Juvenile delinquency (1955)

88 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY in power with its graphic exposition of youthful gangsterism. In my opinion^ it did not, although, unlike the Wild One, it did commit its heroic interest to a popular star (Glenn Ford) who was seen as on the side of law and order. Moreover it implied, as have many other films bearing on the theme of juvenile delinquency (instance, the earlier Dead End films), that juvenile crime is attrib- utable to social causes: poverty, bad housing, et cetera, whereas in fact police and court records will show that juvenile delinqueucy often nourishes in com- fortable circumstances where only the poverty of parental love, guidance, and example, plus a surplus of financial advantage, can be offered as a cause for youthful graduation into crime. Those who defend unrestrained realism in motion pictures and television have advanced the following arguments : 1. That the habit of moviegoing has accustomed youth (and others) to accept a film story as something to be enjoyed, not necessarily believed, let alone imitated. 2. That it is impracticable to gear the dramatic content of motion pic- tures to the quirks of a small minority (presumed) of "border-line" men- talities, viz, deviates, sadists, molesters, and so forth. 3. That what is true to life is wholly acceptable in films and is given expression through media such as books, newspapers, comics, and therefore is equally valid and safe for the screen. This first argument a]ii">ears to have some value, although it cannot be applied to all, or even with certainty, to a majority of young people who see movies and TV shows. The second argument also projects an element of truth, although if, as it implicitly admits, the incipient criminal or social moron can be excited to imita- tive behavior, the same in varying degrees is true of us all. Everyone of us is subject to temptation and the incidence of persuasion from the screen must depend upon individual circumstances, conditions, and character qualities no- body can definitely fix. The third argument takes no cognizance of the fact that dramatized images^ on a screen are far more powerful in their effect upon the human mind and imagination than the printed word. New and wonderful methods of picture magnification and sound fidelity employed in the latest movies have increased this power. It is arguable that no precautions in presenting crime in motion pictures can guarantee that imitative criminal behavior will not result. For instance, Johnny Belinda, an excellent motion picture produced in 1947-48, was shown at a children's matinee held in a Buena Park (Calif.) theater on May 19, 1951. In the film there occurred, with perfect dramatic validity, a scene of sexual attack against a deaf aad dumb girl. This scene was filmed with the utmost restraint: it was essential to the story. Yet on that afternoon, fi'om that theater, within a short time after this attack was witnessed on the screen, a young man named ]\[cCracken followed a little girl out of the audience, lured her to his rooms, attacked and murdered her. According to police evidence he was a typical "border line" case. Motion-picture and television producers must cater to patrons of every human type. They must endeavor—and I believe do earnestly endeavor—to turn out a continuous stream of entertainment reflecting, in unlimited varietv. the verities of life. This leads them to cater to all tastes on as many levels of human intelligence and appreciation as they, and those they employ, can comprehend or share. Their emphases are drawn from what they conceive currently to be subjects of major public interest. If crime and violence assume an upswing in our social and national experience, it follows that the Hollywod movies reflect that upswing in a corresponding increase of screenplays featuring violence. This may presently indicate a vicious circle in which the motion picture and television borrow criminal color from current circumstance and passes it on to society, at some peril of increasing the momentum of the prevailing evil. There is, at present, some evidence of increasing public demand for more effective restraints on the content of movies and TV, and of the low, suggestive,. vulgar, and misleading advertising used in connection with many of them. Censorship, as it connotes arbitrary suppression of ideas, is abhorrent to many Americans. Superficially film censorship is understod to involve a denial by a minority of faultfinders of the rights of others to choose freely what they shall see on the screen. This oversimplification of the issue is attended by an absence of clear <lefini- tions.