Film year book : 1922-23 (1923)

What John Milton did in the fight for freedom of the press; what Benjamin Franklin did; what was done by Horace Greeley, Charles A. Dana, Joseph Pulitzer, Colonel Nelson, General Harrison Gray Otis, and by Henry Watterson, and what is being done by Cyrus Curtis and by other heroic figures in the long pull for finer and better service, and for constitutional protection of freedom of the press from the aggressions of political control — all those things must be done in the motion picture industry here and now. Pioneers Are Still in Business Nothing can be taken from the past. The men who first took up this new thing are still alive. The pioneers of our industry are the men who are still in the business. We are at this moment in the very midst of achieving a new set of high standards in our relations to each other and to the public and in our responsibilities to the world. The difficulties are being worked out, and so great an agency for good will the motion picture soon become, if sincere efforts count and sincere cooperation is given by thinking Americans— that before long criticism will die away and the present critics will be sounding the praise of this new art, based always on its demonstrated integrity, qualit}' and usefulness. One way to help make good pictures is easy, and that is to support the good pictures. If one were to start a vegetarian hotel, and day by day the guests were to storm into the dining room demanding roast beef cooked rare, this hotel keeper, though the most enthusiastic of vegetarians, would experience substantial difficulty in putting over a bill of fare consisting of asparagus. I an: not suggesting an alibi for the motion picture business, for the motion picture business is coming through on the highway which leads to better pictures. I am only emphasizing that this is not a one man job, nor the job of one group; it is the multitude's job and in doing it there is work for all. Censorship I refer for a moment to the question of censorship, which is an incident in the matter. The American public, of course, is the real censor for the motion picture just as it is for the press and the pulpit. The people of this country are against censorship fundamentally, against censorship of press, against censorship of pulpit, and against censorship of pictures. But just as certainly, my friends, is this country against wrong doing, and the demand for censorship will fail when the reason for the demand is removed. As we move toward the consummation of the objects of our Association just in like degree will recede all demands for censorship. An interesting thing happened in Massachusetts at the last election. In 1921 a bill was passed by the Massachusetts legislature providing for the censorship of motion pictures. Under the provisions of a Massachusetts statute so providing, a petition was filed by the necessary number for a referendum, so at this election the people of the Bay State had a direct vote as to whether or not there should be a political censorship of this method of expression. When the Act w^as originally passed there was a very generous support of the measure, and resolutions were actually passed by some 400 civic and religious organizations favoring the enactment of a law, and other great influences seemed to favor it. This summer, however, a citizens' committee was formed of some 300 splendid Massachusetts men and women, who made it their own fight. The Press of Massachusetts took it up and were practically a unit in declaring for the defeat of the measure. They too, made it their fight, with a full appreciation of the fact that it is not so much the length of the step as the direction of the step that is important in anything. It is a well known fact that the vote on any referendum question or const. tutional amendment is usually but a small part of the total vote cast for the political offices. Remarkable Result With this in mind, the result of this Massachusetts election was most remarkable. The total vote against censorship was 545,919, the total vote for censorship 207,476; a majority against censorship of 338,443. The largest number of votes cast for any candidate for any office on anj' ticket was that cast for the successful candidate for Governor, 468,277, which was 77,000 less than the "No" vote on censorship. I rather think this is an unprecedented performance. It certainly shows the deep interest the people have in pictures. This result is a splendid response to the appeal of the press and the citizens of Massachusetts against this undue political aggression, but just as certainly is it a challenge to the motion picture industry to work out successfully its own program for its own betterment, and that responsibility is accepted by the industry and -will be discharged. I am against political censorship, of course, because political censorship will not do what is hoped for it in the last analysis. Now and then some one might ask: "If the motion picture producers really mean to make better pictures, why do they object to political censorship?" The chief answer to this question was w^ritten when human nature was formed; at least that part of human nature which is doing business under the stars and