Exhibitor's Trade Review (Mar-May 1922)

1464 EXHIBITORS TRADE REVIEW Volume 11. Number 21 POLICE DEPARTMENT A.C.>JENSEN.SuPCBri.Tc:NOC~i Ifer. 25, 1923. Dave C. Broderlck, Theater Impector, MimeapollB Police Dept. To: A. Jensen, Siperlntendent of Police, 5o^ec/; Movie Ceneorehlp. Dear Sir: With reference to a letter from C. J. Bradley, asking oar opinion of the Movie Censorship, and calling our attention to a statement nBde by Mrs. Evelyn F. Snow, Chief of the Censorship Board of the State of Ohio, to the effect that "People are not fit to judge for themselves," she says that IO56 are thlnkir« persona, 15% think part of the time and tSf> never think at all. This statement Is obviously absurd and I am surprised that the Ohio people let her get away with this =nsult to their Intelligence. The fact that she takes advantage of her position as Chief of Censorship to prevent the exhibitors from giving their side of the case on the screen. Is proof to my mind that she Is not iuallfled for the position ehe holds. Here in Minneapolis our people do their own thinking, ani any manager who does not produce proper pictures will find himself plAylng to en?>ty seats. The cooperative system which is in vogutf here, whereby the exhibitors and the coumunlty public get together on the kind of pictures desired. Is, I think, the most successful kind of ceneorship, because in the l^st analysis, the exhibitor can only sake money If his picture pleases his coTnaanity. In conclusion, I wish to state that having had thirty years personal experience in the show business, I am convinced that public opinion Is the real anawer to •ueeetafal movie censorship. Ministers: I am not versed in the picture business and the manner of their being censored. I sometimes enjoy good, wholesome, educational pictures and believe there ought to be some way in which they could be passed upon by competent persons of intelligence and character who will represent what will be needed and appreciated by the people. — E. L. Reese, Ph.D., Pastor, United Brethren Church, Omaha, Neb. I am not in favor of censorship on the part of State or Federal authority in any matter that implies the unfitness of the people, to decide for themselves, moral questions by means of a God-given conscience.— Rev. Patrick H. Gallen, L.D., of South Deerfield, Mass. The dictimi of Mrs. Evalyn F. Snow, of Ohio, is one of those vague statements impossible either to prove or refute. I should imagine that she herself might come under the 75 per cent class or the 15 per cent. I do not believe in official, political censorship of moving pictures. A voluntary movement on the part of producers, or in co Toura very truly. niaater Intpeetor of the Wnneapolls Police Dept. operation with other agencies, is far better, in my opinion." — Rev; Henry G. Smith, pastor of the Unitarian Church, Northampton, Mass. Bankers I Is any State in the Union employing a person so charged with egotism, tyranny, imperialistic tendencies who would dare to pronounce such an edict to the public? Certainly such an act of official superiority should brand the author as a dangerous person, not to the film enterprise but dangerous to the cause which she seeks to remedy. If Emperor Wilhelm had not abused his authority in him legally vested and have become tyrannical, he would no doubt be wielding the scepter of imperialism to-day, whereas he is now buried in solitude, reaping the harvest of a deluded tyrant, and so it is with many of our efforts of prohibition of vice. When executed by justice and judgment, they are a success, but when directed by unsound principles are void of desired results and are a hindrance to the cause which they seek to correct. In conclusion allow me to indulge in the statement of my belief that any person who believes themselves beyond criticism or that he or she is infallible in judgment is not only an unsafe person to hold public trust, but is dangerous to public enterprise.— W. W. Fitz, Executive Council, American Bankers' Association, Manson, Iowa. "I think that the problem of moving picture censorship could be largely solved by parents of the children — by not allowing children to see a picture that they themselves have not seen or that they are not sure is of the highest character. "There are books that are beneficial, entertaining, wholesome reading for grown-ups that we would not care to give our children. The same is true of motion pictures." — I. S. Ferguson, Vice-President Citizens' and Southern Bank, Augusta, Ga. Business Men: Any woman who would make such a statement as Mrs. Snow's and back it up by any such idiotic law as hers about forbidding criticism, is herself unfit to hold public office — and most certainly unfit to judge for others. When my girls were young, I made it my business to know whether or not a picture they were to see was one that would not be harmful. If I could not get a satisfactory report on that picture," either from a friend in whose judgment I had faith, I saw it myself, and unless I was sure it was all right, I asked the girls to stay away. In that way they have built up a knowledge of what is good and what is harmful — and it certainly is within the power of any worthwhile parent to do likewise for his children. I am very fond of motion pictures, and, frankly, I can't understand all this tremendous howl about the "debasing influence" of the movies. If an exhibitor has brains enough to be an exhibitor, he certainly should have brains enough to realize the utter futility of showing pictures that are morbid, lurid and sensational, for he will soon find himself as an "exhibitor without a patron" if he follows that line. I am not in favor of motion picture censorship, because I think it is unnecessary. And I am not in favor of people like Mrs. Snow, because I do not think that they are fit to tell an entire, enlightened, upand-coming nation like America what it should or should not see. — Allan Culpepper, Chairman Agricultural Division, Committee of Fifty, Augusta, Ga.