Censored : the private life of the movie (1930)

Record Details:

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 losophy of spiritual freedom unrelated to Socrates or Plato. Two thousand years of war and calamity have brought no intrinsic change in man's life. We have the machine, but it is employed to clothe, feed and house us. We have, possibly, less poverty, more wealth, more bodily comfort. But we have not yet destroyed poverty, eliminated disease or hate from man's life. We have lessened or heightened their activity, but they are still with us. The Twentieth Century has brought only one real change in the old association of the artist, the critic, the patron. It is a complex, a disturbing, change. The movie, a medium of light and shadows incorporating the form of painting and the stage, is now America's fifth industry. Not even the later Greeks boasted of more than a minority devoted to playing. Yet we have produced an art responsible for the livelihood of millions and the entertainment of tens of millions. This condition has brought about the new change of attitude. The artist is still an artist. The critic is still the interpreter. The patron has changed. No longer is he an aristocrat, a 174