but instead painted a realistic picture of society. It merely paints the picture, and it is up to the viewer to determine if they choose to glorify it or codemn it.

Introduction-Dee Nouv

My name is Reaksmey, pronounced “Res-may”. All my friends call me “Dee” for short; don’t ask why because it’s a long story. I am a transfer student and this is my first semester at GMU. I love basketball and football and have a strong passion for music. I have three sisters and no brothers. My parents came here from Cambodia in 1980 and made something out of nothing. I am a real laid back person and an easy guy to talk to. I love Air Jordans. I have been told that I am a funny person who jokes around a lot, which is okay but I also have a serious demeanor when necessary.