Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1962)

GROWING PAINS (Continued from Page 13) picture, "Les Liaisons Dangereuses." Aided by a smart piece of promotion by Astor Pictures, the distributor, the Jerseyites enjoyed a free look at the film and turned the tables by putting the censors on the public spot. Free Showing in N.Y. When showings of the import dealing with a dissolute man and wife and their highly moral comeuppence were halted on request of the Upper Montclair police commissioner, then, later, upon the complaint of a town resident who admitted he had not even seen the film, Astor placed a full-page ad in The New York Times inviting those residents who had been deprived of seeing "Les Liaisons" to two showings of the picture, with free admission and free bus transportation to and from the Normandie Theatre, in New York. Not only did those who traveled from the Jersey town to Gotham to see the film unanimously endorse their right to choose for themselves what they may see, but the stunt received plenty of space that must have reddened the faces of the Montclair officials. The banner unfurled across the front of the bus, by itself, was enough to make censors everywhere squirm: "Nothing Is More Dangerous Than Censorship. We're Going To See 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses' in New York." It was New Jersey's version of the "freedom ride." Meanwhile, a war of propaganda raged in New York State between COMPO and its backers and legislators struggling to push through measures requiring classification of films. The State Assembly passed a bill that would let the Education Department label films suitable for school children, but at press time it seemed doomed to die in the Senate as the March 31 deadlin drew near. Despite assurances by James A. Fitzpatrick, counsel to the Joint Legislative Committee to Study the Publication and Dissemination of Offensive Material, that "our bill to amend the penal law was not intended to apply to theatrical motion pictures," COMPO executive vice president Charles E. McCarthy continued to urge State industryites to step up their opposition to the pending legislation, which would, he contended, "sneak film classification into the statute books through a side door, with heavy penalties added." On another potential censorship front, the Better Business Bureau of Dalas, Texas, confronted with numerous complaints from local citizenry about theatre advertising, offered exhibitors its services to establish uniform definitions of terms employed in cinema ads. Pointing to a "lack of uniformity" in the use of such phrases as "adults only" and "no tickets for children," Bureau chief George Buffield Smith expressed the hope that standards could be arrived at, such as at what age does the term "adult" begin. He also pointed out that some theatremen will advertise a feature "for adults only," while others, playing the same picture, will use no such terminology. This, of course, approaches the tricky ground of classification, and the possibility that Dallas officials are thinking in terms of imposing it on the movies from the "outside." Previously, in fact, Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell lashed out, in a speech to the Texas Drive-In TOA, at what he called filthy films and blatant sex in advertising, warning that unless the practices were curbed, censorship might result. Also highly concerned with movie advertising is the Wilmington, Del., NewsJournal Company, publishers of the Evening Journal and Morning News. Continuing an iron-fisted policy (see Our Poor Press Relations, FB issue October 30, 1961), the firm recently issued an Advertising Acceptability Standards booklet in which two points pertinent to film ads were hammered home to its customers: (1) "Advertisements in bad taste or offensive to any group on moral, religious or discriminatory grounds (are not acceptable). Suggestive captions or illustrations are not permitted. No copy, headline or illustration can be employed which states or implies conduct which by normal standards is considered morally or socially unacceptable." (2) Advertisements for motion pictures must conform to the Advertising Code for Motion Pictures adopted by the MPAA. In light of the all-encompassing, precensorship aspects of the first rule laid down by the Wilmington paper, the second one seems rather like totally disarming a country, then warning it not to break the peace. Farther west, in Salt Lake City, Utah, members of the Mountain States Theatres Association moved swiftly and wisely to forestall censorship by attending a meeting of the governor's committee on children and youth. They answered pointed questions concerning motion pictures and emerged with what one member termed a "pat on the back." But "we will be watched," warned the exhibitor spokesman. In Cincinnati, high school teachers were advised by Archbishop Karl J. Alter to teach students how to judge movies. "Our Catholic schools have a distinct responsibility," he declared, "to provide their students with the criteria by which they can correctly evaluate motion pictures." Certainly now, more than at any other time in the history of the silver screen, moviemen are in a position to provide the public with a truly serious, meaningful art form. Ironically, but understandably, as the horizons of the industry are broadening, taking in sweeping new areas of subject matter and treatment never before dreamed of, so also are they being besmirched by those who would turn this growth and development to their own "fast-buck" ends. It is at these crossroads that moviedom now finds itself. It will have to discover a way to continue forward and leave the deleterious fly-by-nighters behind. Upper Montclair, N. J., citizens board bus for trip to New York to see "Les Liaisons Dangereuses", banned in their town. Page 16 Film BULLETIN April 2, 1962