The annals of the American academy of political and social science (Nov 1926)

184 The Annals of the American Academy At no period in its existence has the Board made a charge except against the so-called negative reel. It has never added a charge for so-called positive reels, as a member of state censor boards are permitted by law to levy. The $6.25 for each reel reviewed is the sole charge. The Board reviews only the negative or master print. The resources of the Board have thus always remained slender and insufficient for the work it could potentially do, and feels impelled to do. In addition the Board receives a modest amount from the sale of its informational literature, its bulletin service and magazine. As the demand for this service increases, it is slowly placing the expense of this work on a selfsustaining basis apart from any funds collected on its review charge to the motion picture industry, which is its only charge to that industry. The department of the Better Films National Council is partially sustained by membership fees of two kinds — associate at two dollars per member per annum, and co-operating at $10.00 per member per annum. The fee of $1.00 is asked for each member of an affiliated, organized group under the Better Films or the Motion Picture Study Club plan. The Board is also open to donations from groups and individuals not connected with the motion picture industry. The above constitutes the whole source of revenue of the National Board. Its expenses, such as salaries, printing, office rent, the slight travel and publicity that it engages in, are proportioned by, and paid at the direction of its executive committee, of which the chairman of the Board is the chairman, which meets monthly, formulating the Board's policies, adjusting the budget, and having absolute control of its activities. Its accounts are audited by a public accountant. All checks are signed by the treasurer and coun tersigned by the chairman, both members of its volunteer body. Summary — Some Facts and Convictions As a result of seventeen years of the Board's existence, a period which has in reality represented study in an experimental laboratory where changes have been watched and noted in a gathering mass of authoritative facts, it seems well to set down certain convictions which have been arrived at. Every citizen group which has attempted to deal with the problem at large has had to stand criticism often based on false assumptions, the truth not being clearly understood by angry, critical and impatient people. The failure to grasp these truths often results in imputing false motives to such organizations. The irritation manifested by individuals regarding the work of such groups usually arises from incidents in particular pictures. Thus the following type of questions is asked: Why do you do this or that? Did you mean to pass that awful picture? What have become of your standards? What can this board or group be doing anyway? How can you pose as protecting young people when you allow such films in circulation ? It is somewhat ironic to consider the fact that the state legal censorship boards have been asked the same questions by the very people who are most ardent to see legal censorship implanted. The group of individuals composing the National Board of Review has been given no arbitrary power to regulate motion pictures, nor is it desirable or conceivable. The gift of such autocratic power results in grave miscarriage of justice. Individuals mistake their pet aversions for universally accepted evil. The attitude is repugnant to the genius of democracy.