Final Proposal-Michelle P

My final paper plan is to research Mae West’s career and analyze how it was affected and ultimately changed by the development of the Production Code.   I will begin with her pre-code films Night After Night, She Done Him Wrong, and I’m No Angel.   Then I will address her films made during or after 1934 such as My Little Chickadee and Klondike Annie.  After I have discussed her films and the controversy surrounding them, I will analyze Mae’s point of view as well as the censor’s point of view.

Denby-Michelle P

In the PBS segment Culture Shock: Hollywood Censored, Film Critic David Denby notes that there are two views of morality in movies.  The first is that “life is complex; therefore narratives (films) should be complex like the issues surrounding life.  The alternative is that narratives should always teach positive lessons regardless of complexity.”  This isn’t just an argument for “questionable” films, but really films in general.   Movies are depictions of life and the movement and words of actors, human characteristics.  Many people, including myself, think that cinematic art should remain true to reality.  However, for others that have strong moral values, display of some certain life aspects should not be presented on the screen-mainly sex and crime.  I think that Mr. Denby’s synopsis of the two views of film is pretty accurate.  

Mutual Decision

In 1913 the Ohio State Board challenged film censorship and the National Board of Review by stating that “only films that are in the judgment and discretion of the board of censors of a moral, educational or amusing and harmless character will be approved for distribution in Ohio” (Black 15).   The Mutual Film Corporation instantly disagreed with this action and reacted by filing suit against the Industrial Commission of Ohio noting the following complaints:  (1) the statue deprives the complainant of due process of law (2) the statute goes against the 1^st and 14^th amendments of the U.S Constitution which protect free speech, and (3) furthermore, the statute attempts to give the board of censors legislative power without presenting any type of guide which will determine the board decisions of films.   The District Court ruled in favor of the Ohio State Board.  Therefore, the Mutual Film Corp. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where the appeal was also denied.  The Court ruled that movies were “a business pure and simple and not regarded as part of the press or as organs of public opinion” (Black 16).  Moreover, the court also added that movies may be used for evil not just because of a film’s content, but because of the location where men and women are forced to gather together in a dark room with children when promiscuous events could take place. Overall, I don’t agree with the courts decision, but I do think that states should have the right to protect their citizens from what they consider dangerous material.  I don’t think that films are in any way dangerous.  Furthermore, I think filmmakers should be able to express themselves because movies are just facts or opinions of stories often based on real events.  

Group 4 Report-Ashlee C, Dee, Michelle P, Neil, and Teresa

Reasons Underlying Particular Applications

 Sin and Evil: Teresa S

In the section of Reasons Underlying Particular Applications of the Working Draft of the Lord Quigley Code Proposal, Quigley writes “Sins enter into the story of human beings, which is known as dramatic material. However, sins which repel need to be distinguished from sins that attract.” For example, sins which repel include murder, most theft, lying, hypocrisy, and cruelty. Sins which attract include sex, sins of apparent heroism, daring thefts, and organized crime. “Avoid the hardening of the audience;” Black is saying do not let the audience get used to sins such as murder and brutality. Sins that attract need “real care in handling.” They need more care in handling because people/children that are attracted to the sin might be tempted to mimic their behavior.

There were a couple of agreements in our group on the subject of this section of the Lord-Quigley code, but there were no disagreements. I agree with the girl in my group that said the Lord’s Code makes it seem like the audience does not know how to separate real life from the movies. Just because the audience watches a gangster movie does not mean that everybody in the audience is going to become a gangster. Furthermore, the group agreed with my statement that we have a completely different mindset of the people in the 1920’s, and this is what makes it difficult to understand such censorship decisions as this code.

 General versus Limited Audiences:   Dee N

Under the third numeral of this section Quigley discusses the general versus limited audiences. I feel strongly that when the filmmakers of the 1930s started making distinctions between general distribution and limited audience films, it was that distinction that was the starting point for the idea of a rating system. Our present rating system could have been the end result of this early classification system. During the draft of this code, it was normal for the practice of “the showing of a certain film to “Adults Only” (Black 306). Although many felt it was “only partially effective”, it was definitely a step in the right direction. The fact that Scarface had numerous endings could be viewed as an act to please numerous audiences and to comply with this code.

Crimes against the Law Part I:  Michelle P

Within the Application section of the code we also learn about Crimes against the Law stating that the treatment of crimes must not: teach methods of crime, inspire potential criminals with a desire for imitation, or make criminals seem heroic and justified. This section isn’t saying that sin can’t be part of a film because we know that it is a part of life and in a film termed dramatic material. However, Quigley is quick to note what cannot arise from this material. For example, banks get robbed every year-people get desperate for money and it happens. This section is merely saying don’t teach the audience how to rob a bank and don’t make it seem appealing. Furthermore, don’t make the character that’s robbing the bank seem heroic or justified no matter how dire the situation is. I agree with Quigley that sins occur, and that they shouldn’t exactly seem appealing. I think most people would agree that if someone’s going to rob a bank, their doing it for a pretty desperate reason and that person probably knows the consequences of their actions before hand. However, while these crimes shouldn’t seem appealing, tons of characters rob banks in countless movies and not everyone that watched that film went out and robbed their local bank. A filmmaker shouldn’t encourage crimes unless it’s a reflection of a true story, but at the same time filmmakers, censors, the Catholic Church and everyone in between should respect the intelligence of the audience, with the exception of children, to know that these crimes are wrong and shouldn’t be imitated in reality.

Crimes against the Law Part 2:  Ashlee C

To continue this idea of Crimes against the Law, Black explains that drug trafficking and liquor should not be brought to the attention of the audience. Black feels that any type of drug use should not be presented in any form. He also feels that Liquor should “never be excessively presented even in picturing countries where its use is illegal”, only in moderation. I do not agree with this because if movies didn’t show what liquor and drugs could do to people, then the viewers could be more tempted to try new things. I am not saying that all people will try drugs and alcohol, but if we didn’t have movies on real life events, then the society might not have a good idea of what goes on in the world.

In Scarface, Camonte sells alcohol to people as a job. The movie shows what happens during trafficking and how it is an extremely dangerous thing to be involved in. Scarface promotes alcohol in the movie, as well as drug trafficking. I feel that it was a good example in a way because if proved that if a person did not pay the right amount of money, or snitched somebody out then their life would be in jeopardy. I feel that if you want to be involved with something as dangerous as that, then go ahead and do it. I do not feel like movies that show real life choices will have a bad affect on the audience.

Relationship to Scarface:  Neil B

With this being said, the 1932 production of the motion picture Scarface had numerous instances where the Lord-Quigley code proposal seemed to overlap in concept. In Part I of Crimes Against the Law specifically, there can be seen a close connection with the production history of Scarface and the Lord-Quigley Code. This part of the code explains how teaching the methods of crime should not occur in a motion picture ever, yet the entire plot of Scarface is a depiction of Tony Camonte’s life in organized crime, which vary from depicting how he went about shaking down club owners to Camonte murdering people such as his own boss before he takes over control of the gang.

When the film was produced, there were a large number of issues that producer Howard Hughes ran into when trying to release the film, mainly that the censors demanded that the film be edited to depict the life of a gangster in a more negative light. They felt that it was necessary to remove the heroic spin from the life a gangster like Camonte in order to decrease the desire for others to imitate such a negative lifestyle.

A specific instance where the censors forced change in the film’s production is the different potential endings that the film almost had. The ending that most people saw at times in theaters is actually the second one that they filmed, and it depicts Tony Camonte as being much more afraid and less enthusiastic in his final gun battle with the police before he is apprehended, sentenced and hung by a proper court. This is very different from what has become known as the alternate ending, which is in fact the originally filmed ending. In this ending, Camonte psychotically shoots at the police with Cesca enthusiastically helping him load guns before he goes out in a blaze of bullets.

The differences in these two endings demonstrate many of the areas that the Lord-Quigley Code discusses, namely Cesca not being enthusiastic and Tony not being so proud and crazy, the removal of Tony’s nearly heroic exit in a blaze of glory and lastly the court system promoting proper justice through a trial. These differences demonstrate how censors then had already begun to implement the ideas that are put forth in the Lord-Quigley Code Proposal.

Hays Code (Individual) Michelle P

 Personal Response:

 

 Considering the American Society in the 1930s it isn’t hard to understand why the Quigley Code was created. As a whole Lord Quigley focuses on all the vital aspects that most censorship boards and the Catholic Church had concerns with. He begins by noting that a motion picture is first a form of entertainment that can be either helpful by improving the human race or harmful which tends to degrade human beings. He later continues this same pattern by noting that motion pictures are also a form of art which can be morally good or evil. I agree with the idea that art can portray good and evil. However, I disagree that entertainment improves or degrades the human race. The morally good or evil aspect makes sense because art is just a representation of reality. In reality we have both good and bad. It’s part of nature, so it is easy to “fictionalize” on screen. But, it almost seems kind of silly to me to say that the portrayal of good and evil on screen created even more good and evil in reality-it’s going to be a part of life no matter what.

Group  Section:

 

This whole argument brings me to the section of the code called Reasons Underlying Particular Applications. The first part of this section deals with sin concerning crimes against the law such as murder, theft, cruelty, etc. Quigley begins by noting that sin and evil enter into the story of human beings and in themselves are called dramatic material. However, this material must be distinguished between sin that is of human nature and sin that is created to attract. I think these lines support the idea of art. It is impossible to reject the idea of murder and say that it will never happen. It is a natural evil, and thus should be represented in some way on screen. However, while I don’t think that murder in films will inspire a general audience to go out and start killing other citizens or in any way degrades the human race, I will agree with Quigley that crimes as significant as murder should not be made appealing unless it is based on a true story of an actual person’s life. Films appealing to crime should only be viewed by a limited audience, particularly an audience not including children since they are the least educated about what’s real and not real.

My Component of Group Section:

 

Within Reasons Underlying Particular Applications we will learn about Crimes Against the Law stating that the treatment of crimes must not: teach methods of crime, inspire potential criminals with a desire for imitation, or make criminals seem heroic and justified. This section isn’t saying that sin can’t be part of a film because we know that it is a part of life and in a film termed dramatic material. However, Quigley is quick to note what cannot arise from this material. For example, banks get robbed every year-people get desperate for money and it happens. This section is merely saying don’t teach the audience how to rob a bank and don’t make it seem appealing. Furthermore, don’t make the character that’s robbing the bank seem heroic or justified no matter how dire the situation is. I agree with Quigley that sins occur, and that they shouldn’t exactly seem appealing. I think most people would agree that if someone’s going to rob a bank, their doing it for a pretty desperate reason and that person probably knows the consequences of their actions before hand. However, while these crimes shouldn’t seem appealing, tons of characters rob banks in countless movies and not everyone that watched that film went out and robbed their local bank. A filmmaker shouldn’t encourage crimes unless it’s a reflection of a true story, but at the same time filmmakers, censors, the Catholic Church and everyone in between should respect the intelligence of the audience, with the exception of children, to know that these crimes are wrong and shouldn’t be imitated in reality.

1st A & VA Declaration-Michelle P

When reading Black, we learn about two young boys in New Jersey who decided to play a game of Cops and Robbers to imitate the movie The Secret Six.  Unfortunately, these boys decided to reenact the movie with a real gun which tragically ended in the death of one of the two.  Does this make the filmmakers who worked on The Secret Six responsible for this child’s death?  Or could we even go so far to blame Hays for not censoring or better yet abolishing the movie all together?  In my opinion it wasn’t the filmmaker or Hays’ fault.  While some movies can be overly brutal, we tend to think that most people are educated enough to not “try it at home.”  However, this (especially in the case of children) is not the case; and furthermore, when a tragedy occurs for reasons beyond our control we blame who we can-which for a parent who just lost their child, this is understandable.  Therefore, because of this incident it is easy to see why Scarface didn’t make its debut until 1932.

 

            As Americans we don’t always live by our democratic principles.  For instance, we create a Bill of Rights that protects free speech, but then when a child dies or someone ends up in the hospital because they imitated a movie, a wrestling TV show, or many of the scenes seen on MTV, many citizens try to have that production banned.  Therefore, to try and understand why the Hays Office added, revised, and cut scenes from Scarface isn’t that much of a stretch.  Unfortunately, however, this film landed itself on the “questionable” list like so many before its time.  While we still can’t blame Hays for what happened to the young boys in New Jersey, as storytellers, and even more as citizens of this country, Scarface’s creators should have been able to develop any kind of world they wanted.  Instead of creating an opening prologue and additional scenes Hays should have just slapped a “Rated R” on the film to warn people about what they were going to see.  This at least would have coincided much more with our democratic principles.

3 Endings-Michelle Pruitt

In the two filmed endings, we as the audience see Tony Camonte surrender like a coward.  This, however, was not the original idea.  The original scripts ending featured Camonte coming down the stairs of his home with his guns blazing and standing strong.  Even in the last seconds of his life when he is shot down and going to die, he is still fighting, hopelessly attempting to shoot his gun that has run out of bullets.  While I would have absolutely loved to see this ending, I think it definitely glorifies gangsters.  One of the main reasons this film was able to finally meet the big screen was the fact that the gangster looses everything and is killed in the final scene.   By not killing him, or at least punishing him, it makes being a gangster seem like a great life because it would neglect to show the consequences of killing for power in the end.  Although, we see many characters suffer the fate of death in the film, it’s still not as powerful as punishing the main character we in many ways come to love through his bad boy behavior and overall ignorant humor. 

We unfortunately, however, will never see this ending.  The only thing we are left to debate about now is whether the film should have ended with Tony being shot by the police as he tried to run for his life or if it was more effective to have him tried by the court-system and sentenced to death by hanging.  I don’t think as far our view of Camonte goes that it really makes a difference either way.  In both endings he becomes a coward and ultimately ends up dead by the final moment of the scene.  However, I do think we would be able to argue that the two endings could affect our opinion of the justice system upon having to deal with Camonte.   Overall the third ending supports the justice idea more, but the second film explains Tony’s reason for surrender in detail more and leads up to the ultimate end in a more effective way. 

My first impression of Scarface

            If I could use one word to describe my first impression of the 1932 Scarface it would have to be simple, but not in the way we would normally consider it today.  As an artist simplicity can be one of the most precious aspects of a film.  With this version of Scarface, many murders are just spoken about or even shown behind a curtain so the audience only sees a shadow of the action, but still gets the point.  Today, Hollywood is blowing up cities, having blood spilled all over the world, and making women run down the street from their killer half naked.  That can still make for good action, but sometimes it’s really enjoyable just to watch simplicity at its best.

          With all this being said I think it’s easy to believe that the film isn’t so much glorifying gangsters because we don’t see mass amounts blood or even shown murders right off the bat.  However, from what I have seen in the film thus far I do think the 1932 version of Scarface still glorifies gangsters in some way.  The first hint of this is through the character Tony Camonte.  I personally think of Tony’s as kind of ignorant, but on the other hand how can you not love how cool he is?   Paul Muni plays Tony so well; one instantly falls in love with his witty comebacks and overall defiance of authority.  Furthermore, the film is glorified by showing these gangsters as having a ton of wealth and power.  Obviously we haven’t seen the end of the movie yet, but from the beginning we are exposed to how good the life of a gangster can at best seem.  

Introductions

Hello everyone, my name is Michelle Pruitt.  I am currently a sophomore and working on a major in Film with a minor in Business.   After graduation, I plan to move to Los Angeles to obtain a joint MBA and Entertainment Law degree all in hopes of pursuing a career as a studio executive/film producer while trying not to go bankrupt!  So, my overall goals for this class are to watch more movies, learn more about the entertainment industry, and improve my writing.