Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1941)

A LIVING ANSWER TO THE CENSORSHIP CHARGE It's an old trick of the bully to shout false accusations against his victim while he is in the act of belaboring hinn. Propagandists know the trick pretty well, too. During the course of its astonishing inquiry into Hollywood's reasons for disliking Hitler, the Senate Committee To Investigate the Need for an Investigation of Film Propaganda Against Naziism strayed (should we say staggered?) from its charted path and engaged in a minor discursion into charges of censorship by the film companies. The let's-play-ball-with-Adolph boys who instigated the inquisition to promote their appease-Hitler propaganda began to feel silly ,as the hearings progressed, so it was only normal that they should seek diversions from the exploded original purpose of the investigation. It seems that Jimmie Fidler, a movie gossip columnist who refuses to "sell his soul," but whose wife sells highpriced dresses to movie actresses, told the committee that an attempt had been made by Howard Dietz of Metro to censor his invaluable column of "dirt" out of a Nashville newspaper. It was disclosed that the column was not removed, however, and Dietz declared that the tempest was caused by an over zealous theatre manager in Nashville, who was burned up because of Fidler's attack on Norma Shearer. Thus is an isolated instance grasped by the committee leaders to lay broad charges against the industry. The motion picture people undoubtedly have been guilty of questionable practices, but a designed censorship plan cannot be charged to them. If anything, they have been foolishly tolerant of people like Fidler, who engage in the racket of personalities. The producers open their studios to these gossipers and kowtow for a few nice words about their stars. This attitude springs from the notion that a player's popularity hinges not so much on what the public sees on the screen as what it reads In a gossip column. When the Hollywood leaders come to realize that moviegoers are more adult today, the Fidlers will get the boot they deserve so well. We know something about censorship by the film companies, and we are going to talk. FILM BULLETIN has been saying its olece about this business in no uncertain terms for about 8 years now. For the information of the committee, we might point out that our editorial policy has been inflexible in its opposition to ALL bad practices Indulged in by the film companies: We have consistently advocated legal and legislative means to curb any monopolistic tendencies: The Neely Bill, theatre divorcement legislation, the Government's antitrust suit have all had the support of this publication. We have fought unfair sales terms. We have named names. We have pointed our editorial finger at some of the biggest men In this Industry. YET WE HAVE CONTINUED TO GROW! Certainly, we have encountered isolated attempts to force us to change our policies. There have been instances when short-sighted individuals have sought to "bring us into line" by shutting off sources of advertising revenue. But, never have we been given cause to believe that they were anything but unrelated efforts by employes to get a "better break" for their companies. It is a matter of clear record that Mr. DIetz's company, the most powerful In the whole industry, has been the object of severe criticism by us for a long time — and It Is also a matter of record that his company is one of our most consistent advertisers. This Is one of a number of similar situations and we happily accept them as manifestations that our integrity and fairness are respected in the industry. We are reluctant to point to ourselves in refuting the imputation cast on the industry by the committee, but were impelled to do so by certain thoughts. There is something melancholy in the idea of this little gang of senators pointing their finger at the movie industry, while they themselves are trying to slip over one of the most bare-faced censorship schemes within the memory of American men. It is more than melancholy; It's dangerous. One thing is now obvious In regard to the movie investigation: the Nyes, Clarks, Tobeys have only the purpose of propaganda against our Industry in mind. As has been so sharply exposed by the press of the nation, this committee aims only to bulldoze the film men into "laying off" Hitlerism on threat of facing a hate-mongering campaign in retaliation. The industry has only one course open to it. It must not allow its oppressors to get away with a single bogus allegation. Every phoney charge must be answered forthwith and clearly. Again we urge the film leaders to Insist that the hearings continue until the Industry stands either Indicted or completely vindicated by public opinion. Don't permit the senators to drop their stink bombs and then run out of the room. MO WAX. 4 FILM BULLETIN