proposal update-Thomas A

for my final paper i will revise and extend my original paper on how the film “Scarface” was not dangerous. i am going to discuss the changes made to the original film by the critics and how they were not necessary. i will also use the 1983 remake of “Scarface” to show how the excessive use of violence in the film did not create a criminal class. instead both films deterred people from becoming criminals by showing the downfall of criminals. i believe that it is not the job of film makers to protect children, it is the job of their parents. movies are made for entertainment and by censoring films they are taking away the right of film makers to entertain. i also plan on discussing how the new rating system helps by preventing children from viewing something inappropriate but at the same time allowing everyone else to enjoy films.

Final paper proposal

For my final research paper I plan on revising and extending my original paper on the dangers in “Scarface”. i will discuss the critics views on the violence in the original “Scarface” and the changes made to it. I will also discuss the 1983 remake of “Scarface” and the troubles it had before it was released in theaters. I also plan on looking into and discussing the changes made in the remake compared to the original film. i would like to continue on my thesis that movies are not dangerous to children. i am not completely sure yet how i plan to link everything together, but im sure after i look into all the available sources i will figure it out.

Minow- Thomas A.

After having read about Minows beliefs on the 1st Amendment I find myself even more confused. Minow seems to go off on several different topics and I found it hard to follow. He begins by discussing how accommodations to the 1st Amendment need to be made in regards to children and then he goes off discussing pornography. I feel as though he could have made a more compelling argument if he stuck with court decisions that affected children and television.  I think that what Minow is trying to say that the 1st Amendment needs to be altered to children and the new world that they are growing up in.  Children should not have to be subject to obscenity as long as it does not affect the rights of adults.  Another alteration in the 1st Amendment is children should not be allowed the fullest extent of the 1st Amendment in schools because that is a place for learning.

culture shock

In the documentary Culture Shock, David Denby discusses the distinction between representational complexity and teaching unambiguous moral lessons. Denby says that films can either be complex because life is complex or films can be made to tech a moral lesson. Denby says that if films are to teach a lesson than they should show good triumph over evil, the weak being protected, and good moral values. Denby also states that if films are to teach a moral lesson than they can sometimes flatten art. What i believe he means by this is that by making films teach moral values you are not focusing on the true purpose of films, which is entertainment, instead your focusing on teaching and you will make a bad film. I believe that people watch movie to be entertained so thats what they should get. Also films are not creating evil people, evil is already out there and films are just using that to try and get the audience to relate to the film. i believe that since life is complex films should show that.

Mutual Decision

In the Mutual film corp V Industrial Commission of Ohio three main points were brought up, the first was that the statute imposed an unlawful burden against interstate commerce, the second was that the statute violated the freedom of speech granted by the constitution and the third was that it attempted to delegate legislative power to censors. The supreme court shot down all of these allegations, saying that the censorship was only imposed in Ohio and that they had the authority to censor such films because they may be used for “evil”. Another interesting argument brought up by the court to describe the type of “evil” that the film company’s were up to was when they discussed how films were trying to cover up their hidden agenda. “Their power of amusement, and it may be, education, the audiences they assemble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of adults, but of children, make them the more insidious in corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should degenerate from worthy purpose.” Translated in to words that the average person can understand, their trying to say that although films my seem like they have a just cause for the film, like education, their real motives are hidden and “evil”. Overall the decision was really hard to follow and seemed to branch off on very detailed descriptions of film.

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.

 

 

Hays code-individual response

After reading the Lord-Quigley code I can now see why Scarface was seen as such a violent and offensive film, the way people viewed things back then was totally different from today. Seeing the code through today’s eyes it seems outrageous and impossible to make a film that shows anything negative, there is to be no sexual promiscuity or corruption in the government or church officials, even if those things were happening in society. There seems to be too many restrictions in the code and it seems as if it would be next to impossible to make any film with violence unless you take the time to show how morally wrong it is. The code writers appear as if they believe that the public is to ignorant to watch a movie and decipher what is right and wrong, instead it appears as if they believe that the public will not be able to make this difference and that movies will alter all of societies views. There are some parts of the code that i do not agree with, for instance in the beginning of the code it states that there are some forms of entertainment that degrade the human race, which I think is ridiculous. There is no form of entertainment that can degrade an entire race, it may change some people views but if there that easily influenced than movies cannot be to blame. In the section of the code were they discuss sex it seems as though marriage is a sacred institution and any attacks on this institution would not be tolerated. The same goes for “impure love” which sounds as though they mean cheating, or adultery. In my opinion most of the code seems incredibly unreasonable, it seems as though the writers were blind to the truth. It didn’t want marriage to be viewed in an impure light or for impure love to be shown even though all these things were going on in the real world. It seemed as if they wanted to hide the truths of the world.

In section III of the Reasons Underlying Particular Application 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. 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.

1st A & Virginia Decleration

In the 1932 production of “Scarface”censorship was a big deal and caused many changes to the original script. From the information provide by Black and from just common sense you can clearly see why many citizens were outraged by the creation of gangster films. During these times films were used for entertainment and were rarely violent and hardly ever made the bad guys look good. However the new trend in gangster films not only portrayed the villains in a different light but they were also some of the most violent films. In these new gangster films, like “Scarface”, the villains were portrayed as almost heroes and seemed to encourage violence and gave children a bad image to look up to. Many citizens didnt want their family’s and children to witness such violence and offensive material so religious groups and other groups concerned with keeping America pure tried to ban the films.

According to the 1st amendment and section 12 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights the government cannot infringe upon free speech but it does not say anything about private corperations and private citizens getting together and censoring explicit material. The producers didnt have to censor the film, unless they wanted to show it to an American audience. the government had no role in the censoring of this film so I believe the censorship in this film was consistent with the constitution.

scarface-3 endings

Scarface had three distinct endings, one of which was never filmed because it was viewed as too brutal. In the original script ending Tony comes out of his apartment only after it is on fire, and he comes out guns blazing. Tony is hit by several bullets but manages to get close to the police officer who has been trying to catch him and as he raises his gun to shot the officer the empty gun clicks and the police officer shoots him. In this ending Tony dies in a blaze of glory as he shoots it out with the cops. In the first filmed ending Cesca comes to Tonys apartment to kill him but she just cant do it, she hugs Tony and says that they are one. When Cesca hears the cops coming she decides to help Tony fight it out with the cops and seems thrilled to help. Tony appears to go crazy and shoots his gun out the window to the crowd of police. As he continues raving about his steel fortress Cesca gets hit with a stray bullet and dies. Tony becomes stricken with fear of being alone and after the police throw tear gas into his window he trys to run down the stairs but is met by the police. Tony begs for his life and cries like a child, he asks for a break but the police are ready to take him to jail and seeing an opportunity he runs into the street and is shot dead by the police. In the second filmed ending all is the same except Cesca never hugs Tony and dosent seem as thrilled to help Tony. When Tony flees down the stairs he is again met by the police only this time he is led away in handcuffs. In the next scene they show a judge condemning Tony and sentencing him to death by hanging, and later we see Tony hung.

The original script ending does appear to glorify Camonte, he defies the police and the comes out ready to duel it out with the police like a warrior. If you watch most modern movies where the hero dies he dies in a blaze of glory fighting the enemy just like Tony did. i believe that tony appears to die a heroic death at the end of the original script, he dies fighting his enemy and never shows weakness, this is a very glorified death. As for the two filmed ending i dont believe that it makes a difference weather the police kills him as he runs or weather he is tried in the court, he dies either way. The only difference i saw in the two filmed endings was that the one were he was killed as he ran was a more entertaining than him going to jail, although i feel the the original script ending would have been more entertaining.

scarface-camonte

My initial views on the film were that it was kind of slow but as it progressed it started to get more interesting. I think that the director and actors do a great job of conveying the characters’ personality and really turning these characters’ into a real person. You can really tell what a character is thinking just by the way they portray themselves and the expressions they make. Tony Camonte acts like a thug who knows he cannot get caught; he’s very arrogant and has a bad attitude toward authority figures. He disrespects the police and even his own boss. He talks to the police officer as if his time is to important to waste with the police, and even plans to undermine his boss. Tony seems like a man who sets his own rules and has no problem killing to get what he wants. I believe that so far the movie is glorifying being a gangster. The film shows these men as making a good living in the life of crime. They have nice clothes, get paid generously, everyone seems scared into protecting them(like the barber) and the police can’t seem to stop them. The film also seems to glorify violence, by killing people Tony got more power and respect, also to get new clients to sell liquor to Tony uses violence and intimidation to make a sale. I think that the movie is trying to represent a time in history when gangsters ruled and corruption in the government kept them in power.