Motion Picture Herald (Apr-Jun 1931)

10 MOTION PICTURE HERALD May 3 0, 1 9 3 1 REBELLING AGAINST PICTURES Jeannet+e S+ratton Porter, daughter of Gene Strat+on Porter whose vast popularity as a novelist attests to her knowledge of what the public wants, has written for MOTION PICTURE HERALD the following discussion of a certain type of motion picture story which has largely characterized recent product. Jeannette Stratton Porter's views reflect those of an important segment of shrewd and Intelligent public opinion and are submitted to the industry as a contribution to the discussion of where production is drifting. — M.Q. By JEANNETTE STRATTON PORTER ALONG time ago I had a pet theory. Womanlike, I still cling to the remnants of it. I expounded this idea at every opportunity in a very ardent, but which later proved to be, a very ineffective manner. I talked at clubs, luncheons and parties ; 1 even convinced my mother, which was something; but the only result was much applause and no action, and in the end it is action that counts. Being the mother of two growing daughters, I was confronted with the problem of selecting suitable pictures for them to see, and the task soon became a large order. The answer seemed simple enough. Why not persuade each producer to include on his yearly program a few pictures particularly for children ? There were books, music, radio hours, and other entertainment exclusively for youngsters. Surely, it was not necessary to tax a child's mind with the satires and subleties the adult demands and deserves ; neither was it necessary to insult the intelligence of an adult with the vagaries and insipid brand of humor designed for the delight of children. Certainly a sharp line could be drawn ; the problem would be solved ; there would be pictures for children which the adults might see if they chose, while children could be kept away from adult pictures unsuitable for undeveloped mentality and morality. But the answer was not so simple as I had thought: the bubble burst almost before it was blown. Producers found it impractical to make pictures for Saturday matinees only ; it involved too much expense. AAA With the talkies problems have increased — also the family. A youngster might have missed a printed title or a picturized inference, but the talkies leave little to the imagination. Now the old question of pictures for children is practically eliminated : we are forced to provide other diversion and amusement for them. I am now concerned with the much more important question of what pictures we adults may see which will not outrage our sense of decency and code of morals and insult our imagination, mentality and sense of humor. A few days ago I heard a very erudite gentleman say that we have no fundamental sense of sin. Why complicate it? Wrong is wrong; right is right ; and "never the twain shall meet." Between right and wrong there is no compromise. So had I no child at all, I should still have to rebel at such pictures as "My Past," "Illicit," "Strangers May Kiss," "Born to Lov«" and "A Free Soul " The sinister thing about these pictures is that they are dressed up to appeal to one's sense of beauty and artistry — acted by handsome men and gorgeously gowned women capably directed ; attractive sets lavishly decorated, intriguingly lighted and marvelously photographed. But such stories ! After uncontrolled living and loving, everything ends well and they live happily ever afterward ; no apparent reason in the world to the flapper and her escort viewing it casually, why they should not go forth and do likewise ! I was interested in a remark made by one flapper of nineteen when 1 asked her how she liked "Strangers May Kiss," and she answered quickly, "A filthy story beautifully done — but very modern." The only mistake she made was the "modern." It is as old as the everlasting hills; it began with the beginning of man and it will last until the end of man. But why drag it out in the open ? Personally, I hate to leave a picture with a bad taste in my mouth, and feeling as if I needed a mental catharsis. AAA The injury and evil influence is not confined to the young people. There are men and women who have tasted the bitterness of the dregs of life; they have repented, decided to forget it and live decently. Their emotions and reactions are alive and keen ; all they need is an idea or an inspiration to send them up or down. Certainly such pictures as I have mentioned are an unmistakable shove in the wrong direction: the youngsters get a thrill out of a new idea, and the aged have desires awakened which must remain unfulfilled. All of which is unnecessary, unkind and a good deal of a crime. Perhaps I speak too plainly, but if we are to get anywhere we must speak the truth and face the facts. Producers have a tremendous responsibility. In the final analysis they have much for which to answer. It is a dangerous thing to broadcast wrong ideas, because fortunately or unfortunately we are prone to take our ideas seriously. A gangster cannot be a hero, and it is wrong to picture him as such. A man or woman may not sin and go on living as if nothing had happened either in real life or on the screen : there must be not only repentance and forgiveness, but retribution and punishment. It is wrong to picture it otherwise. There can be no successful story, play or picture without a theme about which it revolves ; therefore let us have a theme with decency to dignify it, and a backbone of morality to hold it up and make it strong. And by this I do not mean that we want to be "preached at," or have our moral lessons hurled at us as an anarchist hurls bombs. There is no reason why any sane mind should react to a false premise ; but all sane minds are not strong minds, and therein lies the danger— the strong are safe ; the weak will suffer. In a way making pictures is like sowing seeds — one cannot be sure which will take root, nor what will grow. But producers can keep their consciences clear by giving us only invigorating respectable pictures. Sordid, foul stories should not be written or published, but the fact that they are does not constitute a logical or reasonable excuse for picturizing them. We do not want our pictures to achieve the state of degradation our stage did. Producers fight censorship, yet sexy, salacious pictures cry for it with open arms. It is significant or not that two years ago seven states were considering censorship, and this year twenty state legislatures are concerned with that vital problem? Producers make a mistake if they decide what the public wants wholly by box-office receipts. Many people go to pictures not knowing what they are likely to see ; some do not read much, and if they did most of the story titles have been changed. More often than not, patrons see a picture they do not approve, or want for entertainment ; yet they have done their bit toward increasing the receipts. Recently I knew twenty people who left a picture furious and disgusted ; but still they had contributed twenty admissions which no doubt helped the producer to decide what the "public wants." AAA I have heard producers sigh and complain because they "had to make pictures for morons" ; it seems to be their favorite expression. To me it seems that they are trying to make morons out of those of us who have a spark of morality and a shred of intelligence left. I believe producers worry too much about what their public will "understand." I have always resented that ; nothing makes me madder than to see a stunt in a picture, and then see it immediately repeated so that the "moronic minds" of the public will "get it." The first time it is good : the second time it is merely disgusting. We are a pretty keen public, and we "get" what is handed to us ; we also "get" the way it is handed. If producers will concern themselves more about all phases pertaining to healthful, constructive pictures, and less about what audiences will understand, they will go farther and last longer. I belong to the average picture public, (Continued on page 29)