The Independent Film Journal (1953)

High Court Deals Body Blow To Film Censors Washington. — Film censorship was dealt a heavy blow this week when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against state bans of the films “La Ronde” and “M.” New York had banned showings of the French import, while Ohio had prohibited showings of “M.” The high court, in handing down its decision, did not make any generalization on censorship but it is felt these specific rulings will severely curtail all future censorship attempts. The court did not present a written opin¬ ion, but it referred to its decision in “The Mir¬ acle” case of 1952. At that time the high court had overruled a New York ban on the film which the state had deemed “sacrilegious.” The judges decided that the word was too vague and indefinite to permit the banning of a film. The court pointed out at the time of the “Miracle” decision that it was not ruling on whether a state could ban a film “under a clearly drawn statute designed and applied to prevent the showing of obscene films.” It has upheld such laws when concerned with other media of communication. In the same way, the Court appeared to be basing its present decision on the fact that it considered the words “immoral” or “inciting to crime” also too vague. These were the words used by the state censorship boards when giving their reasons for condemning the pictures. Strictures Cited At the time of the “Miracle” case, the court declared that motion pictures were “within the free speech and free guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” These laws forbid Congress to pass legisla¬ tion that abridges freedom of speech and press and forbid the states to abridge the privileges of U.S. citizens. Mrs. Florence Perlow Shientag, counsel for Commercial Pictures, which distributes “La Ronde,” and John C. Harlor, on behalf of “M,” based their case on these amend¬ ments. The attorneys attempted to get the Supreme Court to outlaw completely all prior censorship of films, but the judges did not go this far. Two members of the court, however, did manifest their sympathies with this attitude. Justice William 0. Douglas wrote that “the argument of Ohio and New York that the Government may establish censorship over moving pictures is one that I cannot accept.” He continued that “in this nation every writer, actor, producer, no matter wrhat med¬ ium of expression he may use, should be freed from the censor.” Justice Douglas referred again to the Con¬ stitutional amendments dealing with the abridgement of freedom of speech and the press. He cited the Constitution, saying that the states shall make “no law” to limit such freedom. In his article, he was seconded by Justice Hugo L. Black. Reason put forth by lawyers for the court’s reluctance to pass an absolute ruling forbidding any film censorship was based on the court’s known dislike for absolutes. The justices might have feared that some valid laws against obviously obscene films would thus be lost. The lawyers representing the distributors stated that they felt that the prsent rulings did mean the end of all state censorship ( Continued on page 2(5) With the Supreme Court’s decision over¬ ruling state bans of the films “M” and “La Ronde” coming this week, and other films engaged in censorship squabbles in several localities, the industry has been censorship¬ conscious all week. Response to the court ruling was mostly one of jubilation, although several industryites expressed disappointment that the court hadn’t gone all the way and abolished film censorship completely. Eric Johnston, MPA A president, stated that he was delighted that the Supreme Court has “knocked down motion picture censor¬ ship in two more cases.” He added that the decisions “have narrowed the area where the government censor can operate constitu¬ tionally.” Johnston added that it. is his hope “that the day may not be far off when the Court will go further and eliminate all political censorship of motion pictures.” The official wants the screen to “enjoy the same freedom of expression as the press under our Con¬ stitution.” He was interviewed twice this week on radio and television, as to his views on film censorship. Samuel Goldwyn hailed the ruling in Hol¬ lywood as a “step forward in the freedom of the screen.” He stated that the decision shows the need to revise the industry’s own production code in order to arrive at “sound and decent film regulation in keeping with the times.” Charles P. Skouras, president of National Theatres, commented that the decision is “sound and in keeping with our traditions of democracy and free expression.” He warned that the industry must be more than ever aware of its responsibility to offer the pub¬ lic “only fine, clean and wholesome entertain¬ ment.” He added that it is the duty of every exhibitor “to respect principles of the MPAA code.” Dr. Clyde Hissong, chief Ohio censor, re¬ sponded to the ruling with “if you can’t bar a picture because it is immoral or incites crime what can you bar it for?” He stated that it will be “exceedingly difficult to ban a film in Ohio in the future.” The ruling “didn’t knock out our censorship law but has limited it,” he added. Ohio has recently banned “The Moon Is Blue.” “The implications of this decision are tre¬ mendous and emphasize the necessity for con¬ tinuation and strengthening of the code with Vatican Attacks Film Industry Rome. — The Vatican, through its daily paper “L’Osservatore Romano,” hit out against the Hollywood and Rome film in¬ dustries, which it described as “ this cynical and brutal white slave trade.” It asked for state intervention, claiming that “the in¬ dustrialists, the producers and the direc¬ tors’’ are responsible. The marital difficulties of famous stars and the complaints that several of them are not covered enough by their costumes came in for special attention. Paper added that “lascivious and harmful” films are pre¬ ferred to “healthy and good ones.” It stated that “films do cost too much,” adding that “there is immorality even in this.” exhibitor participation,” stated Harry Brandt, president of the Independent Thea¬ tre Owners Association. A NewT York “Herald Tribune” editorial hailed the decision, stating that “the best kind of censorship is none at all.” Paper declared that “it is not for the censors to say what is fit.” The editorial declared that “the court has taken some long steps toward as¬ suring that the movies shall be just as free of censorship as any other recognized med¬ ium of ideas.” Abram F. Myers, National Allied general counsel and board chairman, stated that he is “glad that the court went as far as it did.” He questioned whether adherence to the pro¬ duction code by the industry doesn’t com¬ plicate its fight against legal censorship and called for a new classification, “for adults only,” by the PCA. The Allied official assailed the code rejec¬ tion of “The Moon Is Blue” as tending to deprive adults of “an evening’s solid enjoy¬ ment which could do them no harm.” He added that he is puzzled about the distinction betwreen dances by Rita Hayworth and Jane Russell, “unless it is that Breen is drawing a bathycoltian line.” The reference to Miss Russell concerned the difficulties encountered by her latest starring film, RKO’s “The French Line,” which opened in St. Louis without a code seal. The film company had agreed to with¬ draw the film and was negotiating with PCA officials on making changes that would con¬ form with code standards. Negotiations were broken off last wreek when Joseph L. Breen, production code ad¬ ministrator, declared that the changes made by RKO were insufficient. The company re¬ fused to make any additional changes in the film. The MPAA has fined RKO $25,000 for distributing the film without a seal, but it is not known whether the film company will pay the fine. The National Legion of Decency this week placed RKO’s “The French Line” in the “C” or condemned classification following the company’s failure to withdraw the Jane Rus¬ sell starrer from exhibition for revision pur¬ poses. The Legion states that it had written assurance from RKO on Jan. 8 that the film would be withdrawn on Jan. 18. Noting that the film is being released “in ( Continued on next page ) JUSTICE DOUGLAS Court Ruling Brings Jubilation To Censor-conscious Industry 4 THE INDEPENDENT FILM JOURNAL— January 23, 1954