The surfaces of soap bubbles have a very important feature. These surfaces which have minimum surface-tension potential energy also have minimum areas. That is, soap bubbles or clusters have a natural tendency to minimize area for the volumes they enclose. Two different frames and the areas formed are shown in Figure 1. For a given closed frame, at least one such minimal area can be formed; however, mathematicians have had to strive to prove it.

The famous mathematician Richard Courant (1888–1972), together with his students, did soap bubble experiments with various frames.

Minimal areas can also be formed by using more than one closed frames. Figure 2 shows the minimal surfaces obtained by holding two circular frames parallel. If the frames are kept too far from each other, no surface will form. If they are kept sufficiently near to each other, surfaces similar to those shown in Figures 2a and 2b will be obtained. If they are kept close enough to each other, then three minimal surfaces adjacent to each other as shown in Figure 2c can form.

The minimum energy principle is commonly observed not only in living organisms, but also in lifeless matter. A chain will take the shape which produces the least potential energy of attraction when it is fastened at two points onto a rod as shown in Figure 3. This form (function) is called “catenary” in mathematics.

The areas which are formed as a result of rotating the catenary curve around an axis A are called catenoids. Two different types of catenoids are shown in Figures 4a and 4b. As presumed, catenoids are minimal areas and can be obtained by the use of soap bubbles. If such formations were selected and used in everyday utensils, such as glasses, dishes and so forth, ideal shapes which cause the least loss of heat could be designed.

If the katenoid shown in Figure 5a is cut from its edge as shown in Figure 5b and turned by being slightly extended, a helical form or a helicoid will be obtained as shown in Figure 5f. This helicoid also is a minimal surface. Architects have widely used this form in spiral-shaped staircase structures. See Fig. 6.

Fig. 1-Closed frames and soap film surfaces formed1 Fig. 2a&b–Single foam film surfaces over two parallel circular frames1 Plus, the perpetual screw system which is widely in use in technology is also in a form similar to this geometry.

If a cylinder of the smallest volume that can house a helicoid is drawn (Fig.7a) and the lines on which the surface and the cylinder intersect are marked, then a double helix structure (Fig. 7b) is obtained; this is used in modeling DNA molecules which are the genetic codes of living species.

There are two elementary principles related to soap bubbles. The first principle says that if a bubble touches a surface that supports it, it unites with that surface in a way to make 90° angles. The soap bubble on that plain surface forms into a semi-spherical shape and the angle between the bubble surface and the supporting surface will be 90° at every point of contact. The second principle says that if three soap bubble surfaces come together, they form 120° angles along a line. If soap films come together within a tetrahedron frame as in figure 8, then the angles between the lines will be 109° 28′ 16″.

The Steiner problem which is an elementary problem in mathematics can be solved by the application of the 90° and 120° principles. The Steiner problem investigates how n points over a surface can be united in the shortest way by a web. Two transparent surfaces are connected with thin and parallel pins of equal lengths and then dipped into a soapy solution. When it is taken out, soap films will form. These films have a 90° angle with the supporting transparent surfaces and when three soap films come together, they connect at 120° angles with one another.

When observed from above, the intersecting lines between the soap film and one of the surfaces give the shortest web which unites the points in n numbers. How four points are united is shown in Figure 9a and how five points are united is shown in Figure 9b. Someone seems to have equipped lifeless objects such as soap bubbles with the ability to solve complex problems like a math genius.

Periodically repeated minimal areas have been observed on walls separating organic and inorganic substances in the skeletons of certain sea animals like the sea urchin and the starfish. Figure 10 shows the micro structure of a sea urchin’s skeleton. It has calculated that the geometry of its skeleton has perfectly been shaped in such a way as to prevent the extension of possible cracks.

Experiments with soap bubbles have been a source of inspiration also for architects. Such experiments have yielded inspiration for roof and tent designs. The German architect Frei Otto is one of the most eminent names in this regard. Figure 11 shows the minimal areas which Frei Otto managed to obtain by dipping hair-thin threads in soapy water.

In order for such a soap bubble model to be converted into an architectural structure, it is carefully photographed and precisely measured. Later, solid models are made and tested in wind tunnels. The tensile pressures likely to form under loads of wind and snow are measured by special precision instruments. In real structures, thin steel cables having high tensile strengths replace the hairy threads, and transparent plastic and synthetic materials replace the soap bubble film.

Figure 12 shows roof of the Munich Olympic Stadium, Figure13 shows the roof of the Munich Olympic Athletic Arena and Figure 14 shows the roof of the Olympic Swimming Arena in the same city. All these roofs have been designed and erected using the minimal surfaces obtained from soap bubble experiments.

Children love playing with soap bubbles very much; they usually blow a round circle after dipping a wand into soapy water and then watch the bubbles flying out of it. However, it is not only children who play with soap bubbles and soap films. Scientists have, for hundreds of years, been doing experiments with soap bubbles, developing mathematical theories, obtaining various surfaces and transferring the compiled data into technology.

Experiments with soap bubbles have been a source of inspiration also for architects. Such experiments have yielded inspiration for roof and tent designs.

2) These roofs can easily be erected, dismantled and transported to elsewhere, whereas traditional buildings cannot easily be re-located.

3) These structures which are designed according to tensile strengths are very sturdy all over, whereas the tensile pressures of classical buildings are so high that extremely heavy materials such as concrete and brick are used in order to balance the pressure.

The structures of light and strong materials granted to living things are splendid. The lightness and endurance of our skeleton system, the perfect endurance in the stems of slender plants such as wheat and barley, the extremely thin and elastic structure of a fly’s wing, and thousands of similar examples can be given.2 The word of German architect Frei Otto in this subject are expressive: “Biology has become indispensable for architecture.” Witnessing similar perfections also in inanimate structures such as soap bubbles proves that laws in nature originate from the same hand.

Obtaining minimal surfaces has become much easier as a result of immense increases in computer capabilities. Extremely complicated minimal surfaces which can be obtained through computer-aided-designs and calculations have become easily available as alternatives to soap bubble experimentations. If we, as human beings, are aiming to realize developments in science and technology, we should look,more carefully and meditatively, at events which are seemingly simple and unimportant around us and we should also discover the beauties and perfections that God has granted us and put them into service of humanity. The more our designs are compatible with the laws of nature, the higher our chances of success will be.

References

• S. Hilderbrandt, A. Tromba, The Parsimonious Universe, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.
• M. S. Polatöz, Tabiatta Mühendislik (Engineering In Nature), Kaynak Publications, Izmir, 2003.
• A. B. Smith, The stereom microstructure of the echinoid test. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 25, 1–85, 1981.

In order to get a sharp image, ideally one point on the image (film) should receive light rays from only one point on the object. In practice, this ideal case can not be achieved in case of a large pinhole. If we have a large pinhole, as seen in Fig. 4, the light rays emerging from one point on the object reaches multiple points on the film. Also, multiple points on the object can arrive at a single point on the film. The result of both cases is a blurry image. For a small pinhole, however, there are light rays emerging from a point on the object in all directions, and only a very small amount of light is received on the film. To produce a decent image on the film, the exposure time needs to be very long, especially when a very small pinhole is used. Of course, we can make the pinhole a little larger to capture more light. But, wait! This would make the image blurry. Therefore, for pinhole photography, the size of the pinhole sets the quality of the image and the minimum exposure time. Also, we can take the picture of a still object, but a moving object cannot be captured easily by a pinhole camera due to the long exposure time. One important question is: Can we make reduce the size of the pinhole size to increase the quality of the image? Well, physics says: “No!” Fig. 5 shows a comparison of the images of a filament taken by a pinhole camera.⁶ As the size of the pinhole gets smaller and smaller, the effects of the diffraction phenomenon are more and more pronounced, and the image becomes blurry again. We also notice that the image is barely formed with a very small pinhole, indicating that very little light is received.

How can we gather more light and still make the image sharp? Can we achieve this with just the pinhole? Apparently not. That is why we mention lenses when talking about any imaging system. This is what a lens basically does. A lens gathers more light, and still preserves the one-to-one correspondence between the points on the object and those on the image. So, a lens is very useful for imaging. Most cameras have one or multiple lenses. Our eyes have lenses. We should remember, though, a pinhole camera takes a picture, but the compromise is the exposure time. Now, we see that a lens solves the exposure time problem, but is there a price to pay? To answer this question, let’s take a look at once again Fig. 2, where we see two pictures, one taken by a pinhole camera, and the other one by a lens camera. Look at the pictures carefully, and try to understand the difference before proceeding. As you probably observed, in the pinhole camera image everything in the picture is in sharp focus, from the close-by plants to the far distant beacon, and the clouds in the sky. However, in the lens camera image, only the closest daisy is in focus, and the other daisies, only a few meters away, are blurry. Indeed, we lose the depth of field in our images when using a lens camera. Depth of field can be defined as “The distance between the nearest and farthest points that appear in acceptably sharp focus in an image.” This is actually something we live with everyday. Try to focus your eyes on a mountain far away; the objects that are very close will not be in focus anymore. So, our eyes, consisting of lenses, also have limited depth of field. A nautilus eye, on the other hand, has an infinite depth of field, as it has a pinhole eye. Therefore, the price paid for gathering more light with a lens is that not everything will be in focus.

We can understand why lens cameras have a limited depth of field while a pinhole camera has nearly infinite depth of field if we consider the focusing mechanism of a lens. Given a pre-determined film position, a lens can only form sharp images of an object at a certain distance from the lens. Other points that are farther from or closer than same section of the object will be out of focus. However, if the size of the object is not large, we usually do not notice this effect. When we want to take pictures of close-by objects, then this effect is clearly seen, as Fig. 2 (b) shows.

Actually, we can correct this problem. The image of the farther points of the object forms at a farther point on the film. So, multiple light rays coming from one point will end up on the film. If we place an aperture next to the lens, then we can block some of these light rays. If we make the size of the aperture sufficiently small, we can get a sharp image of the farther point. Our original question about the lenses can be posed once again at this point: By using the aperture we make the image sharper, but what do we lose? Of course, since we block some of the light rays, we lose the light-gathering ability of the lens. Now, if we make the aperture size smaller and smaller, we finally reach the pinhole, and an almost infinite depth of field!

Our eyes also use similar mechanism of placing an aperture. The amount of light allowed to enter each eye is controlled by the iris, a circular diaphragm that opens wide at low light levels and closes to protect the pupil (the aperture) and retina (light detector of the eye) at very high levels of illumination. As illumination changes, the diameter of the pupil (positioned in front of the crystalline lens) reflexively varies between a size of about 2 to 8 millimeters. When illumination is very bright, the pupil narrows and light rays from the side are excluded from the optical pathway.⁷ The result is a sharper image on the retina. A very narrow pupil (approximately 2 millimeters) produces diffraction artifacts that spread the image of a point source on the retina, similar to the image of the filament captured by a very tiny pinhole (Fig. 5)

In conclusion, a pinhole camera is a very instructive tool for learning about imaging concepts. A pinhole camera has an infinite depth of field and the ability to produce sharp images regardless of the distance of the objects. This comes with a price, though: the small size of the pinhole limits the amount of light received by the film, so long exposure times are needed. A lens helps to gather more light, but compromises the depth of field. These concepts are used in imaging technologies, and can be found in the eyes of living organisms.

Notes

1. E. Hecht, Optics, 2nd edition, pp. 199. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
2. http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/illus/ilt/T045986A.gif.
3. http://www.kosara.net/gallery/.
4. http://www.eyedesignbook.com/.
5. http://www.spylife.com/pinholecam.html.
6. http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~ramani/cmsc426/Lecture3.pdf
7. http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/lightandcolor/humanvisionintro.html.

In this path of loving, how can it possibly be That we see the world through You, and yet we don’t see You?
Rumi

What is the universe? The search for the answer to this fundamental question has been the starting point of philosophy and science. However, believers, mostly turn to religion for an ultimate answer. Most Muslim thinkers have considered the Divine Names as the primary things to be comprehended through which we can gain knowledge of the cosmos. And growing numbers of people have suggested that the universe is a hologram which makes us images of a higher reality. The first question that comes to mind is this: Can God’s manifestation, as explained in Sufi texts, promote to a holographic universe? The article, however, does not aim to answer this question, but rather to show that holographic model of the universe can feed our imaginations to perceive self-disclosure (tajalli) of God in everything. For this purpose, we will first concentrate on the main characteristics of a hologram, explore what is meant by a holographic universe, and then use these as metaphors to understand the cosmos in terms of God’s names.

What is a Hologram?

Holography is an imaging technique much like photography. However, in the case of holography, the image of the object is three-dimensional. The main instrument behind this dimensionality is the laser light. Let’s see how we can obtain a hologram, for example, of a flower. To achieve this, a beam of laser light is separated into two by a beam-splitter. One beam falls directly onto light-sensitive film. The other beam is reflected from the flower and then shines onto the same film. When these two beams overlap, they form an interference pattern on the film which is called a “hologram.” The pattern, which looks like the ripples formed by rain drops on a pond, can be seen once the film is developed. A three-dimensional image of the flower is produced as soon as the hologram is illuminated by another laser light. That is because the whole message of all the visual aspects of the flower is enfolded on the two-dimensional surface of the film. Actually, what happens is the revelation of the flower information, as recorded in the interference pattern. The startling feature is that if we cut the hologram in half and then illuminate one piece by a laser, we will still be able to produce the entire image. Even, if we keep cutting the film into smaller and smaller pieces, every single piece will still possess the whole information of the flower. Furthermore, we can see the different sides of the flower when we look at its image from different angles, giving us a convincing illusion of seeing a three-dimensional object.

The Holographic Universe

The idea that universe can be a hologram is brought forward by the fact that not only light waves, but also matter waves, can display the behavior of interference. A deeper level of interpretation for a holographic universe arose through the theoretical models that try to explain the coordinated action of the four fundamental forces in nature. These theories suggest 11 dimensions of space-time which actually appear four-dimensional on a human scale. This would, in a way, imply that the information of reality in eleven dimensions is projected onto the four-dimensional space-time substrate that we live in. However, it is with Gerard’t Hooft’s “Holographic Principle” that the holographic nature of all physical systems became apparent, for it explains how a three-dimensional physical system can be described by a theory based on a system’s two-dimensional surface area. Thus, the idea of a “holographic universe” was on stage once this principle had been applied to universe, the biggest physical system we know of. With the holographic model of universe comes the realization that each point in the universe contains the whole universe in itself: every grain of sand is connected to every planet in the cosmos, just as every subatomic particle comprises a web of interconnections by which it becomes intertwined with the human cell. David Bohm is one of the 20th century scientists known for recognizing this wholeness in nature. Bohm’s interpretation of the universe as a hologram came as an explanation to a 1982 experiment, performed by Alain Aspect and his team, which revealed how fast sub-atomic particles communicate with each other. Actually, the communication is found to be so fast, even faster than speed of light, as if particles “knew each others’ fates.” Bohm suggested that particles do not need any signal to communicate with each other simply because the separation between them is an illusion. The explicit separateness is a projection from a higher level of reality, that he calls Implicate Order, where everything is connected. The particle acts as if it knows the other particle’s fate because it has the other particle’s information within itself. Another scientist who saw the holography in action is neurophysiologist Karl Pribram. He was trying to find which specific locations in the brain are assigned to store our memories. His experiments revealed there is no such localization. Pribram claims that the pattern formed by the interference of electrical signals from each nerve cell in the brain is where, in fact, the memories are “stored.”

God’s Manifestation

Many Muslim thinkers, from Ghazzali to Ibn al Arabi, have presented God as Light, and all entities in the cosmos as the dim reflections of that Light. The Qur’an affirms this approach with its many verses, one of the best known being that “God is the light (nur) of the heavens and the earth” (24:35). However, since God has neither resemblance nor similarity to any of His creatures, this kind of description should not be considered as a likeness to the light we know of, but as a metaphor. The symbolism of light is used mainly to explain the relationship between God and creation. But first, one should know about Divine Names to understand this relationship.

In point of fact, in the Qur’an, the verses generally end with a mention of some of the Divine Names-The Life Giver, The Slayer, The Forgiver, The All-Provider, The All-Knowing, The Creator, etc. Actually, we name Him “Creator” after witnessing the effect of this name on creation. For example, we witness mercy on creation and so we call Him “The Merciful.” Everything from physical beings to the sciences manifests God’s names in some mode or another. All types of hearing originate from Him being “The All-Hearing.” “The All-Just” shines in the way the planets are placed in their orbits, while “The All-Provider” can be seen in how each and every animal is taken care of. Medicine reflects “The All-Healing,” while geometry reflects “The All-Shaping.” To explain God’s manifestation (zohur), Said Nursi once gave the example of the sun and its light in his Sixteenth Word: We can think the light from the sun as God’s light and its attributes as God’s attributes. For example, the heat of the white light can be thought as God’s Power, and brightness as God’s Knowledge. The moment the sun reflects, let’s say on a mirror, its heat and brightness are also there in addition to its image. In a similar manner, God manifests Himself in all beings with all His attributes. However there is ranking in this manifestation which depends upon the being’s abilities and quality. We can use the analogy of light to see how different qualities give rise to different manifestations. A flat mirror has the ability to produce the image of the object with its original size and shape, while mirrors in fun houses can cause distortions depending on the curvature. Actually, in Sufism, the fact that the Names are various and are being manifested to varying degrees is given as the reason for variety in the universe as well as in human beings. And thus, human beings, created with the most complex abilities, have the highest place in the ranking, while the heart, the subtlest faculty of a man is considered as the center of manifestation.

Taking the analogy of light further, and using the allegory of a hologram, we can better visualize the relationship between the creation and God and the idea of ranking in His manifestation. In our analogy, laser light represents God’s attributes, the hologram (film) represents four-dimensional space-time, and the interference pattern corresponds to interfering with God’s names. Therefore, everything in the cosmos can be viewed as a pattern of Divine Names enfolded throughout space and time. As a result, one can conclude that the

Divine Names are not so much ontological entities but simply the effect of such interference, like two lights overlapping. God’s attributes give birth to all existent things just as laser light interference gives birth to a hologram. This analogy is consistent with the Sufi texts that draw the distinction between God’s Names (asma) and Attributes (sifat). Imam Rabbani, a well known Islamic scholar, emphasizes this distinction in his Letters. Divine attributes (such as Existence, Having No Beginning, Eternal Permanence, Being Unlike the Created, Self-Subsistence, Life, Knowledge, Power, Speech, Will, Hearing, Seeing, and Creating) are the features that cannot be separated from God Himself (Dhat). But once God discloses Himself, the effects of the Attributes are manifested and we call these effects Divine Names. In a nutshell, this means, the Attributes are the sources of Names, just as the light is the source of interference.

Furthermore, with the analogy of space-time as a hologram, if we cut the space-time into an infinite number of pieces, the whole universe is present at every location. Mahmud Shabstari expresses perfectly such an interconnection and unity in all creation in his Gulshan-i Raz (The Mystic Rose Garden):

Know the world is a mirror from head to foot,

In every atom a hundred blazing suns.

If you cleave the heart of one drop of water,

A hundred pure oceans emerge from it.

If you examine closely each grain of sand,

A thousand Adams may be seen in it.

In its members a gnat is like an elephant;

In its qualities a drop of rain is like the Nile.

The heart of a barley-corn equals a hundred harvests,

A world dwells in the heart of a millet seed.

In the wing of a gnat is the ocean of the life,

In the pupil of the eye a heaven;

What though the grain of the heart be small,

It is a station for the Lord of both worlds to dwell therein. (Translated by E. H. Whinfield)

This way of looking at everything may lead a believer to embrace the doctrine of wahdat-al wujud, the interpretation of oneness of existence. This results in the denial of the existence of the universe and because of the belief that the only thing that exists is God. One remark necessary at this point is that this might sound a lot like pantheism. However, a critical distinction is that in pantheism, what is denied is God, not the universe. Actually, many people, in trying to integrate the perspective of holographic universe with Sufism, adopt the Sufi belief “hama ost,” meaning “All is He,” another name for wahdat-al wujud. But the holographic metaphor, as presented above, may better serve in our attempt to understand God’s Unity (tawhid) without denying the universe. Thinking all beings as an interference of God’s names is consistent with the faith that every entity is a Divine location. However, note that we drew the distinction between Divine Names and Divine Attributes. Every being is kept in existence through God’s names. Things exist not because God abides in them with his infinite Being. In other words, and most importantly, it is not that God Himself is everywhere in the cosmos, but rather that His Names are present at every point. He does not dwell in cosmos, but is, instead, the source of cosmos. He is eternal-while cosmos ceases to exist once its connection to Him is cut. This standpoint is referred in Sufism as “hama az ost,” meaning “All is from Him.” In this view, the existence of universe is not denied but its level of existence can be questioned. If the true existence is defined as God’s Absolute existence, the universe does not have a true existence but is still in a mode of existence which is temporal and contingent. This existential challenge is explained by Islamic thinkers through the example of a shadow. The relationship of creation to the Creator is like that between a shadow and the actual shape. Thus, the likeness witnessed in a shadow and a hologram is such that we can conceptualize God’s manifestation-but He is not limited by these dimensions.

In fact, the similitude of hologram can also help us to conceive the spiritual unveiling. Interference patterns originating from different objects can be recorded on the same film by projecting the laser beams at different and varying angles. In such a case, depending on the direction and frequency of the beam that you send through the film, a different three-dimensional image will appear. Two points to emphasize are that the use of laser light is necessary to see the higher dimensionality, and that one can see different realities. In a similar fashion, in a spiritual journey, a traveler needs to have radiance from God’s light to be able to witness further dimensions. With the light of God, spiritual unveiling occurs and a Sufi may see different instances of a reality depending upon His station, which Divine name He is reflecting on or reciting, etc. Thus, the complex information that every element in the universe can reveal about every other entity depends on the fact that God’s names denote each other. We can further use the notion of interference to delineate the concept of ranking in God’s manifestation. In an interference pattern, not all points have the same brightness. The degree of brightness depends on the location and the way the two lights overlap. There are even points where no light can be observed. This, however, does not mean there is no light there; it simply cannot be seen due to destructive interference. Extrapolating this into God’s manifestation, every entity is a Divine location, even if it cannot manifest Him.

To end this train of thought, we should find an answer to a mysterious question. If everything in four-dimensional space-time comes into existence once a higher reality is projected on the void of darkness by God’s Light, what, then, is that higher multidimensional reality? It is a reality which can only be witnessed by those who see behind the appearance of things-by those who free themselves from the material world and carnal desires. It is, perhaps, the Preserved Tablet (Lawh al-Mahfuz) mentioned in chapter, The Constellations (Buruj). Ultimately, this is a question that can only be answered by those who have purified their hearts and can see beyond.

The movie makers probably did not intend to make killing look attractive. But was it the final effect anyways? Do movies depicting indecent acts fail to show the consequences sufficiently? What can society do about this trend? These and similar questions have been asked and debated for decades. Below, we analyze a time in Hollywood when the concentrated efforts of concerned individuals and organizations had a significant positive impact on forcing the movie industry to move toward self-regulation.

The Beginning of the Movie Industry

Movies rose as a new form of entertainment at the turn of twentieth century. By the 1920s, 40 million Americans were watching them each week. After winning the right to vote in 1920, flapper girls were exercising their new-found freedom, Harlem nightclubs flourished with whites with an interest in African American culture, and the number of gangs selling liquor during Prohibition increased. Movie producers displayed these value changes in their films to attract more young people. This started the big fight between America’s moral guardians and the movie makers.

Hollywood scandals in the early 1920s accelerated the demand for movie censorship. In 1921, the famous comedian Fatty Arbuckle was accused of raping and murdering a young actress; director William Desmond Taylor was found murdered, and a series of front page stories revealed his drug use and sex life; actor Wallace Reid died of a drug overdose; and America’s “sweetheart,” Mary Pickford, got a quick divorce to marry Douglas Fairbanks.

The motion picture business had become an industry. Film companies seeking to integrate production, distribution, and exhibition had one formula in mind: expansion meant capital, capital meant Wall Street, and Wall Street meant conservative business practices. They could not afford any scandals or federal investigations of Hollywood.

The Pressure for Codes Builds

Leff and Simmons write: “In 1921 alone, solons in thirty-seven states introduced nearly one hundred bills designed to censor motion pictures. Women could not smoke on screen in Kansas but could in Ohio; a pregnant woman could not appear on screen in Pennsylvania but could in New York. Six censorship states, which controlled over thirty percent of the theater seats in America, condemned illegitimacy and sexual deviance.”(1) State censors recut films after the producers, and the outcome was unfavorable. Local exhibitors were tired of the cost of censor cuts and attacks by the public and the media. In January 1922, the movie company presidents formed a trade association, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributers of America (MPPDA). Postmaster General Will Hays, an ex-Republican national chairman with White House connections, was chosen as their head. He was a great success as a spokesperson, but failed as a censor regulator of movie content.

Under Hays, Hollywood instituted a morals clause that, as part of the standard employment contract, regulated performers’ off-screen lives: “The artist agrees to conduct himself with due regard to public conventions and morals and agrees that he will not do or commit any act or thing that will tend to degrade him in society or bring him into public hatred, contempt, scorn or ridicule, or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or ridicule public morals or decency or prejudice the producer or the motion picture industry in general.”(2) Furious with such self-regulation and restraints, many ignored the contract, and so the scandals continued.

A mainly Protestant anti-movie lobby grew larger and more threatening in the mid-1920s. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), the Reverand William H. Short’s Motion Picture Research Council, and Canon William Shaefe Chase’s Federal Motion Picture Council, among others, all lobbied for federal action. Supporters of cencorship bills claimed that movies were immoral, vile, and corrupting young people. With the advent of —talking— films, the moral guardians of America faced a bigger threat: movies were more popular and dialogue challenged public norms. According to Black: —In 1928 the New York State censorship board cut over 4,000 scenes from more than 600 films submitted, and Chicago censors sliced more than 600 scenes.—(3) Martin Quigley, owner and publisher of the industry trade journal Exhibitors Herald-World, initiated in 1929 the first attempt by Catholics to influence the film industry. Believing that government censorship was futile, he began thinking of a code that would include rules, regulations, and philosophy. Father FitzGeorge Dinneen, Chicago censor board advisor, sent him to Father Daniel Lord, a St. Louis University professor who could write the document. The resulting production code had three working principles:

• No picture should lower the moral standards of those who see it.

• Law, natural or divine, must not belittled, ridiculed, nor must a sentiment be created against it.

• As far as possible, life should not be misrepresented, at least not in such a way as to place in the mind of youth false values of life.(4)

The production code termed movies entertainment, and those who made them were obligated to produce —correct entertainment— for mass audiences. Movies had a profound impact on the —bodies and souls of human beings,— and could —affect spiritual and moral progress.— Hays saw the code in early 1930. He later wrote: —My eyes nearly popped out when I read it. This was the very thing I had been looking for.—(5) The code announced specific limitations on language and behavior. Lots of offensive words and phrases were banned, and the ridicule of religion, nudity, evocative dances, depiction of illegal drug use, and scenes of childbirth were prohibited. The code was explicit when it came to on-screen crime and sex:

I. Crimes against the Law

These shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the crime as against law and justice or to inspire others with a desire for imitation.

1. Murder

1. The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation
2.  Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail c. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified

2. Methods of crime should not be explicitly presented

1. Theft, robbery, safe cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc., should not be detailed in method
2. Arson must be subject to the same safeguards
3. The use of firearms should be restricted to essentials d. Methods of smuggling should not be presented

3. Illegal drug traffic must never be presented a. The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot or for proper characterization, will not be shown.

II. Sex

The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not interfere that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing. 1. Adultery, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated, or justified, or presented attractively. 2. Scenes of Passion a. They should not be introduced when not essential to the plot. b. Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown. c. In general passion should so be treated that these scenes do not simulate the lower and baser element.(6) Interestingly, the above principles set forth by a Catholic scholar were in perfect accord with the moral codes of Islam, another Abrahamic religion that prohibits the vivid depiction of actions not approved by God.(7) By the beginning of the Depression, film studios turned increasingly to themes of sex and violence to attract audiences. Finally, Hays used the resulting public reaction to persuade the studios that enforcing the code would be the most secure and economical answer to their troubles. If the movie industry regulated itself, it could prevent likely government intervention. The film companies were in debt, having spent a lot of money to introduce sound, and many had lost money in the stock market crash of 1929. Desperate to cut costs, they decided to avoid paying to revise the film after the censorship boards made their edits, by following the code before making their movies. The code was adopted in 1930.

Joe Breen Gets Involved

During 1930-34, movie producers ignored and openly mocked the code. The pressure continued from the Catholic Church with the support from Jewish and Protestant leaders. In 1934 Joe Breen, a strict Catholic moralist working as a public relations man for the production code in Hay’s office, was hired to run Hollywood’s Production Code Administration (PCA). Breen brought new standards: —The PCA had the authority to review all movies and demand script changes. Any theater that ran a film without the PCA seal of approval would be fined $25,000.—(8) Finally the Code had some power. Studios accepted it and produced films that met Breen’s standards. Largely because of his efforts to get the code implemented, it has become known as Breen’s Code. It lasted for more than two decades, being officially abandoned only in 1968. Breen’s Code is a perfect example of people affecting the behavior of institutions whose motives may not match the best interests of the people they serve. By expressing their dissatisfaction and organizing to pressure the motion picture industry, Americans managed to change the nature of the movie industry’s products toward higher moral standards held in common by most monotheistic religions. As we go into the twenty-first century, there are many areas in which people of faith can work together to make a positive change in their societies and the world

Footnotes

1. Six states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New York, Maryland, Kansas, and Virginia. Leonard J. Leff, and Jerold L. Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), 4.
2. Ibid., 5.
3. Gregory D. Black, Hollywood Censored (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 34.
4. Leff and Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono, 284-85.
5. Black, Hollywood Censored, 40.
6. Leff and Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono, 284-85.
7. Bukhari, —The Prophets,— No. 8.
8. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/beyond/hollywood.html.

Additional References

• O’Connor, John E. and Jackson, Martin A. (eds.). American History/American Film.
• New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1979. Walsh, Frank. Sin and Censorship. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

Even though today’s viewers consider Frankenstein too pedestrian, viewers in 1931 found it so frightening and disgusting that Whale was criticized quite harshly. Earlier fantastic horror films that served as early examples of this genre, such as Frankenstein, Dracula, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, were adaptations of literature and did not have much cinematographic merit.

In the 1930s, with the appearance of sound pictures, the movie industry could no longer remain indifferent to horror movies-especially the big success of Dracula, directed by Todd Browning and starring Bela Lugosi.

Up until World War II, many horror movies were released one after the other. As the war intensified, the genre’s theme shifted to psychological distress, and gradually toward European themes.

Violence and Blood

In England, near the end of 1950s, traditional horror films continued to be produced: Dracula, Revenge of Frankenstein, The Mummy, and The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll. However, the genre’s content changed somewhat. As color movies emerged, such movies as Paranoiac, Nightmare, Evil of Frankenstein, and Hysteria contained more violence, blood, massacres, and impalings, rather than fantastic themes. As viewer interest increased, the genre was accepted by the world’s leading cinema industries, including those in Asia, and horror films were shown around the world. In Italy, movies like the very successful The Mask of Satan acquired cult status.

Hollywood Begins To Rule

The American movie industry of the 1970s, the heart and soul of the global movie industry, gave considerable room to this genre, especially in the case of small-budget productions. However, the fantastic heroes of classical horror movies were replaced almost completely by exaggerated and “real” horror. Movie screens turned into pools of blood and depicted shoving needles into people’s eyes, cannibalism, dismembering bodies with chainsaws, and devil possession. Many movies had to be toned down before their release, among them Tobe Hooper’s The Exorcist (1973); David Cronenberg’s They Came From Within, The Parasite Murders, and Shivers (1975); John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978); and Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead (1983).

Additionally, movies like Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) and Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) blended science fiction and horror or comedy and horror. More importantly, they were big hits with moviegoers.

In contemporary horror movies, which produce sequels proportional to the interest stirred, we observe harsh criticism of society and the system, as well as a blending of comedy and horror or an accentuation of metaphysics. In recent years, movies produced by Wes Craven and John Carpenter, whose names are now forever linked with this genre, were warmly welcomed by moviegoers.

Giovanni Scognamillo: “Horror” lost its credibility

In recent years, the horror genre has suffered several traumas. The main problems are its diminishing credibility and marketability concerns. Giovanni Scagnamillo, the famous Italian director, says: “We can assure horror movies a type of popular cinema. Despite this, many famous directors show interest in this genre. Undoubtedly, there are really bad horror productions of this type. We can even say that most of them are substandard, second class.

“However, there also are many unpromising movies in other genres. In my opinion, we should talk about the cinematographic value of the movies. As a pro of the horror genre, I am in favor of fantastic horror. It can cover more topics and different dimensions. You can do anything as long as you use your imagination. Other horror types have to confirm to specific restrictions. In horror movies, credibility is rather hard to find, because Hollywood is producing movies for a relatively young audience, regardless of budget. Grown-ups do not go to movies very often. Hence to attract young people, producers accentuate effects and go for the shock effect.” (Asik, 2)

A movie released on July 30, 1999, has overcome these problems via the newest form of media: the Internet. It also signals a new era in horror movie genre.

The Blair Witch Project

Two young men and a women go into the forests of Maryland to shoot a documentary. They end up filming The Blair Witch Legend, which has somehow survived until today. They interview area residents, talk to historians, and produce a documentary film by synthesizing the gathered data. Mysteriously, nothing is heard of them for a year. Then the following year, deep in the forest in which they were lost, their footage is found. In the scenes shot with one color and one black-and-white camera, their research and horrifying nights spent in the forest are recorded. This is a very brief summary of the movie. If you think you have a fine topic, a fascinating novel, and enough material to produce an impressive horror movie, all you have to do is create a proper fiction. This is what Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez, two university pals, did. Their movie, The Blair Witch Project, has already made $150 million in box office sales just in the United States. Another astounding aspect is that it cost only about $30,000 to make. After El Mariachi, which carried Robert Rodriguez to Hollywood in 1993 and cost only $7,000, The Blair Witch Project is another exemplar of a low-budget film becoming a box office success.

A Fake Documentary

The planning stage of The Blair Witch Project is as interesting as its theme. In 1992, two University of Central Florida (Orlando) students decide to shoot a documentary movie in a television-series style. They call their production a documentary, although most of it is made up. First, they devise The Blair Witch Legend and backdate it to 1785. The plot features a woman who, accused of witchcraft and sorcery, is left in the middle of a forest to die. To support their story, they fabricate historians, police, and townspeople, as well as some footage of the witch’s house, which was allegedly found later in the forest. When they relate their idea to a professor in the Theatrical Arts department, they are told it is “the most ridiculous and nonsensical project I’ve ever heard of,” and are shown the door. Ignoring this comment, in 1994 they send three young people to a desolate forest in Maryland with Hi-8 cameras. As the scenario necessitates, while they are going around the woods and shooting, more activity is brought to the movie by means of special messages received every morning in boxes. During the nights, the directors scare the actors by making strange noises. In six tiring days, they shoot 20 hours of raw film. Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez start working to make the material usable. They release the first version of the movie, which is 2.5 hours long, at the end of 1997.

The New Market: Virtual Environment

The film is now complete, yet there still is a problem: skyrocketing distribution and advertising costs. Besides, a box-office failure is not totally unlikely. To solve this problem, they come up with a brilliant idea: spreading the legend over the Internet. In 1998 the producers, who build a related Web-site, do something different from similar sites: They spread the legend to the masses instead of advertising the movie. After a television spot broadcast by the Independent Movie Channel, a fan circle begins to emerge. The number of interested people continues to increase, until it numbers in the millions. The famous Web-site, to which mostly young people are attracted, spreads among the public, who await the movie’s release with great curiosity.

Negative Criticisms

At the 1999 Sundance Film Festival, the movie receives harsh, mocking, sarcastic, and derisive criticism, especially from movie critics. After the festival, producers decide to budget $15 million for marketing and distribution. At this introductory stage, they put brochures about the movie inside books, make special programs for television channels, and arrange campaigns at school campuses. These efforts bear fruit, and the film enjoys great success in theaters. The Blair Witch Project, which was mocked at Sundance Film Festival and regarded as a nonsensical movie, is now accepted as a herald of a new era in the horror genre. Perhaps the reason for its success can best be explained by what Scognamillo talks about: its realism and documentary style, which gave it a great deal of credibility.

References

• Asik, Fatih. “Horror Genre.” Zaman, North American edition (27 September 1999).
• http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1800019506&cf=info
• http://www.blairwitch.com/2
• http://www.film.com/reviews/features/99blairwitch/

Together with massive campaigns to promote Western products, such story-lines and images, perpetuate the inferiorized stereotypes that used to be taught openly in the nineteenth century. Films especially can be seen as an arm of economic domination: ‘Because every film is a part of the economic system, it is also part of the ideological system… cinema and art are branches of ideology. None can escape; somewhere, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, all have their allotted place’ (Nicholls, 1976, vol.1, p.24).

Because the US got the edge over the Europeans in the mass-market film industry, Hollywood and what it stands for have often been accused, even by Europeans, of cultural imperialism. The English as well as the French often complain that the norms of popular culture in their countries have been ‘taken over’ by the Americans. But the fact is that the success of American styles has been largely due to their commercial skill and power relative to English and French products. In no sense can it be claimed that the American popular culture industry portrays the French or the English negatively. By contrast, it is true to say that Western cinema, particularly American cinema, portrays Orientals, especially Muslims, negatively as a matter of course. All easy, popular stories have goodies and baddies, but must the baddies so often be foreigners and need the foreigners be culturally foreign? In order to be popular, popular films reinforce popular stereotypes-it is a vicious circle, at least for its victims. For those who manage such images, popular cinema is a powerful instrument of cultural suppression and domination. As one writer maintains, the virtual monopoly Hollywood has enjoyed for the last quarter century has made it the single most powerful advocate and purveyor of a simplified, homogenized American culture (Collins, 1989).

Within this Hollywood style in particular, there has been a consistent Middle Eastern stereotype-Arab or Arab-Palestinian, or Turk or Iranian-with negative physical and moral characteristics- lustful, fanatical, irrational, cruel, scheming, unreliable, often cowardly, and always outwitted and defeated. The adventurer-hero, once in the Flash Gordon style of noble warrior on the side of the good (in simple contrast to arch-enemy Ming the Merciless, an Oriental tyrant), is now, typically, a morally imperfect figure, nevertheless worthy of the audience’s full sympathy. The ‘James Bond’ character of the sixties and seventies remains by far the most successful hero-formula. He was designed for British and American audiences to identify with: ‘he is worldly, has diverse but specialized expertise, and has a passion for excitement. He is self-reliant, proud, wedded to privacy, honest, candid, loyal, a man of honour…’ (Simon, 1989). This figure exemplifies, in a form appropriate to the genre of comic caricature, the virtues and ethos which are supposed to give the British and the Americans their directness and sense of humour, their get-up-and-go, their problem-solving success. The villain-figures altogether lack positive characteristics, even any energy or wit they have is of a mad, evil-genius type; their characters lack any exposition; they have no past, their only present is to pose the challenge to the hero. It follows that no audience, not even the non- British/American audience can possibly do otherwise than identify, through the momentum of the story, with the hero and the ethos he represents.

Among recent historical films which have to do with Muslim lands and people, the most popular have been Lawrence of Arabia, Death on the Nile, Midnight Express, and Robin Hood. Of these, only the first has any substantial claim to be a serious, well-made film. In it, Lawrence, a British army officer, stationed in Cairo during World War I, works to ally the Sharif of Makka with the British against the Turks. The Arabs are presented as bumbling, loud, unruly primitives with some barbarian dignity but, in the end, easily bribed, easily tricked. The Turks are utterly vile and disgusting with no saving qualities of any kind. Indeed, the Turkish Pasha in Egypt is, in addition to being, ugly, foul and aggressive, a sodomite- characteristics flatly contradicted by historical evidence (Kirkbride, 1956). The fact that Lawrence was a British spy with very British images about the desert, about Arabs, Turks and Muslims in general, never enters into the film or the consciousness of its audience-there is not the slightest hint that the events might be presented from another point of view and so tell quite a different story. For all the undeniable beauty of some scenes, this film well illustrates the general point made by Raymond Williams that, in spite of their being artistic, works of art still serve an ideological function, that is, serve as propaganda (Williams, 1982). Embedded in Lawrence of Arabia there are all the usual distortions, political and cultural, which less artistic films present also, but crudely.

Midnight Express has been widely and continuously shown since its production in 1978. Though shot mostly in a nineteenth-century British barracks in Malta, the film is set in Istanbul which comes over as a most depressing place – a shock surely for anyone who has actually visited it. David Putnam, the director, freely admits that the film is based on a ‘dishonest book’ (Shipman, 1984, vol.2, p.1103). It wholly misrepresents what really happened to Billy Hase who was sentenced in Turkey for drug smuggling: the story implies that he was innocent; it makes much of his escape, though he was released under an amnesty agreement’ (ibid.). The quality of the director’s attention to the Islamic setting can be judged from the scene in which hairy- eared Hamidou (the actor is in fact an American) is whipping Jimmy with a leather belt while some other Turks are praying to Allah – Jimmy’s yells of pain provide the ‘music’ to the praying chorus (Kael, 1980, p.498).

Much the same kind of attention (and the same intention) is evident in the opening scene of Robin Hood: in a gloomy atmosphere the call to prayer rises from a minaret in Jerusalem, then an abrupt ‘cut’ to a filthy prison where an executioner is chopping off the hand of a prisoner – an illustration for the audience of Islamic justice. The point of these and similar devices of narrative and plot of setting, colour, tone and music – many examples could be given – is not only to present an image of Islam and Muslims that is as negative and humiliating as possible. It is also intended to contrast that negative with the positive virtues of the Western characters portrayed within the same story: the audience are required (and expected) to conclude that ‘the Americans, and the Englishmen and the Swedes, are civilized and sensitive…’ (Kael, 1980, p.498).

References

• COLLINS, J. (1959) Uncommon cultures: Popular Culture and Post Modernism, Routledge, London.
• KAEL, P. (1980) When the lights Go Down, Holt, Rinehart & Wilson, New York.
• KIRKBRIDE, Sir As. (1956) A Crackle of Thorns: Experiences in the Middle East, John Murray, London.
• NICHOLLS, B. (1976) (ed.) Movies and Methods, University of California Press.
• SHIPMAN, D. (1984) The Story of Cinema, Hodder & Stoughton, London..
• SIMON, S.R. (1989) The Middle East in Crime Fiction, Lilian Barber Press, New York.
• WILLIAMS, R. (1982) The Sociology of Culture, Fontana, London.