Variety (March 1959)

14 PICTURES Pfi&wfi Wednesday, March 4, 1959 Arguments and Partisans As Expected As Albany Group Mulls New Censoring The “N. Y. State Joint Legisla-: complete ignorance of the various | AUTfi’Q fAU nKAIlI* tive Committee to Study the Publi- ■ U. S. Supreme Court decisions,” he j UlllU O UU 1. UliLULLEi cation and Dissemination of Often-; said. “Their language is full of the flDDl ADITC miCADCUTD sive and Obscene Material” held a ! very terms which the Court specifi* IflirLUlYEiJ 1/111101/1101111 one-day hearing in Manhattan last | cally outlawed as being too vague.” | Columbus March 3 week. On the docket: Four bills) The industry opposition to the . .. . _ K511 designed to extend the power of bills is motivated as much by an film^Pncnr 1 the N. Y. censor to general adver- j honest sense of outrage at being r . to re-impose film censor- tising, to license theatres by way j discriminated against in a state du fP^iatilrp^Cnv of achieving that end, and to ere-; that, as someone put it, is-going in 5° V a ate a classification system for films; the exact opposite direction from ^c e n t irlss SSeVen^tha^ he was without actual enforcement powers ; the rest of the country, as it is agai nst P film censorshin “as a mat- at the boxoffice. ! rooted in a deep concern over the ; ®S 1 pi ^”* orshlp aS a mat For most of the day, the argu- , effects of any restriction- on the j 01 P rinci P ie - ments of the motion picture indus-' young audiences which today make ! “To set up someone to try to try against the bills—learned, man- j U p the largest single block of pay-; ac f 33 a censor, to say what a per- ufactured, emotional, at times sin-, j n g customers. This has, from time ! son should see, could be something cere and at times cynical—pounded : t 0 time, led to charges of a lack { very well violative of the First and sprayed against the committee,i 0 f responsibility on the part of the j Amentlment to tbe Constitution. It a sea of endless repetition, legal industry, i.e. that it’s more con-! would be difficult to write a cen- niceties, self-justification, even po-i- j +1 — ' sorshm law under the rules laid lite defiance and—to a much lesser degree than at the same kind of hearings before the same commit¬ tee last December—mea culpa breast-beating. If this flood of vigorous opposi¬ tion had any effect on the commit- tee, its chairman Joseph R. Young-: adults an d adolescents, and love, and its counsel James A. Fitz-, F , patronage . The indus _ Patrick, it was not apparent. What, ^ w b d responsible for was apparent was that some of the \ J ^. arguments left their mark on State ‘ Sen. Harold Jerry of Elmira, N. Y., cerned with the dollar than with 1 =° rshl P under the rule = la ‘ d the possible harm its products may , down by he Ohio Supreme Court, do to the youne : whlch nullified Ohio’s movie cen- uo to tne young. sorship law in 1954." The compromise attitude is, m ■ ... ., a sense, expressed in the Commit-' The governor said he would sup- tee bill! which calls for classifies-: Hon Z’til of Pornographic litera- tion by the censor into three cate- . , . •*% • f „ gories: (1) For adults only. (2) For . ture of any kind ^ including films. ‘ ' ' ' ( 3 ) ' _ - was apparent wMjnet some uitue ; carrying these c i assifica tions in its ! LOBW’S- EjeS arguments Jeft their^ma^ ^ ^ a ds, but no attempt would be made ' . continued from page 4 ; an alert, to-the-point young inan i fact^all^ands^ clmowledSd 6 ^that ’ return of cumulative voting at the who was not beyond asking some j 11980 annual meeting, pertinent questions, and who was, . Gilbert’s attempt to adjourn the frank in stating that he was present The bill.sees the final responsi- ^t^g was defeated, with more “to establish the pro and con facts bility m the hands of the parents. than 4 , 000,000 of the 5 336 777 in this case.” : But. of course, the judging would , outstanding being east Dramatic^ Angles ; ^ d °” e ^ y u strv— dn^if’t ^annear ' against his tactical motion. Gilbert There were some dramatic mo-; competent to do such a job In and Mrs * Soss unleashed bitter at- men., during the hearings. To wit: . its statement to the committee,' the Attorney Ephraim Londons flat: Council of Motion p icture Qreani-‘ th bo dd 1 gthemesting - other statement that, if the current cen- ; ^^ too k t he odd position of ^ a ^ bo ^ rs . came ^ the defense sorship setup in the state were seem}1 braidi the Commit . of the directors and the manage- e immatecl, he’d favor enforced : tee for \ ot framing bill that in _ her outward bitter- cxassification to keep children un-; chlded enforcement, der 17_from seeipg certain films;; .. There is no reS p 0nsibi i ity 0 n ness, Mrs. Soss praised Vogel dur¬ ing the meeting and, according to Harry Brandt’s argument that cen-i the of the parent“to“see to •’eports purchased shares of Loew’s enreh 1 r\ ronroennte * 4 a« r»nan c^coma .. r . . _ f ctnnlr attor tna coccinn stock after the session. In the formal portion of the f>rshipTepTesents “an open sesame it that attendance. . . is in accord- for exhibitors, the implication be- ance w jth the terms of classifies- .. .. , -, mg tnat, once censor approval has ; H „ rnMPO “Thp state meeting, the shareholders, voting been forthcoming, theatres will L th narenfs iudement for the first time in 30 years under show some objectionable films and a S 0 ^i^v h S at i good or not go^fo^ the direct voting system, elected advertise them aren-dmo,.- tL chndreni-particuLrl/ as to «» management-proposed 15-man what the parent or the child is board. Elected were Vogel, O’Brien, allowed to think.” And COMPO Cummings, Ellesworth C. Alvord, advertise them ^ccordingl , •. Mrs. Jesse Bads \s (Protestant Film Council) quietly dignified wrap our kids in cellophane.”) and the testimony of Sidney Schreiber, the general counsel for the Motion Picture Assn, of America, who lit- Dudley, Brown would be required at all.” ^ oM rker ’ - v. . T ~ A. Roth, Charles H. Silver, John I. Parents Lax? Synder Jr., and John L. Sullivan. The committee feels that par- : More than 4,000,000 of the 4,182,- erally laid the law down to the ; ental responsibility lags and that • 696 shares present by proxy or in committee, pointing out that the ‘ forced publication of the categories j person were cast for the manage- legislation sought was already on would help revive it. The film biz,; ment’s unopposed slate the books. ? also wholly devoted to leaving suclr j Following the meeting, the board Comparatively few voices were questions up to the familly, thinks : reelected Killion as chairman of raised in favor of the bills. Louis j parents already have enough guid-; the board, Vogel as president and M. Pesce, the N. Y. censor, spoke; ance, and that the Production Code ; all other officers of the company for them of course. So did a repre-■ in itself is sufficient protection. The present executive committee sentative from the N. Y. State ; Actually, few industry executives consisting of Vo^el Guilden’ Catholic Welfare Committee, and; pretend that what is passed by the O’Brien, Parker, Roth and Snyder’ so also did the Rev. Albert J. Sal-; Code today is automatically suit- was also renamed. ’ mon, a Roman Catholic priest from 1 able for children. To admit this in Lake Placid, N. Y. <“We must sep- public, however, would in effect be ~ ■ ■ arate young people from the source courting disaster, of moral danger.” What is frustrating to both sides Protection of Young is the combination of the Code, for In essence, the issues appear to' economic and other reasons, be- ( = Continued from pace 3 == shape up something like this: The! comin S laxer. the Courts curbing > release> curren t]y i s in N.Y. dis- emphasis is on protection for the i censor i al activities at the legal ( cussing possibility of filming his young. It is this concern which | ^ evek drawing the line only at the ; own story. “Innocents Abroad,” as the committee uses as a stepping! Pornographic, and the industry it- the next film in three-strip process, stone for its entire censorship phi- i se ^ a a fa:r J v con?t?Tnt stream ! Producer is far enough along with losophy, which it is now seeking to ; exploitation films at its young , screenplay and production break- extend to advertising. The commit- I customers who, being able to iden- ; down to make filming possible in tee also is clearly dissatisfied and! tify in t 1 ^ 1, °™ n situations re- ! April. frustrated by various Court deci-! s P° nd satisfactorily. j On this basis, pic could be colli¬ sions which are being thrown at it i Both when it comes to film con- 1 pleted by October as a follow-up to as a reminder that, whatever the I tent and film advertising, the is- "Adventure,” thus insuring con- moral justifications may be, pre- ‘ sues frequently are based on ques- j tinuity of product in the Cinerama 1 elease censorship already has been 1 tion s of taste, with none readily j installations. “Innocents” (no con- ruled largely unconstitutional. j able to agree on what is good or ; nection with the Mark Twain yarn) Furthermore, the Albany legis- ! what is bad * what is moderate or; has a dramatic story line—first to lators obviously want to "believe! what is excessive. One of the bills j be made in Cinerama—and would what they cannot prove, i.e., that: would ban ads if, among other j he lensed in England and on the there is a direct relationship be -1 things, they’re “disgusting.” But,! Continent. tweeiF motion pictures—particular- i as Gordon White, the advertising ly those made with an eye to youth- I code administrator, told the com- ful audiences—and juvenile "delin- ! mittee: “Disgusting to whom?” And quency. ■ he added: “Can anybody think that Attorney London in his testi- ■ courts which have found such mony aimed straight at the target, j words as ‘sacrilegious’ and ‘im- The really obscene films aren’t be¬ ing submitted to the censor in the first place, he argued. (“The New York censor laws are not designed to control the material which the Supreme Court would define as being obscene.”) Furthermore, “There is nothing to justify the assumption that pictures can either create evil or do evil. What influ¬ ences in the various media is what appears to already formed attis tudes.” And then London let fly with his most potent argument: “Each of moral’ too indefinite of meaning to be enforceable, would ever support the application of a ban on ads called simply ‘disgusting’?” White pointed out that no exhibitor in the state has, in recent years, been prosecuted for obscene advertising, as now defined in the statutes. Somewhere along the lines in the proceedings, Sen. Jerry asked Brandt whether he’d favor doing It’s known, too, that several other indies are prepping material for submission to Cinerama. Lider fo Disney = ' i. Continued from page 7 “to have opened in 450 to 600 thea¬ tres instead of 10 or 20.” Disney’s policy, Lider adds, makes a second class citizen out of the small theatre owner. “The dis¬ appointed fans may very well re¬ sent the switch in policy of Dis¬ ney,” Lider notes. He points out the bills introduced here betrays thusiastic “yes.” away with the New York censor . that instead of being able to see and taking his chances with local j the picture in their local theati-es police chiefs sans pre-release blue-. patrons have to transport their pencilling. Brandt’s answer: An en- ! children “50 miles or so to the 70m houses and pay through the nose.” Amusement Stock Quotations Week Ended Tuesday (3) N. Y. Stock Exchange ♦Week Ended Monday (2) * Actual Volume t Ex-dividend (Courtesy of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.) Jets, Phones Close O’Seas Gaps Continued from page 3 ' the other companies. We do what we think is right." Fact is that, on the working level at least, 20th’s competitors seemed as surprised by the abolition of the Continental office as were 20th’s own employes. Question asked over and over again is: Why 20th? That’s based on the fact that the outfit has the top billings in Eu¬ rope, and some of the personnel who’re being dropped are the type' of “young blood” which critics of the film biz often claim is missing from management. Both at 20th and on the outside, the Europe shakeup is pinned squarely on Skouras himself, with company execs portrayed as flab¬ bergasted at the drastic nature of the move. Yet, 20th’s competitors admit that' the “new order,” i.e. the trend toward local autonomy, will be watched very closely, as is any new move abroad. When Warner Bros, pulled back in Britain, han¬ dling distribution out of London and keeping only salesmen in the field. It’ll be the same thing with 20th. If its efficiency level is retained, and billings aren’t affected, it’s a sure bet that other companies will shake up their organizations and conform. Those close to the foreign market see a need for supervisory personnel, "and most don’t dig -the argument that Europe can be run from New York, particularly if— as it appears to be Skouras’ inten¬ tion—the branch managers are to be natives of the country where they operate. What makes 20th so distinctly different from some of the other outfits, like Warners or Paramount, is that it has product whereas the others do not. It’s an open Secret in Europe that some of the majors are woefully short on releases, which in turn reflects in the desire to trim operational overhead. What some are wondering now is whether Skouras’ streamlining actions are designed simply to reduce the cost of selling, which is high abroad, and whether In so doing he’s just repeating an (oft- praised) tendency of his in the past to take the bull by the horns and “shake out” the organization, or -whether this is the prelude to a new policy which will, perhaps, see 20th concentrating on fewer and bigger pictures, much a& some of its competitors have done; In any case, being accompanied by no explanations of any kind, the axing of the Paris staff and the threat of general economies down the line at home and abroad has seriously affected morale at the company. Speculation on .future moves is rife in virtually every department and ranges from execs to secretaries. Everybody is aware that 20th’s domestic business hasn’t been what it should be, but that foreign earnings are tops (in fact 20th’s overseas rentals in 1958 slightly topped the domestic take). Paris Hope: ‘NePrecedent’ By GENE MOSKOWITZ Paris, March 3. Opinion here, after the elimina¬ tion of the 20th Century-Fox Con¬ tinental supervisory setup, has most film sources feeling this is not a “precedent” or a “shadow of things to come” as far as the other majors headquartered in Paris are concerned. However, since 20th was always held up as the company with the greatest foreign take and until re¬ cently the mostest impact some gloom has been inevitable. As 20th overseas head, Murray Silverstone, told Variety, a future range of specialized, roadshow fea¬ tures could be handled by one man in the various world territories. It is thought that some of the dis¬ placed Continental office execs, like Jean Lefevre, Giulio Ascarelli, Oscar Lax, David Raphel may be bffered this type of new assign¬ ment. But this is unconfirmed. Actually the Paris and French 20th headquarters remain intact while the Continental supervisory office is annulled. Besides the execs, this also means a staff of about 25 also goes out. Accounting policies and work will probably not be affected too much except for becoming more directly an¬ swerable to Gotham.