I will be continuing with my original plan with the research paper. I am going to extend my Scarface paper and research more on the studies conducted during the 30’s and today. I will be arguing that there is no definite answer on whether or not violence in films really does have a physiological effect on the audiences.
I will also incorporate my own personal opinion on whether or not I think violence in film have an effect on audiences and explain my reasoning.
For the final research paper I will be extending my Scarface paper. I am going to do more research on the violence in films from the 30’s and today and discuss the actual effects it had on the audiences. I will be researching studies that were done then and now and talk about them in my paper.
Minow was trying to protect children from the violence on television. He wanted the first amendment to make that happen. He believed children were being affected by the material they watched on TV that was meant for adults and that must be stopped. Minow wanted the Supreme Court to use the first amendment for the children and not the television broadcasters.
David Denby’s distinction between representational complexity and teaching unambiguous moral is that he favors the complexity. He mentions that life is complex, so what we see should be complex. He wants the truth and not to treat people like children. Images that are teaching positive lessons, in some way treat the people like children. I agree with what Denby says that life is complex…….
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio Case in 1915 stated three major complaints: “The statute in controversy imposes an unlawful burden on interstate commerce; it violates the freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by 11, article 1, of the Constitution of the state of Ohio;1 and it attempts to delegate legislative power to censors and to other boards to determine whether the statute offends in the particulars designated”. There is also a fee charged when films are exhibited to the board before they are delivered to the exhibitor for exhibition. “Films of a ‘moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character shall be passed and approved,’ are the words of the statute”, but this can vary to anybodies standards.
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.
After reading Black, it discussed why gangster movies upset critics and citizen groups. One being that it glorified gangsters and their life style. They thought it would “harm the American children” and they should be banned from the screen.
No, I don’t think the censorship of the kind we see in the production history of Scarface is consistent with democratic principles. It went against freedom of speech and did not allow the producers to film what they wanted to show.
Scarface was a very controversial film, which lead to its three different endings. There was the scripts version, the ‘cowards run’, and the hanging. I think the script version, which was never filmed did glorify Camonte. Police threw tear-gas into his apartment and shot at him and not until the building was on fire did he come out. He came out courageous and not begging for his life. Tony confronted Guarino the cop who has been after him since the beginning and tried to shoot him, but realized he had no more bullets. Guarino then shot Tony and as he fell to his death he still tried to shoot his gun at him. This showed he wasn’t afraid and was going to go out the way he wanted to go out.
The second ending was with Tony begging for his life as he came down the stairs and he tried to run, but he was shot down by the police. I think our view on how Camonte is killed as he runs from his hideout does make a difference in the second ending. They wanted us to view Tony as a coward and that all gangsters are like that.
The third ending would have been more modern to have. Tony had a trial and was punished by government officials. The judge pointed out that he was only being convicted of one crime, but has committed several and that he will be punished for them. Everyone should have a court trial, but the outcome of Tony’s was for him to be hanged to death, which was justice, since he killed all those people.
My personal opinion would be that they should have shown the script version, since it matched the rest of the movie. Tony was living his life on his own terms and left his life on his own terms.
The beginning of the 1932 version of Scarface shows the luxuries life of a gangster with Big Louis Costillo’s party and then quickly shows the dangerous life of a gangster when Costillo is shot. I liked how it implied that the murderer knew Costillo when he said hi to him and it shows that you can be backed stabbed whenever there is an opportunity.
Tony Camonte’s character seems like a very relaxed cool person. When he was taken in by the police he seemed like he was doing it on his own terms. He was acting innocent in front of Detective Guarino and moving very slowly. It was amusing when Tony lit his match on Guarino’s badge, showing him he has no respect for the law. Other aspects of Tony’s character seems like when he wants something, he gets it. When Tony sees his sister Cesca kissing a man he tells her not to see other men and gives her money, which seemed liked she complied with. Another example of getting what he wants is when he was selling alcohol and basically forced the person to buy alcohol from him and no one else.
I don’t think the film glorifies violence and gangsters because it shows the dangerous life they lead. People are forced to do things they don’t want and work for people they don’t like. It may show a gangsters life as being wealthy and powerful, but people will kill for that power and I don’t think that is something to glorify.
Hi, my name is Laura. I attended NOVA for two years, and then transferred to Mason this year. I hope to major in Business by the end of next year and I would like to own my own business one day. As of right now I am working part time at a movie theater and I am a full time student.
