Second Peer Discussion – Christopher Robinson, Jr.

The discussion between Christine and I regarding my final paper was very productive.  I explained to Christine that I included more information about the origins of the Hays Office and the Lord-Quigley Proposal in paper.  She commented that the additional information worked well with the overall format of the paper.  However, Christine, as well as Professor Thompson, advised me to use more quotes that are not found in Hollywood Censored.  Scholarly journals and Internet sources will be used in order to create a more diverse set of references for my paper.  Overall, Christine said that my paper was very well written, and that I just had to correct simple spelling errors.  Our discussion time was used very wisely and effectively.

Conversation About My Research Paper (Christopher Robinson, Jr.)

My conversation with Christine regarding my final research paper went really well.  I told her that I would be addressing the Hays Office and the Lord-Quigley Proposal in more detail in order to give the reader a background about the two enforcers that silenced the original concepts for Scarface.  Christine and I also talked about the section in my paper that deals with the incest plot between Tony and Cesca.  Christine thought that it was really good that I added a brief background about Al Capone and Lucretia Borgia; the two individuals that Hawks modled the incest plot after.  Overall, the conversation was productive, and I can’t wait to see what my final paper will look like.

Revised Outline Proposal (Christopher Robinson, Jr.)

Final Research PaperPreliminary Plan: I will continue to defend my argument that Scarface, as it was originally conceived, was not a dangerous film. In my research paper, I will address many of the originally ideas intended for Scarface, such as the corrupt state attorney idea and the incest plot between Tony Camonte and his sister, Cesca. I believe that these ideas should not have been erased/censored from Scarface because they would have taught audiences valuable lessons about the society around them. On a side note, I will investigate the real reason behind the incest plot. It has been brought to my attention that the Borgia Family had a lot to do with the origin of the incest plot. My paper will also talk about the origins of the Hays Office and the Lord-Quigley Proposal, and how they both intertwine with the original concepts intended for Scarface. In addition to the Hays Office and the Lord-Quigley Proposal, new resources and documents, such as George Shaffer’s two articles about Scarface, will also be incorporated into my final research paper.

Outline
I. Introduction
In 1932, a revolutionary film about gangsters and their life style took Hollywood by storm and captivated moviegoers from all walks of life. Written by Ben Hecht, produced by Howard Hughes, and directed by Howard Hawks, Scarface told the story of Tony Camonte, who was originally the bodyguard for a well-known gangster named Big Louie. However, as the story unfolds, Camonte murders Big Louie and makes an alliance with Johnny Lovo, who is Big Louis’s rival. As the plot thickens, Camonte overpowers Lovo and becomes the most influential gangster in the land, only to be set right by the justice system. Scarface became an instant classic, but many organizations, such as the Hays Office, thought that the original concepts for the film, such as the incest plot between Tony Camonte and his sister, Cesca, were too dangerous for audiences. However, Scarface as it was originally conceived was not a dangerous movie because the film addressed taboo subject matters, such as a mother not being concerned about her son’s criminal activities. If the original concepts for Scarface were filmed, they would have forced audiences to take a closer look at the political and domestic immorality that exists within their own society.
II. The Hays Office and the Lord- Quigley Proposal
A. Before the issues regarding the original concepts for Scarface and how they would have forced audiences to become better observers of their own society are addressed in great detail, the organization and the proposal that silenced them must be clearly noted.

III. Corruption
A. The idea of having a state attorney general working with gangsters in private while denouncing them in public was going to be used in Scarface in order to prove that society’s tolerance of gangsters was the true problem.
B. Cutting the idea of having a corrupt state attorney in Scarface was an unjust decision because having this element in the film would have resulted in audiences taking a closer look at the individuals who hold public offices, and who claim that they are moral defenders of justice.
C. The text codes added at the beginning of Scarface also echoes a similar sentiment about people needing to become more observant of their government: This picture is an indictment of gang rule in America and of the callous indifference of the government to this constantly increasing menace to our safety and our liberty. Every incident in this picture is the reproduction of an actual occurrence, and the purpose of this picture is to demand of the government: “What are you going to do about it?” The government is your government. What are YOU going to do about it?
IV. Incestuous
A. According to Black, “Tony is obsessively protective of his young and beautiful sister, who longs to live the exciting life that the city offers; however, the movie hints, but never really states, that Tony is more then protective – that perhaps the relationship is incestuous” (127).
B. According to McCarthy, “Howard Hawks wanted the incest plot added into the original concepts of the film in order to show that gangsters were self-destructive and perverted” (130).
C. In Joseph McBride’s book, “Hawks on Hawks”, when asked how he came up with the idea for Scarface, Hawks answers the question by explaining where the concept of the incest plot originated from: I wanted Ben Hecht to write on it, and he said, “Sure, what are you going to make?” I said, “A gangster picture.” He said, “Hell, you don’t want to make one of those things.” I said, “Well, Ben, I’ve got an idea that the Borgia family is living in Chicago today. See, our Borgia is Al Capone, and his sister does the same incest thing as Lucretia Borgia.” (45)
D. Even at this point, it is safe to note that Hawks not only wanted Scarface to be a successful gangster film, but he also wanted the film to mirror real life themes and individuals. Hawks accomplished the realism of Scarface by using the history of notorious individuals, such as Al Capone and Lucretia Borgia.
E. Quick Backstory of Al Capone and Lucretia Borgia.
F. On March 30, 1932, Chicago Daily Tribune reporter, George Shaffer, addressed the realism of Scarface, and what effect it could have audiences: It is the last of the gangster pictures and as such is worthy of comment chiefly because it is the most lavishly and diligently prepared. The Hays organization at one time had decided that nobody would be too pleased to have “Scarface” go before the public at all, but the film has been done with fidelity to actual incident as in the use made of certain much related Colosimo, Bugs Moran, Dean O’Banlon, and Johnny Torrio episodes. Apparently, the powers that decide things in the movie industry finally concluded that the American film going public would find a liking for one more gangster picture so dramatically made. (A18)
G. The incest plot would have possibly showed parents what to look for if they suspected that their children were engaging in forbidden actions.
V. Mother’s Approval
A. According to McCarthy, “Hays was incensed at the negative depiction of the mother “as a grasping virago, distinctly an Italian criminal type mother” and insisted that the character be changed and that she “present to the son a dialogue telling him what the Italian race has done for posterity and that he, Scarface, was bringing shame upon his entire race” (138).
B. Having a mother who doesn’t care about her son’s criminal activities in Scarface, would have made the film more complex with regards to family dynamics. But, the revision with regards to Mrs. Camonte’s attitude towards her son matched perfectly with the hints of incest between her two children because she represented the moral consciousness in a sea of lustful intensions.
VI. Conclusion
A. Ultimately, the 1932 version of Scarface should be viewed more as a social wakeup call than as a dangerous film. Having themes in a film that deal with corrupt officials, incest between two siblings, and a mother’s acceptance of her son’s criminal lifestyle, would have sent a message to audiences that they should start paying more attention to the society around them. Motion pictures, such as Scarface, are not dangerous; they are revolutionary because they provoke thought and reason. Any art form without thought and reason is insignificant and empty.

Works Cited
D. Black, Gregory. Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies. 1994. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1996.
McBride, Joseph. Hawks on Hawks. California: University of California Press, 1982.
McCarthy, Todd. Howard Hawks: The Grey Fox of Hollywood. New York: Grove Press, 2000.
Scarface. Dir. Howard Hawks. Perf. Paul Muni, Ann Dvorak, Karen Morley, George Raft. 1932. DVD. Universal Studios, 2007.
Shaffer, George. “Gang Picture Has More Guns Than War Film.” Chicago Daily Tribune 30 Mar. 1932: A18. ProQuest. George Mason University Fenwick Lib., Fairfax, VA. 9 Apr. 2008 .
The Lord-Quigley Proposal. Appendix A. Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies. 1994. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1996.

 

 

Final Research Proposal (Chris Robinson, Jr.)

Final Research Paper

Preliminary Plan: I will continue to defend my argument that Scarface, as it was originally conceived, was not a dangerous film. In my research paper, I will address many of the originally ideas intended for Scarface, such as the corrupt state attorney idea and the incest plot between Tony Camonte and his sister, Cesca. I believe that these ideas should not have been erased/censored from Scarface because they would have taught audiences valuable lessons about the society around them. On a side note, I will investigate the real reason behind the incest plot. It has been brought to my attention that the Borgia Family had a lot to do with the origin of the incest plot. My paper will also talk about the 1st Amendment and the Mutual Decision, and how they both intertwine with the original concepts intended for Scarface. In addition to the 1st Amendment and the Mutual Decision, new resources and documents will also be incorporated into my final research paper.
I. Introduction
A. In 1932, a revolutionary film about gangsters and their life style took Hollywood by storm and captivated moviegoers from all walks of life. Written by Ben Hecht, produced by Howard Hughes, and directed by Howard Hawks, Scarface told the story of Tony Camonte, who was originally the bodyguard for a well-known gangster named Big Louie. However, as the story unfolds, Camonte murders Big Louie and makes an alliance with Johnny Lovo, who is Big Louis’s rival. As the plot thickens, Camonte overpowers Lovo and becomes the most influential gangster in the land, only to be set right by the justice system. Scarface became an instant classic, but many organizations, such as the Hays Office, thought that the original concepts for the film, such as the incest plot between Tony Camonte and his sister, Cesca, were too dangerous for audiences. However, Scarface as it was originally conceived was not a dangerous movie because the film addressed taboo subject matters, such as a mother not being concerned about her son’s criminal activities. If the original concepts for Scarface were filmed, they would have provided audiences with a more realistic insight into the world of gangsters.
II. Corruption
A. The idea of having a state attorney general working with gangsters in private while denouncing them in public was going to be used in Scarface in order to prove that society’s tolerance of gangsters was the true problem.
B. Cutting the idea of having a corrupt state attorney in Scarface was an unjust decision because having this element in the film would have resulted in audiences taking a closer look at the individuals who hold public offices, and who claim that they are moral defenders of justice.

III. Incestuous
A. According to Black, “Tony is obsessively protective of his young and beautiful sister, who longs to live the exciting life that the city offers; however, the movie hints, but never really states, that Tony is more then protective – that perhaps the relationship is incestuous” (127).
B. The incest plot would have possibly showed parents what to look for if they suspected that their children were engaging in forbidden actions.

IV. Mother’s Approval
A. According to McCarthy, “Hays was incensed at the negative depiction of the mother “as a grasping virago, distinctly an Italian criminal type mother” and insisted that the character be changed and that she “present to the son a dialogue telling him what the Italian race has done for posterity and that he, Scarface, was bringing shame upon his entire race” (138).
B. Having a mother who doesn’t care about her son’s criminal activities in Scarface, would have made the film more complex with regards to family dynamics. But, the revision with regards to Mrs. Camonte’s attitude towards her son matched perfectly with the hints of incest between her two children because she represented the moral consciousness in a sea of lustful intensions.
V. Conclusion
A. Ultimately, the 1932 version of Scarface should be viewed more as a social wakeup call than as a dangerous film. Having themes in a film that deal with corrupt officials, incest between two siblings, and a mother’s acceptance of her son’s criminal lifestyle, would have sent a message to audiences that they should start paying more attention to the society around them. Motion pictures, such as Scarface, are not dangerous; they are revolutionary because they provoke thought and reason. Any art form without thought and reason is insignificant and empty.

Works Cited

Borgia Family (information will be added)

D. Black, Gregory. Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies. 1994. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1996.

First Amendment (information will be added)

McCarthy, Todd. Howard Hawks: The Grey Fox of Hollywood. New York: Grove Press, 2000.

Mutual Decision (information will be added)

Scarface. Dir. Howard Hawks. Perf. Paul Muni, Ann Dvorak, Karen Morley, George Raft. 1932. DVD. Universal Studios, 2007.

The Lord-Quigley Proposal. Appendix A. Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies. 1994. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1996.

 

 

PBS Film: Denby Comments (Christopher Robinson, Jr.)

     I thought that David Denby’s distinctions between representational complexity and teaching unambiguous moral lessons in films were very interesting.  Denby commented that movie narratives should be complex because life is complex.  Denby continued to state that watching movies that deal with the conflict between good and evil is good because it helps the viewer learn about life’s lessons.  When it came to discussing unambiguous moral lessons, David Denby’s enthusiasm seemed to diminish.  Denby believes that having images in movies that just show and teach positive lessons makes the art of making movies childish.  Denby thinks that films should reflect a mixture of both representational complexity and teaching unambiguous moral lessons.  I think that David Denby’s comments regarding complexity and moral lessons were right on point!  I too believe that movies should mirror real life because as a moviegoer, I like films that incorporate real life situations.  However, I enjoy when good defeats evil at the end of movies because I believe that light always brings the end to darkness.

Hays Code- Individual Responses (Christopher Robinson, Jr.)

     I enjoyed reading the Lord-Quigley Code Proposal.  The Lord-Quigley Code addressed many issues regarding the censorship of films, which in turn, allowed the reader to fully understand why the censorship of films during the 1930s was such a heated topic.  I thought that the reasons given with regards to why books and newspapers were different than the motion picture were quite interesting.  The Lord-Quigley Code stated that a book reaches the mind through words, but a film reaches the eyes and ears through the reproduction of actual events.  I suppose the code was trying to suggest that films are more dangerous because they actually bring the words on a page to life using real life experiences.  The Lord-Quigley Code went on to state that newspapers are after the fact and present things as having taken place, but the film gives the events in the process of enactment and with the apparent reality of life.            

    The code takes on other taboo subjects, such as films not being able to portray the law in a negative light or filmmakers not being able to use nudity as the main theme in their movies.  I personally believe that the Lord-Quigley Code was acceptable during the 1930s because people at that time did not understand the motion picture, so they rebelled against it by creating laws and rules.  However, I am glad that my generation was not affected by this code because we would have missed out on some incredible films if the Lord-Quigley Code was still around.

Group 6 (Christopher Robinson, Jr.)

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. 

Mutual Decision (Christopher Robinson, Jr.)

     The Mutual Film Company v. The Industrial Commission of Ohio conflict came to be when Ohio’s censorship board began charging a fee to film distributors in order to have their films licensed for exhibition.  This type of practice did not sit well with Harry E. Aitken’s Mutual Film Corporation, which was an interstate film exchange at the time.  Mutual claimed that the Ohio law restrained trade by forcing the company to pay a license fee for each film exhibited.  Also, Mutual claimed that the legislature improperly delegated their legislative powers because the standards for gaining approval were vague and unclear.  Finally, the Mutual Film Company claimed that the Ohio law was a clear violation of the free speech provisions of the federal and Ohio constitutions.  These claims became the vital issues that were analyzed in the Supreme Court hearings. 

     Even though the Mutual Film Company arguments were strong, the Industrial Commission of Ohio had its own reasons for enacting the picture fee.  The Industrial Commission of Ohio enforced the fee because they wanted to make sure that the films shown in their state were moral, educational, and harmless. 

     In the end, The Court rejected the Mutual Film Company’s arguments.  Justice McKenna stated that he accepted the argument that movies were instruments of opinion, but he ultimately came to a conclusion that the argument was wrong or strained, which could extend the guaranties of free opinion and speech.  The Court stated that movies were a business pure and simple, and not regarded by the Ohio constitution as part of the press or as organs of public opinion.  The Court also noted that the ideas and subject matters behind movies were potentially evil.  The Judges recognized that movies communicated more effectively than any of the traditional forms of communication or education. 

     After reading the Supreme Court’s Mutual Film Company v. The Industrial Commission of Ohio decision and Black’s account of the decision, I have to admit that the Supreme Court decision was the right decision.  In 1915, taking walks in the park and going to Sunday Services were the ideal activities for a family to execute.  So, when the motion picture industry began exploring darker themes, such as gangsters and prostitutes, many individuals and groups thought that it would put an end to the pervious activities noted.  I always say that people fear what they do not understand, and the Supreme Court did not understand films that dealt with such mature subject matters.  So, the Supreme Court’s decision was only a reflection of the mindset of the population at that moment in time.   

Scarface-endings (Christopher Robinson, Jr.)

        After being introduced to the three endings of Scarface, I have to admit that the original ending of the film, which was never filmed, was the best ending because it really captured the true essence of the Tony Camonte character.  However, before I explain how I came to my conclusion with regards to the three endings of Scarface, let’s take a look at the three endings of the film in more detail. 

        According to Black, in the original ending of Scarface, Tony Camonte is bombarded with police tear gas and bullets, but only when his building is set a blaze does he come out with his guns blazing.  However, when Tony confronts the policeman who has been giving him trouble, he pulls the trigger but the gun is empty.  Acting quickly, the policeman shots a fatal volley into Tony.  As the scene concludes, the audience is suppose here “click, click, click”. 

         The first and second filmed endings of Scarface are extremely different from the original ending intended for the film.  Initially, the two film endings begin the same.  Tony is in his apartment, but his sister, Cesca, suddenly walks through the door; she intends to kill her brother for killing her husband, Gunio.  However, the police show up outside of Tony’s apartment because they have been notified that Tony has killed Gunio; this is when the two endings depart.  In the first film ending, but not in the second film ending, Cesca expresses to Tony that she is like him and he is like her.  Also, Cesca is seen loading a gun, while Tony is shooting at the police from the apartment window; Cesca is thrilled, but then a stray bullet kills her.  Cesca is killed the same way in both film endings. 

          Both films show a tear gas being thrown into Tony’s apartment, but then they depart once again.  In the first film ending, Tony begs for his life, but then he tries to run from the police, and is gunned down.  In the second ending, Tony is arrested and put on trail for murder.  Because of his notorious acts, Tony is given the death penalty, and is then hanged. 

          I do think that the original ending of Scarface glorified Tony Camonte, but that’s okay because it was consistent with Camonte’s character.  Camonte did not like authoritative figures, and when he felt threatened by them, he dealt with them accordingly; both Big Louie and Johnny Lovo heard Tony’s “death whistle”.  Tony Camonte would have gone out with a bang because he knew that he would have been remembered as the guy who stuck it to the police! 

I don’t think it makes a difference when it comes to our view of Camonte and the government in the two film endings of Scarface because they both reinforce the Hays Office demands with regards to showing that crime does not pay.  However, I personally believe that both film endings cheated audiences because they will never get to see the true character of Tony Camonte when he made his last stand against the police.

   

1st A & Virginia Declaration (Christopher Robinson, Jr.)

After reading why critics and citizen groups disliked gangster films, I learned that many people believed that gangster movies glorified violence, which in turn, influenced young people to turn to a life of crime.  I also learned that a motion picture code was applied to all movies, however, it was primarily geared towards gangster movies.  The code stated the following: “Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.”  I learned that critics and citizen groups believed that this code would help keep young people from admiring gangsters, but many people became fascinated with the gangster movie genre.  When it’s all said and done, I believe that the motion picture code valuated Amendment I of the Bill of Rights and Section 12 of The Virginia Declaration of Rights, especially when it came to the production of Howard Hawk’s 1932 film entitled: Scarface.

Both Amendment I and Section 12 of The Virginia Declaration of Rights touches on the belief of freedom of the press, and that no government should pass laws that would interfere with that belief.  When the Hays Office demanded that Hughes modify the view of gangsters when it came to making his film, Scarface, I believe that this countered the two documents that stated that freedom of the press was essential.  I believe this because as creative beings, humans write and express themselves in many ways and venues, but how the expression is displayed may not be everyone’s cup of tea.  Also, when the Hays Office made Hughes change the original ending of Scarface, they interfered with Hughes’s freedom of expression because his true vison for Scarface was shattered by countless rules and regulations.  I am so happy that our generation has the rating system because now movies can explore taboo subject matters, such as gangsters, without being restricted by moral codes, however, the viewer must be of legal age in order to view certain movies.  I can live with that rule!!!