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, 159 record with reference to the fihn entitled " The Wages of Sin." It was chiimed before this committee by Dr. Carter, and some of the others, that that fihn was never passed by the National Board of Censorship. I have here the explanation of the Rev. Frederic C. Howe, director of the People's Institute and chairman of the so- called National Board of Censorship, as to the reason for approv- ing that film. I viewed the picture itself, und I would like to place in the record his reasons for passing the film and the objections made by the Society for the Prevention of Crime to the film. It was a film which pictured Jack Rose, Sam Schepps, and Harry Vallon, the famous gamblers of the Rosenthal case, in a story Avhich included gambling; suggestions of gambling as an easy way to get money; describing these gamblers as framed up and convicted, though they were innocent of crime; depicting a murder scene and then the carrying of the man who was accused of murder through the third degree by having the police exhibit the form of the dead man and frightening the man into thinking it was his ghost. In this film there was no punishment of the people guilty of crime other than this man who was represented as being punished because he was fool enough to be deceived in the third-degree examination. And the only other person Avho suffered was the mother of one of these men who were innocently convicted of a crime. This is what the editor of the Moving Picture News said about the picture and about the board of censorship, and it seems to me it would be worth while to enter it upon the record. Mr. Saunders, who is the editor of this paper, says: I'MI-: CIONSOK !:0\!!l). I would like to ask tlio 1 2.0(M)-o(l(l exliihitors in the :(Mnitr.v: AVliat pM»il is the ceiisorsliip hoard of New York"; I.ast week 1 iphlishod a loff(>r fj-oni .lohii Collier, the secretary, and stated in my editorial that they had i)assed tho tilui The W.-.ges of Sin. In askini:; why. I was iufoi-niod that the f^eneral eonimittw had passed it over the heads of the censor hoard who saw the film tirst. 'L'hose who examined the tilm numbered four ladies and three .wntlemen: they con- demned the filni in toto. It was then taken to the j^eneral connnittee. who passed it over the heads of the first censors—i)assed it in the face of the opposition of every respectable newspaper in the country. They passed it, with the names eliminated, thus pro\in£r their im]>otency in the face of a crisis, when they might have gone forward on the wave of a great cry for cleanliness. Over the phone .John Collier said that the men who took part in the tilm had as much right to earn their money as any other citizen has. (Granted; but if they had been ordinary citizens they would not have received $500 each for posing in The Wages of Sin. It was only with a view of exploiting these men— paying them $1,500. with the thought that they were going to get -$15,000 back^ that they originated this tilm. I/)oking back on the notmaous films that have been niade. and i-ejected by every honest exhibitor throughout the country, we trust they will do the same with this tilm. 'J'lie time is now for a foi'ward movement and the doing away with :in effete body of iieoi)le who have not the '"•onrage of their con\ictions when :\ great crisis ;iris(^s. Speakinir with i)roniin(>nt workers on Il'.(> censor boiinh I was informed that one re\(>!-end gentleman said he sn.w absolutely notliing inunoral or travestying good taste in ilie Him. and. as far ;!s he was concerned, he thought they were only wishy-Mashy soi-t of folic who could see anything in it to censor. Another member of the hoai'd. who I luidersland is :i doct^or. made the statement i)ub- licly in committee that, as far as lie was concei-ned. any cabaret scene with a naked ^'emale d.ancer on the table is good enough for him, and he would i)ass it, as far as he w.-is (•our<>rn('d. if there was .inything like a moral at the end of the story. If tl'.e infornialiou is connect as I hav(^ it. I think- the board of censors want consoi-inir ilu-niselves.