Motion Picture Commission : hearings before the Committee on Education, House of Representatives, Sixty-third Congress, second session, on bills to establish a Federal Motion Picture Commission (1978)

MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. 23 sewage in whtnever form it ui:iy be offered. My point is that eensorsbii) is unnecessary with respect to all snbjects regarding which there may be honest differences of opinion. As to pictnres, concerning which there can be no honest difference of opinion, the h\w will prevent their exhibition. Canon Chase may believe with absolute sincerity that a picture illustratiug, for instance, Hogarth's '■ Rake"s Progress " should not be exhibited because of its sordid innnorality, while other men, fully as sincere and earnest as Canon Chase, may believe with equal conviction that such a subject depicts a high -moral lesson. It all de- pends iipon the point of view. ^ly opponent, in his second article attempts to distinguish between censorship and licensing. I fail to see any difference between the two terms. If I am a censor and refuse to pass a picture, then I practically refuse to license it; if I pass the picture, then I do license it. On the other hand, to use Canon Chase's terms, if I am the official licensor, then if I refuse to license a picture I cer- tainly am censoring it. He appears to make a distinction between the two terms by assuming that in the case of censorship there can be no review by the courts, while in the case of licensing such a review will be allowed. I fail to see any distinction here, as I can not Imagine any censorship to be so utterly unlawful and arbitrary .ns not to be the subject of judicial correction in case of gross abuse. No matter how adroitly my worthy friend may argue, the fact remains that he is advocating the proposition that a small number of men -'no women shall be given the right to decide for the American people what films they shall or shall not see—the right to exclude not only grossly immoral filmis. but also subjects to which the censors may object merely because of personal Idiosyncrasy. Any film that the censors believe merely is undesirable, or ob- jectionable, or contrary to their notions of morality, would be excluded. That is where the Injustice comes in, not merely eliminating subjects that are un- lawful, but withholding from the American people pictures that may be perfectlj^ lawful—pictures th;it might be approved by an overwhelming majority if sub- mitted to a vote. Of course there are undoubtedly supersensitive children as well as supersensitive adults, both of whom are strongly influenced by sugges- tion, but such individuals should keep away from the picture shows; and they also should not be allowed to read books, or magazines, or newspapers, which are all suggestive factors. Leaving out of consideration those pictures which are of such a chiu-acter that if shown the law should and will suppiess them with a ruthless hand, what are the pictures that are now being exhibited in the thousands of theaters in this country? They are precisely what the people demand to see. just exactly as literature and the stage will be found to reflect public tasle and morals. The motion-picture jiroducers are making the subjects that they believe will appeal to the largest audiences, subjects that will be entertaining and instruc- tive to the greatest number of moral, honorable American people. The motion- picture producer is not bent on shocking the moral taste nor the sensibilities of the millions of spectators to whom he ippeals; he is trying to make pictures that me.'isure u)) to the tastes and desires of his audiences. American people are not demanding pictures that are morally unclean, nor will they be satis- fled, on the other hand, with wishy-wisby, goody-goody stories. The situation is precisely the same as when an author writes a book, or ;i playwright con- structs a drama—each is making an apjieat to the greatest possible number of readers or auditors. And while there are always in every business human jack- als, who seek to profit by pandering to the lower passions and weaknesses of men and women, yet I am certain that the American producers to a man are joined in the condemnation of these creatures. But merely because such vul- tures are flying around the outskirts, shall the entire industry be subjected to the unjust and unnecessary suspicion that e\'ery picture must first prove its innocence? Let them go out—let the producers make what they see fit—let them gauge the public taste as well as they can—let them ui)lift the people if they can do so—let them instruct, amuse, edify, or moralize—BUT (and 1 hope that the printer will see that this word is made as big as possible) If they overstep the bounds, if they put out .i picture that transgresses the law, that offends public decency, il they shock the reasonable and proper morals of the comjiunity, if they deprave or lower public conscience, then let the ininishment be swift and certain, both to the producer and to the theater attempting to show the picture. Punish the guilty, make the penalty a heavy one, enforce the law rigidly, but do not subject the entire industry to the burden and expense and the injustice of censorship.