The Motion Picture Story Magazine (Feb-Jul 1914)

Musings of the Photoplay Philosopher people as one named "The Kidnapper's Fate" or "The Gambler's Crime.' : And if instead of a dozen flaring posters flaunted on the front of a theater, a handsome, large frame were placed there, containing the program and the names of the players taking part therein, it is quite certain that many more people would be attracted, and they would be the better kind, and the kind who are now skeptical as to the character of the entertainment within. J* That was a good point made by Louis Reeves Harrison in his essay on "The Art of Criticism." In answer to the question, "Are there subjects (for the photoplay) of universal interest ? " he answers : i ' The purpose of existence ; the significance of what we are doing; our own artificial creations, such as religion, law and society, for human betterment, and what pertains to their betterment ; the efficiency and reward of effort ; harmonizing achievement with improvement; in what sense ideas rule the world. Q. — "How about war as a subject?" A. — " Its pictured horrors should argue for peace. The struggle! for supremacy is as old as the human race; it furnished abundant material' for the drama; its visualization, if truthful, must draw attention to war's misery and woe and to its appalling waste of vital energy. ' ' Very well said. But do the photoplaywriters and directors have Mr. Harrison's idea in mind when they give us these stirring war pictures? Or do they think only of producing a thrilling spectacle ? Suppose we have Mr. Harrison write and direct a war picture, assisted by Andrew Carnegie and the Peace Society ! J* The attention of Canon Chase and President Dyer, as well as of their thousands of interested and perhaps perplexed readers, is respectfully called to the following editorial that recently appeared in the San Francisco Argonaut: Mr. John Collier, speaking before the City Club of Brooklyn, seems to have made it clear enough that self-government is not necessarily the legalized tyranny of a majority, and that unsanctioned agreements may actually have a force and efficacy wholly unattainable by statute law. Mr. Collier's topic was the picture-film censorship. That there is such a censorship we are all vaguely aware. The fact is displayed upon nearly every film that is publicly exhibited. But we are indebted to Mr. Collier for an exposition of the nature of a supervision that is certainly salutary and that acts as a restraint upon a pictorial exuberance that might easily degenerate into a scandal and a nuisance. The National Board of Censors consists of 150 citizens of both sexes, who sit in judgment upon every film intended for public display. This committee has no legal powers. It cannot enforce any decision that it may make. The law is indifferent to its licenses and its prohibitions, and its actual authority is no greater than that of a social club or a debating society. Nevertheless, this board of censors orders the annual J® destruction of half a million dollars worth of films, and (((ovthe condemned pictures go straight to the scrap-heap ^-^ without protest or resistance. There is no friction, no suspicion of undue influence and no recrimination. There is not a legislature in the world that receives the unquestioned obedience given to the decisions of this group of unpaid and unelected men and women. All the police in New York could not add one jot to its effectiveness or authority. Indeed, we may legitimately believe that law and police force would instantly destroy its value. If this board were organized and sustained by the legislature, we all know that it would become a scandal and n reproach in about a month. Into the wisdom of the actual censorship there is no need to enter. To some its standards will appear to be <y^ 118