Motion Picture Herald (Nov-Dec 1946)

"Irresponsible public pandering —DR. NORMAN GERSTENFELD Decency and other organizations began objecting to narcotics pictures, Secretary Snyder replied to Kennedy, washing the Treasury's hands of the whole mess. Snyder wrote that the policy of the Treasury Department is against exclusive commitments regarding books, motion pictures and radio based on case histories. He stated formally that no exclusive rights had been made, and that the Treasury was not prepared to advise others to get in touch with Kennedy. Furthermore, he added, John Dierkes, a Treasury employe now on leave without pay in Hollywood, was not representing the Treasury for films of the department. The company producing the narcotics picture eventually asked, and was refused the loan of a Coast Guard cutter and an Army four-engined C-54 with which to tour Europe for location shots. Anonymous MPA Spokesmen Sees No Drug Film Cycle A spokesman for the Motion Picture Association, with an unHollywood passion for anonymity, declared yesterday that he did not believe a cycle of drug addiction films was in the offing. The scrap, he added, was much ado about nothing and that motion picture houses were not going to be flooded with drug pictures. However, he said, if a big flood did arise, the production code would provide adequate control. The code at present also provides "controls" which allegedly prevent characterization of adultery, "excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures," details of murder techniques, brutal killings, theft, robbery and safecracking, seduction and forbids profanity. The spokesman declared the narcotics picture was "educational." No change, however, has been made in the code which states "sex hygiene and venereal diseases are not subjects for motion pictures." After the first World War, one out of every 400 persons in the United States was an addict, the Narcotics Bureau estimated. This was greatly reduced to about 1.5 for every thousand during 1944 by controls tightened without public fanfare. The War Department estimated that about 1500 selectees were rejected as addicts out of 15 mil lion registrants. Subjoined are expressions from persons Interviewed and quoted by the Washington "Post" In the article here presented: DR. NORMAN GERSTENFELD Rabbi of the Washington Hebrew Congregation Those who have had to rescue an addict realize that the sane approach to this evil is not only to keep it away from the lives of people except under strict medical control, but to keep it out of the thoughts MOTION PICTURE HERALD, DECEMBER 21, 1946 of people so that the weak will not be attracted to it. This is of especial significance in this post-war period, for, like after the last war, there is a weakening of morale that leads many to seek out drug addiction. It is, therefore, greatly to be deplored that motion pictures will now portray drug addicts to a weary world that stands on the edge of chaos. For the motion picture industry to permit this step would be the most irresponsible kind of public pandering, the rottenest type of American statesmanship — in view of world distribution of American pictures; and the poorest kind of public relations with the spiritual forces in America who will not keep silent in the face of this new threat to the undergirdings of our land. DR. SAMUEL A. SILK Psychiatrist and Assistant Superintendent of St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington Education against drugs should be left to experts, such as the medical profession. It is too dangerous, when it is presented with the glamour and romance of Hollywood. BISHOP ANGUS DUN Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Washington Without having any knowledge of the kind of picture the motion picture industry plans to produce, it appears to me that it is clearly not in the public interest to feature such a morbid subject as the illegal drug traffic. It is difficult for me to imagine how pictures dealing with this subject could be produced in a way that did not stimulate either curiosity or interest concerning the use of, or traffic in, such drugs. THE MOST REV. JOHN M. McNAMARA Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore and Washington, and Pastor of St. Gabriel's Church We shall be told, no doubt, that the picture will emphasize the debasing effects of the drug habit. Yes, but many persons, once their curiosity is aroused, will ignore the moral that adorns the tale and will experiment upon themselves with disastrous results. Those who have at heart the moral and physical well-being, especially of the Nation's youth, will deplore the latest amendments to the motion picture code. CAPTAIN RHODA J. MILLIKIN Captain of the Police Department Women's Bureau, Washington, D. C. Parents and the community as a whole should get together and take a firm stand against the showing of these harmful films. They must say: "We aren't going to have it" — and they must express their opinion. They must take the responsibility. Drug pictures are harmful to our youth and I see the results of drug addiction every day. It isn't pretty. RAY L HUFF Directot of Public Welfare for the District of Columbia The romance which is normally associated with the cinema is utterly foreign to the drab, prosaic misery which is characteristic of the drug traffic and its ally, vice. "AND KILLED IMMEDIATELY" •First attention of the lay press to the dope invasion of the Production Code appeared in the syndicated column entitled "Americans All" by Dr. Daniel A. Poling, in the "New York Post." Dr. Poling is editor for "The Christian Herald," and is a leader in the Christian Endeavor movement. Dr. Poling's column was quoted in Motion Picture Herald of November 23, and is repeated here because of its relevancy: by DR. DANIEL A. POLING Are some motion picture amendments a threat to the production code? Would they contribute to delinquency in America? This piece, and another tomorrow, raises a serious question, adds a bit of information, and awaits an answer. Every-day, garden-variety American citizens of all faiths, who. believe in the basic decencies of life and who are troubled because of a rising tide of indecencies, have a stake in these questions. Catholic, Jewish and Protestant leaders from coast to coast are discussing the matter with growing concern. Joseph Breen of Hollywood has their confidence, but is his position within the industry threatened? At any rate, when the Motion Picture Herald goes into editorial action against "dope compromise," it is time for America to wake up. Martin Quigley, the Editor-inChief, affirms that "Softly, quietly, an arrangement to open the screen to pictures dealing with the traffic in dope was maneuvered through a meeting of the Motion Picture Association in New York." This particular amendment removes the old prohibition with these "weasel" words: "The illegal drug traffic must not be portrayed in such a way as to stimulate curiosity . . . nor shall scenes . . . show the use of illegal drugs or their effects in detail." Here is an invitation to physical and moral disaster for a multitude of people. I agree with Martin Quigley that dope is one of the few really unmentionables. I agree that there is absolutely no argument to be made for the "moral lesson." In the realm of narcotics the mere sug (Continued on following page, column 3) 13