Motion Picture Daily (Jan-Mar 1959)

4 Motion Picture Daily Friday, February 2' Blasted as 'Illegal, ' 'Monstrosity N. Y. Bills Compo's Brief Calls Present Laws Ample (Continued from page 1) Study the Publication and Dissemination of Offensive and Obscene Material, which has sponsored the bills. On behalf of the membership of the Council of Motion Picture Organizations, information director Charles E. McCarthy submitted a brief which described the four proposed bills as a "legislative monstrosity at the expense not only of an honorable industry, but also at the expense of the people of the State of New York." Inserted in Record The brief, which was inserted into the record, argues that since there are ample laws already on the statute books for the punishment of obscenity, there is no logical ground for tire passage of additional acts in New York State. It was pointed out that the industry not only has its own Production and Advertising Code, but also is under the "supervision" of a vast "apparatus" of organizations such as the Legion of Decency, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, the Protestant Motion Picture Council, etc. In regard to the proposed bill to license motion picture theatres in New York, it is argued by Compo that a $10 license fee, though "apparently not designed as a revenue measure," would nonetheless be "a pecuniary burden to theatres, which are already paying more than 17 different forms of taxes to city and state." The licensing act, furthermore, is held by Compo, to "hamstring" the theatre owner and to be "a means of intimidation as to the manner in which he operates his theatre." This act would order suspension or revocation of a theatre's license if the theatre exhibited a film which does not have a state seal from the Motion Picture Division of the N. Y. State Education Department. Theatre Managers Praised Under this act, theatre licenses could also be suspended for the use or display of obscene advertising material. Compo argues that there is "ample law against obscenity already on the statute books," and if there is obscenity, "these laws should be used." It was also pointed out to the Committee that in states not subject to censorship, theatre managers are almost always more careful in the choice of their attractions and how they are advertised. The reason for this, the brief states, is that "responsibility breeds greater care," whereas "the usurpation of responsibility by a higher authority persuades the manager to perform a rou tine job and to let diings happen that in his own judgment he would have prevented." Apart from the burden which the licensing law would place on the theatre owner, the brief continued, it is "a blow at local government," since it would remove "from the municipality and give to the state the power of life or death over a local business." Expense Seen Too Great As for the classification of films into various audience categories, Compo feels that theatre owners would be unable to bear the financial burden of advertising them to the public. Many theatres now only list their name and attraction in newspapers, and would be unable to pay for listing of classifications, it is pointed out. The Compo brief was delivered relatively late in yesterday's all clay hearing, which started off with a summation of the Committee's case by its counsel, James A. Fitzpatrick. In addition to the latter, Committee members who participated throughout the day were chairman Joseph R. Younglove and Senator Harold A. Jerry. Hanging on the wall before which the committee was seated were a series of posters for the films "Juvenile Jungle" and "Young and Wild." Art for both of these Republic releases depicted girls in varying stages of undress, leather-jacketed hoodlums and weapons of assault. Fitzpatrick said that this was the type of advertising which troubled the Committee, adding that he had also seen the pictures themselves, which depicted muggings, assaults, and characters in tight clothing. Fitzpatrick admitted that this was "not the best product of a responsible industry, but enough of a reason for us to be interested." Brandt First for Industry First industry representative to testify was Harry Brandt, president of the Independent Theatre Owners Association. Of the four bills under consideration, the "most objectionable" from the viewpoint of exhibitors is that which provides for licensing theatres, Brandt told the Committee. While it is not designed to provide the state with increased revenue there is danger that it could become used for that as enforcement of the bill would require employment by the state of many more clerks, investigators, censors, and other personnel, he added. Brandt also expressed opposition to the other bills one by one. "If the measures are enacted," he warned, "they will be fought through the courts to prove their illegality." White Poses Question Gordon S. White, director of the Motion Picture Association's Advertising Code Administration, asked the committee members present why they felt it necessary to extend the scope of the present state censorship law, which covers advertising by poster, banners, "and other similar advertis ing matter" to "newspapers or other advertising." There are "safeguards enough now," he said, citing the MPAA's Advertising Code which "has applied stricter standards to our advertising than the courts have allowed censor boards to apply to pictures." In addition, he said, newspapers apply their own standards to advertising. Cites Several Ads White also took exception to the amendment which would penalize a theatre for using stills to advertise a picture if those stills did not represent an actual scene in the picture. He submitted examples of art work for "The Mating Game," "Separate Tables" and "The Matchmaker," obviously not taken from the pictures but still reflecting "a general impression of the picture" being advertised. The MPAA ad chief was particularly scathing in his denunciation of the proposal to add the word "disgusting" to the list of unacceptable characteristics of film advertising. "Disgusting to whom?" he asked, and added, "Can anybody think that courts which have found such words as 'sacrilegious' and 'immoral' too indefinite of meaning to be enforceable, would ever support the application of a ban on ads called simply 'disgusting'." Schreiber Asks More Time Sidney Schreiber, general attorney and secretary of the MPAA, told the committee that he felt that it had not given the industry enough time to study the film classification bill before the hearings— less than 10 days. He suggested that the state already has the power to seek and get an injunction against the use of indecent ads. Also testifying at the hearing were a number of other prominent industryites and laymen. Highlights of their comments follow: Mrs. Jesse Bader, national chairman, Protestant Motion Picture Council: "Censorship is not a cure for the problems before the state. New York's juvenile crime record is no worse than the 45 other states that don't have censorship." Sees 'Sex' Overplayed J. Cox O'Brien, representing the N. Y. State Catholic Welfare Committee: "I support the Committee and the purpose of its proposals." O'Brien was deeply concerned about film advertising "which relates primarily to sex." Mrs. Dean Gray Edwards, General Federation of Women's Clubs: "At present, there is no lack of information for parents who might wish to know if a picture is desirable for their family or not. Audience classifications on the part of the state would only stir up the curiosity of youngsters." Professor Paul Tappan, professor of sociology, New York University: "I know of no evidence proving that motion pictures have an undesirable effect upon audiences. Furthermore, I have never encountered a person of Objectors Fe 'Hamstringii] Of Exhibito normal mentality or emotions tli been lead astray by a movie." Steve d'lnzillo, East Coast Q of Motion Picture Studio U "Why is the motion picture in constantly singled out by legi; in contrast to publishers and the petitive industry of television? Ephraim London, counsel, York Civil Liberties Union: "V pose these bills, not only b their purpose is to extend stati eminent interference with motif cures and the business of exh them, but becaues the bills ignorance of the decisions a United States Supreme Court a velopments of the law during tl 11 years. Father Albert Salmon, ch Veterans of Foreign Wars, Placid, N. Y.: "Motion pictur not all to blame, but one of things which influence us. The however, a passive form of \ trination, and one doesn't hi' know how to read to be influen them." Defended by Dr. Pesce Dr. Louis Pesce, head of M tion picture division of the Ne\ j State Education Department: films classification plan is wc because it does not actually p children from attending any pic Margaret G. Twyman, dire< Community Relations, MPAA: of my studies on this subjec the years, there are two thing; out as consistently throughou of them is the conclusion tha 1 nile delinquency comes fron complex causes . . . never frc cause. The other is that motie tures are not a cause of juvenile quency." D. John Phillips, executive c of the Metropolitan Motion I Theatres Association: "There ficient legislation in existence I force and maintain the social ! ards of good taste and moral enforce any further restricts legislation upon this industi ! very well result in the paralv destruction of the observers law rather than eliminate the thereof." Other Witnesses Heard Other witnesses included S ! Morris, director of public r ' for the Schine Circuit, Glovii Mrs. Edith Marshall, of the Inc 1 ent Theatre Owners Associate owner of four theatres in the Robert Lider, president of tb York State Association of Reej Television Broadcasters, and Shea, Jamestown Amusement, j