The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

162 Newer Issues in Motion-Picture Situation The Educational Screen sion of Censors has to say in this regard in its annual report for 1921, a short while afte'* its creation? "If the statute is to be made efTe .tive, and the screen purged of objectionable 'llm^, there must be a system of inspection prov.ded for. There are about 1,700 theaters in New York State. Unless the theaters are inspcjted, there is no manner by which it can be determined whether films are being exhibited vithout the proper identification matter or without being licensed or a permit granted. There is no method of determining whether the fiims exhibited have been deleted as directed by tlie Commission, unless an actual inspection is had of the films exhibited. A system of voluntary inspection has been undertaken in other states. and has proven very unsatisfactory. The Pennsylvania Board of Censors (during eight years of operation) has tried all methods of inspection, and has come to the conclusion that the only satisfactory way is to have paid inspectors. Without proper inspection, the v/ork of the New York Commission will not only become ineffective, but the Commission will be subject to more or less ridicule." Censors will continue to be storm centers wherever they are found to do their work conscientiously, as the industry will not sit idly by, while, say a million dollar production is forbidden state distribution by the dictum of a mere state officer. Naturally the industry is fighting the extension of censorship. As yet, there are not more than half a dozen states operating under censorship; but in 1921 laws on this subject were introduced into thirty-six state legislatures, and were defeated in thirtyfour of them. The industry, you see, has entered politics because of the menace of control by the public. There has been some talk of federal censorship, and in some quarters one hears the confession that certain companies would welcome government control, in order to be free from the inconvenience caused by confHcting standards of the various state and municipal regulations. Mr. Hays, however, has made it clear in his recent public utterances that he does not favor federal censorship or any form of "political" censorship (meaning thereby statutory or legislative control emanating from the public) ; as he deems it to be essentially un-American, and believes that if the industry is let alone it will right itself, possibly, with the aid of the public in an advisory capacity. Now let us be elear as to what this means. All of us, I am sure, have weighed and balanced this question. The indiscriminate barring from circulation of great literary and scientific books by prudists, without regard to their high seriousness of purpose, is irritating. The effort, at times, of well-meaning censors to regulate our morals make us somewhat skeptical of the process. Yet the wide-spread and unregulated attendance of boys and girls upon commercial motion picture performances makes us pause. All of us believe that regulation of motion pictures at their source of production is infinitely mere logical than their rejection or alteration after a yearly expenditure of approximately $200,000,000 has been incurred. Consider our political philosophy which permits a group in the community to manufacture, without public supervision, as to content, $200,000,000 worth of commodities annually, whose social value may be questioned later on. But in the absence of any legal safeguard other than what we have set up through censorship, can we afford t© give that up for something less certain? At least, we are assured in locahties so safeguarded that the worst is kept off the screen; we must choose with discrimination from what remains. Long ago the industry set out to right itself. I need not recount to you the beginnings of the National Board of Review, in 1909, I think it was, when Mayor McClellan of New York City called together a group of citizens tp see what could be done about motion pictures, which were then largely imported from France, and were found to be objectionable, in many instances. You recall that this became in effect, the official censor board of the industry. The industry pays generously for having its pictures reviewed, and paid secretaries and a representative of the industry, I am told, to sit in with each reviewing committee. Relatively few rejections are made. So much so that the feeling has grown in some quarters, that this body is primarily an endorsing body for the industry. At best, it is merely a reviewing board without legal power of enforcing its decisions on the industry. Hardly a single reel comes on the screen in this country without the official stamp of the National Board of Review. The uninitiated confuse this with the seal of some imaginary government body, and think the film has been passed by Uncle Sam. So you (Concluded on page 165)