Censored : the private life of the movie (1930)

Record Details:

Title:
Censored : the private life of the movie
Date:
1930
Publisher:
New York : Jonathan Cape and Harrison Smith, Incorporated
Volume:
Censored : the private life of the movie
Leaf #:
000137
Language:
English
Collection:
Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Niles Essanay Silent Film Museum
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
March 21, 2024
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

THE HEAVENLY INFLUENCE lieve that the sex drive of men and women can be drained off by seeing a couple marry under a caption: "They lived happily ever after." Notasingle Wagnerian operacanbescreened. The voluptuousness of the opera presumably is harmless to the occupants of the Golden Horse Shoe, on the theory either that the rich are so corrupt that nothing can hurt them further or so pure that they are immune from sexual influences. But Tristram, Siegfried, the entire Niebelungen Ring are taboo in the movies. In so far as all the censors unite in banning any true portrayals of matters sexual there is a uniformity of decisions. But beyond that point, in the area of treatment of detail we find a mass of ridiculous trifling editings all calculated to destroy what little there is of the genuine in the scenario itself. We have seen that some censors abhor a kiss on the neck; others fear the sight of a knee, while to some a hair pin is the symbol of sin. Much of this is on a par with Comstock's wild fury at seeing a dressmaker's bustform in a show window. 89