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.

*Hays Code-Group 3 Report*

The key points that were covered in Group 3 (Black, page 305) were: how evil and sin shouldn’t be portrayed as “alluring” and how the law should not be “ridiculed”. They did not want evil to appear appealing to the audience or create feelings of sympathy for the wrong that the person has committed. They also did not want the law to be scorned by the audience when a criminal was punished for their sins. They wanted to protect the audience, and they did not want them to do evil or commit sin, like what they saw on film.

–By Laura Milchak

Many members in our group believed that the Code had reason to enforce these rules; however, the public also has the right to differentiate between what is wrong and right. Specifically toward our section, some of us believed a story should be portrayed just as the creators intended, 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 that exists to tell a story, not relay facts. The public understands this and can make moral decisions based on their own personal moral guidelines. Two priests should not be able to dictate what everyone should watch and believe. The main disagreement 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 1930s. After reading the Code many times, we noticed that everything during the 1930s seemed to be offensive; however, one thing we all agreed on was that the Code is simply too harsh to be continually enforced.

–By Natasha Barbosa

In terms of Scarface, the code seems to be loosely applied. The alternate endings are mainly a distinction of the code that is applied to the movie. Had no code been established, the original script ending would have shown Camonte’s 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 toward Tony are also 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 is seen as immoral, which would be 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, everyone in Group 3 agreed that they felt bad for Tony Camonte at the end of the film. The code states that the audience’s sympathy should not lie with the criminal or anti-hero. However, the audience will commonly side with Tony Camonte because they 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 a nice guy with a sense of humor. Had we been exposed to his criminal ways, our sympathies would have lied elsewhere. The humor that 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.–By Katie Posey

The ratings system we use 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 again no more information is enumerated here. What’s more, sometimes there is no stopping a child from seeing sexually or violently perverse subjects and situations on television shows. There is a brief warning before the production is shown, but if there is no authoritative figure around to stop the viewing of the show, many children can be free to see scenes that may be too mature for their own immature levels. 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. But there are still irresponsible parental figures in existence, so there are still limitations within our movie rating system.

–By Michelle Sargent

*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.

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.

Hays Code-Individual Response- Laura M

After reading the Lord-Quigley Code, I understand why they created such a proposal.  They wanted to protect the people from violence, sin, and sex.  They wanted the people to understand what was good and what was bad.  The code clearly states that there should be absolutely no material in a film that shows immoral behavior.  I don’t completely agree with everything the code expected from the film industry, but I do understand where they were coming from. 

  

Reasons supporting the general principles: 

The key points that this section covered was how evil and sin shouldn’t be portrayed as “alluring” and how the law should not be “ridiculed”.  They did not want evil to appeal to the audience or feel sympathy for the wrong that the person has committed.  They also, did not want the law to be scorned for punishing a criminal for their sins by the audience.  They wanted to protect the audience, they did not want them to do evil or sin like what they saw on film.