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. 203 Mr. Towner. Is it given in this report of the National Board of Censorship ? Dr. Crafts. Yes; I think so. The Chairman. Mr. Schechter. I understood yon to say the other day that the Universal Co. has presented some 8.000 films during the past 5 years? Mr. Schechter. I think it is fair to say that the Universal Co. and its allied manufacturers have presented about 8.000 films during that period. The Chairman. From that 8,000 lunv many have been thrown out by the National Board of Censorship? Mr. Schechter. I have not the figures before me, but I do not think it would be one-half of 1 per cent. The Chairman. "Traffic in souls," " The inside of the white-slave traffic," and "Wages of sin " were thrown out? Mr. Schechter. " The inside of the white-slave traffic" and " Wages of sin " were not produced by the Universal Co. " Traffic in souls " was produced by it, but that picture was approved by the board and likewise generally approved by the public. Mr. Towner. I have here a statement of the film censors from Jan- uary 1, 1913, to January 1, 1914, and I find that it states that the sales value to the manufacturers of films kept off the American market— that is, censored out as unfit for representation, would amount to $463,638. Mr. Abercromrie. The actual value was about $100,000. Mr. Towner. You say that there have only been four films men- tioned here which have iDeen produced in the country that have been mentioned as l^eing objectionable, but this report shows that a very large amount of films have been censoro.l out by this board of censor- ship which acts for you gentlemen. That would show, would it not, that if there was no censorship, or if the authority of the beard of censorship was repudiated, there Avould be placed before tlie Ameri- can people every year half a million dollars in value of these films that would be objectionable from the standpoint of good morals. Is that not clear? Mr. Schechter. But I say those films were not presented. Mr. Towner. I know, and the reason was because the National Board of Censorship would not let them be presented. Now, I say, the rulings of this board are observed not because there is any au- thority in the board that compels it, but because it is good policy to do so: suppose they will not adhere to that rule, and will not act upon or in accordance with the authority of this voluntary board, these pictures then would be exhibited throughout the country, would they not? Mr. Schechter. If any of tliese pictures so stopped were highly immoral, I say the laws'Mere and are ample to have punished the producers and exhibitors of the same. I don't think we would pro- duce any pictures of that kind. No honest producer is desirous of putting out pictures that should be condemned. They recognize that permanent success comes by an appeal to the honest and moral com- mon people. Mr. Towner. I j^resume you do not think so because you think your company would act in a more Ingh-minded manner than some