Denby:Complexity vs.Childishness – Chris F

Denby presents two frames of mind on the application of film.  On the one hand he says that film as narrative is best used as an introduction to viewers about the complexity of life.  Narrative that is morally complex best represents real life. 

On the other hand, in accordance with the Code, film as narrative is limited to a singular theme of good vs. evil.  Good will always prevail in the end.  Evil of any kind is punished absolutely.

I think that he’s right in saying that only presenting good vs. evil films does make art go flat.  A complex film and a complex moral code more accurately portrays life, yes, but it is also just more interesting than a single and constant outcome.  Why would I want to see a movie in which I already know the ending each and every time? 

People aren’t such simple caricatures and while they may wish to emulate those ideals of the hero, I don’t think it’s possible to go through life without even the smallest personal contradictions.  Complex viewers will eventually tire of simple films, and I think this explains why movies with more complex themes were so popular with the general public.  If every movie-goer actually did object to the films that were produced at the time because it damaged their fragile sensibilities, people would have stopped buying tickets and the movie industry would have come crashing down long ago.

Group 5 Final Report on Code

Lord Quigley Code & Cenorship

SUMMARY

By: Chris Fenley and Lynn Marie Golden

Reasons Understanding Particular Applications (pgs. 307-308)

                                                               

                                                                

The code is divided up into sections that deal with immoral themes such as the depiction of sex, “vulgarity,” obscenity, and profanity.  Sex can be presented as long as the sanctity of marriage and family are respected.  This means that passion cannot arouse “dangerous” emotions in the audience.  Dancing and costumes are similarly warned against for possible sexual overtones.  The entire section on costumes is largely about allowable levels of nudity.  The code states that the nude human body is considered a beautiful thing, but ceases to be so when it is used as a “punch” to audiences.  Sexuality was considered the dangerous and corrupting influence through film, especially when families of all ages watched movies together.Attacking religious authority is also not allowed under the code.  This is unsurprising considering the code was written by representatives of the Catholic Church.Almost as an after thought, the last section of the code recognizes that “repellent subjects” may be necessary to some film plots and they are allowed to be included so long as they do not offend audience sensibilities.  The last statement serves as an intentionally vague loop hole that gives ultimate authority to the Hay’s Office on the grounds that anything could be potentially considered a “repellent subject.”

            RESPONSE TO HAYS CODE

By: Barbara Moorman

Our overall view of the Hays Code was similar between our group members. We felt that the actual writing of the code was definitely influenced by religion. After all, Lord and Quigley were both Catholic. Many of the statements of the code imply the way the Catholic religion wants society to be as a whole, especially in the section about sex and scandal that we reported on. There is a particular part dedicated to religion that tells producers not to question or demoralize the opinions or views of any religion while making their film and comparing it to the movie production code. This seems to be explaining to us that, yes, Catholics wrote this code and no one should have an opposition to what is written.

Our section, Responses Underlying Particular Applications, has some controversy in the points that it tries to make. The very last sentences of the Hays Code inform producers that the writers of the code understand that some repellent subjects are necessary in order to make a plot interesting, but at the same time nothing is to repel the audience. Our group was puzzled by this section of Repellant Subjects. Just listen to what that sentence just said. We agreed that ending such a code with this response just lets producers know that whatever they try to put in their films, this code has the power to alter their ideas of what they think is appropriate.

We all agreed that the 1920s and 30s were a different time therefore it may seem that the code is kind of silly sometimes and unnecessary in its judgment of what the public thinks overall as morally right and wrong. The main thing that caused a little disagreement was generational differences. An older generation has seen the debates over television and arguments about parents being concerned with what their children watch daily on a television set. A younger generation may believe the Hays Code strongly defies the right of free expression on screen, but the older generation sees it as a positive step to helping parents censor their own children’s viewing of today.

CORRELATION TO SCARFACE-THE SHAME OF A NATION

By: Mehreen Tahir

The Catholic Church most extreme fears were exemplified in Howard Hugh’s Scarface-The Shame of a Nation. This bold film about mob wars, violence, sex, and scandal were themes that the Church wanted to steer away from the public eye.

Under the Lord-Quigley Code there are stringent restrains on displaying sexual scenes. Under SEX II, it clearly states that such scenes, “…must not be presented in such a way to arouse passion or morbid curiosity on the part of the audiences” (307). This may be why Howard Hugh’s chose to not openly explore the underlying incest theme in Scarface. Tony Camonte, the leading gangster is shown to have a strong sense of affection towards his younger sister Cesca. At times during the film it seemed as if Tony himself, did not understand what sort of feelings he collected for her or simply chose to not verbally express them.

Had the incest plot been more openly implicit in the film, it would have wrecked havoc upon the censorship boards and the Catholic Church. The incestuous themes would have been regarded as “outside the limits of safe representation” (307).  Poppy’s character in the film with her revealing costumes and premaritial relations with Johnny Lovo were enough to raise eyebrows within censorship boards.

In addition, Tony Camonte and his fellow gang members committed several crimes against the law. The Catholic Church interpreted these scenes to be “teaching methods of crime”, as well as “{making} criminals seem more heroic and justified” (306). With Camonte’s lavish lifestyle, designer clothes, and charming personality it could have been easy for common citizens to grow a likeness towards his character despite his inhumane ways. This is what scared the Catholic Church.

Lord-Quigley Code Response Chris F

Key Points:

Section VI.  Costume:  This is a key point for the code’s presentation of nudity.  Nudity has been “honestly recognized by lawmakers and moralists” to have an effect on “normal” men, women, youth, and children.  The nude human body is considered a beautiful thing, but ceases to be so when it is used for a “punch” to audiences.  Therefore it can’t be considered a necessary part of the plot and transparent, translucent materials and silhouettes are suggested in place of nudity.

Section VII. Dances:  Dancing is also considered a beautiful expression of human emotion, unless that emotion is of a sexual nature.  It ceases to be beautiful when breasts move or the entire body moves while feet are stationary.  In fact, it’s wrong.

Section XII. Repellent Subjects:  Repellent subjects can only be included in a plot as long as they do not repell audiences’ sensibilities.

Secondary Points:

Section X. National Feelings:  Respectfully portray all nations in film.

Section XI. Titles:  A film’s title must conform to the same taste as its subject matter to  accurately brand it.

My Thoughts on this Business

The Jesuit academic reasoning comes through clearly in the code.  It’s well written and appropriately specific when it wants to make a point and deliberately vague when it wants to leave a loop hole for the future.  When writing the code, Lord must have had copies in front of him of both Block v. Chicago and Mutual v Ohio.  He seems to go point by point through the rulings to give more lucid reasoning to the judges’ earlier decisions.  The movie industry is in the entertainment business.  It can’t have the same rights as books and newspapers because these are limited to a reader’s comprehension and imagination, but movies are mindless.  Audiences are spoon fed images that appear to be real and therefore act as a precedent for future mimicking, especially when preformed by fan-favorite actors.

The language fittingly comes from an institution that for centuries maintained a heirarchial authority over a lesser-educated and naive base.  The Church may have good intentions for the masses but it comes with a certain condescending tone.  “Small communities, remote from sophistication and from the hardening process which often takes place in the ethical and moral standards of groups in larger cities, are easily and readily reached by any sort of film.”  Movies are a challenge to the Church’s moral authority, not just morals in general.  The Catholic church also was wary about allowing goverment to take steps towards censorship because this is a further erosion of the Church as the moral authority.  It may have also been a certain fear that once government censorship began, it may not stay limited to the film industry.  The Catholic church had always been targeted and mistrusted in such a Protestant country.

No greater insight into the fear of slipping religious authority is more apparent than in the code’s own section on religion.  It states that you can’t make fun of religious figures.  “Religion is lowered in the minds of the audience because of the lowering of the audience’s respect for a minister.” 

The section on costuming doesn’t really deal with costumes at all.  It only talks about nudity.  And it’s funny to see how the code pointed to specific dance styles.  The one section that slips under the radar is that on Repellent Subjects.  After the extensive do’s and don’t’s of the code, here are two sentences that create a loop hole for the rejection of any subject matter that could be considered offending of the audience’s sensibilities.  This is the deliberate vagueness that I talked about earlier.  It gives free license to turn down anything, despite meeting all of the above criteria.  The code is definitely not a compromise, and I don’t know where the producers who voluntarily approved it thought they would have the ability to veto on a case-by-case basis by a producer-jury.

Cinema a Business, Not Free Speech

These critics and citizen groups saw violence in Scarface as a potential influence on youth to take up lives of crime themselves, no matter that each film ended with nearly every gangster dying.  I think a closer look should have been taken at some of the criminals who said that they enganged in criminal acts because of the movies.  What kind of opportunities did these particular inmates have before they decided that even though all the gangsters died, they (the inmates) wouldn’t because they wouldn’t be caught?  What percentage of audience members turned to crime after the film?  If it directly affected the viewers, shouldn’t society have broken down the minute they exited that theater?  I think it’s more likely that these influenced youth felt they couldn’t rise socially any other way.

I don’t think that censorship in the film adhered to any democratic principles if you can liken cinema to forms of freepress.  However, can we assume that a movie is anything more than a business product? It’s invested in by producers and then sold to studios for release in movie theaters owned by private operators looking for ticket sales by the public.  The Hay’s Office tried, but Scarface wasn’t a public service announcement.  This wasn’t a flyer or pamphlet distributed among the populace, it was a movie, created to make its creators money.

It’s actually comical to read the intoductory text and watch the newspaper editor’s scene because in both they try to place the responsibility and part of the blame on a public who reads newspaper accounts (and watches movies) about violent gangster activities.  ‘What are YOU going to do about it?’  How can citizens be expected to challenge their real life corrupt political leaders that allow crime to continue, if the finger can not be pointed at fictional corrupt political leaders in a movie?  In this medium, censoring the content isn’t against democratic principles because it’s not the press, but declaring citizens are to blame due to inaction is misleading.  When the goverment bans fictional images that depict authority in a bad light because they fear socialism, it’s cowardly, but it’s a goverment control on a business, not necessarily an avenue of free speech.

Assignment 1- Camonte, the original Scarface – Chris Fenley

It’s hard to watch a movie from 1932 and appreciate it for what it was when it was made.  No they didn’t have today’s special effects; no they couldn’t show the blood they do today; no they apparently didn’t feel the need to at least make that guy’s hand look like it came in contact with that other guy’s face.  These differences aside, you have to appreciate what Paul Muni brought to a character like Tony Camonte.  The control he had over his facial expressions is what does it.  Charming, likeable, funny one moment, raging, murderous, and hateful the next.  Camonte goes off at the flip of a switch.  Shadow and darkness are used in the film to heighten suspense before often violent situations, and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that later director’s used these elements in crafting the Film Noir-style a decade later.  The humor lightens the mood and seems to usually come from Camonte, unless you take the clowning role of Angelo as humor.  It’s this very element that makes Camonte that much more brutal, more sinister in a way because his charm is just a tool employed only when he needs to keep his inner beast at bay and out of sight.

All of the Hay’s Office rhetoric aside, I think there’s a difference between portraying how a brutal, yet charismatic man comes to power and glorifying that rise.  A character is that much more frightening when one understands them as person.  Camonte is a man trying to make a living and support his family.  His tactics are unlawful and unconscionable, but he is still human in spite of them.  His mother approving or disapproving of what he does makes no difference.  The fact that he has a mother, that we see the mother, that he spends time with her at all means we can connect on some level with him.  This isn’t glorification, it’s characterization.  The attraction to his sister is more effective at painting a different portrait of the man.  This is something that sets him apart.  It’s creepy.  I’m not sure how this was supposed to discredit Camonte as a family man, in a sick way it makes him even more loving and attentive towards the family, but it’s a more interesting plotline than his mother not liking he’s a gangster.

Hey Guys

My name’s Chris Fenley.  I’m walking in May and technically graduating in the summer.  I thought I’d be done at the end of this semester but turned out I had 21 credits left, not 18.  Awesome.  So I’ll be sticking around Northern Virginia through at least August.  I’m originally from New Hampshire so I’m eyeing Boston as my next spot.  I’ve lived there before and it’s a great city.  Also helps that I have a lot of friends living there now.  I’m a Nonfiction Writing and Editing English Major and a Psych Minor.  I realized kind of late that I wanted to get into publishing which is why I’ve stuck around Mason rather than heading to school up in NYC.  I’d like to say that I constantly jog, hike, write, all that good stuff, but I end up watching a lot of T.V. which might come in handy for this class.  I do manage to read a lot, and I’m not a bad cook; something I was able to cultivate once I moved off campus.  There’s definitely a certain freedom in knowing you’ll never have to eat food from Ciao again.  Or is it Chow?  Still don’t know.