Motion Picture Commission : hearings before the Committee on Education, House of Representatives, Sixty-third Congress, second session, on bills to establish a Federal Motion Picture Commission (1978)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. 19 Let me state various reasons why be ought to support my plan: 1. Such a censorship as I advocated in my first article will nol, as I'resident Dyer fears, injure the business whicli be represents, but will enormously in- crease its receipts. It would change the attitude of a vast number of people who look with suspicion and distrust upon the influence of motion-picture shows upon their children, into one of confidence and admiration for an institution whicli not only would protect their children from evil in their amusements, but would really give them valuable information for life, and help them to develop their moral and spiritual natures. Mr. George Edwardes, a ]u-ominent theatrical manager in England, told the parliamentary committee in 1909 that the practical abolishment of censorship in France had killed the big audiences. He said that he had lived in Germany, France, and Austria. He claimed that in those countries the great bulk of the middle class will not go to the theaters because they regard it as wrong to do so. Tlie managers, because the theater-going public is so limited in number by its had reputation, are driven, therefore, to get audiences by giving sensational and indecent plays, which appeal to the worst elements in the community. Mr. Edwardes chnmed that England has the cleanest stage in the world, and that it is due to the fact that every play befoi'e it is produced in any licenseil place of amusement must have the approval of the censor. He claimed that the fact that the theatrical business in England was better than that in France. Germany, and Austria was because the efficient censorship in England kept the stage clean and gave the public a confidence in its morality. Such a censorship as I advocate would elevate the whole motion-picture busi- nesss by protecting it from the degrading influence of those unscrupulous men who bring a bad name to the trade through the atrocious pictures which they are causing to be displayed in many parts of our country. It would raise the standard of pictures very quickly. All manufacturers would doubtless send the scenarios of any doubtful plots to the board of censors before manufacturing the films. Before a year had elapsed very few pictures would be condenmed by the censors, because everybody would soon learn the standard of morals demanded and gladly conform to it. Censor.shii) works indirectly by preventing the making of bad pictures. In the last 60 years only 97 plays have been rejected in England by the censor of stage plays. These figures do not indicate the number of bad plays which would have appeared if there had been no censor. 2. I hope I can diminish President Dyer's credulity in accepting, without modification. Mayor Gaynor's statement that no ob.scene or immoral pictures were being shown in New York City. When Mayor Gaynor vetoed the censor- ship by the board of education of New York City, enacted by the board of aldermen by a vote of 70 to 1, he did so in spite of the desire of Cardinal Farley and the practically united body of the ministers of all religions and of the public-school teachers, who best understand the dangers to the youth from an unrestrained motion-])icture trade. The States of California, Ohio, Kansas, and Pennsylvania have enacted State censorships. They would not have done so unless they had found that many pictures were having a bad influence, and had they not despaired of remedying the situation by the local police and courts. Chicago, since 1907, has by ordinance constituted Its police department a board of censorship, and no motion picture caiube shown in places of amusement for pay unless it has a certificate of approval by the police department. The police have rejected about 3 per cent of the films submitted to them. San Francisco, Boston, Cincinnati, Memphis, Portland (Oreg.), St. Paul, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, .and many other cities have shown their conviction that some form of censorship is necessary. Ilobert O. Bartholomew, the motion-picture censor of Cleveland, reiwrted in April, 1913. that out of 914 reels examined 86 were in part or wholly eliminated bv him, and that a great many of them bore the stamp " Passed by the National Board of Censorship." Since then 35 per cent of those examined have been for- bidden by the censor. . The condition of-films in the States and cities where there is no censorship is much worse than the percentage of bad films censored in Cleveland or Chi- cago would indicate, for the worst films were not sent to those cities for fear of'the censorship, but to places where there was no effective elimination of bad pictures. 3. A svstem of licensing those motion pictures which ask for the special privi- lege of being shown in licensed places of amusement, such as I advocated in my