Moving Picture World (Jan-Feb 1927)

334 MOVING PICTURE WORLD The Law Motion Pictures Feel the Toothless Bite of Ancient Restrictions That Are As Obsolete As the Dodo By EPES W. SARGENT January 29, 1927 In The OF EDEfj &-C jjt a])u»15 au, C^Uua 'j^UnirL uAl/U/tcr UrU, vLA> ID jgC OUR or five weeks ago a New Jersey theatre was denied the right Jj to keep open on Sunday. The law invoked had. been on the statute books for more than a century. In retaliation the theatre management invoked the same law to prevent any gainful trade on the Sabbath. It made good copy for the newspapers for a couple of days, and then the matter was forgotten. The laws still remain on the statute books, and probably will be found there another hundred years from now. Admittedly the law is archaic. It deals with a condition of life that long since has been changed. Instead of removing the laws from the statute books, they are merely ignored save when, now and then, they are dragged out for some such purpose as is indicated in the opening paragraph. If the law is good, it should be enforced. If it is contrary to modern usage, it should be repealed or amended. It should not be permitted to remain on the books. A hundred years ago it was an immorality for a man to kiss wife on the Sabbath. Today the community is not particularly shocked if he kisses some other man’s wife. The law is a dead letter. It were better off the books. In precisely the same way another obsolete law has been given an airing of late. Poor management in a Montreal panic resulted in the loss of many lives. From coast to coast the authorities are suddenly awakened to the fact that there is a law in most communities prohibiting the admission of unescorted children to motion picture theatres. “Drastic Drive” Results In Six New York Arrests A drastic drive in New York City resulted in six arrests. The police, reinforced by the agents of the Children’s Society, were able to find only six violations. The law has been a dead letter for years. Probably it will be a dead statute again » within six months. It will remain dead until there is another fatality. Were this law intended to guard against panic, Moving Picture World would be among the first to urge its constant observance. Did it contribute in any degree to child safety, we should applaud its enforcement. As a matter of fact we believe that an all-child audience is safer in a panic than where the house is dotted with hysterical women who, in the event of a panic, would be concerned only in the safety of their own children. The children would be much safer under the care of appointed guardians than under parental escort. The framers of the law had no thought of panics when they secured its enactment. This closely followed the sudden growth in the number of picture theatres. In those days it was the custom to hold the house as dark as possible to obtain the best projection. And under cover of this darkness degenerates made advances which the children did not know how to resist. It was believed that a law requiring adult escort would safeguard the children from these unspeakable creatures, and so the law was passed, for that purpose and for that purpose alone. All that the law did, even then, was to make it easier for these fiends to approach the children. They would hang around the block in which the theatre was located and solicit the offices of some adult to purchase a ticket. It virtually threw the children into the hands of these hunters of the innocent, and had the conditions prevailed, there would have been no check upon this form of vice. But before long systems of indirect lighting were evolved. Larger and better houses were built, and these auditoriums were kept so light, and the house staffs were so vigilant that the practices were discontinued. Today even in the smaller houses instances of offered approach are rare and detection is almost immediate. The necessity for such a law ceased to exist within two years after its enactment. And yet the law remains, a constant menace to the management, subject to revival at the whim of any reformer, and automatically coming to the fore after any catastrophe. There Are Methods to Establish Real Law Why not a concerted drive against the law as it stands? If the protection of child life is to be considered, let the law be changed to make proper provision. Proper provision means the proper policing of the auditorium. Make a law requiring the presence of a matron or special officer in the case of a small house. Call for more than one officer, if more than one be needed, but provide protection through cool-headed house officials. We are familiar with one neighborhood house where the average attendance at the first night show is more than fifty per cent unattended children. There is a special officer who does nothing but patrol the side aisles. If there is a dispute about seats his word settles it or the offenders find themselves in the fire alley. His word is absolute law. If there came a panic and he told the youngsters to go out in order they would. They are used to obedience. Probably they obey him more readily than they would their parents. The evening show starts at seven o'clock. Most adult members of the family do not reach home much before that hour. To discriminate against the unescorted children would be to deprive them of their amusement. It is against the law, but so thoroughly within the spirit of the law that there is no police interference. Managers Cannot Ask For Affidavit Blanks Why not a move to legalize that condi’tion instead of putting the manager in the position of an habitual lawbreaker? There is another, and somewhat larger house, where the manager rigidly enforces the law. No child passes the door unless under escort. And still the attendance is about forty per cent children under sixteen. A man comes in with two or three children. Nine times out of ten the children breathe a hurried “Thanks, mister” and seek their own seats. The manager cannot require each patron to make affidavit that all the children are his own. The letter of the law is obeyed and yet the result is the same. Right now is the time to make concerted effort to change the law. In some cities this already has been done and the matron has proven an excellent substitute for the missing parents. Why not extend this practice and replace an archaic law with a modern statute that meets present day conditions? Now is the time to do it, while the law is fresh in mind. Let it drop back into the darkness of unenforcement and it is still there, to be dragged out again whenever occasion suggests. Even the original purpose of the law has been forgotten. Why not wipe it out, now? And in face of clear facts, the legislatures of four or five states have prospective bills ready to bring in. Why perpetuate an atrocity?