The article “New Mythology of Crime”, by John G. Cawelti examines the major popularity and acclaim associated with movie “The Godfather” and the reasons historically and socially for it rise to prominence in the minds of American entertainment consumers.

    People throughout history have been fascinated with crime, especially violent crime. In its earliest example we have the Illiad and several works of Shakespeare. This article takes a look at the progression of man’s fascination with crime or violence and how the development of the crime myth has has been shaped as a result the way in which the public identifies with character of the criminal.

    Cawelti examines the possibility that “The Godfather” popularity and renown can be accredited not only to what he describes as “Skillful writing, striking and emotionally involving characters and situation, and a powerfully unified action”, but also to the creation of a new type of crime mythology. He goes on to describe the development of the crime myth throughout history and shows its departure from the traditional dichotomy of moral good and sin towards dynamics that place the criminal in the role of the main character. Several factors influenced the development of the crime myth throughout the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Among these are the development of the detective story, which helped to create a sort of intrigue towards stories of crime and criminal activity. Romanticized criminal characters such as Robin hood and Jesse James also developed during the 19^th and 20^th as well as a deeper insight into the criminal mind through the fields of psychology and sociology.

    A unique aspect of “The Godfather” was the importance and imagery of the family to refer to a criminal organization. This conceit began a new type of association with the criminal character, a sort of understanding or identification with character that was never so prevalent in the crime myth previously. Also, “The Godfather” introduced a sense of awe or fascination with the power and respect of the criminal organization as a whole. The combination of these factors are clearly evident in the film as various parts of the movie are defined by family events, whether it is the wedding of Vito Corleone’s daughter or the baptism of Michael Corleone’s godson, the criminal activities are consistently connected directly with the family. The development of these new conceits is just one of the factors that set “The Godfather” apart as unique and help to explain its tremendous popularity.

Art, Morality, and the Holocaust: The Aesthetic Riddle of Benigni's Life is Beautiful

Casey Haskins article, “Art, Morality, and the Holocaust: The Aesthetic Riddle of Benigni’s Life is Beautiful” analyzes the film’s impact on the philosophy of aesthetics as its controversial depiction of the Holocaust both in its humorous narrative style and its unrealistic representation of the concentration camp was the cause of much uproar. Haskin points to the controversy as proof that the film, whether praised or rejected, raises significant questions about the postmodern perception of the philosophy of aesthetic and urges its critics to revisit more traditional themes. 

            Haskin first highlights the film’s genre, what he deems “tragicomedy”, as a point of contention for critics. First, the film’s narrative style is that of a fictional fable, told in the adult voice of Giouse, Guido’s young and only son in the film.  Critics believe that this approach to the narrative is irresponsible as the severity of the Holocaust warrants the moral reality that can only be elicited from sociohistorical fact.  One critic Haskin highlights is David Denby of the New Yorker who criticizes the film’s misrepresentation of the Holocaust claiming Benigni wanted “authority not actuality” of the Holocaust and that the story is really “Holocaust-denial.” Haskin claims aesthetic as representations date back to Western Philosophers such as Plato whose cave allegory likened human experience to that of prisoners compelled to watch moving images on a wall and similarly, the film’s depiction of concentration camps isn’t supposed to be literal.  Moreover, Haskin charges that there is no real criterion for measuring the realism of any depiction of the Holocaust.

Haskin further analyzes the film’s self-reflexive humor as an aesthetic that can represent the morality and give insight into the characters’ psychology. He categorizes two types of humor in the film: Italian social and political satire and Holocaust humor analyzing them according to various theories of humor.

Finally, Haskin shifts to an analysis of the self-reflexivity of art as an indifference to political and social rule or a negation of dominant rule.  He points to the opposing philosophies of Adorno and Nietzsche on the purpose of art, “please or instruct”, “playful or profound” in order to suggest that while the critics of the film may lack a cohesive stance on the film and art in general, they do ignite a debate about the self-reflexivity of the film as art.   In sum, when analyzed according to these models, Life is beautiful “has reference to the specific wishes fears and historical beliefs of a particular cultural moment.”

In defining crime, this article sites The Godfather as a film that not only was wildly successful in its own right, but one that also sparked a crime craze in terms of the manner in which violence was portrayed and consumed by the public.  While it does not attempt to claim that this movie somehow created interest in crime, because this is something the article suggests if very innate to human beings, but rather questions how human beings justify their interest in violence and how definitions of crime vary between cultures.  Finally, the article seeks to answer the question as to whether or not this film somehow changed beliefs about crime and violence.

In order to consider these questions, and prove The Godfather, both as a film and a novel, is representative of a new morality regarding crime, the authors proceed by comparing the structures of this film to the structures of novels and films in the past.  The first aspect of the movie that is considered is the usage of the word “family,” specifically given its historical usage in Italian, which is symbolically used as a replacement for the mafia, or organized crime.  The use of the word family as well as the parallel structures drawn from the Corleone family itself to that of the organized crime unit changes how one views the crime family, making it more complex that simply a group of gangsters out to commit crimes.

A second important factor in the view of crime put forth by The Godfather, is the way in which violence is romanticized and justified in the film.  As the article suggests, we then understand Don Vito’s choices and become sympathetic to him as a character.  As Michael understands him, we too accept his violence.

The article also discusses how a scientific and social approach to crimes had arisen, and places this as a third way in which beliefs about violence were changing.  There was a movement, as depicted in this film, away from morals and religion, which were traditionally associated with crimes.  Therefore, a new belief system had arisen along with new entertainment.

In this article the writers challenge professors of criminal justice to use film to explore political and social realities of punishment. They want to stimulate research into effectively teaching criminal justice with film. Through the movie one can better understand the issues that arise concerning punishment and the state. The writers trace the development of criminal justice from a mens rea requirement to strict liability, whereby treatment concerns their action and not their intent. They discuss therapy and punishment philosophies of criminal justice and their effectiveness. Some criticized rehabilitation because it “was unlikely because, within the prison system, rehab was an artificial means to obtain release and was imposed on the offender, not a means for the offender to alter his conduct.” This is initially the case with Alex. We know from his monologues that he is pulling a fast one on the system. The writers see the film as the conflicts of therapy versus punishment taken to the extreme. Alex goes from being punished for what he had done to being treated for who he is. The debate between the philosophies is not about empirical testing but rather about political control. The writers illustrate the film’s importance based on historical events going on at the time when Burgess wrote the novel. The writers summarize the film emphasizing the difference between Alex’s totally institutionalized life in prison and his treatment life in the caring hospital. They then argue that the film is completely relevant to teaching criminal justice today. The film enables students to be suspicious of the morality of our institutions’ practices. It also demonstrates the difference between a system’s philosophy and its implementation.

            The writers compare the permanent restriction of freedom from Alex’s treatment with the Sex Offender’s registry. They also consider public vigilantes taking out justice on offenders who are released early, as they happen in the film and in the real world. They argue that rehabilitation does not occur in the film, only incapacitation. They are concerned with legitimate consent because of the motivations to leave prison, similar to the ethical problem of compensating women for their eggs for stem cell research. The remainder of the article points out effective ways of using the movie as a teaching tool.

In defining crime, this article sites The Godfather as a film that not only was wildly successful in its own right, but one that also sparked a crime craze in terms of the manner in which violence was portrayed and consumed by the public.  While it does not attempt to claim that this movie somehow created interest in crime, because this is something the article suggests if very innate to human beings, but rather questions how human beings justify their interest in violence and how definitions of crime vary between cultures.  Finally, the article seeks to answer the question as to whether or not this film somehow changed beliefs about crime and violence.

In order to consider these questions, and prove The Godfather, both as a film and a novel, is representative of a new morality regarding crime, the authors proceed by comparing the structures of this film to the structures of novels and films in the past.  The first aspect of the movie that is considered is the usage of the word “family,” specifically given its historical usage in Italian, which is symbolically used as a replacement for the mafia, or organized crime.  The use of the word family as well as the parallel structures drawn from the Corleone family itself to that of the organized crime unit changes how one views the crime family, making it more complex that simply a group of gangsters out to commit crimes.

A second important factor in the view of crime put forth by The Godfather, is the way in which violence is romanticized and justified in the film.  As the article suggests, we then understand Don Vito’s choices and become sympathetic to him as a character.  As Michael understands him, we too accept his violence.

The article also discusses how a scientific and social approach to crimes had arisen, and places this as a third way in which beliefs about violence were changing.  There was a movement, as depicted in this film, away from morals and religion, which were traditionally associated with crimes.  Therefore, a new belief system had arisen along with new entertainment.

Is there a way to effectively deter a Soviet attack without the threat of retribution?  As we see in Dr. Strangelove and the circumstances of the Cold War, it appears that if either party discontinued its pursuit of arms or renounced forceful retaliation plans the opponent would immediately have an advantage and an incentive to attack.  In the article “Nuclear Arms as a Philosophical and Moral Issue” author Robert Churchill addresses that issue, closely examining the ethical implications of retaliation and alternatives.  Harming the innocent, including not protecting them if an attack is suspect, is central to the morality issue, according to Churchill.  While considering whether to abandon retributive plans a country must also contemplate whether doing so would invite an attack upon its civilians by the other country.  Here arise questions of human nature.

As evidenced by the Cold War, the common mentality is to assume that countries will not cooperate.  Immediately individuals assume that the other nation is an opponent or adversary and means harm.  In Dr. Strangelove the deranged general, certain the Russians plotted to fluoridate US drinking water, embodied the paranoid mindset.  Such suspicious attitudes only strengthen the distrust between countries.  The situation is essentially a catch 22.  Once one country starts amassing weapons the other must do so to avoid attack, and if one stops producing weapons it risks being attacked.  Both countries would benefit from abandoning their programs, but neither can.

The issue seems to rest on the perception of human nature.  Through cooperation both countries could direct resources elsewhere and avoid the anxiety of nuclear competition.  The success of disarmament lies in the balance of whether the two could successful exist without challenging each other.      

In his critique, Patrick Whitely analyzes the struggle between More and Henry VIII’s and their divergent interpretations of the natural law and the forces of legal positivism working against it in A Man for All Seasons.

Patrick Whitley defines natural law as a moral proposition rooted in moral absolutism, while legal positivism has no necessary relationship between law and morality. The play Antigone  clearly depicts the struggle between natural law and legal positivism, as it dramatizes “the superiority of the natural law by depicting Antigone’s moral victory and Kreon’s remorse over his audacity” (761). Unlike this play, AMFAS poses the question whether natural law is irreconcilable with legal positivism.

The struggle in AMFAS is Cardinal Wolsey’s political realism and More’s view that laws worthy of obedience must be morally legitimate. Thus, Wolsey, though a Cardinal charged with enforcing the Church doctrine, serves the King’s interest first against the Church (765). Henry cannot be considered a positivist because he cares deeply about More’s moral dilemma, but still operates under his belief in the divine right of kings, seeking to align “his understanding of divine law with the operations of positive law…”(770). Thus, it is Henry’s conduits, Cromwell and Rich, who magnify the philosophical divide. The difference between Henry and More is that Henry believes he has access to “direct knowledge” from God and that actions for the good of the state must be taken, regardless of whether the act is good or bad, while More merely knows that he must act in obedience to his beliefs. Ultimately, More is a reluctant martyr, who recognizes the modern heroic ideal of certain sacrifice for indeterminate reasons (782).