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. 197 City, where the manufacturer views it before it is sent out to the public, would be a violation of the statute. Under that provision it would be impossible to do any business whatsoever, for most of the general offices of the various film com- panies are located in and around the city of New York, while but a very small percentage of the film is produced in the vicinitv of New York. Dr. Crafts. That could be amended in this case. Mr. ScHECHTER. Of course, a lot of things could be amended. But that is only one of the many impractical features in the bill. My point, however, is that the people who drafted this bill do not under- stand the nature of the business they are attempting to regulate; that they have not the slightest conception of the insurmountable diffi- culties that would l)e encumbered by the passage of such a bill. Dr. Crafts. We happen to know something about it. Mr. ScHECHTER. But surely not enough to warrant such interfer- ence with a lawful business." Now, Mr. Chairman, let us consider section 3, which provides: That the conmiission ni.iy appoint advisory Cduiiuissioners to advise aud assist in the ex:<iniii:ition and censovinj; of tilnis. who shall hold office during the pleasure of the conunispio!i and serve without compensation. No person shall be appointed an advisory eon)niissioner who, directly or indirectly, has any pecuniary interest in the exhibition of niotdu pictures, or in any film ex- change, or firm or corporation engaged in manutVcturing motion-picture films. It seems to me that this would put the stamp of unofficial action upon the acts of these advisory commissioners. Further, if we are to have an advisory board why are not the members of the prese!^.! national board of censors sufficient? Surely no one will be heard to say that any of the members of the present national board are such as would not be proper advisory commissioners. Why then are not their services as an unofficial board just as effective as would be their action if clothed with power of the Government? The same thing is true of secticm 4, which provides for deputy commissioners and other assistants. I ask whether the manufacturers or producers of films are to be subjected to the scrutiny and ex- amination and censorship of their pictures by these subordinates? It might be all right to submit pictures to the five high-minded gentlemen who may constitute the board, but if we are to submit our pictures to these subordinates, who will not and are n( t ex- pected to have those qiialificaticms, I think it is time to call a halt. I think that the national board of censorship to-day, composed of 135 people, all of them chosen because of their learning and pub- lic interest, and who have no political ambitions, make a better lot of censors and are better qualified to do that work than any num- ber of these subordinates and assistants. Then, besies that, Mr. Chairman, I pointed out in my statement last Friday that there are about 40 or 50 centers or distributing points. It seems to me that, in order to carry out the provisions of this bill effectively and make iuipossible violations of its provisions, it would be necessary to have an assistant or deputy commissioner in each one of the centers or distributing points for the purpose of ex- amining the duplicate films that come to the exchanges of these various groups. If, for instance, the I Universal Film Co. produces 30 reels "of film a week, each exchange receives about that number