Final Research Paper Proposal- Teresa S.

I changed the topic of my final research paper. Now, I am going to write about the regulation of children’s television and movies. I don’t think that the violence going on among children is necessarily the fault of the televisions shows and directors. I think that instead of blaming the television shows and the directors of films for problems like this, that we should realize that a lot of the problems are started in the home, and that parents nowadays should just have better control over their kids. In this topic, it is just as much the parents’ fault as the directors and the television shows.

Scarface Final Paper- Teresa S.

For the final paper, I am going to edit my last Scarface paper.  Instead of writing too much more about the movie, I will focus on expanding my comments on the sources that I have and on new credible sources to make my point stronger.  I will include new sources such as the Mutual decision and articles that I will find on Proquest.  These sources will help prove my point that the film was not dangerous, and that the film was just showing us the reality of life.  

Minow on Supreme Court- Teresa S.

I think that the obvious and main similarities between the Supreme Court cases is that they are against the violence shown in the television shows.  Another main connection is that the court is trying to protect the children in whatever way possible.  The word “children” is brought up many times in this section of the book and throughout the book.  I think this is one of the main ways the author uses to grab our attention and have us relate to him because almost everybody can relate to or gets emotional when they hear the word, “children.”  I do not agree that the “violent” shows should be cut off of the air, but I still think the author grabs our attention and he has us relate to him and I think that this is an effective way of portraying his argument.

Denby- Teresa S.

Denby stated that “life is complex”, and films/ narrative should be complex, also. This would be the introduction to the “complexity of life.” He said that the censors believed that the images should be censored, the weak should be protected, and the evil punished. I believe in Denby’s statement in which he said that censorship in the film industry was “flattening out” the films into something childish. Movies should be able to show the reality of life, even if it means showing some of the violence, sex, and “bad” language that goes along with this reality.

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.

Lord-Quigley Code- Teresa S.

My Response to the Entire Lord-Quigley Code

The Lord-Quigley Code was created by Father Lord, and it explained rules for censoring films in the 1920’s. Lord believed that without censorship, violent movies such as gangster movies would, “teach the youth how to commit crimes (124).” One of the problems was that the local film industries and censorship boards used their own disgression on what was “appropriate” and what exactly the code meant. The results among the states were different.

It is very difficult to comprehend the censorship that went on in the 1920’s and in the 1930’s because we have a completely different mindset than the people did at this time. Therefore, we might not ever understand the way that they thought and we might not ever understand why they really wrote the Lord-Quigley code.

My Response to the Group’s Section

“…avoid the hardening of the audience.” Black is saying do not let the audience get used to sins such as murder and brutality. I don’t understand this because if you see murder and brutality enough times in the movies, then you will get used to it. It doesn’t mean all the kids that watch the movie are going go start murdering people.

Sins that attract need “real care in handling.” Black is saying that sins that “attract” need care in handling because people/ children might be attracted to the sin and be tempted to mimic their behavior. I agree with the statement that these types of sin need more care in handling because these types of sins are easier to mimic without guilt.

“Crimes must not…inspire criminals with the desire for imitation.” I don’t understand this because I don’t think that you can control a viewer’s “desire for imitation.” This is trying to control something in the audience’s mind that you cannot possibly control.

My Component of the Group’s Report

Sins enter into the story of human beings, so it is dramatic material. Sins which repel need to be distinguished from sins that attract. 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 that 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.

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.

1st Amendment & Virginia Declaration

            Many critics and citizens in the 1930’s were outraged at the production of gangster films, such as the 1932 version of Scarface.  However, the censorship of Scarface and other gangster films was, and still is, against the first Amendment of the Constitution and the 12^th section of the Virginia Declaration of Rights.  The censorship was not consistent with the democratic principals. 

            Scarface upset critics and citizens because they believed that the film made the government look bad, it might promote violence, and that it suggested corruption of the government.  In the film, it was even suggested that the gangsters were partying with the government officials.

            Father Daniel Lord wrote a movie code that prohibited films from glorifying criminals and gangsters.  He said that gangster films such as Scarface “would teach youth how to commit crimes (124).”  Many citizens agreed that “…each [gangster] movie violated the code by creating “sympathy” for the criminal and/ or taught the methods of successful crime to impressionable youth (111,0).” 

            Moral guardians “were even more outraged as the film continued to unfold its story of sex, perversion, and violence (127,3).”

            According to Ammendment 1 of the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”  When you study and understand this amendment, it says not to shorten the freedom of the press.

            Section twelve of the Virginia Declaration of Rights states, “…the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic government.”  In other words, the freedom of the press protects our liberty and freedom, and can’t be restrained but by a government that uses absolute power harshly. 

            If you follow Ammendment 1 of the Constitution and section twelve of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the directors and script-writers of gangster movies should have been allowed to write about whatever they want.  The censorship that occurred during the production of the 1932 version of Scarface was against democratic principles.

Scarface- 3 Endings- Teresa S.

    Censors changed several parts of the 1932 version of Scarface.  One of the changes was the use of three different endings.    

            For the first ending of the film, Camonte runs out of the building and tries to shoot the police officer, but he finds that his gun is out of bullets.  He gets shot.  I would have actually preferred this ending over the other ones, because it is the most exciting.

            For the second ending, Camonte and Cesca show enthusiasm for shooting the cops.  Camonte is egotistic.  Cesca is happy to help Camonte, but while Camonte closes the steel windows, Cesca gets shot.  Camonte is more hopeless than in the first version, but he tries to run away from the cops until he gets shot.   

            For the third ending of the movie, Cesca doesn’t show that much enthusiasm with loading the gun, and Camonte doesn’t show that much egoism when he is standing by the window, shooting at the police.  Cesca still gets shot while he is closing the steel windows.  In this version, Camonte doesn’t run from the cops, and he gets tried and punished by the government official.  The jury sentences Camonte to be hanged.  The judge says that Camonte was killing to “satisfy” his “greed for power”.  This shows the government with the most power, but it seems as if the first two endings are more exciting for the audience (at least the second version was more exciting to me). 

             I don’t think that the ending from the original script glorifies Camonte.  He tries to shoot the police officer and he fails.  He still loses the fight and dies.  This isn’t glorifying.  The police and government do show a little bit more control in the last two endings.  However, I don’t think it makes that much of a difference which ending was used, because he loses and dies in all three versions. 

Scarface-Camonte

    The introductory text added to the 1932 version of Scarface clearly interprets that it is the government’s fault that nothing is being done about the gangs on the streets, and that it is not the film-makers’ fault.  It seems as though they had to prove that they were not doing anything wrong in order for them to show this film.  The introduction implies that we, as citizens, should try to persuade the government to do something about the problem of gangs on the streets.  I agree with the film-makers when they implied that “This is the world, we’re just showing you what it’s like.”

            On the filmsite.org site, I was particularly interested in how Howard Hawks and Howard Hughes disagreed about the censorship of the violence of the movie.  I also found it very interesting that the film was not widely available until 1979, and that Scarface is only loosely based on the events that occurred involving Al Capone. 

            Tony Caponte has an “I don’t care” attitude in the film.  I think his attitude is typical of a gangster attitude, and this is how a lot of gangsters act.  He definitely doesn’t have that much respect for the police, which again, I think is typical of a gangster.

            Tony’s accomplice has a more nervous disposition than Tony, but I think that they make a good team.  Tony is, in a way, there to threaten the enemies for his accomplice. 

            Whoever created the rating system (Ex: Rated R) for movies should be credited.  The rating system didn’t take effect in this country until 1968, which is much later than this Scarface film was directed.  However, if the movie was such a controversy at the time, than only people of a certain age (seventeen, for example) should have been allowed to see the movie.  People of this age probably would have had enough common sense to know that the film was not glorifying violence and gangsters, but rather informing the audience on what was going on in the streets.

            Despite how the characters are portrayed and what occurs in the 1932 version of Scarface, it is just a movie, not real life.  There is nothing wrong with showing this type of violence in the movies. 

Introduction Teresa

My name is Teresa Smith, and I am a junior at GMU.  My major is English with a concentration in Non-Fiction Writing and Editing, and my minor is Business.  Since I was in elementary school, I have always loved writing.  After I graduate from college, I will probably write articles or stories, but my main goal right now is to open up my own pet-sitting business.