Group 5’s Group Report- Lindsay,Thomas, Monica, and Jon

Group 5 Report-Response to Reasons Underlying Particular Applications, Sections 2- 12 

Lindsay. C
Monica. M
Thomas. A
Jon. M 

 Amazingly, our group did not have any disagreements on the key issues of our portion of the Lord-Quigley Proposal.  As a group we agreed that the overall message of our section of the code was that films containing explicit sexual behavior or offensive material are not to be tolerated.

(Section by Lindsay. C)  

In the Lord-Quigley Proposal, under the “Reasons Underlying Particular Applications,” in the second section labeled “SEX,” the code feared that the “sanctity of marriage and the home” would suffer, if the role of “passion” and “pure love” was misused (Black. 306, 307). It also states that many people, especially criminals and children should not view overly sexual material because it will have a negative and “dangerous” impact on their “emotions” (Black. 307). The film Scarface, illustrates how the rules of the code were broken with its numerous implications of incest between the movie’s main character Tony and his sister Cesca. According to Professor Thompson from George Mason University, the idea of incest was supposedly even more explicit in the original script. Overall, I felt the main points of this particular section in the code that were trying to be conveyed were that; marriage is sacred, incest is morally wrong, and movies that are overly sexual or show marriage in a negative light are bad and dangerous for society.

(Section by. Thomas. A) 

In the third section of “Reasons Underlying Particular Applications” the sub-sections on vulgarity, obscenity and profanity are pretty self explanatory. There is to be no vulgar or obscene material such as excessive violence and sexual content and there is to be no use of profanity, no cursing. This section in regards to Scarface has little effect from my point of view but I’m sure in the 1930’s the way the gangsters acted and talked seemed vulgar. I believe this may be one of the reasons why they didn’t show the original ending of the movie because it was seen as too vulgar.

(Section by. Monica.  M)

The next section (“Costume”) stresses the effect of nudity or semi-nudity and how it should not be portrayed in any film. It recognizes the human form as “beautiful,” but is firm with its decision that it “does not make its use in films moral.” The code even went as far as eliminating “translucent material and silhouette” because it was felt that it could be “more suggestive than actual exposure.” In regards to Scarface, there was no nudity, but some questionable scenes that walk a fine line of immorality according to the Lord-Quigley code. Poppy’s costume in the film is an example. When her character is first introduced, we see her dressed in a silk night gown with a large slit up the thigh, as she applies her makeup. Although she is not nude, the gown left little to the imagination, and showed off her sex appeal. The scene where Tony rips Cesca’s dress is another risqué scene. I can understand why the film Scarface received negative criticism by viewers. It’s portrayal of crime, violence, and sex was “immoral” even though it illustrated the world’s reality.

(Section by. Thomas. A) 

In regards to section VII, Dances, there are to be no dances that represent sexual actions that intend to “excite the emotional reaction of an audience.” There are to be no dances that involve groping or sexual motions. In Scarface dancing is used in a sexual manner when Cesca dances with a man at the party, although by today’s standards that dance was very toned down. In regards to section VIII Religion ministers and religious figures cannot be made fun of or showed as villains because that could change the attitude taken toward religion. Changing the way people view religious officials could have problematic outcomes.

(Section by. Jon. M) 

In sections IX-XII of particular applications the section locations mentions that there are some places that too closely associated with sexual life to e shown it never mentions directly what these places are, but the bedroom could very well be one them. This has a direct connection to Scarface since when Tony bring Poppy into his bedroom he shows her and invites her to sit on his bed and she excited with Tony. Later after Tony kills Lovo he runs into Poppy’s bedroom in the middle of the night and her to come with him. In section X it mentions that not specific country or people should ever be insulted in any film. On the subject of titles for movies it mentions that any title must conform to ethical practices in regards to Scarface, the title was one of the ways the director used to make it clear to the Hays Office that the movie did not glorify gangsters by changing the title from simply Scarface and adding The Shame of the Nation to it. Section XII is perhaps one of the vaguest sections of the code even compared to the other sections it mentions that while repellant subjects may be necessary they should never offend good taste.

 

 

Hays Code–Individual Response

After reading the Lord-Quigley code proposal, I can understand why the film industry and censors fought a long battle on censorship. The code disapproves of “immoral” actions, violence, sex, sin, and crime in any film. It gives a very detailed outline of what is acceptable and what is not. Some ideas of what the code suggests to be “moral” and “immoral” are a bit extreme. I feel that one’s perception of morality/immorality is simply an individual opinion.  The code forces others to conform to their beliefs with no say. I can imagine how frustrating it was for film makers to produce a film under such strict guidelines.  Sex, violence, sin and crime are all components of REALITY. We all know it exists, and eliminating it completely, seems unrealistic.

 

 On the other hand, the point in time these regulations were written is a completely different society from today. When I look at it from that perspective, I understand the intentions of the code, and what it was trying to achieve (to some extent). Film was enjoyed by many, and I felt the code’s purpose was to create order and conformity in society. I didn’t agree with film being the only form of media being singled out.  If films were to be censored, then books, plays and newspapers should have similar censorship guidelines.

 

In section VI (“Costume”) under Reasons Underlying Particular Applications, the code stresses the effect of nudity or semi-nudity and how it should not be portrayed in any film. It recognizes the human form as “beautiful,” but is firm with its decision that it “does not make its use in films moral.”  The code even went as far as eliminating “translucent material and silhouette” because it was felt that it could be “more suggestive than actual exposure.”  In regards to Scarface, there was no nudity, but some questionable scenes that walk a fine line of immorality according to the Lord-Quigley code.  Poppy’s costume in the film is an example.  When her character is first introduced, we see her dressed in a silk night gown with a large slit up the thigh, as she applies her makeup.  Although she is not nude, the gown left little to the imagination, and showed off her sex appeal. The scene where Tony rips Cesca’s dress is another risqué scene. I can understand why the film Scarface received negative criticism by viewers. It’s portrayal of crime, violence, and sex was “immoral” even though it illustrated the world’s reality.  

Hays Code Indivdual Response (Jon M)

After reading the Lord-Quigley Code it becomes clear to me that the government and the church seemed to disapprove of anything that anybody might find offensive.  From the beginning of the code it assumes that everyone will look at something the same way, and that everybody would be affected the same way by offensive material as it states in the first section “Art can be morally evil in its effects.  This is the case clearly enough with unclean art , indecent books, suggestive drama.  The effect on the lives of men and women is obvious.” (Black, 303).  Another part of the code that caught my eye was it seemed to have a overly religious message, not only does it frequently refer to what proper  morals should be it also it attempts to ban extreme violence and sexual situations which it states is “out of regard for the sanctity of marriage and the home.”  ( Black, 307).  Shortly after this it mentions that both pure and impure love which it seems to imply is love outside marriage should be avoided and should not be made attractive or the subject.  To me this seems more then a little unreasonable since with all the restrictions it places on violence, sex, costume, etc it would be impossible to difficult make a good movie without including these actions or making them look morally wrong.  I also feel like it would be difficult to avoid many of these things completely because of the vague nature of the code.

In sections IX-XII of particular applications the section locations mentions that there are some places that too closely associated with sexual life to e shown it never mentions directly what these places are, but the bedroom could very well be one them.  This has a direct connection to Scarface since when Tony bring Poppy into his bedroom he shows her and invites her to sit on his bed and she excited with Tony.  Later after Tony kills Lovo he runs into Poppy’s bedroom in the middle of the night and her to come with him.  In section X it mentions that not specific country or people should ever be insulted in any film.  On the subject of titles for movies it mentions that any title must conform to ethical practices in regards to Scarface, the title was one of the ways the director used to make it clear to the Hays Office that the movie did not glorify gangsters by changing the title from simply Scarface and adding The Shame of the Nation to it.  Section XII is perhaps one of the vaguest sections of the code even compared to the other sections it mentions that while repellant subjects may be necessary they should never offend good taste.

Hays code-individual response

After reading the Lord-Quigley code I can now see why Scarface was seen as such a violent and offensive film, the way people viewed things back then was totally different from today. Seeing the code through today’s eyes it seems outrageous and impossible to make a film that shows anything negative, there is to be no sexual promiscuity or corruption in the government or church officials, even if those things were happening in society. There seems to be too many restrictions in the code and it seems as if it would be next to impossible to make any film with violence unless you take the time to show how morally wrong it is. The code writers appear as if they believe that the public is to ignorant to watch a movie and decipher what is right and wrong, instead it appears as if they believe that the public will not be able to make this difference and that movies will alter all of societies views. There are some parts of the code that i do not agree with, for instance in the beginning of the code it states that there are some forms of entertainment that degrade the human race, which I think is ridiculous. There is no form of entertainment that can degrade an entire race, it may change some people views but if there that easily influenced than movies cannot be to blame. In the section of the code were they discuss sex it seems as though marriage is a sacred institution and any attacks on this institution would not be tolerated. The same goes for “impure love” which sounds as though they mean cheating, or adultery. In my opinion most of the code seems incredibly unreasonable, it seems as though the writers were blind to the truth. It didn’t want marriage to be viewed in an impure light or for impure love to be shown even though all these things were going on in the real world. It seemed as if they wanted to hide the truths of the world.

In section III of the Reasons Underlying Particular Application the sub-sections on vulgarity, obscenity and profanity are pretty self explanatory. There is to be no vulgar or obscene material such as excessive violence and sexual content and there is to be no use of profanity, no cursing. This section in regards to Scarface has little effect from my point of view but I’m sure in the 1930’s the way the gangsters acted and talked seemed vulgar. I believe this may be one of the reasons why they didn’t show the original ending of the movie because it was seen as too vulgar. In regards to section VII Dances, there are to be no dances that represent sexual actions that intend to “excite the emotional reaction of an audience.” There are to be no dances that involve groping or sexual motions. In Scarface dancing is used in a sexual manner when Cesca dances with a man at the party, although by today’s standards that dance was very toned down. In regards to section VIII Religion ministers and religious figures cannot be made fun of or showed as villains because that could change the attitude taken toward religion. Changing the way people view religious officials could have problematic outcomes.

Individual Response- Lindsay. C

After reading the Lord-Quigley Code proposal several times, it is abundantly clear that the government and Catholic Church did not approve of movies that contained sex, violence and crime, and did not consider them to be entertaining. Instead of judging a film based on its message, the code judged films based on content and believed that any film with these types of racy topics are not acceptable for society. In general the document’s overall message was not only stereotypical but unclear in its descriptions about these taboo subjects. I feel anyone that reads this document will interpret its meaning differently. I also imagine that the film industry had a difficult time understanding what exactly was allowed to be filmed, because of the code’s ambiguity.

In addition to how vague the code was, I also felt that it was overly religious in its assumption that everyone who reads it has the same moral values and beliefs. An example of this, is in the beginning of the code, where it states that all “mankind recognized that entertainment can be harmful or helpful” which is a statement that cannot be tested or measured because it is an opinion (Black. 302). Another example of how the document was too religious, is whenever the code used phrases such as “moral obligation” or “moral importance.” (Black. 302, 303) The word “moral” is closely related to things which are good, ethical, right and honest; and the code tries to make people feel guilty who want to make or see movies containing sex, violence or crime, because it goes against “moral” and religious standards. A person’s belief, regardless of their worldly status, should have no bearing on how an entire industry should behave. It is not the film industry’s responsibility to protect the entire world from crime.

I do feel however, that the document had good intentions, but in the process of trying to form a society that was refined and proper, it created a desire to break rules and do exactly what it told everyone not to do. The production of Scarface is a perfect example of this irony. Even with the script’s editing, the film was still a complete abomination to this proposal. One example of this is the film’s implication of incest between Tony, and his sister Cesca. According to Professor Thompson from George Mason University, the idea of incest was supposedly even more explicit in the original script. In the section labeled “SEX,” under “Reasons Underlying Particular Applications,” the code feared that the “sanctity of marriage and the home” would suffer, if the role of “passion” and “pure love” was misused. (Black. 306, 307) It also states that many people, especially criminals and children should not view overly sexual material because it will have a negative and “dangerous” impact on their “emotions” (Black. 307). Overall, I felt the main point of this particular section in the code that were trying to be conveyed were that; marriage is sacred, incest is morally wrong, and movies that are overly sexual or show marriage in a negative light are bad and dangerous for society.