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 PICTTJBE COMMISSION. 27 and not the rule. Treat these immoral and objectionable films when they do appear as criminal subjects and their producers and exhibitors as moral lepers, and punish them severely, preferably by imprisonment. Follow this course rigidly, let the few criminals know that there is no place in the business for them, and I predict that in a short time no possible ground for complaint will arise from even the most austere. Now, which of the two courses will the people choose? The one in which they delegate the control of their morals and preferences to others, or elect to decide such questions for themselves? The one in which, to detect a small percentage of evil, the entire industry is subjected to a burdensome inquisition, or the one in which the evil is detected and punished without involving anything else? The one in which the film manufacturer must first prove that he is not guilty, or the one in which he is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved? Or to speak more briefly, the Russo-Turkish, medieval way proposed by Canon Chase, or the American, modern way advocated by me? Which of the two do you choose? And in passing judgment, do not fail to take the following into consideration, A single censorship board would be bad enough, but it is impossible to believe that, if the principle of censorship is adopted, other boards would not spring up all over the country. Censorship already exists in Boston, Chicago, Detroit, and other cities, and is State wide in Ohio, Kansas, and other States. Soon it will probably grow to such proportions as to challenge serious attention, the lines will be'dn^wn, and the struggle for " censorship or no censorship " will be on. And if censorship wins, with its national board, its many State boards, and its myriads of municipal boards, what then? Every cent that censorship costs must be imposed on the exhibitor, and, in turn, forced upon the public, if pos- sible. The pecuniary burden is not going to be assumed by the film producer, any more than he will pay out of his pocket the added cost due to increase in raw material or labor. Let the theaters remember that they pay the cost of censorship, leaving it to them to shift the burden to the public, if they can do so. Furthermore, with a multitudinous censorship there will be constant delays, waiting for boards to meet and pass on films, making corrections suggested by the censors, resubmitting subjects after correction, waiting for court appeals, and from many other causes that are inevitable. And who suffers? The manufacturer? Not at all; he has turned the subject over to the distributor. Who then? Why, the theater, of course, and. incidentally, the public. They are the ones who suffer from the delays. When a film does not reach the theater on the day promised, what will be the excuse? " Held up and being examined by the Squeedunk Board of Censors." " But," the theater says, " that particu- lar subject was passed by the national censors in Washington and by our own State board." " Very true," says the exchange handling the film, " but the authorities in Squeedunk are getting very careful of late, now that election day is coming, and are holding up everything going into the county. Sorry, but as soon as the chairman finishes painting his barn, the film will be censored." But the most important consideration is this: Censorship will admittedly cut down the drawing power—the strength, the virility—of films. Censorship will make them weak and uninteresting. With a hundred censorship boards to pass, will not the film producer make his subjects solely for the censors and not for the public? Will not the question be upermost in his mind: "Will the censors approve?" with such a mental attitude, deterioration will surely come; and, with it, the end of the business, from an amusement standpoint. Perhaps motion pictures may, in the future, be used for educational purposes in colleges and schools and as" an auxiliary to lectures, but if censorship is adopted as a principle, the inevitable deterioration in drawing power will, in the end, work a total destruction of the exhibition business. So let us prove our cause to the short-sighted, let the theaters be on the alert, let all who may be enthusiastic in their support of motion pictures be on the sharp lookout, let all of our friends and allies stand firmly together, each with a good, big stick in his hand, and whenever a censorship head (and it is a myriad-headed dragon) makes it ap- pearance, give it a good, hnrd crack ! THIRD ARTICLE FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE, BY CANON CHASE. My opponent, in his second article, says: " It is not the duty of the State to protect the children, but of the parents and guardians." In reality, the first duty of the State is to protect all her citizens, especially those who most need