Minow (Jon M)

I think the point Minow is trying to make by showing examples of supreme court cases which attempted to protect children at the expense of 1st amendment is that children are a special case and that broadcasters should be controlled in what they show to children. At the same time he makes the point any restrictions should not be too broad.

Culture Shock (Jon M)

The two ways Denby puts forward for looking at film is that movies should be complex in order to show what life is really like. While another view is that film should teach a moral lesson about whats right. I personally think that the best method to take in movies is the first approach since people are see and hear about things like violence, murder, etc all the time and would be used to seeing it. While it’s good to see criminals punished it’s equally useful to see how life really works rather then simply showing everything perfect and without any complexity.

Mutual Decision (Jon M)

The Supreme Court Case “Mutual Film Corp. V. Industrial Commission of Ohio” the was the first major court case to be brought against any local censorship board. The issues raised in the case by the Mutual Film Corp. were that the censorships boards limited film exchange by charging a fee for approving the film, as well claiming that the boards limited the freedom of the press, the final argument that was made was that the statute unfairly gave the censors legislative power to determine whether or not a film was potentially offending. The first argument was shot down by the court when it replied that “The censorship, therefore is only of films intended for exhibition in Ohio,…immediately put to one side the contention that it imposes a burden on interstate commence.” As for the second issue that the censors violated freedom of speech for the films the court basically said that since certain films could be used for “evil” purposes it was acceptable to maintain a certain level of censorship and deemed it to be “..in the interest of public morals and welfare to supervise moving picture exhibitions.”

They also made it clear that they did not believe films to be covered by freedom of the press since they claimed that the motion picture industry was “a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit.” Making it clear that they considered film to be outside the area covered by freedom of the press. As to the third issue  of whether or not the legislative power could be delegated to the censorship board the court decided in favor this principle of allowing administrative boards to handle legislative decisions. In the end the Court ruled in favor of the censorship board. While today this may look like a violation of free speech by denying a film company the ability to make whatever they want and to censor anything that might offend one group it has to be looked at in the context of the time when film was still new to the world and while today it might be obvious that everybody wouldn’t have the same reaction to everything at the time it was so new nobody could be sure how people would react to film.

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.

 

 

1st Amendment & Virginia Declaration – Jon M

During the1930s gangster films upset critics and citizen groups was because they feared that the movie industry might glorify crime and gangsters and mock the judicial system as the Code said “Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for it’s violation. ” ( qtd in Black, 108).

I think that censorship of violence is dependent on whether or not you think movies would fall under the category of freedom of the press. Usually when we think of freedom of the press we think of news media more often then movies which are meant to be entertainment. I think that movies should too an extent be protected by freedom of the press. If there is a scene that is offensive people can be warned about it, but everybody shouldn’t have to miss a movie just because some people might be offended. Howver if a overwhelming number of the population don’t like a particular film then it would make censorship more acceptable.

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.

Scarface & 3 Endings – Jon M

The 3 main endings for Scarface are the script ending, the “coward” ending, and the hanging ending.  Of these 3 only the last two were ever filmed.  In the scripted ending Tony was supposed to have come out of the apartment shooting his gun off and finally gets shoot.  I think that this to an extent  glorified Camonte since it showed him dieing in what might be called a blaze of glory fighting by his own standards and makes it seem as if a gangster like Camonte could escape justice.

By Contrast in the 1st filmed ending rather then coming out shooting Tony turns into a coward after Cesca gets shoot.  As he starts to leave down the stairs almost begging for mercy from the police he gets shot as he runs out the door.  The 2nd filmed ending by contrast is similar to the 1st in as he turns into a coward after Cesca’s death, but instead of running away he allows himself to be arrested and tried, he is later found guilty and hanged. 

The 2nd filmed ending in some ways helps the image of the government in the movie since it demonstrates that even through there may have been some corruption in the government, the justice system is still functioning and able to convict a gangster like Camonte.  The 1st filmed ending in my mind doesn’t make the government look as good as the 2nd ending does since although it shows the government being competent it also shows the government as perhaps a bit rash in their thinking, being happy to shoot and ask questions later. 

Scarface-Camonte (Jon M)

The 1932 movie Scarface is a very interesting movie in how it gives a very accurate look at gangsters in the 1930s.   The character of Tony Camonte is perhaps one of the most interesting characters in the whole movie.  In a way he is exactly what someone thinks of when it comes to gangsters from the 20s or 30s, i.e. someone who looks professional yet tough as well as someone who seems to have a complete disregard of authority which Tony demonstrates when he ignores Guarino’s  demands to follow him to the police station, he shows his disrespect further when he lights a match on his badge.  He also seems to be able to stay calm no matter the situation for example after he shoots Louis he show remarkable calm by whistling as he walks away.  Despite these traits Tony also seems to have a more caring side especially when it comes to his sister Cesca from the part of the movie I’ve seen it seems as if Tony cares for her more then anyone else.  Tony also knows when to stand down when a situation could be bad, which is shown when he agrees to go along with Guarino knowing it wouldn’t be a good idea to hit a police officer.  As to whether or not the movie glorifies violence and gangsters, while I don’t think it glorifies violence the way it portrays people like Tony and the way he disrespects authority yet still appears to get away with to me seems to glorify gangsters if not violence. 

Introduction-Jon M

 Hi, I’m Jonathan Mcclintock from Manassas, VA, although I am originally from Scotland.  I am majoring in History.  This is my first semester here at GMU, for the past 2 years I was at NOVA and just graduated last semester.  My favorite hobbies that I like to do in my spare time are play soccer, read, play on the computer, or just hang out with my friends.  After I graduate I am planning on possibly being a teacher.