Moving Picture World (Jan-Mar 1914)

388 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD Prigs is Prigs By Louis Reeves Harrison. TO issue diatribes against censorship of all kinds is almost as eas}' as it is to be a censor, and one may be as unreasonable as the other. To be merely censorious, whether of moving pictures or of censorship, requires only a fault-finding habit and inability to grasp the dignity and largeness of this new art which will eventually lift it to higher realms than it has yet attained. Moving pictures as now released may constitute a jungle to be cleared, but it must be kept in mind that to impose slavery on creative talent may easily convert that jungle into a barren waste. There is a middle course of horse sense or, more truly, of good common sense, which is broad enough for all to follow. On one side is the oozing slime some unscrupulous producers would use to splash the screen with the filth of social evils, calculated to whet the curiosity of immature minds. On the other is that desolate mediocrity of Puritanism which has brought the world no new element of pleasure, suggested no new departure of thought, passion or beauty, that stands in no relation to this progressive age. From pruriency on one side and pragmatism on the other, Good Lord, deliver us! I do not see that we are to break the shackles of monotony and escape from the clutches of the commonplace by either wallowing in the mire on one side or by wandering amid the charmless desert of puritanism on the other. Drama is deeply concerned with our inherent depravity, and live screen stories may, we beseech Thee to hear us, transform our sins into factors of enlightenment. Teach us what to do, Oh wondrous New Art, even tell us how to do it, but please make it as attractive as possible ! In regard to licensing theaters in England, Henry Arthur Jones has much of interest to say. He agrees that, "inasmuch as cheap places of amusement are those where large crowds assemble, managers may be held responsible for anything shown which is indecent, or dangerous, or harmful to the general body of their frequenters." He continues, "I say that there is no doubt that a license, a set of regulations, is necessary. We are all agreed upon that. But surely this license ought to be framed with the idea, and in the intention of not stopping any amusement that is not dangerous or harmful or indecent. "^ Of censorship he says, "English playgoers and amusement seekers do not need a censor to protect them from their dramatists — they are competent to judge us and, when it is necessary, to condemn us." Again, speaking of great playwrights, "The true artist is the only man who accurately knows the spiritual value of his work, and the greater, the more trustworthy his judgment; witness many who have been almost solitary judges, the rightness of whose judgment has eventually been confirmed in the only way possible, by the verdict and the acclamation of the public." Mr. Jones protests against censoring the work of men of genius or those whose intellectual training has broadened their views and sympathies. Such men are rare, so rare that they are to be cherished for their helpful ideals and excused for views that seem in advance of the times. Let us leave them uncensored and turn to men running the picture shows, some of whom are well qualified to decide what should be shown to the people, while others might .well be classed among the mentally unemployed. Are all, good, bad and indifferent, to be licensed and their places closed if they exhibit what is "dangerous, harmful or indecent?" In the pursuit of information, I should like to know if licensing theaters and holding the managers responsible for what is exhibited would be an improvement on the present system of censoring pictures before they are released. Would not such a course offer opportunities for graft? Has the average Mayor any particular qualification for censorship? Might not the Mayor of one town permit pictures to be shown, whose exhibition in a neighboring town would cause theater managers to be fined or put out of business? It seems to me that reasonable discussion of this subject from all points of view is better than precise and priggish assertion. If there is a vexatious dilemma involved, with earnest and determined men divided in opinion, the question should be treated in a loftier and more searching way than by arbitrary assertion. It might be handled in a spirit free from individual bitterness. It would not be a bad plan for exhibitors and producers to appoint small and intelligent committees capable of solving the problem, whether that be of censorship or its abolition. Henry Arthur Jones, in addressing a committee to examine the working of censorship in England, makes a nice distinction. "If the censor is to be continued, let him stop indecency, but let him not meddle with morality and immorality. There is a radical difference between indecency and immorality." It does seem hard to ask so much of those holding the unenviable and thankless positions of censors, that they should be burdened with deciding what is and what is not moral. Ethical codes are as inconstant as the moon. Good Bishops and Kaisers have proscribed the Tango and yet hotel dancing New Year's Eve reduced the sale of liquors sixty per cent. Henry Arthur J'ones is on sure ground when he asserts that prigs have naught to do with men of creative genius nor with men whose bright critical faculty moulds the art it finds ready to hand. Mediocrity may only weigh mediocrity ; stupidity may only applaud incompetence : the prig, both mediocre and stupid, is unaware that what startles and confuses him is usually one of those steps forward which saved us from monotony of existence if not, indeed, from monotony of type. Not ideal virtue, but human sin and shame, is at the bottom of our eternal struggle, the foundation of drama. I do not pretend to sit in judgment on the present Board of Censors, but it must be obvious to rational minds that even the mildest censorship is bound to create disappointment and individual ill feeling now and then — to point out occasional injustice is to beg the larger issue. If the National Board is dissolved, will not exhibitors and producers suffer greater injustice, amounting in some cases to oppression, at the hands of stupid legislatures and incompetent instruments of the law? Besides the rejection of what is indecent and plainly harmful, will not the question of what is moral or immoral be raised in various sections of the country ? Freedom does not mean chaotic license. Would not producers prefer to operate under mild restraint and be sure of the status of a release before advertising and printing a lot of positives? Would not exhibitors feel a greater sense of security under present arrangements than if their abolition resulted in unfavorable legislation and its enforcement? Almost the worst of all things that could be done would be to draw down upon the head of this young art a lot of political ignorance and envy. From Prigs, Politicians and Pragmatists, Good Lord, we pray Thee, deliver u«.