Motion Picture Daily (Apr-Jun 1952)

6 Motion Picture Daily Wednesday, May 28, 1952 THE COURT RULES-YES AND NO! % MARTIN QUIGLEY_=== {Continued from page 1) issuance of an exhibition permit to a film on the grounds of alleged sacrilegious character. ■ ■ I Mr. Justice Clark who wrote the decision in which all the members concurred, some with separate opinions, starts out with a blanket inclusion of motion pictures under the protection of the First Amendment and then proceeds to double back to nearly where he started with exception of the clear-cut ruling against "sacrilege" being a constitutional ground for forbidding the exhibition of a film. Although holding at the outset that motion pictures are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment Mr. Justice Clark goes on to say that, "It does not follow that the Constitution requires absolute freedom to exhibit every motion picture of every kind at all times and places. . . . Nor does it necessarily follow that motion pictures are subject to the precise rules governing any other particular method of expression. . . ." The Justice, referring to an earlier court ruling, observed, "that even protection against prior restraint was not absolutely unlimited." A highlight of confusion in the whole matter is arrived at when Mr. Justice Reed, after concurring in the extension of the protection of the First Amendment to motion pictures, said, "Assuming that a state may establish a system for the licensing of motion pictures, an issue not foreclosed by the Court's opinion, our duty requires us to examine the facts of the refusal of a license in each case to determine whether the principles of the First Amendment have been honored." ■ 1 I In this decision it is apparent that the Supreme Court has once again left an important public question in a status which inevitably will lead to interminable controversy and litigation. It did rule clearly on the constitutionality of legal restraint of a "sacrilegious" film. Happily, however, for the purposes of a decent society, there are but few persons who wish to produce, exhibit or even patronize a film which is offensive to any man's religious sensibilities. On the major question of just where motion pictures stand with respect to the First Amendment guarantee of free press and free speech the court left it floating dizzily about in space. In face of the confusion precipitated by the court's decision the American industry finds cause for renewed rejoicing in its commitment to its own Production Code. With this selfregulatory plan the industry has a well-charted course to fellow in protection of the public interest and its own, irrespective of how the winds blow in the troubled area of political censorship and judicial pronouncement. See Decision (Continued from page 1) opinion, they held, that the boards are free to engage in censorship activity providing that they do so within the framework of the Constitution. The lawyers pointed out additionally that the justices more likely than not would be prone to reverse the old Mutual Film case decision gradually. That is to say the court after having taken the step it has with the "Miracle" decision could decide to go a step or two further toward upsetting the Mutual decision in its ruling on the "Pinky" appeal. The attorneys feel certain that of the several alternatives from which the court has to select in acting on the appeal in the "Pinky" case, the one least likely to be taken is a refusal to hear the appeal. The fact that the justices heard the "Miracle" appeal upholds this view, it was asserted. However, the high court could remand the "Pinky" case back to the Texas court whence it started with the instruction that it be reviewed in light of the "Miracle" decision. Other alternatives are for the Court to decide to hear the "Pinky" case on its own merits, or uphold the decision of the Texas courts in sanctioning of the banning of showings of the film by the city of Marshall, Tex. In prosecuting the case the city contended that the film, which has a race relation theme, was prejudicial to the best interests of the community. Supplied Data to Burstyn It was learned yesterday that the Motion Picture Association of America, which has taken an active role in the "Pinky" appeal, played a behind-the-scenes role in the "Miracle" appeal. It was said that the appealing distributor, Joseph Burstyn, Inc., was supplied by the Association with considerable data that assisted the firm's case. Industry attorneys appeared to be agreed that the "Miracle" decision does little in itself to alter the practical problems of censorship for the industry. "It is clear," one said, "that censors cannot prohibit the exhibition of a film on sacrilegious grounds. Nothingelse appears to have been changed and I can't recall any film other than the "Miracle" which encountered difficulties with censors on sacrilegious grounds anywhere in the United States. Under such circumstances the decision can be of only minor significance to the industry. No Indication of the Scope "As for the extension of the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to motion pictures under the decision, there is no indication of the scope of that protection and there are very definite statements to remind us that it is limited. Accordingly, it appears that we will have to bring test cases indefinitely to obtain rulings which ultimately will determine what is censorable and what is not, and thus discover to what extent the 'free preys' guarantees apply to films. "That is just about the position in which we have been for years. The decision would appear to give added significance, insofar as the industry is concerned, to the 'Pinky case. It promises to give us a definition of the constitutionality of censorship on grounds of race relations, which is of far more importance to Hollywood producers than the subject of sacrilege, which Many Will Attend Conn. Symposium Hartford, May 27. — Reservations to attend the second Hartford Times motion picture industry symposium on June 4 at Times Tower, atop Talcott Mountain, have been received so far from the following : Joseph R. Vogel, Oscar A. Doob, Harry F. Shaw, Lou Brown, Lou Cohen, and Fred Greenway, Loew's Theatres; Martin J. Mullin, Harry Browning and Ray McNamara, New England Theatres; they are unlikely to utilize, regardless of the present decision. "We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will see fit to accept jurisdiction in the 'Pinky' case and hand down a clear-cut decision. It would be a long step forward in determining how much protection the court believes should be extended to films under the First and Fourteenth Amendments." Harry Feinstein, Harry Goldberg, Jim Totman and J. F. McCarthy, Warner Theatres ; Francis M. Winikus, United Artists; Ken Clark, Alfred Corwin and Arthur DeBra, MPAA; Charles McCarthy, COMPO; E. M. Loew and George E. Landers, E. M. Loew Circuit. Eric A. Johnston, MPAA president, and Ronald Reagan, president of the Screen Actors' Guild, will speak, with The Times also playing host to newspaper publishers, managing editors and motion picture editors from Connecticut and Western Massachusetts in a day-long discussion of common ailments of the film industry, as related to the press. Corwin and Manning Claggett of the Motion Picture Association were here this week for talks with Francis S. Murphy, editor and publisher, and Allen M. Widem, motion picture editor of The Times, on the symposium. RUN THE CEREBRAL PALSY TRAILER NY Censors Survive High Court Ruling Albany, N. Y., May 27.— Clearly indicating that yesterday's Supreme Court decision in "The Miracle" case does nothing to threaten the continued existence of New York State's film censorship body, Charles A. Brind, Jr., counsel for the Board of Regents, pointed out that all of the grounds for refusing a seal of approval to films, other than the one of sacrilege, remain in the film licensing statute. The other statutory grounds for refusing a seal are "immoral, obscene or would tend to corrupt morals." Explaining that he had not had an opportunity to study the Supreme Court's opinion thoroughly, Brind said that if further study confirms the impression that the court's determinaton merely invalidates the action of the Board of Regents in barring the Italian film on the constitutional point that a motion picture cannot be denied a license because it is held to be sacrilegious, then the actual effect of the decision will not be great. "The Miracle," he pointed out, was the first case in which a motion picture was banned as "sacrilegious" in 30 years of film licensing by New York State. Dr. H. M. Flick, director of the Motion Picture Division of the State Education Department, the actual film censorship body, said that the personal experience of the members of the division convinced them that some form of statutory regulation of films is required for pictures which do not have the Production Code seal of the industry's self-regulatory machinery. More than 40 per cent of the pictures submitted to the division for licensing, he said, have not been approved by the industry's Production Code Administration. It is among that group that the need for state regulation arises, he said. "If the present statutes are inadequate, it would seem that immediate steps should be taken to formulate legislation which would protect the public against unscrupulous exploitation," Dr. Flick said. It was generally agreed in the Motion Picture Division that the Supreme Court's decision leaves the state body with no alternative but to issue a license to "The Miracle." This can be done at once, according to Dr. Brind. Italian Production Up, Says Salemson Italian production is picking up considerably, Harold Salemson Eastern advertising-publicity director for Riviera Films, and producers' representative, declared here yesterday. Salemson, who has just returned from a three-week trip to Rome, Paris and London, said that there is now in production in Italy "three or four American pictures and about 10 native productions." Salemson disclosed that Riviera Pictures has finished shooting "Encounter," starring Paul Muni, in Italy and a deal has been completed for United Artists to distribute it here. Salemson, formerly with Stanley Kramer and Robert Stillman, also announced formal opening of his new headquarters here in the Paramount Building.