Moving Picture World (Jan-Mar 1915)

January 23, 1915 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD 519 OBSERVATIONS BY OUR MAN ABOUT TOWN. THE first two weeks of the new year have passed with no remarkable new developments bearing upon the vital interests of the motion picture world. Previous to the close of the old year there were promises from many quarters that "We will have an eye-opener when 1915 gets here." Perhaps sufficient time has not elapsed. The most important event thus far recorded was the submission of the Ohio censorship case to the United States Supreme Court. That the matter has at last reached the place of last resort for decision is especially gratifying to the film men of New York, the home of the National Board of Censorship. Many of them not being cognizant of the amount of time that is necessarily required to get cases before the highest court in the country for argument had concluded that the test had been abandoned and that the solving of the all important constitutional question would remain unsolved. New York is unanimous in its indorsement of the system of censorship it has under the co-operation of the National Board of Censorship and the Bureau of Licenses and a litigation that keeps the life of that system in doubt naturally makes the case now under consideration one of as much import to the motion picture people of the city and state as it is to those of Ohio. Of course, owing to the great number of cases the high court always has in hand, several months may elapse before a decision will be rendered, but there is gratification in knowing that the case is now on its last lap. ♦ * * Some film men were discussing the probable course of events that will follow the determination of the suit after learning that the final arguments had taken place. Opinions vary on this point. Some think that a decision adverse to the motion picture people will terminate the existence of the National Board of Censors and renew a State Board. There are others who claim the greatest interest in the matter hinges upon a decision favorable to the picture people. They hold that an adverse decision will in no way affect the New York system. It will not require the establishment of a State Board here, dealing only with the existence of the Ohio State Board. New York will have the privilege of continuing its present system, and its indorsement is so overwhelmingly strong by the motion picture interests and a majority of the public that has interested itself in the censorship question that there is but a slight chance for that privilege to be taken away by any State measure. A suggestion by some that the present system could be continued even in the event of the creation of a State Board was brushed aside as, in such an event, the National Board of Censorship would become useless and an unnecessary expense to the film producers. The suggestion was prompted by a remark of an exhibitor to the effect that we would rather have the censorship of the present board than that of a board of political creation. He thought the former is actuated by more sincere and honest motives and is less open to influence than a State body would be. "Look at the kicks being made at our Public Service Commission," he said, "and they are claimed to be men of the highest integrity." ♦ * * But should the decision of the Supreme Court be that official censorship of motion pictures is unconstitutional the hope of the supporters of the National Board of Censors is that it will become national in operation as well as in name. Such a decision will wipe out official boards in all the States in which they have been created and will bar their establishment in other States that may have them in contemplation. With the political berths abolished and the opportunities for graft removed the people will then be in a receptive mood for the establishment of a system of censorship along safe and sane lines in keeping with the system that has been giving so much satisfaction to the manufacturers, exhibitors and public of New York. Should this period arrive the National Board of Censors will then be in a position to again attempt to get the real idea into the heads of some of the Ohio people who have charged that the recent attempt was only an effort of self-interest on the part of the Board augmented by a "dough bag," which they infer was made up by producers. It is difficult to believe that such charges come from exhibitors who are free to think and speak for themselves. A disinterested person i.s impelled to the conclusion that such attacks are inspired by those who want to hold on to their political jobs, and exhibitors who aid them are not wholly disinterested in the office holders. * « « A universal and constitutional system of censorship is_ as much desired by all who have the welfare of the motion picture industry in mind as an amalgamation of the exhibitors should be. Every legitimate manufacturer and every well-meaning exhibitor in the country is in favor of censorship. The manufacturers want it to drive out and keep out of the business the class of people who have been responsible for bringing stigma upon it. The exhibitors want it so that they may have a guarantee against ofTending their patrons or incur any danger of clashing with the authorities. But the same thing which has thus far prevented an amalgamation of the exhibitors of the country, and at times when such a step would have been of the greatest value to them, seems to defeat all movements towards an understanding for universal censorship on a basis of reason and justice. Self interest seems to control the situation. It at least led to a splitting of the exhibitors and the result of the Board of Censorship efforts in Ohio recently indicates that the sentiment is strong there. * * * A prominent New York exhibitor says: "It would be too egotistical for the New York motion picture people to claim they are mentally superior to the Ohio people, but I think the New Yorkers are justified in claiming that they are more alive to the best interests of the motion picture business than their western friends. I am sorry to say that history of the business shows that on national issues Ohio has almost invariably been the source of discontent. I : seems to me that her people make a plan of action with the determination of carrying it out regardless of the opinions or considerations of others. This is the color the history of the past presents to my eye. If I am wrong, I am open to conviction. I also fear the Ohio exhibitors are inclined to be decidedly erratic at times. Recently there was an unmistakable change of front on the State Board of Censorship question, and many of those who had favored it declared themselves against it. Now, I see that some of these people have turned again and are in favor of the Board after hearing speeches of its members at a recent public meeting. I cannot see why they should have changed again. In the addresses made by the censors I see nothing to justify it. The chairman of the Board said antagonism to the body had been aroused by failure to inspect the films in time to get them through for the release dates, but now the board has things running smoothly and there is no occasion for abolishing it. This is the kind of talk upon which is based press announcements that the meeting developed a pronounced sentiment in favor of the State Board. That is all right so far as it goes. As an indorsement of the efficiency of the board the propriety of the sentiment is not questioned; but decided objection is made to any attempt to cloud the real issue. It is not a question of efficiency, but a right to existence— a constitutional right. That is the question upon which the constitutionalists of Ohio carried the case to the United States Supreme Court, and exhibitors who try to get away from that question exhibit unpardonable weakness. It is significant that the meeting and indorsement referred to took place after the exhibitors had announced their forthcoming State convention, when they are to again vote for or against censorship." * * * The well-known actor, Tyrone Power, in giving his impressions of the silent drama in newspaper interviews says that for a time many actors and actresses did not realize that a dramatic art would ever develop as a rival of the spoken drama. It was not that the artists were disdainful toward the motion pictures. He adds that they have seen the light and make no more attempts to belittle the artistic worth of the pictures. It may be said in behalf of the picture people that these expressions by Mr. Power are very kind. But Mr. Power evidently has not wandered along the White Way for some time. An old actor who had read one of the interviews remarked: "It is easy enough for those who are in right to talk that way. I know the time when I would knock the block off of anyone who would suggest that I become a picture actor. I hadn't nut enough on me to see what was coming. No, I have no disdain for the motion pictures. Not now. If you don't believe me, show me a job."