Final Paper Peer Editing

My paper was edited by Reaksmey, who is revising his first paper, and so his final paper is on the topic of gangster films in the 30s, and how these films are not dangerous and do not cause violence; his view was that only ignorant people cause bad things to happen, whether or not they claim to be influenced by a film. His paper was very organized and I enjoyed reading it because it was easy to follow and his underlying argument was something I can agree with. After we finished filling out the editing sheets, we talked to each other about what we thought should be edited/revised. I only had a few things to say to him about some of his sentence structuring,  wording, and obscure grammar issues. My main suggestion was that he make his thesis clearer, by bringing his ‘mini’ thesis statements together somewhere in the first paragraph. As for my paper, he told me that it was very convincing for him, but he also had some suggestions for me pertaining to sentence structuring, long paragraphs, and filler words. Because of his suggestions, I was able to take out a lot of unnecessary words and split sentences in half to make them easier to read.

My thesis has not changed, and my paper is coming along with minimal problems.

Final Research Paper Plan/Partner Conversation

My plan is still to focus on why there should be no further restrictions or regulations imposed on video games, because they have a lot of potential to teach advanced motor skills, creativity, and cognitive dexterity. But I will refrain from stating that video games are only good, because even though no evidence or proof has ever been documented that violent games cause violent behavior, there are still negative side effects that come into play here, and those will always be present — and most people see more importance in documenting the negative effects of gaming rather than viewing things from the positive side, like how video games can engage an individual in some sort of activity (such as the Wii) and teach them things like coordination, internal organization, advanced logic, and how to make faster decisions. These are just a few examples of so many different facets of internal and external skills that can be gained from the experience of video games.

I spoke with Kate about her ideas on her final paper so far, and she is working on the exact same topic as I am, with some differences. Her thesis is that video games don’t necessarily cause violence, since there is no link between the two, but there are many other dangers that exist and do plague game players, such as addiction, a breakdown of social skills, and these can both lead to a sedentary lifestyle. She also gave me some new examples that I could most certainly use in my own paper, like the Nintendo DS games, which focus intensely on game tools that can improve your skill in subjects such as english and math; they also have games with memory enhancing exercises, and even games to teach you foreign languages — all of which can fit in the palm of your hand.

Final Paper Proposal

In my paper, I plan to delve into the debate of violence within modern popular culture — specifically within the context of video games, one of the largest industry markets in North America. I will uncover the beneficial aspects of video games, and compare them to the negative effects some gamers experience after playing a particularly influential and realistic video game. But my focus will be on the fact that video games can be used as amazing tools for learning, training, teaching, and more. Also, my thesis will remain within the scope of an adult atmosphere, since I believe that regulation is necessary when it comes to young adults and children — which means persons younger than 18 years of age. With technology advancing even further, people can potentially use these virtual reality gaming systems to practice and hone their skills in a safe, yet convincingly realistic environment. So I will prove that further regulation on video games is not wise because these games can potentially teach useful skills and there is also no evidence that violent content within these games causes violent behavior.

*Minow’s Larger Point*

Newton Minow firmly believes that many shows publicly broadcasted on television contribute to an increased level of violence in American society, and no matter how small the effects are, it is a problem that the public and the government are not solving well enough or fast enough. He uses children as his main argument: by freely distributing programs on television meant for adults, immoral or inappropriate behaviors and ideas can be easily accessible to any child who happens to be watching at that time. And he gives the American court system some credit, in the way of the creations of new protections in the first amendment specifically for children, such as: 1) Guarding against improper intrusions by church and state when it comes to the child’s education, and 2) Protection from adult material and institutions in the outside world. Minow also mentions many research projects that have been done by associations, institutions, and prestigious individuals; and by using these statements he adds to his argument and backs up his own opinions and concerns. But I think his larger point here is just that the best interest of children is different than the best interests of adults, and it is almost impossible to separate these two interests so that they don’t intersect, as they often do when it comes to television. Basically, statutes written specifically for children may curtail the First Amendment rights of adults, and this is the main reason of why it is so difficult to attain only quality shows on television. But, by saying this, Minow is showing the reader why he is adamently defending an endless and hopeless war against what is shown to the public. Obviously, most people want what is best for their nation’s children, but they also want to be compensated in their often times serious life by the principle of entertainment. If the adults are the ones going out to make money and supporting their economy, which in turn helps support their children, they don’t want to be left stranded in a simple, boring world of constant censorship. Yet Minow talks mainly of the children, and seems to know the other side of his own argument, but does not add to it too much. It just seems like he’s endlessly making the same argument and going around in circles — because half the problem (the public interest of most adults) — is not going to go away. But we can make laws attempting to protect the children as much as we can, which I think is the only solution to the problem of inappropriate material violating a child’s innocent world. 

*PBS Culture Shock* – Michelle S.

David Denby’s distinction between representational complexity and teaching unambiguous moral lessons definitely splits up two completely different viewpoints; Denby puts everything on the table in black and white and does it very well, I think. And I most definitely agree with his first statement/viewpoint, on how life is complex, and people should be introduced to the way real life works so that they are somewhat prepared for the rough journey ahead of them. I believe films can be very good teaching tools; one can watch a film and see what not to do because of the punishment or ending that that individual receives. The viewpoint that good should always triumph over evil, that the weak should always be protected by the strong, and that evil should always be punished – is a somewhat naive suggestion. Of course, I think that it’s important in films for the evildoer to be punished for his crimes against society, especially if his actions were all fully intended toward innocents. But the point is, many people get away with their crimes because of sheer chance, or those criminals live in the confines of their own sick twisted mind and can’t see the distinction between what’s good and what’s bad – because it was never taught to them in the beginning of their lives and in consequence, they are no longer capable of being a functioning moral citizen. People that are never exposed to these ideas are less prepared for what may come up in their lives than people who are aware of it. I think the second viewpoint is, in a way, lying to the public. Perhaps it’s acceptable to lie to children, because we are protecting them, for they are not yet developed enough to understand everything that happens in the world. But it’s another issue entirely to blatantly lie and shield clear-thinking adult viewers from these issues. Most adults have learned a few lessons in life already, and can handle the addition of new, perhaps disturbing ideas. Therefore, it seems right to me to give the future film audience some information in the previews, to let them decide for themselves what they wish to see and learn from that which is vividly presented in motion pictures. I got the impression that Denby thinks it’s more important also because he claims the second approach “flattens art”, but that doesn’t mean “violent disgusting behavior” should go unpunished. I certainly think he’s right on both of those accounts.

*Mutual Decision*

For the case of the Mutual Film Corp v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, it seemed like the court enumerated on the arguments, but very quickly shot them down. Also, there were a couple sections that seemed like overkill to me when it comes to basic explanation, but I suppose any jury requires a full explanation of everything to make a fair and just decision. In one paragraph, the idea of motion pictures themselves (and what they are) was explained, which I thought was funny, because motion pictures were so popular that it seems like most people would already know the basics about these hit sensations already. Extensive information was also given on how movies are shipped, distributed, and used. The three main arguments of the complainant (Mutual) were: 1) The Ohio statute imposes an unlawful burden against interstate commerce; 2) The statute violates the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution; 3) And it attempts to delegate legislative power to itself, when it is a state censorship board, not a federally run institution. But promptly after these points were stated, the provisions (rules in writing) of the Ohio censor board were put down as well. Firstly, a fee is required for films to be exhibited to the board before they’re delivered for exhibition; secondly, only films of a moral, educational, amusing, and harmless caliber are to be approved by the board; and thirdly, the censor board can work with other local censoring boards and show their approval by a stamp. Pertaining back to the first argument, Mutual was claiming that interstate commerce was being imposed upon because the state was charging his corporation more than they needed to, since none of this money was going to the federal government. Also, it was stated that the delay caused by the censoring board was causing much “great and irreparable” injury to film companies in general. But this argument was put aside quite quickly, since only films in Ohio which are “to be publicly exhibited and displayed in the state of Ohio” are required for examination and censorship. So, since the specific statute that was being argued against was only in accordance with Ohio State, it is not appropriate to consider how interstate commerce is being affected. Pertaining to the second argument, the way movies are received by the populace was considered in detail by the court. The court basically explained that, since movies are such a large, powerful, unregulated force that is attracting so many wide sectors of the public, it cannot stand against a mere interference with personal liberty, such as free speech. The court believed that something much more important was at stake in this case: the protection of public morality and welfare against the potential evil of motion pictures, and this could only be done by the supervision of picture exhibitions. What’s more, the court ruled that the exhibition of moving pictures is in itself a business, and so not to be regarded as part of the vehicle of public opinion. Pertaining to Mutual’s third argument, the court explained that the Ohio board is an administrative body, meaning they have the power to ascertain the facts and conditions that are regarded as within their jurisdiction. To further protect the board’s rights as a legal administration, the court also explains that while the statute does not specifically explain their standards of what is judged as morally right and wrong, the rules of the statute should guard against such deviating judgments, so the court extends their trust to the board as an organization. In conclusion, all three arguments were dismissed by the court as either erroneous or unfounded arguments made by Mutual, ones that did not apply to the current rules and regulations of the administration of the Ohio censoring board, which was confirmed by the federal government to have the power to protect the public, since the evil of motion pictures could so easily pervade the morality of the wider community.

*Hays Code-Group 3 Report*

The key points that were covered in Group 3 (Black, page 305) were: how evil and sin shouldn’t be portrayed as “alluring” and how the law should not be “ridiculed”. They did not want evil to appear appealing to the audience or create feelings of sympathy for the wrong that the person has committed. They also did not want the law to be scorned by the audience when a criminal was punished for their sins. They wanted to protect the audience, and they did not want them to do evil or commit sin, like what they saw on film.

–By Laura Milchak

Many members in our group believed that the Code had reason to enforce these rules; however, the public also has the right to differentiate between what is wrong and right. Specifically toward our section, some of us believed a story should be portrayed just as the creators intended, regardless of whether or not it represents the law or crime appropriately, because there is a difference between media (news) and film. Film is a form of expression that exists to tell a story, not relay facts. The public understands this and can make moral decisions based on their own personal moral guidelines. Two priests should not be able to dictate what everyone should watch and believe. The main disagreement between our members was whether the Code was needed at the time; our mindsets are far too modern to understand the impact the films may have had on the public in the 1930s. After reading the Code many times, we noticed that everything during the 1930s seemed to be offensive; however, one thing we all agreed on was that the Code is simply too harsh to be continually enforced.

–By Natasha Barbosa

In terms of Scarface, the code seems to be loosely applied. The alternate endings are mainly a distinction of the code that is applied to the movie. Had no code been established, the original script ending would have shown Camonte’s 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 toward Tony are also 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 is seen as immoral, which would be 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, everyone in Group 3 agreed that they felt bad for Tony Camonte at the end of the film. The code states that the audience’s sympathy should not lie with the criminal or anti-hero. However, the audience will commonly side with Tony Camonte because they 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 a nice guy with a sense of humor. Had we been exposed to his criminal ways, our sympathies would have lied elsewhere. The humor that 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.–By Katie Posey

The ratings system we use today is incredibly different from the Lord-Quigley proposal, mostly in that it is a lot less detailed – it just names a specific audience that should or should not see the movie. This leads me to believe that it is harder to enforce specific behaviors or actions in today’s age because the ratings system is pretty vague and so guarantees free speech. If a film is rated G, then it can be seen by anyone (General Audiences) and usually movies with this rating are children’s films, like Disney productions. If it is rated M, it means that only mature audiences should view the film content, but this rating is not defined by a specific age, like the ratings PG-13 and R (which means you have to be 17 to view the content). There is also the PG rating, which means that some of the portrayed material might be unsuitable for children, but again no more information is enumerated here. What’s more, sometimes there is no stopping a child from seeing sexually or violently perverse subjects and situations on television shows. There is a brief warning before the production is shown, but if there is no authoritative figure around to stop the viewing of the show, many children can be free to see scenes that may be too mature for their own immature levels. Basically, the ratings system today is a lot more relaxed and open to interpretation, giving parents the authority to determine what is right for their children to see and what is inappropriate for their age range. But there are still irresponsible parental figures in existence, so there are still limitations within our movie rating system.

–By Michelle Sargent

*Hays Code-Individual Response*

The Lord-Quigley Proposal was mostly created because Quigley thought that both the Catholic Church and the Hollywood movie industry could both benefit from an alliance. Connecting this proposal to the time period in which it is written, I think that there are some valid arguments made here, but I also believe that every individual has their own opinion of what is moral and what isn’t. Because movies became the “art of multitudes”, something had to be done, since local censorship groups just seemed to be making things too complicated, what with there being so many carrying a large variety of slightly differing values. The code enumerates that many things are possible in movies that are not possible in books, because the action is actually happening, and the audience is emotionally drawn to specific characters and scenes. Using artful images, dialogue, and setting, most anything can be accomplished in the movies – and this made religious officials especially nervous. Basically, Lord and Quigley wished for evil to be made to appear unattractive, and goodness to look like the preferred method of living. I think this code was a very good start for what later became the movie ratings system regulated by the federal government because certain aspects are outlined as better or worse than others, like types of crimes (murder is worse than theft, etc.), nudity, and sexual acts. But I think certain ideas are too difficult to control, like if the dancing is too sexual, or specific attitudes toward different religions and countries. What I see as wrong with this code is the fact that it is so specific with banning certain behaviors and ideas. But there is always the context to think about. What’s more, the writers of the code are generalizing about the population, saying that these ideas will promote bad behavior and morals. But what really provokes these things is the personal background, relationships, and genetic makeup of the individual. If someone wants to kill, a movie is not going to convince them to rethink their actions. I believe that the only thing that could truly prevent all horrible types of crime is how the individual is brought up by their parents, and what kinds of peers that person surrounds themselves with, as well as the area that they grow up in. If one is surrounded by crime happening all the time in a poor neighborhood, they may be driven to kill because of other people’s actions toward them. Or if one is mentally disturbed and never received the affection they needed from their parents, then it is likely this person will want to hurt others because of the damage that has already been done to them. The ratings system we are using today is incredibly different from the Lord-Quigley proposal, mostly in that it is a lot less detailed – it just names a specific audience that should or should not see the movie. This leads me to believe that it is harder to enforce specific behaviors or actions in today’s age because the ratings system is pretty vague and so guarantees free speech. If a film is rated G, then it can be seen by anyone (General Audiences) and usually movies with this rating are children’s films, like Disney productions. If it is rated M, it means that only mature audiences should view the film content, but this rating is not defined by a specific age, like the ratings PG-13 and R (which means you have to be 17 to view the content). There is also the PG rating, which means that some of the portrayed material might be unsuitable for children, but still no more information is enumerated here. Basically, the ratings system today is a lot more relaxed and open to interpretation, giving parents the authority to determine what is right for their children to see and what is inappropriate for their age range.

*1st Amendment and Virginia Declaration*

The 1931 Scarface: the Shame of the Nation was called “‘the most vicious and demoralizing gangster picture’ ever produced.” (QTD by Black 124) But assuredly the most prominent reason for the upsetting effect gangster movies had on the public was that these kinds of motion pictures were “‘misleading, contaminating and often demoralizing to children and youth.’” (QTD by Black 109) People were deeply scarred from Al Capone and so they were concerned about their children seeing these films and thinking these actions were okay, or maybe even cool. Then these gangster figures would be emulated, and perhaps a chain reaction of budding criminals would erupt throughout the youth of the nation. Parents also wished for their children to practice good morals and values – and certainly gangsters were not good examples for that either. For women’s organizations and religious groups especially, the sight of the gangster on the big screen flouting the traditions of hard work, sacrifice, and respect for any institution of authority was a hard thing to look at and not speak out against. Some people thought that juvenile delinquency was directly caused by Hollywood’s creations. And these people were not too far off; some, particularly men, were influenced by the exciting visage of the rich gangster with all of his guns. And any incident with such violence that occurred could have been blamed on the associations made by Hollywood – the media would flare up and infuriate the parents and good citizens of the country even further. So I can understand why people would have been somewhat angry with production companies: they needed someone to blame for what seemed like the country’s downfall.

In the Bill of Rights and in the Virginia Declaration of Independence, both Amendment I and Section 12 of the documents enumerate the importance of freedom of the press. And it was stated that the only time that the freedom of the press would be in jeopardy would be in a time of a despotic government. They are rights of the people created to allow change for whenever it is needed in the government itself; the press are there to enforce that: they will call attention to something that needs reform or speculation. Amendment I also mentions that everyone has the right to: freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. This means that when a large group of people join together, they can say anything they want and need to, as long as it is within reason and doesn’t do harm to people. There is more power in numbers, and it is yet another example of our democracy. Censorship organizations, as well as plain citizens, were most certainly within their rights because they believed that some Hollywood depictions did harm to the young minds of the nation who were exposed. But the movie producers were also right, because they were only exercising their right to free speech. They thought the public should be forced to see what gangsters were doing to innocent individuals, so that perhaps more citizens would take matters into their own hands and bring their indignations straight to the government.

Scarface – *3 Endings*

In the original script ending, Tony Camonte would have fought to the death, shooting out the windows first, and then after the tear gas bomb was thrown by the police through the window, he was to run down the stairs while they were planning to intercept him at the door, his machine guns blazing even while lead and gunfire blew through him, and then at the very end, the click of his empty gun chamber would resonate. This ending was never filmed, but the idea of the head gangster portraying himself as so resilient and courageous does at least give him the benefit of backing up his tough gangster reputation with the worthy act of lashing out at his pursuers in his final moments. For me, it doesn’t only glorify him – it confirms something that was silently established throughout the film – the fact that Tony is the boss, and nothing scares him, because he won’t let it (except for things he is so closely connected to, like the murder of his sister’s husband). This viewpoint of Tony as strong and resistant, of him shooting even while he is being shot himself, gives him somewhat of a godly visage. At the same time, he must be completely crazed, because he is so focused on his goal that he doesn’t even seem to be feeling the pain of repeated gunfire. So I believe that while this ending does something to glorify Camonte’s character, I’m not sure it’s supposed to glorify the idea of the gangster himself. Throughout the film, Tony Camonte was untouchable – as in, nothing bothered him in the slightest. So that phantom ending that was never filmed would have just been his last mission, and because of Tony’s personality, he should have gone down fighting for his life.

The first filmed ending, where Camonte runs, pleads for his life, and then is shot down in the street, is one that made a better impression on the Hays’ Office. Tony is in the room where the second to last scene takes place, and Cesca comes in, holding a gun that she is pointing at Tony, with tears glimmering in her eyes as she thinks of her lost husband. Her brother turns around and sees her, and then Cesca’s expression softens, and she realizes she can’t kill him. After the sirens sound out the window, she looks over toward the street in fright and then runs over to Tony, grabs him, and urges him to do something, or else they’re going to get him. Tony is still shell-shocked and he only asks her why she didn’t shoot him. She says “because you’re me and I’m you and that’s how it’s always been,” which gives an idea of how close their relationship is and proof of why she would never abandon him. They start fighting back, but Cesca soon gets shot by a ricochet bullet and he lays her down. But Tony is scared and egotistic, first by ignoring Angelo’s death, then at this point he is accusing Cesca of leaving him when she has basically just died because of Tony. He continues to be an egotistical coward when he is smoked out of the room, ends up on the stairway, and begins to plead for his life after a police officer shoots his gun out of his hand. He wants them to give him a break, because he “doesn’t have anyone,” he’s “got no gun,” and his “steel shutters don’t work.” That statement brought back some humor at that point, but also made him look like a stunned and babbling moron. Then, after he gets down the stairs, he is shot once – and he is finally dead. I think this version of the film is very poignant, because it is a great turning point. Tony had everything that he wanted in the world, but he went down so quickly. Not only that, but his cowardice and egotism is very unattractive to see, and reinforces the idea that a gangster’s life may look glamorous, but in the end it never is. To add to the irony, the “The World is Yours” sign is shown as the end scene. This was further reinforcement of my previous statement. Earlier on, we saw the sign as a motif three times or so, each time in a scene where Tony was looking out on the city before him (the world) and he would feel that great contentment of having everything he’d ever wanted. So it’s very powerful when it’s shown one more time at the end, as if to say ‘Tony could have had the world if he had just played by the rules.’ In the alternate version, it isn’t shown, and so I’m glad they went with the version they did because I think the message truly belongs there, and it also makes the ending more believable, and the film better in general, because we are reminded of all the times Tony bragged about his apartment and looked out at the sign, thinking he would spend the rest of his life doing that, and eventually he would have the world. But you can’t have the world if you try to steal it from innocent people.

In the alternate ending, many things are the same but there are some things that they took out, or changed. First off, Cesca doesn’t get emotional with Tony; she stills looks as if she’s going to shoot him for her own revenge, but changes her mind after she hears the police sirens. Their reactions are fast; Cesca silently loads bullets as Tony goes to the window and he starts shooting back and closing the steel shutters, but Cesca gets hit by a stray bullet and soon dies, saying “I don’t want to stay; you’re afraid,” while Tony is pestering her about how she’s leaving him, then she murmurs her dead husband’s name a couple times and passes on. Everything after that is the same except Tony is taken away by the police instead of getting shot down. The scene then cuts to some officials talking about the sentencing, and then cuts to a court and focuses on the judge. The judge condemns Tony for his many murders and sentences him to “hang by the neck until dead.” Out of the three different added end scenes this one is the longest. The next and last scene is the hanging. You see Tony being led to the scaffold and then the three men each cutting a rope. After that, you hear the a sound of a wooden trapdoor falling open, but you don’t see anything of Tony. This scene feels somewhat rushed and fake. Everything happens too fast – practically no time is spent before Tony is hanging dead. I guess it could make the government look efficient and on top again, but it’s not enjoyable at all for me to watch. I preferred the dramatic, yet cowardly death that Tony endured during the first filmed ending. It felt like everything was settled – the chief of police got their revenge on Tony (they saw him as a coward and did not show him the mercy he asked for), and Tony got to die without any more embarrassment. I guess I feel sorrier for Tony in the second filmed ending, where he is tried and executed. But I liked the first filmed ending because it left a better message and everything felt resolved and equal. Tony was shot down just like all of the men, women, and children he ended up shooting down.