Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1962)

Vudie JUm* Put Ohuj ch Cinema J Aim 0/ A4ultkvc4 Movies' Growing Pains by BERNE SCHNEYER Legislators and professional moralists are preparing to get in their last licks before summer vacations call a temporary halt to the sport of belaboring the cinema. While struggling to defend the trend toward more adult screen fare, the movie industry is being lambasted in the mass media and in the courts for isolated cases of malpractice it seems powerless to stop. Just as other callings are made to suffer for the conduct of unscrupulous members (salesmen for the bilkers, advertisers for the phonies, unionists for the gangsters), so the film business is taking the rap for those who deal in such fringe enterprises as nudie pictures. The "let's-take-a-poke-at-the-movies" fad has reached the point where even The New York Times, traditional champion of free expression, last week took a stand for classification of films from outside the industry. Under the headline, "Classifying the Movies," The Times called for the State Senate to "bring this modest proposal (a classification bill already labeled a danger to the industry by COMPO) out of committee for a favorable final floor vote . . . Considering the trend of Hollywood production, it seems unlikely that this simple system for identifying relatively wholesome fare would impose rigid structures on the industry or send Tennessee Williams fleeing to the hills . . . The movies being what they are, it is difficult to see how either art or freedom could suffer harm." The damage wreaked by the fastbuck operators is making it increasingly difficult for defenders of movies' freedom of expression to present their case for maturation of the screen convincingly. In many cities, often because of a lack of high quality foreign fare, or public apathy toward it, theatres that started out as art houses are switching over to a policy of "fun-in-the-sun" nudism. They sense a fast "killing" in offering potential patrons a peek at the female anatomy. And, although many of these skin shows are harmless attempts at comedy, the public, often in rightful indignation, is protesting that the youthful and easily influenced are being teased and tempted into supporting this crass, cultural vacuum. Such wanton disregard for taste and utter lack of morals are putting the majority of sincere, conscientious moviemen on a hot spot where they also have become targets for attacks against showings of such serious attractions as "The Children's Hour," "The Mark," "La Dolce Vita" and "The Virgin "The Virgin Spring." 'Trash'! Says Judge Recently, in Philadelphia, police staged raids on two theatres cashing in on the cutie craze. The films confiscated at these houses "Nude Striporama" and "Nude Beauts." At a hearing for the exhibitor, attended by some 100 representatives of organizations fighting obscenity, the judge described the pictures in question as "pure, unadulterated trash." Later, the theatreman and his projectionist were indicted on a number of counts. At the same time in the Quaker City, an angry group of mothers protested their embarrassment at being confronted by nude theatre-front displays while waiting in line with their children to see a holiday kiddie attraction at an adjacent house. One result of those incidents was the following notice in a recent edition of the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin: "While mindful of the dangers inherent in censorship, The Bulletin has been striving for some time to eliminate language and illustrations in amuse type of film, The Bulletin is not accepting advertising of any movie which it judges to be an exploitation of nudity." This could, it was obvious, lead to even further, and more sweeping, censorship steps. One of these, it developed, was a bill introduced in City Council that would ban obscene advertising on the premises of movie theatres, and set stiff fines and jail terms for convictions. In fact, at a hearing held by the Council's Law and Government Committee, the only disagreement about the bill was between those who called it a "great step forward" and the Councilman who claimed that it "only scratches the surface." Shortly thereafter, the newlyformed Theatre Owners of Pennsylvania endorsed the bill. The Maryland Board of Censors' displeasure with one of the most famous of the nudies, "The Immoral Mr. Teas," was seconded last week by State Court Judge Dulany Foster. In upholding the bluenose ban of the film, he called the latter "simply a vehicle by which a series of nude or partially nude females are brought before the cameras in such a manner as to be sexually stimulating, fanned by the salacious conduct of Mr. Teas ... I can find no other purpose or excuse for the film. (It) is not a drama or comedy at least not intentionally so; it has no legitimate message, no plot; there is no example of fine acting, good music or unusual setting or costuming; rather the emphasis is on the lack of it, and there is a total absence of any of the elements or merits which today would distinguish a motion picture film." Upper Montclair, N. J., citizens, on the other hand, stiffened considerably when the long arm of censorship was applied in their town to a highly controversial, but vastly more meaningful (Continued on Page 16) Film BULLETIN April 2, 1942 Page 13