Moving Picture World (Jan-Mar 1914)

264 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD No Distinctions in Censorship By W. Stephex Bush. MORE than one exhibitor remarked to the writer in the course of a talk about "censorship" that an agitation of the subject three or four years ago might have been justified, but that the improvement in the moral and artistic tone of the industry has made such agitation wholly unnecessary in these better days. We quite agree with this view and we want to add our firm conviction that this constant talk about censorship has stimulated the army of cranks into unwholesome activity. The very words of censor and censorship are odious and remind us of the times when the public hangman was wont to burn books which were disapproved by the authorities only to be afterwards enthroned in the esteem and the affections of mankind. The censor is nothing more and nothing less than an inquisitor, whose office has been held in abhorrence through all the centuries. Why. then, should we revive either the name or the office of the "censor"? It had seemed to us lately as if the National Board of Censorship, or at least the president of that board, were going beyond the scope of their office by trying to influence legislation in favor of their decisions. Reports that found their way into the press seemed to lend color to the view that the board through its president was departing from its original policy. Mr. Collier absolutely denies that either he or the board have tried to obtain legal sanction for any of their decisions. Indeed, Mr. Collier goes even further. He dreads statutory power for his board and wishes to have it known that he would refuse such power even if it were offered to him or to the board. He says he would go on the platform if necessary in order to combat legal censorship. If this is the position of the National Board and if it is contented to act in an advisory rather than in a coercive manner it may and probably will continue to do good. The Moving Picture World would be the first to condenm any bestowal of legal or official power upon the National Censor Board. The moment this board assumes to exercise any legalized previous restraint on the producers of films its usefulness would come to an abrupt end. Whatever prestige or unofficial power the 'board may hold it owes to its support by public sentiment. It will be either useful or useless just in proportion to its accordance with sound public opinion. It is not for us, but for the public at large, to decide whether the National Board is exercising its functions with a measure of success or whether it has failed in appraising public opinion. Its very tenure of office depends upon the cooperation of the great masses of our people. Its success today is no guarantee of its success for a year or even for six months from today. If at any time hereafter the Madison Avenue Board attempts to work with other weapons than moral suasion and public opinion it must be, deemed to have joined the ranks of legalized or wouldbe legalized censors and it becomes not only useless but positively harmful. The National Board of Censorship is after all a selfconstituted body. It does not and, we think, cannot claim a monopoly of representing public opinion. Not only here in New York, but in every great city in our country there are plenty of men and women who are in all respects the equal of the men and women constituting the National Board of Censorship. We believe that in the main their decisions would be about the same as the decisions of the Madison Avenue Board. Of course, the existence of many such boards would be confusing and as long as one board is doing the advisory work fairl\' well there is no need fur a ir.ultijjlicity of boards. It is, however, entirely possible that this present board may in the course of time fail in its original objects and may, therefore, be supplanted by another board. It is also quite possible, and it is the earnest hope of The Moving Picture World, that even an advisory board may no longer be needed owing to the high moral and artistic tone among all producers. Indeed, this latter hope is a good deal more than a pious wish. We have witnessed marvelous improvements and the tendency is still upward. The path of the reputable producer is easy and pleasant while the men who want to capitalize the vile instincts and the morbid curiosity of their fellows are in constant trouble with the police and are the objects of the cordial contempt of the far greater portion of the community. They may. and on occasions do, succeed in making a few dollars in a hurry, but they place a stain on their reputations which is not only a moral reproach but a decided commercial disadvantage as well. After all is said and done the control over the moral quality of the motion picture before it is put on the screen remains, as it always must remain, in the hands of the plain people of the land. They are the court of last resort. They have it in their power to make or mar censor boards whether these censor boards are of the voluntary and advisory sort or whether they are would-be legalized boards. Take the case of the newspapers. They are their own censors. They hire men who sit in their offices day and night looking over the materials submitted for publication. A good deal of the stuff offered is rejected because its publication would either offend decent public sentiment or go straight counter to the law. The tactics of the yellow journals are merely an exception to the rule. The censorship of the press is entirely self-imposed. It is by no means final. It remains subject to the action of the authorities who are free to act if any publication violates the law. The censorship of the motion picture ought, in an ideal state of affairs, be of the self-imposed variety. The editor who eliminates or rejects ought to be as busy and as powerful and as responsible in the studio as he is in the newspaper office. He ought to be as good a judge of the public taste. He ought to be as careful to avoid offense. While even in such an ideal state of things mistakes would still be bound to occur they would soon be reduced to a minimum and the cranks in search of the limelight via the motion picture route would find themselves disarmed. The talk about censorship would soon die out and even the voluntary advisory board which now exists and works with the consent of the censored would for very lack of work fall into a state of "innocuous desuetude." In the meantime we await with interest the trial of the white slave film promoters in the Special Sessions. If, upon their conviction, the Mayor would promptly revoke the licenses of the theaters where these offensive exhibitions found a home more would be done toward purifying the atmosphere than all the censor boards could accomplish in ten years. This would mean striking at the root of the evil. It would then be next to impossible to find a haven of refuge for this species of scandalous and offensive exhibitions. It would knock a wholesome fear into people whose conscience can be reached through their pocketbooks only. i