The Moving Picture Weekly (1920-1921)

The Moving Picture Weekly A MAGAZINE FOR MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITORS Published Weekly by the MOVING PICTURE WEEKLY PUB. CO. 1600 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY Paul Gulick, Editor. {Copyright, 1921, Universal Film Mfg. Co. All Right Reserved.) Vol 13 APRIL 23, 1921 No. 10 No M ore Bad Men Sk own In Fil ms CloseUps of Cute Kittens Playing with Catnip to take the Place of Red-Blooded Action in Moving Pictures 'P'HE bad men and the bandits of the films must go, say the reformers who would grace the seats of the producer's projection rooms in the capacity of censors for the various individual State boards now being advocated. No more shall we see the Rangers throwing quoits or horseshoes between jobs of rounding up the outlaw gangs for the edification of movie fans. It is evidently the secret longing of many seeking a chance at placing their individual brand of censorship on the films to see little angels coyly pitching halos from cloud to cloud. As one reviewer in the Kansas City Post asks: "Abolish crime from the movies? Why not stop the growing of apples because William Tell once shot an apple off his son's head ? Isn't it a fact that in all bandit pictures, the police are able to round up the criminals, and the peace and the safety of the community are saved and all that?" To which we can add that right invariably triumphs over lawbreakers in photoplays. The films would be very dull amusement indeed under the changes advocated by the reformers, and it is doubtful if even those who suggest radical censorship would get any entertainment out of motion pictures. Every reformer has some pet aversion that he would like to see eradicated from motion pictures. Some of the latest examples of personal prejudices of those who seek to censor the films are presented in the following article by Chandler Richard Laurence in the Toledo Daily Blade, of Toledo, Ohio. She thinks it's too much of a temptation to young girls, and especially the young wives of poor young men. [Another objects to any reference to the birth of children on the screen — evidently on the score that it might encourage people to have offspring — And one, who is a well-known leader in women's club circles, is just dead set against all plays in which women are deserted by their husbands. She says, rather cryptically, "It may give some men ideas." Each of these people believes his or her pet abomination is a valid reason for the censorship of the screen. They would, if placed in a position of authority, mutilate photo-films to bring them within the lights of their own restricted outlooks. ROUGH BOYS MUST GO "I have just heard that a rather prominent man has expressed himself in favor of motion picture censorship for a brand new and novel reason. He thinks that plays like "Go and Get It" and the kind Douglas Fairbanks appears in, encourage boys to take too many chances with their lives— that the spectacle of chaps leaping from roof to roof and climbing over airplanes on the wing may tempt them to endanger their lives by emulation. Therefore, he would cut from all films the scenes that show red-blooded courage, and leave us the pretty parts where the little children bring together the estranged parents, and the cute close-ups of the dear little kitten playing with a ball of yarn. A lady of my acquaintance would bar all films showing women extravagantly dressed — especially if they seem to attract men by their costumes — WOULD CENSOR LIFE ITSELF There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this state who have especial dislikes — and doubtless some hundreds are extremists enough to want to censor not only motion pictures, but stage plays, magazines, newspapers — life itself — to delete from existence the things they, individually, do not care for. What I am trying to show is that there is no unanimity of opin'on as to why there should be state censorship of motion pictures. And every reason in the world why there should not be. My readings of arguments before the state legislature of Michigan and other states, and my personal talks with prominent proponents of censorship, lead me to believe that there are three major reasons for their activity: Intolerance — Unintelligence — Political selfishness — By intolerance I mean a fervid desire to impose upon others the restrictions dictated by one's own personal prejudices and preferences. By unintelligence I mean the belief that legislation is a panacea for everything in the world — and inability to study a subject in its completeness before rushing out to quagmires where angels fear to tread. By political selfishness I mean just what is going on everywhere, in every community — the desire of ambitious persons to seize upon any issue, or to create an issue, on which to bid for notoriety and office. There is a definite desire within the ranks of film producers to restrict plays to the boundaries of decency. The exhibitor is realizing that clean films are good business."