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 #:
000206
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.

PRIVATE LIFE OF THE MOVIE was thoroughly censored as it still is today. Except for a short period when Queen Elizabeth lifted the ban (which period brought forth the greatest of all English language drama) a writer of plays has had to submit his manuscript to an appointee of the Crown. Such officers carried the indicative titles of "Lord of Misrule," and later "Master of Revels." To this arbiter of public morals every pageant was submitted in advance. He then decided whether or not it was "moral, educational and harmless." It is difficult to explain the complacency of the Britishers in submitting even today to this kind of control. Historically, the situation developed because actors were vagabonds, and theatres were scenes of possible riotous behaviour. The continued existence of this censorship proves the difficulties of liberating thought from the control of other men, if once such power is conceded and continued for some years. The protest of practically all the English men and women of letters has failed to influence the British cabinet officers who have 156