The Educational screen (c1922-c1956])

108 The Educational Screen (5liiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiii*iiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii"ii"iiii*itMtiii>i iiiiiiiiiiiiii ■tiiiiiiiitiiitii itiiKiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiitiiiiiiii mimiinimiiiitiM«»iiiiiiMiiiiMiM*MiMt|a I AMONG THE MAGAZINES AND BOOKS 1 I CONDUCTED BY MARION F, LANPHIER i QllMHIIIMIMIIt HlllllflHIl I llfMIIIIUMIMIIIIIItfllMIt HIIMHIIllllll I ■■ IIIMIIHIIMIIf ■■■■I Nil Ill Illllllllllll IIMIIMIIMIIMIIHIHHIIIIIIIIIlQ The Parents' Magazine (February) "The Crisis in the Movies", by Walter B. Pitkin, sounds over again the old challenge and assertion that the public must be educated to better pictures before the movies can be made safe for children and reliable for adults. Revolution is sweeping through the movies. It began with the talkies. It may not end until the entire structure, policy and personnel of Old Hollywood have vanished. When may this occur? It all depends on the parents of America. You want your children to see interesting, wholesome pictures. You find that perhaps 95 out of every 100 pictures are stupid or dull or perverted or, at best, designed for adult appreciation. The other five are so delightful that you realize the possibilities of the movies as an artistic and educational influence. In spite of the defects of the 95, your children persist in seeing them. They respond to the speed and thrills of the incidental action, even when the main story goes over their heads. You wonder what you can do about it. This calls for new producers who have never learned the ways of the old movies. (Or, if they have learned them, they must have failed to satisfy the big companies.) The pictures of the new era must be made apart from the existing Hollywood studios and managers. They must be shown in neighborhood theaters which are free from the control of Hollywood. Turn a deaf ear to the propagandist who advises you to help Hollywood make "bigger and betfer pictures." That won't work! Educate a new public to prefer better films. It will take time and money, but will be worth the while. In this same issue we find a most interesting symposium on "Shall Children Go to the Movies". The opinions of experts in the field of child welfare, in that of child psychology, and in the most important one of the child's court, are presented. Answers vary from the characteristicly cynical realism of John B. Watson and the more composed, but no less accurate affirmative answer of Lee F. Hanmer, director of the recreation department of the Russell Sage Foundation, to a greater number of negative replies. Space does not permit of quotation here, but we recommend this symposium to every thinking parent and teacher. It will be noted that the majority of opinion accepts the age of ten as the logical limit below which children had better not attend theatrical movies — the age limit adopted by the "Film Estimates" some four years ago. The Churchman (February 1) "The Futile Exhibitor", by William Marston Seabury, is, as its subtitle indicates, an account of "How the Industry Shackles Your Local Movie Manager". Coming from the former General Counsel for the Motion Picture Board of Trade and the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry, this article carries more than ordinary weight. The question is frequently asked, "Why do not the motion picture theatre proprietors use better judgment in the selection of the pictures which are shown to the public?" The answer is quite simple. The producers not only make the pictures that' are exhibited but in conjunction with their own distributing agencies own or otherwise control large numbers of the best theatres in which their own pictures are exhibited. In addition to this the so-called independent exhibitors are completely dominated by the producers who also control large numbers of theatres. There are said to be from 16,000 to 20,000 motion picture theatres in America. Upwards of seventy-five per cent of the total revenue resulting from the exploitation of a picture in America, comes from these theatres. All or al most all of these first-run theatres are now owned or controlled by the producer-distributor members of the Hays Association. Mr. Seabury then gives a detailed account of the legal fight and its present deadlock and general futility. The article is a brief but ' very meaty review for any reader who wishes to become quickly cognizant of the situation to date. In this same issue "Mr. Hays and Cooperating Groups", by Catheryne Cooke Gilman, discusses the subtle craft of the Hays organization in using women's clubs and Church people to enhance their vicious campaign. Groups all over the United States are quietly forming and declaring that the youth of this country shall be released from the results of cooperation of their well-meaning mothers and certain religious leaders with the motion picture industry. It is well known that without this cooperation, motion picture producers would have been forced long ago to make better pictures. It has been this insidious cooperation with the motion picture industry on the part of women's clubs and religious organizations that has supported "children's matinees," "family nights," "selection not censorship," "constructive cooperation," and the deceptive policy of "promote the best and ignore the rest." These jingoisms, known as "slogans" and "formulae," have been responsible for delaying legislation to restrain the industry from producing and distributing undesirable pictures. Not long ago the editor of this department sat at a table of seriousminded New Yorkers, discussing this identical situation, and witnessed the whole-hearted and somewhat vehement resistance that a committee from one of the finest experimental schools for children offered to these statements. They were solidly for Mr. Hays and his see-the-best-ignore-the-rest scheme.