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)

212 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. From the first, the personnel of the National Board of Censorship and the siiheoinmittees. who liave jjiven a gri^at deal of their time entirely without compensation to the work of inspecting thousands of films, has been abo\e reproach. No group has ever :ittempted to discharge in a private capacity such an important j)ul)lic task more faithfully or more intelligently. While this is r.rne. it can not be denied that there is undoubtedly a good <leal of dissatisfaction throuiihoiit the coimtrv with the work of the board. The members of the board receive many letters jjrotesting !»gainst the character of some of the films which they have approved. The current press voices the same feeling. Clergymen and social workers are every- where arraying themsehes against the moving-picture shows. Four of the States have already begmi the censorshij) of all pictures shown within their boundaries. This is in no sense a criticism of the Xev\ ^'ork Bo.ird of Censor- ship. It has probably done as well or bettor than any other body with the task confronting it. Tiie ditticidties involved are such as to make the problem of a general censorship of pictures almost an appalling one. Chief among these difficulties is the wide difference in point of vieAV as to standards of dress, actions, conduct, and morals which must always exist as between the cosmopolitan city and the smaller pieces; and as between States with large density of popula- tion and sparsely settled areas. Time will not permit an extended discussion of this matter. The peo{)le who censor the pictures in New York City, however excellent, nuist necessarily take on a cos- mopolitan jDoint of view which is entirely different from the point of view from the smaller cities, towns, and country places. AMien the pictures ap])roved by the New York Board of Censorshi]) from its standpoint are shown in other i)laces, the whole attitude of the community toward what is right and i)roper to present to children, and even to grown people, is entirely changed; this is imavoidable. Moreover, to a very great extent the standards adopted by the board are colored and affected by the fact that the greatest single market for films is in the city of New York itself, where about 1,000 theaters are exhibiting moving pictm-es daily. Tt has l)een exceedingly difficult, and it will always be difficult, for a board of censorsliii) in New "^drk to eliminate many pictures which are regarded as objectionable in many parts of the country that deal wifh subjects and ])reseut scenes which are to be witnessed every day from the New 'h'ork stage. The standards of the board are. of course, on the whole far better than that of the New '^'ork stage; but when some pictures are objected to by the board, the answer of the film company is, "We feel this is a discrimination, because worse things can be seen every day on the stage."' This has been one of the diffi- cidties confVonting the board in the attempt to eliminate films which present such crimes as bm-glary in a startlingly attracti\e manner. On (he other h;ind. the film comi)anies may vei'y well claim that a Federal censorship board in Washington would be handicapped in its >\()i'k by (he sanu' dilHcnlties. If the lilm> were judgi'd by a Federal board from the standpoint of the larger comnumities. the work would be as unsatisfactory to the smaller coujuuniities as it is at present. If the pictures were censoi-(>d so a.-> to be made entii'ely unobjectionable from the point of \ iew of what might be called rural population of the cotmtiv, they would probably lo>e much of