The Independent Film Journal (1953)

the code be brought up to date in order to stem a by¬ passing tendency. Both national exhibitor organiza¬ tions have evidenced some degree of willingness to sit down and participate in such discussions. It would appear that this is the most advantageous time for the industry to make a concerted effort to ■stabilize its program of self-regulation, never losing fight of the fact that the code has performed magnifi¬ cent service. Even if deliberation produces nothing more than reaffirmation of code principles together with organized exhibitor support, the end result will have far-reaching implications. If voluntary self-regulation fails, pressure groups will have a field day. Up until now, objections to films have resulted in a boxoffice field day for the picture Linder fire. Neither situation adds to the industry’s permanent well-being. To those interested in the ramifications of the cenorship decisions and to students of law, in which your (editor can boast a doctorate, these high court rulings came as no surprise. The handwriting had been on the wall for more than six years, ever since Justice William 0. Douglas, writing a majority opinion of the High Court in U.S. vs. Paramount, et al., stated: “We have no doubt that motion pictures, like newspapers and radio, are included in the press whose freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Not being di¬ rectly in issue in the anti-trust suit, however, that part of the court’s opinion was merely indicative of the tribunal’s thinking but not to be regarded as the law of the land. The fight against censorship has been a difficult one. Back in 1915, the motion picture industry was in its infancy. At that time, the Supreme Court held that the exhibition of motion pictures “is a business, pure and simple — and not to be regarded as part of the press.” On the basis of that ruling, the censors have been taking tbeir toll for four decades. To twist the court’s phrase, censorship became a business, allegedly pure but certainly not simple. We are always reminded of the classic story of DeMille’s “Carmen,” which had to be submitted to ap¬ proximately 100 censorship boards. Twenty-seven of them ordered cuts in certain scenes but no two boards censored the same scene. This would seem to illustrate the complexity of censorship. As far as its business aspects are concerned, we need only refer to a report out of Baltimore this week which reveals that the Mary¬ land State Board of Censors turned in a surplus of $551,303 last year, which, incidentally, was a decrease in revenue from the year previous. The maturity of the motion picture medium and its influence on means of communication was more fully advanced in Burstyn vs. Wilson. For the first time, motion pictures were accorded the constitutional guar¬ antees of free expression even though the tribunal was most reluctant to make a sweeping decision limiting it¬ self to the facts and decreeing that a state may not ban a film on the basis of a censor’s conclusion that it is “sacrilegious.” The same reasoning has been applied in the instant cases with respect to films that are sup¬ posedly “immoral” or “incite to crime.” There is still a field in which the censors may operate but many props have been knockd out from under their feet. They are on uncertain ground. It would appear that there are still two major questions yet unanswered by the Supreme Court; namely, the court’s attitude to a clearly drawn censorship statute specifically barring obscene films and the power of a censor to ban any film prior to release. In 40 years, the law of the land has undergone drastic revision, maintaining pace with the times. It is neces¬ sary that the code do likewise. THE INDEPENDENT FILM JOURNAL. Published every other week on Saturday by ITOA Independent, Inc. Editorial Offices: 1515 Broadway, New York 36, N. Y. Telephone Circle 6-6460. Editor, Morton Sunshine; Business Manager, Herman Schleier; Associate Editor, Aaron Sloan: Circulation Manager, Charlotte Gross. Coast Bureau: Richard Bernstein, 42251/2 Lockwood Ave., Hollywood 29, Calif., Normandie 26494. Chicago Bureau: R. L. Farnsworth, 307 N. Michigan Ave., Financial 6-2786. Washington, D. C. Bureau: Al Goldsmith, 1365 National Press Bldg., MEtropolitcm 8-0061.