Moving Picture Age (Nov-Dec 1919)

16 MOVING PICTURE AGE The Censorship of Moving Pictures From Opposing View-Points {The two ideas regarding the inspection and passing on the fitness of films for genera! use before mixed audiences are here so clearly outlined that they are given, with all the weight of the authority they each possess, for the benefit of our readers. Direct personal references and criticisms have been omitted from both of them.) From the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, New York City. RESOLUTIONS aimed at official censorship of films were adopted at the third annual meeting of the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry, held at Rochester recently, and', through resultant co-operation between motion picture producers and the National Board of Review, designed to place the vast influence of the organized producers of the country solidly behind the National Board of Review in the interest of wholesome pictures. The methods to accomplish this are less clear to many people than the fact of its desirability. Inquiries addressed to the National Board's New York office have elicited the following explanatory statement from E. D. Martin, Director of the Cooper Union Forums and Associate Director of the People's Institute, who acts also as Chairman of the National Board of Review : Founded by People's Institute "The National Board of Review was founded by the People's Institute in 1909 to bring about a plan for co-operation between an amusement enterprise of commercial character and a social agency closely in touch with the masses of the people, in the interests of the general public welfare. From a small committee of ten, reviewing the scattered productions of early manufacturers, the National Board, expanding to keep pace 'with the phenomenal advance of the motion picture industry, has grown into the present great organization, with its two hundred public spirited citizen reviewers, contributing their time and best efforts to the cause of clean entertainment. The National Board's advisory committee of one hundred, located throughout the country from Maine to California, keeps in constant communication with the Board, advising the home office of week-to-week developments in public sentiment and public taste. Throughout the period of the motion picture's vast expansion the Board has rendered invaluable service, not only as an interpreter of current public opinion but as indicating in advance the probable road along which such opinion is likely to travel." The importance of this service was pointed out by Charles Sprague Smith, the first Director of the People's Institute, in a prophetic utterance to producers at the time of the original organization of the National board : "Gentlemen, the industry you are embarked upon is more than an industry. It is a social force, and * * * promises in time to reach more people and influence more profoundly their attitudes, their habits of thought and their ideals than any other enabling force we know of. To keep your film stories within the broad lines of current morality and yet not open up an avenue lor tyrannical repression, personal or local prejudice, or graft, some form of regulation should be established, but it should be along lines of co-operation between your industry and openminded citizens serving the public of their own free will and appointed in some way as far removed as possible from the direct or indirect influence of politics or politicians as possible." Advocate Submission of Every Film It is in this spirit the National Association ha« now passed resolutions which advocate that every dramatic film story be submitted to the National Board of Review. In addition, by arousing public opinion, the producers plan to induce the public to withhold its patronage from pictures not submitted to the National Board for review. This, it is hoped, will tend to automatically debar from the screen that type of picture made for immediate and temporary gain, which, while not actually obscene or morally objectionable (since such matter is fullv covered by the common law), may be of the sensational or offensive character which calls forth criticism from those who are normally friendly toward the motion picture industry. It is important to note that, in contrast to official boards of censorship, the National Board of Review stands fundamentally in an advisory capacity to the motion picture industry. It is only through the voluntary action of the producers that their films are submitted to it for review and its decisions accepted. It stands also in an advisory capacity to hundreds of city officials throughout the country, keeping them fully informed as to the character of current motion picture offerings. The impartial excellence of its work is a clinching argument against the enactment of oppressive and undemocratic laws for the establishment of politically appointed boards of censors Gabriel L. Hess, chairman of the censorship committee of the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry, describes the functions and nature of the National Board of Review as follows : "The relationship of the national board to ihe producer of motion pictures is exactly that of the copyreader or the editor of a newspaper to his reporter or contributor. If in reviewing a picture the board sees nothing to blue-pencil, it so notifies the producer. If on the otherhand the board's editorship decides upon alterations or omissions, it so recommends to the producer, who has agreed in advance to accept the board's decisions. Every progressive producer recognizes the importance, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest if from no other, of keeping his product attuned to public opinion. The producer vests in the national board the powers and duties of an editorial overseer, with faith in its ten years' experience in studying the public's reactions to the screen. The producer believes that the national board is a democratic institution, reflecting the public collective thought and taste. As such it has his support. He has chosen it to edit his product as the publisher chooses the wisest and most dependable editor he can secure to blue-pencil or approve his news copy." (Reprinted From The Ecclesiastical Review.) To the Editor, The Ecclesiastical Review : * *. * It is true beyond any controversy that many moving pictures are indecent and atrocious and have a bad effect upon the morals of our Catholic people. I happen to be intimately connected with moving pictures, as I show them at least once a week -in the parish hall. I also witness the weekly pre-release showing of pictures for the purpose of selecting films which I deem fit to be shown in my church hall, and I assume you that it is often very difficult to select even one picture a week, from the company I am dealing with, that may be called wholesome and excellent entertainment for the general public. However, those that I consider good enough to be shown are not always relished. Indeed. I have often heard it said, even by people of my own congregation, that they prefer stories that show the human side of life, that have more "pep" to them. It goes to show how depraved even now is the mind of the "movie fan." They can tell you all the stars" in the pictures, and their expression of their predilection for so many who star in pictures that never get beyond the "pink permit" class of the censor shows conclusively the state of their mind. Here in Chicago any one who wishes to study moving pictures can readily observe that those theaters which have the sign "For ■ Adults Only" over the ticket office are best patronized. It is true that boards of censorship exist in so,~i" -tates and in some cities, but those boards are very often lax in the performance of their duties. * * * >J0 matter how good and excellent a picture may be as a whole, one passage that arouses the sensual nature of man, one flash that leaves an indelible mark for evil upon the mind of the onlooker, is sufficient to rob the whole picture of the right to be called good and wholesome. It will do untold harm to the souls of Catholic people, and especially to the souls of our children. * * * I admit that it is very difficult for the pr;est to Fth the true condition of the moving pictures. They have neither the time nor the inclination to go to "movie" theaters ; besides, it would be imprudent to do so for more than one reason. However, it is their sacr.ed duty as pastors of souls to raise their voices in solemn warning of the very grave dangers to which those are exposed who habitually attend these places. The film producer is using his immense wealth and his great power to defeat censorship. He has been fighting censorship ever since it was organized. Especially the trade papers contain articles, letters, etc., to bring to the attention of the managers of theaters their duty to stand behind the producer in their attempt to abolish censorship. * * * The unscrupulous means which the film industry employs and the enormous amount of money spent by them to accomplish their task of defeating censorship are proof sufficient that censorship is necessary. Another and more potent reason why ce"sorshin is absolutely necessary is found in the influence for evil which the moving pictures exercise upon children. Bad and immoral pictures imprint an indelible mark upon the minds of children, pervert their reasoning power and serve them as guides in their own actions. * * * How can censorship be made strong, effective and at the same time universal? One used to see an official stamp at the end of all pictures saying, "Approved bv the National Board of Censorship." If this organization could be composed of m<m who were imbued with a true sense of their great responsibility, with the knowledge of the seriousness of this all-important position and with moral courage to exercise the power entrusted to them, then, and only then, could it bring results that are demanded for the sound morality of the general public. In the past this national {Continued on page 18)