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.

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.