University of the People - PHIL 1404PHIL 1404 Discussion Forum Unit 8

Document Content and Description Below

Discussion Forum Unit 8 by Joseph Choi (Instructor) - Tuesday, 12 November 2019, 11:52 PM Number of replies: 96 Class, this will be the last discussion forum. You all did great. Thank you. Here ar... e the last set of questions for this course. Please read the case study entitled First You Get the Money… that you find in the reading assignment. Based on what you have learned in this unit, answer the following questions: 1. Though the initial reviews were mixed, time has proven the film’s popular appeal. More than twenty years after its release, Scarface continues to be a rental favorite, a standard campus feature, and a late-night TV standard. How can the notion of the general welfare be used to justify giving big bucks to the stars making the film: actor Al Pacino, director Brian De Palma, and writer Oliver Stone? 2. Can you form an argument against the concentration of money in the hands of a very few people that would work equally well against Al Pacino’s (presumed) wealth and Tony Montana’s? 3. Given the way Montana got wealthy, can the duty to beneficence argument against the star system still be applied to him? Why or why not? 4. Possibly the movie’s most repeated line is Al Pacino as Tony Montana explaining that to be successful in America, “First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women.” Does the story the movie tells about Montana’s life—coming to America with nothing as an immigrant and getting ahead by killing and drug dealing—make you more or less envious of his success (at least the money and power parts), or does it not make any difference? For those of you taking the final exam, godspeed. --Dr. Choi 272 words PermalinkReply In reply to Joseph Choi (Instructor)Re: Discussion Forum Unit 8 by Brian Murray - Sunday, 5 January 2020, 12:41 PM Hi everyone! Happy New Year to you all. It has been a pleasure to be in class with you this term. Good luck on next weeks exam. 1) Not unlike, entrepreneurs, good writers, directors, producers and actors make great investments in their trade(s). They have a passion for what they do and work hard at it, often for many years before they reach star status. Money, at least in those early years is secondary, they have an inner drive to perfect their craft and be the best at what they do. In the case of the movie Scarface, Pacino, DePalma and Stone worked hard at perfecting their respective crafts. One can assume that many of Stone’s screen plays were rejected, DePalma would have directed much smaller projects and Pacino would have had to work as an actor in many different supporting roles before his rise to leading roles. To make and produce good successful movies takes, much time, lots of money and perfected talent. It also takes some risks. A good movie is not always a successful movie. When a movie is both good and successful people are willing to pay to see it and be entertained by it. In essence the general populace decides what is good entertainment, by choosing what they see and don’t see. It makes sense to me that writers, directors and actors be rewarded to a greater degree than others involved in the film who are still in the process of perfecting their craft. If everyone was rewarded to the same degree our entertainment would cheapen. There would be less incentive to produce high quality films. 2) I cannot make an argument about Al Pacino’s presumed wealth. To do so would be calling wealth itself immoral. An argument can be made about how we achieve wealth or how we use it once wealth is in our possession. To compare the role of Tony Montana to the real life of Al Pacino is silly. Tony Montana achieved wealth immorally. Al Pacino in real life did not. 3) Given the way Montana acquired his wealth, through the illegal drug trade, it is difficult to see how the beneficence argument could be applied. Not being familiar with the movie Scarface I have to rely on the information presented in the case study. (Brusseau, J. 2012) Montana seems to have come to a bad end because of his greed for money and power. If I were to assume that Montana changed his ways, put the drug trade behind him, and began to be generous with his wealth, that action would be considered more reparation then generosity. 4) I cannot say that earning a living by killing and drug dealing makes me more or less envious. It does not make be envious at all. Hollywood can paint evil to look heroic, but it is still evil. In reality the life of a killer and drug dealer is very sad. The person is consumed with fear and loneliness. The respect he gains is false since it is based on fear and not love. Reference Brusseau, J. (2012). Business Ethics. New York, NY: 2012 Book Archive Project. retrieved from: https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s17-the-responsible-officecorpora.html 536 words PermalinkShow parentReplyIn reply to Brian Murray Re: Discussion Forum Unit 8 by Kabir Bolarinwa - Monday, 6 January 2020, 1:32 AM Hello Brian, The bottom line is that, the actors, Directors or writers who are earning we'll have done something extraordinarily to attain that feet, it is not a day business 30 words PermalinkShow parentReply In reply to Brian Murray Re: Discussion Forum Unit 8 by Carolin Weigt - Monday, 6 January 2020, 10:40 AM Hi Brian, You did a great job supporting your views. I find "Scarface" to be a great movie, but yea there really is not any way of predicting the correct wages. These actors may not get what is due, but who can predict how society enjoys the move. [Show More]

Last updated: 2 years ago

Preview 1 out of 59 pages