Juvenile delinquency (1955)

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 153 The latest to voice this view is the field director of the United States National Child Welfare Association, who has just finished studying the reactions of hun- dreds of children to all types of movies during a 3-month i>eriod. He took time, for instance, to investigate a number of cases in which juvenile delinquents were supposed to have been led astray by things they had seen in the movies. In every case, he said, hereditary environment conditions proved chiefly responsible for the child's delinquency; in many cases the child concerned had never even seen a film that was supposed to have caused his downfall. Said the director: "Even when a young delinquent himself puts the blame on a film, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Children have an almost remark- able capacity for saying what they believe adults want to hear * * * On being brought before some judge for committing some crime they began searching for an excuse—an impressive excuse. The motion picture provides just that." Newspaper readers whose memories go back 50 or 00 years ago can remember when the dime novel, instead of moving pictures, was the scapegoat. It use to be said that children who read of the exploits of gunmen in dime novels would grow up to be gunmen themselves: the current charge against the movies is only an adaptation of that old complaint. Well, most of us read dime novels, years ago; and somehow we managed to escape the pitfall that was laid for us. The chances are that the same thing is true of children today. They take their lurid movies just as we took those old dime novels—with a grain or two of salt. Children usually have a better balance in such matters than adults are willing to admit. Chairman Kefauver. Mr. Young, what was it you wanted ? Mr. Young. Mr. Senator, Mr. Greenspan made a reference to Angels With Dirty Faces, at the end where the gangster was led to the electric chair. Mr. Greenspan is well familiar with the picture called Public Enemy No. 1, which Warner Bros, produced, with Jimmy Cagney, where Jimmy Cagney in one sequence, scene, took a grape- fruit and smashed it right into the lady's face at the table. Now, at that time or right thereafter, children who had seen that picture, Public Enemy No. 1, of Jimmy Cagney's, this gangster, hoodlum, portrayed in this picture, took this grapefruit and smashed it into this lady's face, or sweetheart, or whatever—I don't recall who she was—and a boy around 10, sitting with his little sister at the table, did the very thing. It seemed that the mother, when the little girl started to cry and explain, et cetera, that she had called the motion pictures organization at the time—and I am quoting the press—and complained of the inci- dent. If I remember correctly—I am not sure, and Mr. Greenspan is more familiar with that—I have known Mr. Greenspan for many years and he has me. Warner Bros, at that time, I believe, were not members of the motion picture producers' organization and would not adhere to any of their Chairman Kefauver. Their code? Mr, Young. Their code. I am not sure about that, but ]Mr. Green- span is familiar with it. I am citing the fact. At that very time, when that grapefruit incident was a big issue Mr. Greenspan. I will answer that. Chairman Kefauver. Mr. Young, I think Mr. Warner testified they were members of the code from the time it began. Mr. Greenspan. Yes. But I will answer the grapefruit charge. Chairman Kefauver. We don't want the record not to present the facts, as to their position. Mr. Young. I will ask, Senator, if Mr. Greenspan will explain thnt. Mr. Greenspan, do you want to answer that ? Mr. Greenspan. Yes, I will answer that.