Revised Proposal-Lindsay C

After my group discussion with Dee, I am feeling a little more confident about what I will be writing on. Initially, I had a lot of different ideas that I wanted to combine but due to time constraints I realize that it will be too big of a paper to tackle by the deadline. My Final paper will be on why the Hays Office allowed Scarface to be shown in movie theaters when they were so dead set to crack down on violence in the country, and place the blame on movies for violent behavior that occurred. My thesis which yes, I am still working on it is,…

“Even though violent behavior on-screen was a major concern of The Hays’ Office in the 1930s, Scarface was still permitted to be shown in theaters because the Hays Office was more concerned with real life criminal behavior and Hawks and Hughes use of indirect violence in the movie appeared to lessen the violent impact.”
During class I also discussed with Dee his ideas for the final research paper. had a clear idea about the direction he wanted to take and basically wants to debate that the problem violent movies are not the main problem and that the way people are raised to perceive them is what society needs to address. I totally agree with his position he is taking on that issue and was glad to get his advice on my paper topic which is a little bit harder to understand. I wish I wasn’t as interested in it but that was all i kept thinking about writing on, so I’m just going with it.

Final Paper Proposal-Lindsay. C

Hey Everyone,

For the finaI research paper, I decided to continue researching Scarface and the history behind the film censorship of the 1932 film, because I found it not only to a very interesting subject but also entertaining. Specifically, I am planning to focus on exactly why the film Scarface was able to be viewed by public even though the Hays office dissapproved of violent films.  Even though many changes were made to the film I still think that it was still a violent movie, and even though the Hays office was completely enforcing the code yet, it seems odd that they would have allowed such a controversial film to be shown at all.  I am interested in exploring the motives for the film as well as the methods both Hawks and Hughes used to get Scarface shown in spite of the demands made by the Hays office and other critics. Such as their indirect use  of violence/ sex, and why the Hays office was more interested in gangsters/ crime specifically rather than violence on film etc.  My thesis is still a little rough but here it is, please feel free to respond if you have any suggestions.

“In spite of film censorship in the 1930s, through the use of indirect showings of violence, sex and murder Scarface became a sensation due to both Hawks and Hughes determination to get there views of current day crime to the public.”

I’m still working on it, but I would appreciate any suggestions anyone would like to offer, thanks and good luck to all of you. – Lindsay. C

Minow Response- Lindsay. C

In the book Abandoned in the Wasteland, Minow uses Supreme Court cases to uphold his beliefs of why children’s television should be government controlled. Minow feels that because a child’s ability to form rational judgements and distinguish between fantasy and reality, differs from adults, certain types of television shows should be taken off the air because they are not acceptable for kids to see. Minow argues that just as the Supreme Court banned the sale of the adult magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse to minors, because it was too mature for children’s eyes, children’s television as well needs to be regulated, because it too can be just as harmful for children as pornography. Minow also believes that the First Amendment is being used as a scapegoat by television broadcasters as a way to protect their ability to brainwash children into becoming consumers by concealing useless advertisements in their favorite shows.

Response to Introductory Paragraph #1

Thesis: “The film Scarface, which presents obvious and hidden immoral and extreme violence contents is a shocking and dangerous film to be presented to the general public, which includes children.”

I feel that the thesis of this introductory paragraph is unclear because it is hard to read and difficult to understand because of all the different clauses. The thesis also does not explain why film is harmful to children in the sentence. Overall the paragraph makes good points but I feel the thesis would be better, if it were written as follows:

In the 1930s, the National Board of Review allowed many extremely violent films to be seen by the public which endangered the lives of children because children are more impressionable which causes them to learn to use violence to take care of problems, instead of self control.

Response to “Culture Shock”- Lindsay. C

David Denby’s comparison of how people responded to movies in the 1930s, consisted of two positions. The first position was Denby explaining how some people think movies should imitate life and portray it as it really is, which is complex and messy. Personally, I feel Denby agrees with this view to an extent, because in the next position, he states that movies which only show the good side to life and always have a positive outcome, such as good prevailing over evil, devalues art and treats people like children who are not mature enough to accept reality.

Life is not always great and movies that portray that message to be true are educating people, not corrupting them. People do not need protection from film just because the film has a negative plot or outcome. Although movies should not always be, art imitating life either. Overall, I felt that Denby just wants people to have the freedom to watch what they feel like watching. I think Denby appreciates the romantic comedy where the boy gets the girl, and they live happily ever after together forever, just as much as the crazy car chases with cops and robbers and the violent reenactments of brutal murder committed by deranged serial killers, because they are all entertaining.

Mutual Decision-Lindsay. C

In 1913, the state of Ohio created a “board of censors” called the Industrial Commission of Ohio.  This board was given the power to censor films, they deemed as inappropriate for the public.  At the same time, the state also passed a law making it illegal for anyone to display movies in Ohio, prior to the approval of the Industrial Commission of Ohio.  According to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, people have the right to what is referred to as “Due Process,” which means everyone must follow the same laws.  But as much censoring as the film industry was been subject to, with exception of profanity, the newspapers, magazines and other forms of media were all protected by “Freedom of Speech” and could say what they pleased. These new and unfair laws infuriated the film industry, and in an effort to protect their civil rights and keep motion pictures free from censorship, the Mutual Film Corporation rebelled and eventually took The Industrial Commission of Ohio to the United States Supreme Court.

The Mutual Film Corporation tried to get the court to approve an “interlocutory injunction,” which would have temporarily made it illegal for Ohio to censor the films shown in Ohio. The Mutual Film Corporation, who also distributed films into Ohio and other states from another film-exchange in Detroit, Michigan, also believed that the state government of Ohio was intentionally trying to disrupt and “create an unlawful burden on interstate commerce.”

Unfortunately, in 1915, Supreme Court Justice McKenna did not pass Mutual’s request of an interlocutory injunction and disagreed with Mutual’s argument about interstate commerce being intentionally burdened. Instead the court ruled that the civil right to “Free Speech,” outlined in the First Amendment in of The Bill of Rights, was not applicable to motion pictures, because it was a form of business. The court also ruled that regardless of “due process,” newspapers, magazines and other forms of media do not have to follow the same censorship guidelines as the motion pictures. The belief of the Supreme Court was that the appeal of movies was so intriguing and powerful, that the film industry could potentially use this power “for evil.” The court feared that people would not be able to distinguish between an actual educational film and a film that was in reality an instruction manual for violent behavior.

However, I feel that in this particular case, the state government of Ohio along with the Supreme Court of the United States, was in fact the one who was took advantage of power. I believe the state and the court, twisted the laws in the favor of their own beliefs, thereby creating unfair rules and limitations for the film industry to follow. I believe one reason the state of Ohio acted against the Mutual Film Corporation was because they were jealous that the film industry was making such a large profit through the distribution of films in Ohio. This case is a perfect example of how greedy the government can be and how quickly the “so-called” God given rights can be taken away.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

1st Amendment & VA Declaration-Lindsay C

After reading Black, I learned that gangster movies upset critics and citizen groups because they believed that these types of movies, glorified violence. In the words of the Harrison’s Reports, as stated by Black in his book, the movie Scarface, was “the most vicious and demoralizing gangster picture” ever produced”(Black. 124) Another publication against movie violence was Parents Magazine who“demanded a national boycott of gang films” altogether. (Black.129) These publications along with many other critics believed violent films poisoned the minds of society by promoting crime and acts against the government. Nonetheless, despite all the bad press, Scarface still proved to be a major box office hit, and guilty pleasure for millions of people.

However, even with the success of the film, I feel the use of censorship during the production of Scarface in 1932, completely violated the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights clearly states that Congress should not interfere with a person’s ability to express themselves through the use of speech, press, or peaceful assembly. Yet, the Hays Office still had the movies undergo numerous changes and alterations before it allowed the film to be released to the public. In my opinion, this kind of bigotry and disregard for human rights is morally wrong and should not be tolerated.

The Three Endings of Scarface-Lindsay. C

 

 

In response to the three endings of the film Scarface, “the script”, “the coward runs” and “the hanging”, I felt that the ending from the original script, presented the most believable outcome for the character, Tony Camonte.  It was in this ending in which Tony was determined to fight off the police until the moment of his death. I feel this ending was stronger than the other two because, after every other scene showed Tony as a fearless gangster, it was a very far-fetched way to end the film by having him become a coward.

According to Black, the original script was never filmed because it “condemned American society for tolerating the existence of gangsters”(Black.125) However in 1983, the film was remade with a modern day twist containing an ending very similar to the script from 1932. And from that ending came one of the most famous lines in cinema history which was when Tony Montana said ” Say hello to my little friend,” the friend being his larger than life machine gun.

If the script ending from 1932 had been filmed, I feel that in comparison to the other two endings, Tony Camonte’s death would have been somewhat “glorified.” I feel this way because to me, it is more heroic to be fearless and die a fighter, than to run like a coward trying to escape an inevitable fate.  Even though both endings eventually had him become a coward, my view of Camonte and the government was slightly different depending on the particular version I saw.

One of the biggest differences I felt changed the way I viewed Camonte was that in the first filmed ending, up until the point when his sister Cesca is killed, there was more of an emphasis put on Tony trying to impress his sister by shooting at the police and being brave. Where as, in the ending where Tony is tried for murder and sentenced to death by hanging, there is less focus on gangster behavior and more focus on Tony’s guilt, punishment and death.

  Another difference was that in the ending with the hanging, a judge tries to send a message to the audience about how gangsters like Tony are bad people and do not deserve to live. Therefore my view of the government and their view of criminals like “Tony” was different depending on which ending I saw. Overall, I think the government sent the same message in both endings, but it was just more vivid in the ending with the hanging.  Which was it is ok for the government to murder in movies but not gangsters.