Harrison's Reports (1954)

IN TWO SECTIONS— SECTION ONE Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $16.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 17.50 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 35c a Copy 1270 SIXTH AVENUE New York 20, N. Y. Published Weekly by Harrison’s Reports, Inc., Publisher A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors P. S. HARRISON, Editor Established July 1, 1919 Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXVI SATURDAY, JANUARY 2, 1954 No. 1 MODERNIZATION OF PRODUCTION CODE ADVOCATED BY GOLDWYN In a move to bring about modernization of the mO' tion picture industry’s Production Code and to bring an end to “the present movement to disregard and nullify it,” Samuel Goldwyn has sent the following letter to Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Pic' ture Association of America: “I believe the time has come when it is imperative to bring the production code up to date. As one of the initiators of the code, I have never for a moment wavered in my belief — nor do I now — that the prin' ciple of the code is essential to the well being of our industry. It is only through sound self^regulation that, as an industry, we can avoid the excesses that lead to unbridled censorship. “Nevertheless, we must realize that in the almost quarter of a century since the code’s adoption, the world has moved on. But the code has stood still. To' day there is a far greater maturity among audiences than there was 25 years ago — and this is true of the young people as well as of the older ones. “Audiences today realize what creative people have always known — that drama is worthless unless it has integrity and resembles life. To portray life honestly on the screen requires a greater degree of latitude, within the bounds of decency, than exists under the code. The time has come to recognize this fact. “Of course, there are many aspects of life that can never be portrayed on the screen. The production code seal must never serve as a license for filth or vulgarity or for violation of the basic principles upon which the code is founded. Neither must the code serve the purposes of every pressure group which has a special prejudice. “Unless the code is brought reasonably up to date, the tendency to by-pass it, which has already begun, will increase. This can lead to excesses which will do our industry a great deal of harm. I want to see the code continue as a respected guide of conduct which is observed, not disregarded, by picture makers. But to preserve it as such, we must bring it into harmony with the times. “I therefore suggest that a meeting be called of all producers who are signatories to the code to discuss the need for modernization of the code and the sped' fic manner in which it can best serve not only our industry but the pubUc. I am svure that out of this would come a better and sounder code and an end to the present movement to disregard and nullify it. It is vital that this be done before it is too late.” In a prompt reply to Goldwyn, Mr. Johnston hailed the veteran producer’s “reaffirmation of faith in the principles of the Production Code, pointed out that the Code regulations “were not intended at the beginning, and are not intended now, to lay a dead hand on creative and artistic endeavor and integrity,” and suggested that it would be most helpful, as “a starter in consideration of the subject,” if Goldwyn would submit “specific and detailed recommendations to bring the Code up to date.” Harrison’s Reports does not know if Samuel Goldwyn, in seeking a revision of the Production Code, has been motivated by reasons other than those stated in his letter to Mr. Johnston, but it is in accord with the sound views expressed in his letter as to the advisability of calling a meeting of the producer signatories to discuss the need for revisions in the Code. As an illustration of why such a discussion should be held, one may point to the current censorship controversy revolving around United Artists’ “The Moon is Blue.” By a strict interpretation of the Code’s provisions, the Production Code Administration, headed by Joe Breen, has refused to issue a seal of approval to this picture, which has already played in almost 3,500 theatres in the United States and Canada. The great majority of the country’s motion picture critics have hailed the picture as a fine adult romantic farce that, despite its undeniably racy dialogue, is decidedly moral and inoffensive. The picture has been banned in Ohio and several other areas by state and local censor boards, and it has been given a “C” rating by the National Legion of Decency, but it has been approved by the majority of censor boards throughout the country, including New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Massachusetts and, according to United Artists, is headed for a record domestic distribution gross of about four million dollars. The Maryland State Board of Motion Picture Censors refused to permit exhibition of the picture in that state, but its decision was reversed several weeks ago by Judge Herman M. Moser, of the Baltimore City Court, who said in his opinion that “the Court finds as a fact that ‘The Moon is Blue’ is neither obscene, indecent, immoral, nor tending to corrupt morals . . . and that . . . the action of the Board in banning this film was arbitrary and capricious.” Stating that the film’s reception “has been and is favorable,” and that it had resulted in “no record of any harmful or deleterious effect,” Judge Moser de ( Continued on bac\ page)