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)

MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. 81 Of course I am a member of the board, but I am speaking from the standpomt of a person engaged in religious education, who is in constant touch with the churches, and I claim that this board is doing the work and is doing it so well that it is censoring 96 per cent of the motion pictures in this country and that thereic^re it is unnecessary to have a Federal board. In the second place, I claim that this proposed Federal board will not accomplish what has been claimed for it by some of the members of this committee and by some of the other advocates of a Federal board. It was suggested in the hearing last Tuesday that if this Federal board was formed, then that would do away with the State and local boards of censors. Mr. Chairman, that can be disproved by the statistics of our own Avork. The fact that we are a national board has not eliminated the State or local boards. They have them in Ohio and other States. They have them in Chicago and other places, their local censors, notwithstanding the fact that there is a national board of censorship. If that is true under our regime where we are passing upon these films in the most careful way, it certainly stands to logical reason that since States have State rights they will insist upon those rights, and no Federal board will eliminate the State and local board. Then, third, I claim that the Federal board Mr. TowxER (interposing). That is true only in two instances, is it not? If your national board simply does not allow a film to go into interstate traffic, that is the end of it. It would not go out. The State board can not act upon it at all. The only instance in which a State board could act would be after the national board has passed upon the fihn, and then the question would come up as to whether or not it would ])ass upon it. Dr. Carter. Yes; that is exactly the same now. They can not act locally upon any of our films, naturally, if we throw them out. But after we have a{:)proved. and after a Federal board has approved, then every State and local board has a chance to come in. Mr. Towner. That applies to all films that are submitted, but, of course, if the films are not submitted that would have no value. Dr. Carter. Practically all the time you liave the 4 per cent, I referred to, and I submit to you that this is down to such a small number that it is practically a vanishing point. I say it ought to re- dound to our credit. Mr. Towner. That is very true, and it is a very significant fact, and I think it is a great accomplishment, so far as the board is con- cerned. But I would like to know, and the committee would like to know, what is the basis for your statement and the statement made by the national l)oard that OG per cent of all the films that are used have been censored by your board. Mow do you arrive at those figures? Dr. Carter. As I explained on Tuesday, that is gotten at by means of definite statistics. All the producing companies report to us. Mr. Towner. The three producing companies? Dr. Carit.r. All the larger producing companies, and then these producing com.panies know just how many independents there are in the field. We as a national board are in the business. We have an office established, in which, according to our report, there is a