Final Research paper: in-class discussion

Laura and I discussed my paper on community policing, and her paper on Scarface and the effect the violence may have had on the viewer.  She’s a lot farther along than I am, and her paper was well organized.   I suggested researching for studies on naturally violent children to help her expand on some of the ideas stated in her paper.

I’m a very messy writer, and tend to write in chunks, ignoring parts of the paper until I’m ready to tie them together.   I also do a lot of rewriting, which meant my thesis statement wasn’t even in the paper.  I’d redone it several times, trying to get the wording right, until I gave up and concentrated on other portions of the paper, and hadn’t had a chance to go back and finish it.  (sorry about that, Laura!)  I also hadn’t gotten to my conclusion, but was able to explain to her what I intended to write.  My thesis is essentially that community policing helps reduce crime, but I included so much police history that I wanted to expand my thesis to incorporate it, and explain why it’s taken so long for community policing to become both popular and effective.  I need to write more before I can make that thesis work.

Final Paper – updated proposal

For my paper now, I will be looking at gangs and police in the 20th century, and the changes that are taking place in policing methods and community involvement.  I hope to show that working together with the police AND with gangs will help communities greatly reduce their crime problems.

Alas, I will be cutting Scarface out entirely, although this may please the Hays Board.

Proposal for Final Research Paper

For Scarface, the Hays board insisted on adding new scenes with a striking message to the audience:  “Get involved if you want to stop crime.  The police and the government can’t do it without your help.”  For my paper, I want to explore this message, as it’s still applicable today.  How effective is community involvement in reducing crime? I plan to research community policing and look into policing methods in the 1930’s and today for part of the paper.

Minow and Lamay are arguing that children are different from adults and that laws should be applied in a different manner when dealing with them.  They break out from the television arena to emphasize their case, citing court cases involving telephone services, newspapers, books, and public protest rights.  Basically they feel that children are uneducated and should be protected from the adult world until they have matured enough to be able to handle things like violence, drugs, sex, and even obscenity.

While I understand where they are coming from, I don’t believe it is the place of the US Supreme Court OR the Constitution to dictate the way parents raise their children, or to control just what can and can’t be shown on TV.

Denby – Elaine B.

Denby gives two options for a film – it can imitate life and all its complexities,  or it can present an idealistic life, with high morals and proper meted rewards and punishments.   There’s a movie quote from The Princess Bride that states my belief perfectly:  “Life is pain.  Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.”   When used as an art form, a film should  imitate life, because that’s what art is.  Ideals are generally only found in religions and advertisements.  (Buy this, and your life will be wonderful!) Ideals are something to aspire to, but rarely achieved.  In the meantime, most of the world struggles and falls short.  It’s why people like the ‘less ideal’ movies, they can relate far more to the characters who fall short of perfection than to the ‘perfect’ world.

I see no reason that movies must pick one form or another.  The beauty of art is that we can have both imitations of life and idealistic representations of what life should be.

Mutual Decision – Elaine B.

Background: The State of Ohio passed a law requiring all film distributors, before public exhibition in Ohio, pay a fee and submit each film to a board of censors for approval. The board follows the guidelines of Section 4 of the censorship statute: “only such films as are, in the judgment and discretion of the board of censors, of a moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character shall be passed and approved by such board.”

Mutual Film Corporation, a company that made and distributed motion pictures in a time-sensitive manner, challenged this law in the Ohio court system, lost the case, and then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, making the following complaints:

1. The Ohio statute violates the following laws of the Ohio State Constitution:
   1. Article 1.5: the right of trial by jury
   2. Article 1.16: The right of redress by courts
   3. Article 1.19: Inviolability of private property

Here Mutual is arguing that the censorship board bypasses the judicial system.  Mutual also argues that being forced to pay these fees before movies are released interferes with interstate commerce, as it distributes films in several states.

1. The Ohio statute violates the right of freedom of speech as stated in Article 1 of the United States Constitution and Article 1.11 of the Ohio State Constitution.

1. The Ohio statute gives the board of censors legislative authority that should only be given to the state general assembly (who were selected by the people of Ohio to represent them.) The board was also given the power to order the arrest of anyone showing publicly airing films that have not passed through the censor’s hands. As there are no publicly posted standards in place for the board to refer to in regards to censoring films, the board cannot be held accountable for their decisions.

 

The US Supreme Court upheld the Ohio Court’s decision. As a counter argument, they point out:

1. The law only applies to films being shown in Ohio, and does not apply to films being distributed out of state. Therefore, it is not interfering with interstate commerce.
2. Motion pictures are a business, not an art, and have a greater capacity for influencing evil. Therefore they should be closely regulated for the good of the public.
3. It’s nearly impossible to define Section 4 of the Ohio statute more specifically.

I can certainly understand the frustration Mutual felt in dealing with a censorship board that was given such free reign. According to the document, Mutual distributed films with the intent of releasing all films on the same day. The censors, if feeling contrary, could hold up a film’s release in several states. If the film was a news clip, they could ruin that film’s chance of ever being shown due to the time sensitivity of the material.

I am really quite surprised by the ruling of the US Supreme Court. Mutual was challenging the legality of the censorship board, and the Court turns around and challenges the legality of films. They tell Mutual that if their films were harmless they shouldn’t have any problem with the censorship board. Mutual is protesting that the board isn’t following any specific set of rules, are not representing the citizens of Ohio because they were not elected, are collecting tax-free fines*, and have the power to arrest people! The US Supreme Court does not address these issues, except in vague reference to the difficulties in defining ‘moral’ or ‘harmless’ motion pictures, and to cite other cases where ‘opinion and caprice’ were found acceptable standards.

 

*(at least, I think that’s what this means: “. . . the fee for censorship, which is not properly an inspection tax, and the proceeds of which will be largely in excess of the cost of enforcing the statute, and will in no event be paid to the Treasury of the United States.”)

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.

Hays Code – Individual Responses – Elaine B.

My personal response to the Code:

Lord and Quigley are taking on the difficult task of defining art, morality, and motion pictures, all in one document. However, two of these things are defined individually and culturally, while the third is a physical representation of the other two. Their task is all but impossible, but they recognized that something needed to be set in writing in order to create a kind of peace between the motion picture companies and the general public.

For example, the movie Scarface, when considered from the point of view of Art, would be a dark, violent piece that speaks to a more primitive part of the soul. It screams of man’s desire for power over others, at almost any cost. A painting of an epic battle hanging on a wall, neatly framed, does not have the same influence, as fewer senses are involved. There is no motion, no sound to give the viewer a greater sensory experience of the idea represented.

As entertainment, Scarface is exciting. There’s a lot of movement, and a lot of noise. People get to see a world full of fancy cars, clothes, and parties. They laugh at the antics of the secretary, cry with Tony’s family, and scoff at Lovo’s cowardice. A lot happens in a short period of time, and a lot of emotions are invoked. As motion pictures go, this movie has nearly everything.

From a moral standpoint, Scarface is a film that comes up lacking. Greed, hatred, lust, and envy are all given prominent billing. Even the police might be considered slothful for their slow unwillingness to capture Tony and put an end to his gang and his misdeeds. The opening titles add the only hint of morality by saying “Look what happens if we stand by and do nothing.”

The proposal recognizes motion pictures as an art form, as well as entertainment, and also point out its influence on viewers and the way they act and react to the ideas. It states that because some people may not understand what they are seeing, it is the studio’s obligation to establish moral standards to prevent anarchy, chaos, and the downward spiral of humanity. To me, this is futile, because it is the responsibility of religion, family, and local community to establish morals, not the entertainment industry of an entire nation. Also, because each community defines its own morals, there is no way for the motion picture studios to be able to represent all of these ideals.

My component of the group 1’s report:

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.

Part 3: 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.

1st A & Virginia Declaration – Elaine B

There were several things I learned from Black about gangster movies and the time period in which Scarface was filmed.

1.  It was during the Depression.  People had no money.
2.  It was during Prohibition.  People had no beer.
3.  People tended to blame these lack of things on the government.
4.  Gangsters had money, beer, and no respect for the law.

Critics and citizens alike were concerned that gangster movies would encourage illegal activities and corrupt innocent children.  “Crime movies cause crime” (Black, 109) was the general consensus of upstanding citizens.  Formal studies and news articles bolstered this idea.  People turned on the movie makers in an effort to stem the wave of anarchy they were sure would be forthcoming if movies like these continued to air.   

The censorship in Scarface was self imposed.  Congress did NOT make a law prohibiting the making of such movies, so the first amendment was not violated.  Even states failed to pass laws on film censorship.  The major movie studios, in order to keep the peace with citizen groups and communities (and still make money), got together and formed their own rules regarding what could and couldn’t be shown, and then got a third party (Hays) to enforce their own rules. The government was not officially envolved.  They cannot impose censorship, nor prevent self-censorship.

On paper, this all worked out well.  The government kept out of it, the movie makers would play nice and keep it clean, the Hays board would see that the code was kept, and innocent children would maintain their innocence and not grow up to be thugs.  In reality  . . . well, at least the government kept out of it.

Scarface – 3 Endings – Elaine B.

Throughout the movie Scarface, we see Tony in action, usually taking the lead in whatever activity is going on. He never showed fear, was always full of confidence, and modified his actions and even his personality to get the results he wanted. The police only seemed to show up after all the action had taken place, and only to clean up the mess. They only responded to effects of gang violence.

The 2nd ending of Scarface was in keeping with Tony’s character as he feigns submission to the police before charging out the door. Tony died as he lived, violently, and in one last effort of defiance to the law. The police and government in this ending are for once being proactive, and prove effective in stopping Tony’s reign of violence.

The 3rd ending, with Tony’s arrest, trial, and hanging, abruptly turned Tony into a nobody. He is now dead in character, mute and unresistant, just a thing for the police/government to dispose of. This ending does not improve my opinion of the officials, as they are once again cleaning up the mess. Tony’s death here is dignified, as he is treated to the rituals of a trial and hanging – something his victims never received.