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)

192 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. Mr. ScHECHTER. Of the films exhibited in Canada, I think that upward of 75 per cent are manufactured in the United States; and I am informed that less than 1 per cent of the American-made film exhibited in Quebec is disapproved by that board; and the disap- proval of even that very small percentage is not because the film could be considered immoral or obscene, but because it does not meet the views of the particular community. Mr. ToAVNER. Of course that really does not answer my question. T am not particularly concerned as to how^ the authorities enforce their laws in Canada except as we are all interested generally in the enforcement of law. Mr. ScHECHTER. I siuiply intended to show the particular work- ings of both boards; that while the language of the rulings formu- lated by one board is much more stringent, the practical result is the same in both cases. Mr. Towner. But here are the two standards of censorship, one of the board of censors in Quebec and the other of the national board of censors in New' York, one in wdiich they say that crime and its details and everything of that kind shall not be exhibited at all, and the (;ther in which there is a prohibition of vulgarity, but with such a qualification as permits any exhibition of vulgarity. Mr. ScHECHTER. Yes; I think, Judge Towner Mr. Towner (interposing). Just a moment. And then there is another regulation prohibiting the representation of crime, but with qualifications so that almost any kind of crime can be presented. Another prohibits the representation of morbid scenes of crime, but with the qualification that makes it practically useless. Do you not think we ought to have the highest standards in this country? Mr. Schechter. I think the American standard is just as high Mr. Towner (interposing). You think it ought to be made stronger? Mr. Schechter. I think the language could be made more explicit. Mr. Powers. For what interests do you speak? Mr. Schechter. I represent the Universal P'ilm Manufacturing Co. and its allied companies. Mr. Powers. You would not be authorized to say that the National Board of Censorship would be willing to change their rules to cor- respond with the Canadian rules? Mr. Schechter. I am not authorized to say that. Of course, I do not represent the board, but I am certain that the National Board of Censorship in New York City, whose members represent the very best element in the vicinity of New York City—the greatest educators along the several fields of endeavor—will follow standards as high as that proposed bv any board in this or any other country. Mr. Towner.^ I want to call your attention to another one of these standards. I spoke at one of the hearings with regard to the prac- ticability of establishing a different standard with regard to the chil- dren's exhibitions, those pictures that might be exhibited before chil- dren and those that might be exhibited before adults. I notice that in Germany, in Bavaria, they have not only a censoi^hip, but a pro- vision in regard to that. Mr. Schechter. I w^as not aware of that. Mr. Towner. In the regulations in regard to those things in the citv of Nuremberg there are regulations of that kind. I have those