2/27 Denby Response

The difference that Denby stresses is the idea that art is not a moral compass, but a means of portraying reality as interpreted by the artist/director etc. Propagators of the Hays Code claimed that by portraying decent moral individuals in art and film, that American culture would naturally gravitate towards those morals. However, this turns the films away from art and towards moral guidance, that many people will not adhere to. One of the interviewees asked, “What are we missing out on when we don’t hear any cursing in World War II films?” Well, if there is no cursing, no blood, no gore, then what you are watching is no longer war, but a vain imitation. People swear, have sex, drink, use drugs, give birth, and do just about everything that the Hays Code outlaws. Portraying it otherwise is a fictionalization that portrays a false reality.

Group 2 – Collaborative Report: Bhavna B, Christine S, Joel C, Lisa O

Christine’s Section

Our group had to cover Reasons Supporting the General Principles. This section of the code is mainly concerned with what will and will not be shown. It also attempts to explain why these restrictions will be imposed. This is most clearly stated in the second paragraph of point II where it basically states that if films always make the audience feel admiration for moral and upstanding characters and use the right kind of story lines they could, “affect lives for the better.” And, “can become the most powerful natural force for the improvement of mankind.” We felt that this clearly showed that those who wrote the Code had an agenda and that agenda was for a utopian America using the influence of film. We felt that this showed that the Catholic Church, the writers of the Code, saw the audiences as unintelligent and easily impressionable. The Code makes many assumptions and concrete decisions in this section that don’t really make sense. For example, the Cod states that, “correct standards of life shall, as far as possible, be presented.” The problem with this is that it does not describe a correct standard. Who can decide what a correct standard is? The Code also mandates that natural law should not be ridiculed. What is natural law? It is described in the Code as, “the law which is written in the hearts of all mankind, the great underlying principles of right and justice dictated by conscience.” Not all people have the same hearts. It was assumptions like these that were the heart of our discussion. People are not all the same, but the Code seems to think the opposite.

Bhavna’s Section

This section of the Code provides the guidelines that must be followed to honor principles of the Code. There are three main rules: No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those seeing it; correct standards of life shall, as far as possible, be presented; and law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation. This code applied to Scarface in the sense that all of these codes were issues in the approval of the film.

The first rule states that evil cannot appear attractive or alluring. Tony Camonte was a handsome man that had nice clothes, slicked hair, money and a cigar at his lips at all times. He was portrayed as someone with money, dirty money nonetheless, which is appealing to the public. Not only this, but he has a cocky sense of humor, nonchalant sway and an invincible attitude that makes his personality inspirational. When a character’s life is shown in detail, like Camonte’s was with his relationship with family, ability to care for his younger sister and his ability to love a woman, the audience becomes sympathetic when Camonte loses everything. According to the Code, however, this is wrong and indecent.

Lisa’s Section

Our group as a whole agreed that this section of the code is unrealistic and does can not apply to every member of the general public. The wording of the Code is condescending and its underlying message is one of a more religiously strict view of censorship. When our discussion turned to the sympathy of characters, we agreed that if an evil character is portrayed in a way which could be considered, “alluring,” that it will not throw away honor and innocence, but add to the entertainment aspect of their personality. In the second section, which discusses, “correct standards of life,” we all agreed that this is a very vague and assuming statement. The idea is ignorant because we are each our own critic. What one may find appealing and a standard of life another may find offensive and appalling. In the third and final section of the general principles it states that the presentation of crime and law should not direct the audience to feel sympathetic for injustice. While we agreed that the law should not be portrayed as unjust and corrupt because that demonstrates the law as fraudulent, we also felt that there are injustices that occur in reality but do not need to be publicized. As a group, we agree the whole code is quite harsh and idealistic.

Joel’s Section

The major difference between the Hay’s Code of censorship and the current MPAA film rating system of today, and also the TV ratings currently in place, is control and when it is implemented. The Hay’s Code comes into effect before the film is released, while the MPAA ratings (R, PG-13, G, etc.) come into play after a film comes out. This essential difference defines the balance between controlling what we can and cannot watch versus preparing us for and informing us about what we watch, rather that leaving it in the hands of elevated bureaucrats. One of the most important factors concerning censorship and ratings is the wellbeing of those that may be influenced by the material, namely children. Today children are not allowed to go into theatres showing movies rated above their age range. At home, and on television, most films are edited during hours when children might be watching, like after school. At night, films and television tend to be less censored. Both sides of the argument boil down to responsibility. It can be harmful to a child if they see too much violence, sex, or vulgarity, however the harm is not definite and probably only happens in extreme cases. Thus, parents can and must decide what they will allow their children to watch. Some parents would rather their children not watch the newest James Bond film, but that doesn’t meant that parents who find that particular material suitable should be prevented from showing it to their children.

Lord-Quigley Code Personal Response 2/13

In reading the Lord-Quigley code, I found it to be quite restrictive, as just about any other censorship code would be. One sentence that stuck out in my mind in the General Principles section was when the authors of the code insinuated in II that showing the American people what a “good American” looks like would “become the most powerful natural force for the improvement of mankind”. This is the fundamental premise of brain-washing. What many censors, both today and in eras past, fail to understand is the concept of the “standard American”. This “standard American” is not very intelligent and is very impressionable. They assume that if an average American sees something wrong on the big screen, he will not think twice about what he sees and will automatically sympathize and imitate. I concede the fact that there are Americans that would have this attitude; yet this is the minority. The majority of Americans have had sex (how else would we still be here if they weren’t?), experienced violence, and most likely have cursed. The “standard American” will probably find many dirty jokes to be quite hilarious. Thus, the Hays Office and the Lord-Quigley Code are part of a elevated and powerful sector that panders to the lowest common denominator of humanity, and certainly not towards “the improvement of mankind”.

The  code generally outlines that it is wrong for any film to portray in any way, shape, or form that evildoing is good or permissible. All bad guys have to die. If they don’t, Americans will see and automatically think that it’s okay, and finally fulfill their inner desires to kill, rape, and steal. Motion pictures must then show that “evil is wrong and good is right”. Any characters, lines, or ideas that “would throw sympathy against goodness, honor, innocence, purity, or honesty” are simply not allowed to be shown at all.

2-6 Censorship Response by Joel Cornell

My view on censorship is simple: it should be made illegal for people other than those in direct control of their own intellectual properties to edit or alter said person’s own work, and in-depth ratings systems should be required and widely understood. This will take creative powers away from bureaucrats and leave it up to those with the vision and mind to create. When a film is produced that is incredibly violent and gory, it should be rated approptraitely, and certain people under the set age should not be allowed to view such films unless a parent or guardian explicitly states so. If in fact the people have no interest in such gore, or want their children not to see it, they have the ability to prevent such happenings. People have fingers; TVs have On/Off buttons. Yes, it really is that simple. The producers of these movies should then realize that for their own gain, it would be more profitable to lessen the violence and gore and language, etc as to reach a wider audeince. A few Super Bowls ago, the world was exposed to Janet Jackson’s breast. The FCC had a fit and censonship was tightened. I will give $1,000 to the first person to bring me a child who was mentally scared by seeing a boob for less than half a second.

 Because of censorship, the ending to the 1932 film Scarface was altered multiple times. From reading Gregory Black’s book, I was enlightened as to the ideas of gangster films and censorship. Gangster is a way of life that is incomprable to any other. There are no rules, but by god are there a lot of cars, guns, money, drugs, and women. And power to boot. This lifestyle is going to be appealing to some whether it is glorified via film or otherwise. Seeing such a film will only introduce the lifestyle. Now it is entirely possible for film to falsify what this lifestyle is like in reality. Film does that with everything. However, we can not allow for what may happen in our lives to influence what does happen on the screen. Some people fail to draw a distinction between reality and life on the big screen. A decade or so ago, the band Iron Maiden was sued by the parents of two teenagers who killed themselves “while under the influence of that devil music”. Did Iron Maiden kill those kids? Or would those kids have killed themselves whether they were listening the Iron Maiden or otherwise? If a man watched Scarface and joined a gang, is it the movie’s fault? Or is it the fault of the person for a) failing to draw a distinction between reality and fiction and b) lacking the moral compass that prevents the majority of the population from becoming gangbangers? We are free people. Free to watch movies and to join gangs. We will pay for these choices accordingly.

Introduction

Howdy. My name is Joel Cornell. I’m an English major, with a concentration in poetry. I am taking this class because it’s a requirement, and also because I have enjoyed Professor Thompson’s classes before, and hope to enjoy this one as well. I’m a junior and I work at Trader Joe’s, and have lived in fairfax for quite a while. See ya around…