Final Paper Plan- Kate

For my final paper I am going to research the dangers that video games have on the people who play them. I am not going to argue that video games cause violent tendencies in those who actively play; rather, video games lead to sedentary lifestyles, cause a breakdown of social skills, and can also lead to video game addiction. Video game addiction has become a reality and is treated in hospitals in Europe as well as an American hospital. I believe that video games can be dangerous; however, they are not dangerous for the reasons that are typically argued (i.e. violence). I am also not going to focus my paper on the dangers that video games can have on children; rather, video game addiction has become a problem among 40-50 year-old men; rarely does it ever affect women.

 

Michelle and I have similar topics; however, she has chosen to focus her paper on some of the good things that can come from video games if played in moderation. We both agree that video games can be dangerous if the play of them is not monitored and limited. I am going to introduce studies that show that video games do not cause violence in children and focus on those studies more than I originally intended to. From there, I am going to introduce the other dangers that video games impose on our lives.

 I might consider adding in the positive side of video games… such as with the Nintendo Wii. This console was an attempt to get people away from sedentary lifestyles, but did it work? There are still ways to sit down on the couch and swing the controller properly. Or, in the case of games like dance dance revolution — the high prices may steer people away from this game and lead them to less active choices.

Minow – Kate Posey

Minow and Lamay’s account of the Supreme Court cases is meant to strengthen the claim that television has dangerous effects on children. He discusses that children need to be handled in a special manner. However, the court cases in which they discuss are of more serious issues. The “stranger in the house” scenario is being re-discussed and they make an attempt to apply it to real life court cases. Certainly, child pornography is more serious than Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.  They make an interesting case in saying that “the Court upheld the statute because it thought the statute expressed the community’s judgment about what was appropriate for minors with regard to an expression that does not enjoy full First Amendment protection” (124). How a statute can be upheld based on a thought alone is unclear to me. Decisions should be made on scientific research and facts, not mere ideas of the mind that have yet to be proven. This section in Minow attempts to argue that facts are not necessary in the case of Television because some people may think that television has the potential to harm their children.  

I think this argument is made weak by the court cases that Minow discusses. Television that has the potential for danger is not as serious as child pornography. He tries to prove that children should be handled in a different way in concerns to the First Ammendment.  This is to say that the law was made too broad for this exact purpose. By makign the law broad, court decisions would have more ways in which they could be ruled. This may be true in some cases (such as child pornography); however, Television is not that serious of an issue and it is something which the parents have ultimate control over. Potential dangers should not build an entire case… coffee has the potential to burn me, should we stop brewing it?

Denby -kate

David Denby’s stance on censorship in the film industry seems to be the most rational. He admits that he would be disturbed if the criminal acts of characters went unpunished in the films; however, it should be recognized that the film is showing the complexity of life. Films give an accurate portrait of the duality that life can have – the good and the bad. It is also believed by some that the films should portray only the good aspects of life and teach positive moral lessons. This is the case where evil is punished and good triumphs.

 I agree with David Denby that films show the complexity of life and should not be censored to show a sugar-coated version. However, I also believe that the original script to Scarface, despite its violent and criminal content, is still in line with the second belief that films should teach positive, moral lessons. The original script portrayed its share of criminal behavior; however, it still portrayed an ending in which good triumphed and evil was punished. Scarface found a common ground between the two beliefs. It was able to display the complexity of life and also ended with a positive lesson. Tony may have been a criminal, and his actions were violent and disturbing, but he was punished for his behavior. I don’t see the problem with showing the deviant actions, as long as it is made clear that they should be punished. I think the censorship boards were stubborn and unwilling to compromise to please the general public as a whole. They were caught up in a utopian idea of life and failed to recognize that it is not full of kindness. Thus, unwilling to show both aspects of Denby’s statement, the censors imposed their ideas on everyone.  

The films simply were a reflection of the already existing moral standard. The film industry in no way could help to lower the moral standard if they were simply showing the moral standard in its current state.  Scarface in its original form could have not lowered the moral standard. That defense of censorship is not substantial because Scarface was simply a reflection of the current morals at that time.

Mutual Decision -kate

In the case of Mutual Film Corporation v. the Industrial Commission of Ohio, Mutual arugued that Ohio violated the free speech provision guaranteed in the Federal and Ohio Constitution. They also stated that the censorship board of Ohio was interfering with interstate commerce because there was a fee for the approval service in order to exhibit a film. Furthrmore, Mutual argued that the government had illegally delegated its legislative authority to the censorship board because the guidelines for gaining approval were too vague.

The court stated that the film industry “is a business, pure and simple.” It was established in order to make a profit and is not regarded as part of the press. Since it is not regarded as part of the press, the freedom of speech does not extend to the film industry. The court also stated that the film industry’s “power of amusement, and it may be, education, the audiences they assmeble, not of women alone nor or men alone, but together, not of adults, but of children, make them more insidious in corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should degenerate from worthy purpose.” Basically, the audiences that movies bring in are so diverse that the films which are produced are not appropriate for every audience member. The subject matter of the film can cause curruption, even if it is educational. This is especially true in cases where the film strays from its educational prupose, or it wasn’t really educational at all. They also stated that some films could be used “for evil.”

The decisions of the court in this case seem ridiculous. Their reasons which back these decisions are even more ridiculous. They state that the film industry is not a part of the press because it makes a profit; however, the press is not a nonprofit organization. There is no evidence that really details the film industry to not be included in the press. The idea that less educated people would be easily influenced by dangerous behavior in films is an ignorant idea. Not only uneducated people commit crimes, and to argue such a point shows the stereotypical approach to government that our courts may have. Anyone can commit a crime. Likewise, not everyone is that easily influenced. Free speech should have been extended to the film industry. Furthermore, if censorship boards were going to be established to approve films, a clear set of guidelines should have been made for such a process. By leaving the process open and vague, it made it easy for any movie to be rejected because the producers had no idea what was considered appropriate and what was not.

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.

1st A &Virginia Declaration -kate

The reasons as to why gangster films upset critics and citizens groups seem to be apparent. The main concern is for the children. There is a common agreement that these films are of no harm to adults, but “they are misleading, contaminating and often demoralizing to children and youth” (Black 109).  The people are also against veiwing a criminal as a dramatic figure. This brings up the question: is a gangster someone worth making a movie about? There are two answers to this question; one for conservatives and the other is more progressive. Crititizen groups are more conservative and do no want children to witness acts of violence. Likewise, critics show concern for children but also feel that gangster movies are not only demoralizing children but also the film industry. Gangsters are not worthy of having a film made about them and such films contribute to the downfall of the industry.

Section 12 of the Virginia Delcaration of Rights states that “the freedom of the press… can never be restrained but by despotic governments.” Since the United States is not a despotic government there should have never been any censorship imposed on the film industry, or even any pressure to censor films whatsoever. Despotism is more closely aligned with dictatorships, which is considered the opposite of a democracy. A democracy cannot exist without the freedom of Speech established in the first Ammendment. Thus, by censoring the film industry, the US has committed an act common of a dictatorship, rather than a democracy. Any democracy must allow for free speech and not use fear to repress the ideas of others. There are other means by which “censorship” can take place. If citizen groups are really concerned about what the children are seeing, they should take efforts to make sure their children are not watching material that is inapproiate for them. It is absurb to expect to censor an entire industry for the sake of children, especially when other reasonable approaches can be made.

Scarface & 3 endings -kate

I don’t think that any of the endings of Scarface glorify Tony Camonte or gangsters in general. The different endings all have a similar conclusion. In each, Tony Camonte is triumphed over; the differences which are present are the means by which Tony is taken down. 

                The script ending may portray Tony differently in the events leading up to his ultimate death, but it does not in any way glorify gangsters. The script ending seems to be more true to the lifestyle and personality of gangsters. Gangsters are seen as strong, capable men up until the time they are brought to justice or killed. The alternate endings make Tony Camonte out to be a coward. Cowardice is not a true characteristic of gangsters. Rather, I view cowardice as a cinematic alteration used to appease the Hays Office. The original script ending, where Tony comes out “guns blazing”, is more in-line with what the viewers know of Tony.

                The ending which we know as “the coward runs” does not make me view Tony Camonte any differently. Rather, it is Cesca whose character seems to change drastically. After losing her husband, Guino Rinaldo, Cesca comes to even the score by killing Tony. However, Cesca then seems to forgive her brother and is more concerned with fighting off the cops to protect Tony. Cesca is swept up into the commotion and shows excitement as she begins to load bullets into a gun. However, Cesca is shot and this is where to the downfall of Tony Camonte begins. This is the first time Tony is frightened in the entire film; it is also the first time that Cesca has seen him scared.  Cesca compares Tony to Guino, exclaiming that “Guino wasn’t afraid!” Cesca final view of Tony is that he is less of the man that Guino was. The tear gas is thrown into Tony’s house and he is forced out. He meets Gaurino at the door and begs for mercy. He tries to escape, but as he runs out of the complex, Camonte is gunned down by the crowd of police and killed.

                The third ending, in which Tony Camonte is brought before a judge and sentence to a hanging is very similar to the ending “the coward runs”. However, in this ending Cesca does not have the same willingness and excitement to fight off the police. She seems to be partaking in the actions with her brother, but her dialogue is no longer present. She is loading a gun, but we are never informed if the gun she is loading is for herself or for Tony. Tony assumes Cesca is going to fight the police off with him, but before the viewer is made aware of her role, Cesca is shot. Cesca still ultimately views Tony as a coward and he is once again forced out of the house by tear gas. Gaurino meets Tony at the door, and instead of being met by guns, Tony is taken into custody. Tony is then tried and sentenced as guilty to first degree murder. The judge states that “there is no place in this country for your type.” This line is seen as the ultimate conquering of gangsters by the government. Tony is then hanged by the neck until he is dead.

                All of the endings eventually come to the same conclusion and Tony is rightly killed. However, the events leading up to Tony’s death are what define these scenes. The script ending is very in line with how our police system works – if fire is opened upon the police, the police fire back. The third ending is also very in line with our procedures – the police take the criminal into custody. However, it is the second ending where a certain line is crossed. I found it odd that after Tony ran a mere 2 steps out of the building, he was immediately gunned down by the police. They could just have easily seized Tony Camonte once again. No orders were called for the unarmed gangster to be shot repeatedly, the police just did it. Shooting an unarmed man is not in line with how police operations should be conducted. The second ending seems to portray the police is a bad light. Where as in the other endings, Tony deserves what he gets because it was either provoked or he surrendered willingly.

                My view of Camonte is not changed due to the endings though. Whether he tries to run or willingly surrenders, I still view him the same. The more appropriate action would be to willingly surrender, but when are gangsters ever really appropriate? Both actions could be taken by a gangster, or any criminal for that matter.

Scarface & Camonte -kate

The original Scarface has proven to be an interesting movie thus far. I think most of my fascination with this movie is based on the controversy it caused, rather than the actual plot of the film. The film is very simple and in today’s culture it would not be considered controversial. The slides which are put in would not really have any effect in a movie made in recent times. I think this is in part due to the fact that the government and the film industry have very little ties today. I do find the slides amusing though. Although they were put in to smooth tensions with the government as a form of censorship, they clearly are a form of attack against the government. The slides prove to defend the film industry, while they ridicule the government for not taking any legal action against gangsters. I think the presence of the scenes which were taken out would have made this movie far more interesting. I therefore understand why the Al Pacino version is more widely known and appreciated. The Al Pacino version did not have the same restrictions and pressure from the government as the 1932 version. I was also surprised to find out that the plots of both Scarface movies are very different.
I was pleasantly surprised at Howard Hawk’s filming techniques. His camera positions and attention to sound were progressive for his time. His used low key lighting and angles to create and enhance the mood. Movies are made better by the correct use of technique.
While watching gangster films, I tend to side with the gangster. I found Tony’s blatant disregard of law enforcement to be very appealing. His disrespect for authority is not only cool, but it is also hilarious to me. Just because most people tend to side with the anti-hero in these movies, I don’t believe that they glorify gangsters. Rather, they give a realistic look into the life in which gangsters lead. I more so feel that our culture glorifies gangsters, not the film industry. The untouchable vibe that gangsters possess is very appealing and they will always be glorified. Films simply provide documentation on how their lives were lived; the glorification is done by the viewers not the producers. Many films can have this effect on viewers though, not just gangster films. If gangster films were really trying to glorify characters such as Tony Camonte, he would never be punished for his crime in the end. However, since it’s a movie based on the life of Al Capone, I’m going to assume that ultimately Tony gets caught and imprisoned.

Introductions -kate

My name is Kate. I am a junior and this is my second semester at Mason. I’m an English major with a concentration in linguistics and a minor in education. Ultimately, I plan to teach 10th grade English. As of right now, I work at Best Buy in the appliance department and as a substitute for Prince William County Schools. I enjoy fashion, fishing, Audrey Hepburn movies, red bull, and double stuf oreos with milk. I hate most of our local sports teams (Redskins included). I root for the Red Sox and Manchester United.  I’m also very excited about the recent Spice Girls comeback. I took ENG 325 with Professor Thompson last semester, which makes me familiar with the pros and cons of using wordpress. It’s a great tool if you can actually remember to post the blog assignments.