Motion Picture Story Magazine (Feb 1914 - Sep 1916 (assorted issues))

68 MOTION PICTURE MAGAZINE ture producer is not bent on shocking the moral taste nor the sensibilities of the millions of spectators to whom he appeals ; he is trying to make pictures that measure up to the tastes and desires of his audiences. American people are not demanding pictures that are morally unclean, nor will they be satisfied, on the other hand, with wishy-washy, goody-goody stories. The situation is precisely the same as when an author writes a book, or a playwright constructs a drama — each is making an appeal to the greatest possible number of readers or auditors. And while there are always in every business human jackals, who seek to profit by pandering to the lower passions and weaknesses of men and women, yet I am certain that the American producers to a man are joined in the condemnation of these creatures. But merely because such vultures are flying around the outskirts, shall the entire industry be subjected to the unjust and unnecessary suspicion that every picture must first prove its innocence? Let them go out — let the producers make what they see fit — let them gauge the public taste as well as they can — let them uplift the people if they can do so — let them instruct, amuse, edify, or moralize — BUT (and I hope that the printer will see that this word is made as big as possible), if they overstep the bounds, if they put out a picture that transgresses the law, that offends public decency, if they shock the reasonable and proper morals of the community, if they deprave or lower public conscience, then let the punishment be swift and certain, both to the producer and to the theater attempting to show the picture. Punish the guilty, make the penalty a heavy one, enforce the law rigidly, but do not subject the entire industry to the burden and ex " I am certain that the American producers to a man are joined in the condemnation of those creatures who pander to the lower passions and weaknesses of men and women." pense and the injustice of censorship. In his second article Canon Chase divides his argument under eight heads, to which I shall briefly reply : 1. He argues that by having censorship the public confidence in Motion Pictures will be increased. More people would therefore go to Moving Picture shows, and in consequence the business will develop and expand. My objection to censorship is based on principle, as being reactionary and un-American, not on mere temporary commercial success. Even if censorship did indirectly result in a benefit in a purely material sense, as a lawyer I would still oppose it as wrong in principle. However, I do not agree with Canon Chase as to his conclusions. I dont think American people are afraid to go to Motion Picture shows. Certainly I have yet to find any one refusing to patronize a picture theater because of any real or supposed objection to the morals of the pictures. On the other hand, should censorship be carried to its greatest possible extent, should all portrayal of life and human experience as actually exist be suppressed and the Motion Picture reduced to a mere mental pap, I am convinced that the interest in pictures, and their many benefits to the poor man and his family, would be enormously lessened. My opponent refers a number of times to the English stage censorship. Does he approve of it? In England, the Lord Chamberlain has the unqualified right to refuse to license a play. Almost to a man, the theatrical managers approve of the censorship ; with the same unanimity the authors and playwrights oppose it. Why is this? Simply because the licensing of a play in England confers immunity on the theater, forestalling any possible action. In a sense it is an insurance against prosecution. They care not