The Moving picture world (February 1920-March 1920)

March 27, 1920 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD 2101 With John Barleycorn in His Grave Reformers Concentrate on Censorship WITH John Barleycorn buried, although there are indications he is rustling around in his grave, the congenital reformers have turned to the movies. That accounts for the activity this year of the censorship committee of the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry, for this is the "off year" for legislative sessions and ordinarily censorship problems would amount to very little. The first legislative battle was staged in Virginia where the proponents of censorship, after promising to delay the matter, introduced a bill in the absence of Jake Wells, the leading exhibitor of the state. A public hearing on the bill was arranged, and at the request of the national association David Wark Griffith went to Richmond and made the principal argument against censorship. Jack S. Connolly, Washington representative of the national association, and Jake Wells were in charge of the fight in Richmond, and the committee reported against censorship and in favor of the bill which would put teeth in the penal law which prevents the showing of an indecent or immoral film. The national association has at all times supported the strengthening of the penal law so as to punish the exhibition of improper pictures. Quick Reversal in South Carolina. Just as the Virginia fight was won, the national association received the informatoin that without a hearing the education committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives had made a favorable report on a censorship bill. A hearing was asked for by wire, and Royal K. Fuller, executive secretary of the censorship committee, went to Columbia to represent the industry. He was joined there by Jake Wells, who, in view of the aid given him by the National Association in the Virginia fight, volunteered to do what he could in this state. Miss Mary Gray Peck, at the request of the South Carolina exhibitors, went to Columbia to explain the work of the National Board of Review. Within a half-hour after the hearing on the bill was over, the education committee, which had reported the bill, voted unanimously against censorship. Under the legislative law of the state that did not kill the bill,, for any introducer who can get ten representatives to vote with him can keep a bill on the calendar. The bill was held for more than two weeks, and when it finally came to a vote it was overwhelmingly defeated. After the hearing in South Carolina Mr. Fuller went to Atlanta for a conference with the members of the Film Exchange Managers' Association of that city as to the means of opposing the censorship bill, which it is anticipated will be introduced when the Georgia legislature convenes in June. Mi(«i««ippi Schemers Foiled. The governor of Mississippi recommended a censorship law and the first bill introduced was amended so as to make it a crime to exhibit an indecent or improper film. The people who were supporting censorship expected that the motion picture industry would oppose that bill, and it would give them an excuse to introduce one which provided for a censorship of all films. E. M. Clarke, special representative of the Saenger Amusement Company, who was working in co-operation with the ex change managers of New Orleans, supported the bill. It was thought that this had disposed of censorship for the state, but recently a straight censorship bill has been introduced. It is believed that this bill can be defeated in view of the amendment which has been made to the penal law. A censorship bill was introduced in Kentucky, and while it has not been finally dis ^imilllllllffllllilHIInnmiiiiiiiiiiilHiiiiiiii MASSACHUSETTS RECOMMENDS SOME FORM OF CENSORSHIP SOME form of motion picture censorship ivas recommended in a formal vote taken on March 12 by the . Massachusetts legislative committee on | mercantile affairs. The vote stood nine = to one, with five members absent. It is 1 understood that Representative Bowser, 1 of Wakefield, held out against any form % of censorship. | A sub-committee of five was appointed I to draft the bill and submit it to a com 1 mittee of the whole. The members of i the sub-committee are Senator Foley, i of South Boston, and Representatives | Keniston, of Boston; Doyle, of New | Bedford; Boivser, of Wakefield, and | Lombard, of Everett. \ The form which the bill will take is | not at all certain. Some members of i the committee favor the creation of a i special state department of censorship; I others favor turning over the work to | some existing state board; still others I favor local censorship. | iiiiiiiiiituiiiiiiiitiriiiiniiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiniiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiii? posed of it is not believed that it will succeed. There has been splendid co-operation of the exhibitors and exchange men, and the experience of censorship in the adjoining state of Ohio will do as much as any one thing to defeat the bill in this state. Massachusetts Fight the Hardest. The hardest fight of the year has been in Massachusetts and the issue is still in doubt. There the proponents of censorship were well financed, and they made a systematic fight, working through the women's clubs. The most active supporter of censorship has been and is a candidate for a position as censor if the bill becomes a law, and that has been one real incentive of the fight. Not all of the women have supported censorship, and there were several well-known organizations which appeared at the hearing against it. There have been two hearings on the bill, and the joint committee on mercantile aflFairs has named a sub-committee to consider the matter, and if thought advisable to report an amended bill. This makes it evident that the bill prepared by the so-called State Committee on Motion Pictures, which has been sponsor for censorship, will not be passed. Splendid Support from Labor. Harry F. Campbell, Boston manager of the Fox Film Corporation, has been chairman of the committee which has been opposing the bill, and which co-ordinated the activities of the exchange managers and exhibitors. William A. Brady, president of the national association, has given the Massachusetts situation his personal attention. The industry has been receiving splendid support from organized labor in this state, as it has in all others where there has been a censorship fight. Jack S. Connolly, Washington representative of the national association, whose home is in Boston and who served in France with the New England division, has been working with the committee. It may be several weeks before the matter is finally disposed of by the Massachusetts legislature. In addition to the state fights the National Association and the censorship committee have been interested in several municipal contests, where an effort has been made to impose unfair and restrictive ordinances for municipal censorship. One of the most picturesque fights was in Portland, Ore., where the industry made a direct appeal to the people for fair play and has every prospect of success against the intolerant few advocating censorship. Main Act, Corinne Griffith & Co. — Applause — She Then Answers to an Encore. The reason this play is called "The Garter Girl" Is because Vitagraph so decided