Film and Radio Guide (Oct 1945-Jun 1946)

40 FILM AND RADIO GUIDE Volume XII, No. 7 Bill Kruse, ANFA President and PICC Chairman, Comments on Johnston's Report BY WILLIAM F. KRUSE If good will alone could bridge the gap that still divides the efforts of theatrical and nontheatrical wings of “the motion picture,” here would be ample building material. But more than good intentions are needed as paving blocks for these uphill roads. The forward-looking majority, at least, of those active in the various organizations that function in the two fields would welcome a chance to implement this common desire to work together for the common good. The movies’ theatrical wing is well-knit, with Johnston’s organization at the head and the various organized exhibitor groups and certain public relations affiliates rallying behind. The non-theatrical wing, too, though necessarily grouped into a larger number of separate organizations reflecting the greater diversification of interest areas, is also more homogeneous than ever before. Several trade organizations, including the Allied Non-Theatiical Film Association, the Educational Film Library Association, the National Association of Visual Education Dealers, the National Microfilm Association, the Photographic Manufacturers and Distributors Association and the organizations of photographic dealers and photo-finishers, follow a joint public and From "Educational Screen," by permission of the author. Roger Albright (left), administrator of Teaching Film Custodians, chats with Bill Kruse, 16mm industry leader, at a meeting of school odministrators. industry relations policy under the guidance of their Photographic Industry Co-ordinating Committee. Several of these trade bodies have joined with such consumer groups as the American Library Association, the National Education Association, the National University Extension Association, and others, to form the Film Council of America, with a local and a national organizational program of uniting all elements (commercial, professional, and consumer) interested in any phase or form or application of photography, in any of its branches. In view of the interest in “every phase and function of the motion picture,” so eloquently and emphatically expressed in President Johnston’s report, should not the Motion Picture Association of America participate with these many other specialized groups o n matters affecting the broader goals and common services of the motion picture? This might be done by broadening the Photographic Industry Co-ordinating Committee, or by having the Motion Picture Association issue or underwrite a call for a clearing house for all motion-picture matters of major public interest. One field of activity for such a motion picture “Senate” or “UN” industry-wide grouping might well be the encouragement of greater support for culturally outstanding film forums for the broad, non-partisan discussion of domestic and international affairs. A negative aspect, but an essential one, might be an objective, fair, but implacable opposition to police or other political or pressure-group censorship. The Motion Picture Association’s own machinery for selfregulation, as a substitute for political censorship, might be made more effective and at the same time more liberal if there were a chance of recourse to a top-level public jury which such a “Senate” could provide. Perhaps the weakest spot in the Johnston report is the confinement of discussion of self-regulation largely to violators of the Code, overlooking the possibility that the Code itself might be used to stifle or at lea.st constrict the .screen’s freedom to grow in the very direction charted by the