Harrison's Reports (1954)

4 HARRISON’S REPORTS January 2, 1954 scribed the picture as “a light comedy, telHng a tale of wide-eyed, brash, puppy-like innocence, routing or converting to its side forces of evil it encounters.” He added: “There are no illicit, amorous adventures in this film. In fact, such conduct is unintended and, instead, the story is one of virtue triumphant.” Referring in his opinion to the industry’s Production Code, Judge Moser declared that, “even though it might well be urged that the Production Code Administration was wrong in banning the film, as ha^ been done by some film magazines, the more essential point is that those clauses in the Code dted against 'The Moon is Blue’ are not such standards as may constitutionally be apphed by a governmental censor.” He further declared that, “if the Production Code were law it would be plainly unconstitutional.” The fact that the Production Code, as a legal instrument, would be unconstitutional is beside the point for purposes of this discussion. What must be borne in mind is the fact that the industry is constantly in need of some form of self -regulation to raise the moral tone of motion pictures and to keep them free from offensive matter. In this respect the Production Code has, in the main, served the industry well as a means for such self-regulation, and it can continue to do so as long as it is not employed to restrain commerce or impair fair competitive opportunities, such as was done in the days before theatre divorcement, when a picture without a code seal could not play in the important theatres throughout the country, most of which were owned by the producer-distributors. But there is something drastically wrong with the Code and its administration when a seal of approval is denied to “The Moon is Blue” but granted to such pictures as “Sadie Thompson,” “The Wild One,” “South Sea Woman,” “Salome” and at least a dozen other pictures released during the past year, all of which contain either offensive dialogue or scenes of equally offensive lasciviousness, brutality and sensual dances, and none of which are as moral as “The Moon is Blue.” As Abram F. Myers has pointed out in a discussion of the matter, the Code Administration cannot fairly be criticized for withholding a seal from this picture because it certainly runs counter to the Code provision that says that seduction, etc., “are never the proper subjects for comedy.” But it certainly seems to this paper that the Code is in need of modification when it does not recognize that such subject matter, when handled with good taste and intelhgence, such as was done in “The Moon is Blue,” is not offensive. In the days of block-booking, when the exhibitors were forced to play every picture a producer made, it was not possible for them to choose the pictures that best suited their requirements. Accordingly, there was greater need for the producers to exercise judicious restraint in the selection of themes and in the development of treatments so that their pictures would contain entertainment values both for the classes and the masses. Today, however, the exhibitors have the right to select whatever pictures they want to play. Such being the case, modernization of the Code, as broadly suggested by Mr. Goldwyn, does not seem to be out of order, provided, of course, that the changes made will not have the effect of weakening the Code’s moral structure. In view of the fact that the exhibitors have a definite interest in any changes that may be made in the Code, this paper would suggest to Mr. Johnston that he give deep consideration to inviting the leaders of the different exhibitor association to express their views on the matter and to sit in on any discussions. ANOTHER VICTIM R. B. Smith, owner of the Sierra and Chowchilla Theatres, in Chowchilla, Calif., writes that he has closed down the Chowchilla Theatre, and has advised his patrons that the closing was caused by the unfair Federal admission tax. Mr. Smith enclosed with his letter an editorial concerning the closing, which appeared in the December 10 issue of the Chowchilla T^ews, and which combined his tax problem with the damage done to his business by traveling carnivals. In this connection, Mr. Smith explains that he used to good advantage our article, “The Problem of Traveling Carnivals,” which appeared in the October 3, 1953 issue. The editorial, under the above heading of “Another Victim,” had this to say: “On November 29, 1953, the curtain rang down on the last performance at the Chowchilla Theatre. Owner R. B. Smith, who has operated the theatre for the past 19 years, placed a placard in the lobby . . . The poster represents a tombstone, and the caption reads, '1934-1953, Chowchilla Theatre. Here lies another victim of the U.S. Government Amusement Tax. Sure, this theatre was old and feeble, but it furnished low cost amusement to many, and employment to several.’ “Business failures are always regretable. Doubly so when perhaps they could have been averted. Another factor which Smith failed to mention on the tombstone, but which also undoubtedly affected the theatre’s operations, is the periodic visits of traveling carnivals to the city. “It is generally agreed that no one has yet suggested any good accomplished by these carnivals. It also is widely known that during their stay in town, the local theatre or theatres operate at a loss. Not only does the theatre operator lose through their visit, but every one of the town’s merchants feels the loss to some extent, when the carnival leaves town with several thousand dollars that might otherwise have found their way into local trade. “In November the City Council took action which may serve to deter carnivals from setting up inside the city limits. In the past, the daily city license fee of $2.50 per concession for carnivals has been waived when a local organization has sponsored the carnival. All local organizations that have sponsored carnivals in the past have been notified by the city that license fees will no longer be waived. “Mayor Paul J. Christoffersen said that in the opinion of the council, the license fees would be high enough to discourage carnivals from appearing here. “The City Council is to be commended for this action, which can only result in bettering the people of Chowchilla. Organizations wishing to raise money can find better ways than by sponsoring amusements that take 90% or more of the money from the city forever.”