Motion Picture Classic (Jul-Dec 1930)

How Free Is Speech? owner. I'm told that the Pennsylvania censors — than whom there are none more rabid on the trail of doubtful moral values — had hashed a talking picture until there was doubt if it was a picture or a talking golf score. For the information of those who may not know, it is not possible to cut a talking picture as one may a silent movie. The part of the film that bears the "sound track" of a particular scene is always fourteen and one-half inches in advance of the picture itself. Moreover, when the censor blithely orders: "Change line reading, 'Do you think this bed is big enough for two?' to make it read, 'Another pillow?'" — as, by the way, a Pennsylvania censor actually did order — certain technical difficulties occur. It isn't as easy as it sounds, and the chances are that the scene will have to go back to the studio to be remade, or that what is known as "dubbing" must be resorted to. Well, anyway — Modern newsreels have voice accompaniment, but the Pennsylvania censors cut them just as enthusiastically as they did the purely fictional product. Whereupon there was a howl, and when the dust had settled down, some picture interests had succeeded in getting the Aron Bill changed to exclude newsreels from censorship. Then Warner Brothers and Fox went into the State courts and argued that the censors had no right to censor talk at all, since the talk was not the motion picture within the meaning of the law. Trying to Save Words YOU may recall the argument of Portia in "The Merchant of Venice," to the general effect that Shylock could cut his pound of flesh all right, but if he spilled any blood doing it he was in very bad indeed. Well, that was the idea. They could cut the picture so long as they did not cut any speech. But the court probably had never heard of Portia and didn't approve so much of the Bill of Rights — even if it had heard of the measure — so it upheld the censors. However, there are other and higher courts, and eventually we may wind up before the Supreme tribunal in VVashington, D. C. Down in Virginia the courts included newsreels in the general ruthlessness, but in Kansas the Attorney-General has ruled that the censors have no power to cut dialogue. Maryland insists on censoring everything in the picture line, and Ohio still has the dialogue contention under advisement, though the legislature has turned down an amendment to the censor law which would include dialogue in the range of the official snickersnee. You thirty-odd million folk who live in the six censor States are either a lot better than the rest of us who can see uncensored pictures — and take the consequences on our own heads — or you are not. I could find no existing argument for or against, so I've dug up a few figures, which prove you're not. Generally you're worse than the rest of us ff the figures don't lie. Here's the idea, get in the game: 90 {Continued from page 25) Censors and Criminals A CERTAIN State, where censorship of talking pictures exists, has a certain proportion of its population in jail. Presumably they got there because they broke the law, and the reason they broke the law was that they were lawless. Then I've taken another State which has no censorship, but with close fo the same population, and set its prison population up against that of the first. The jail figure is the number of people per 100,000 of population in the prisons. Here we go, watch the score: J.(i The bridge of thighs: because the girls know their part O'Neal is beneath the chorus in "Follow Thru" — with to go, except ahead State KANSAS Nebraska MARYLAND Connecticut NEW YORK OHIO PENNSYLVANIA Illinois VIRGINIA Alabama Prisoners Population per 100,000 pop. 1,328,000 146.7 1,396,000 71.9 1,597,000 120 9 1,636,000 58.6 11,423,000 64.2 6,710,000 93.3 5,673,000 58.8 9,730,000 43.1 7,673,000 83.3 2,546,000 78.2 2,549,000 74.2 As there is no individual State to balance against New York, the Empire division must stand by itself. But please note that with but one exception the censor States have a larger jail population than those without censors — if that means anything. And it should, since the object of censorship is to increase respect for law, both moral and legal. One of the puzzles is the degree to which the censors' moral standards vary. For example, it is not permissible to thumb the nose in Kansas. If it is exhibited after fhe< censors have deleted the scene, it becomes a felony. You could get away with it on the street, but don't try it on the screen in Kansas! Maryland doesn't mind mere nosethumbing, but becomes slightly hysterical at the sight — and sound — of a young man kissing a girl on the neck — that is, on the screen; but not at a race-track, of course. In Virginia it is not allowable that "girls indecently kick." No fixed standard of indecency in kicking has been established, however, and it would se^m that \ irginia newspapers have_ overlooked a wonderful circulation stunt in not starting contests as to when a lady's kick is or is not debent — with practical illustrations in the ball parks. Among Pennsylvania's celluloid iniquities is the indication in any manner that a child is about to be born, and most particularly must you not hint at such indecencies as baby clothes. Show on the screen a tiny woolen shirt at your peril ! In New York you can go much farther than a shirt, but to hint that all politics are not as pure as the Acts of the Apostles is a crime — as you'll find out if you override a censor order. Ohio positively will not stand for underwear on the screen. It may be all right in a newspaper or magazine, but beware the "teddy" on a movie lady! Preparing for the Next War OTION picture censorship has many defenders, but the most fervid is Dr. Eastman, the editor of "The Christian Century," published in Chicago— that gleaming example of its beneficial effects. Then there is Canon Chase of Brooklyn, whose light seems to be dwindling in candlepower lately, and finally the group of gentlemen and ladies who have lined up behind the so-called Hudson Bill (H. R. 13686) in Congress. This is by far the most radical and revolutionary censorship measure ever offered to control the picture industry. Its principal features are the appointment of commissioners for life, supervision of all posters and advertising matter, licensing of each picture prior* to production, and saddling the cost of this on the producer. It is urged that under this measure — which fortunately seems to have very little chance of emerging from committee — it would be possible for the commission to appoint inspectors in each studio to watch actual production and prohibit this or that. That is the way Government regulation of meat-packing plants is conducted. But don't let the foregoing delude you into the belief that censorship has no case. It has, and all the evidence for it has been supplied by the producers themselves. To say that some of the material turned out of the studios violates every standard of good taste is mild, but the public is coming to know more of such things, so it is not strange when some of the more flagrant examples rouse antagonism. And frankly, some of the motion picture advertising is so ignorant and stupid that it is a wonder more trouble has not been brewed. M' s, Zelma no place