Assumptions About Film and Entertainment
Section 1: The moral importance of entertainment is something which has been universally recognized. Entertainment can be used to rebuild the bodies and souls of human beings, but it can also degrade and lower the standards of human beings. With that stated, entertainment enters into the lives of men and women, and occupies their minds and affections during leisure hours. Since entertainment is a dominant medium, it must be regulated in order to keep the moral ideals of a nation and it’s people from being corrupt.
Overall Effectiveness: This section of the code helps censorship groups and organizations, such as the Hays Office, with regards to censoring films because the section addresses the pros and cons of entertainment. Censors could use the pros and cons addressed in section 1 to further their argument that positive films could be used to help people better their lives. However, when films take on negative themes, such as gangsters, they can lead to horrible outcomes.
Section 2: Motion pictures originate from the minds of the individuals who produce them. Because of this factor, motion pictures reflect the moral qualities and intentions of the people who make them. These moral qualities and intentions may affect audiences in many ways. Since motion pictures have this type of influence, they can ultimately infuse their ideals, whether good or evil, into the minds of the people who watch them.
Overall Effectiveness: Section 2 of the code assists the argument regarding censoring movies because it deals with the creators of movies directly. Many censorship groups could make the argument, using section 2, that society must be protected from the minds of the individuals who “dream-up” films that are negative and corrupt. Also, the censors could argue that the minds of filmmakers could influence their captive audience in various degrees.
Section 3: The motion picture is an art form that is universal. Motion pictures entertain people from all walks of life, which in turn, makes them more influential than books and newspapers. Because of these factors, it is difficult to produce films intended for only certain classes of people, and it is hard to confine movies to a particular group. As a result, the latitude given to films cannot be as wide as the latitude given to books and newspapers because they only describe events, while films make events come alive for visual stimulation.
Overall Effectiveness: Section 3 helps further the larger argument regarding why films should be censored. The censorship groups could claim that since films were widely shown around the United States, their content should be evaluated on a larger scale than other art forms, such as books and newspapers.
February 23, 2008 at 9:40 pm |
Group 4 believes with sections 2 and 3. It is hard to make films intended for only certain groups of people. Scarface was only intended for older groups because of the violent scenes. Negative films can lead to horrible outcomes. Movie producers only make films to entertain.
February 27, 2008 at 12:55 pm |
Group 5 Comment: Chris Fenley, Barbara Moorman, Lynn Golden, Mehreen Tahir
It seems as if sections 1, 2 and 3 in your response were not really paraphrased. Are these direct quotations?
In section 1, it would have been nice to see your thoughts on whether entertainment actually does “rebuild the bodies and souls of human beings.” That statement seems a little extreme. And the response to his section seems just a bit vague. What are the horrible outcomes that you’re alluding to?
Your assessment of section 2 makes sense. One could easily make a case that the intentions of the film makers could be held accountable in censorship cases.
It seems that section 3 gets to the root of the problem in this whole censorship argument. Certain themes are assumed to be unsuitable for certain audiences. Rather than dismissing the production of films for certain groups as too difficult, the code could have better spent their efforts on developing a comprehensive rating system. Even if the business model was to produce movies for as wide an audience as possible because of economic pressures, a rating system would have kept censorship’s hand off of the reel and allowed more movies to have been approved for distribution.