Repost: Censorship of the "Movies" (1919)

[557] To the Editor, The Ecclesiastical Review.

The article "Pastors and Censorship of the Movies" by the Rev. Edward F. Garesché, S.J., appearing in the March issue of the Review is in my opinion very timely and deserves the undivided attention of all pastors of souls. It is true beyond any controversy, that many moving pictures are indecent and [558] atrocious and have a bad effect upon the morals of our Catholic people. I happen to be intimately connected with moving pictures, as I show them at least once a week in the parish hall. I also witness the weekly pre-release showing of pictures for the purpose of selecting films which I deem fit to be shown in my church hall and I assure you that it is often very difficult to select even one picture a week, from the company I am dealing with, that may be called wholesome and excellent entertainment for the general public. However, those that I consider good enough to be shown are not always relished. Indeed I have often heard it said, even by people of my own congregation, that they prefer stories that show the human side of life, that have more "pep" to them. It goes to show how depraved even now is the mind of the "movie fan". They can tell you all the stars in the pictures, and their expression of their predilection for Pauline Frederick, or Theda Bara, or of so many others who star in pictures that never get beyond the "Pink Permit" class of the censor, shows conclusively the state of their mind.

Here in Chicago any one who wishes to study moving pictures can readily observe that those theatres [sic] which have the sign "For adults only" over the ticket office, are best patronized.

It is true that boards of censorship exist in some states and in some cities, but those boards are very often lax in the performance of their duties. We have for instance at the present time "Mickey," a "movie" play advertised for nearly two years. We find in it a place where Mabel Normand appears entirely nude. Then, toward the end of the same film, during the attack that is made upon her, we see flashed upon the background of the room a picture suggestive of the act the villain wishes to perform. Still the Chicago censor has passed this film.

No matter how good and excellent a picture may be as a whole, one passage that arouses the sensual nature of man as above described, one flash that leaves an indelible mark for evil upon the mind of the onlooker, is sufficient to rob the whole picture of the right to be called good and wholesome. It will do untold harm to the souls of Catholic people and especially to the souls of our children.

[559] It is a sacred duty of pastors of souls to call the attention of their flock to the pernicious effect which 75 per cent of the pictures produced during the last year exercise upon the minds of the "movie fans". I admit with Fr. Garesché that it is very difficult for the priest to learn the true condition of the moving pictures. They have neither the time nor the inclination to do so for more than one reason. However it is their sacred duty as pastors of souls to raise their voices in solemn warning of the very grave dangers to which those are exposed who habitually attend these places.

Another proof that it is the intention of the producers to appeal to the sensual nature of man may be found in the titles given to newly produced pictures.[1] For example, "For Husbands only," "Old Wives for New," "Wild Youth," "The Eternal Temptress," "The White Man's Law," "The Make-Believe Wife," "The Mortgaged Wife," "The Marriage Price," "Modern Love."

The sole aim of the producer in giving to pictures these names is to attract the public, to make them believe that they will see something that is interesting and that appeals to their sensual nature.

I happen to read this morning in one of our daily papers that certain film companies had a meeting in New York to protest against state censorship, and had engaged a Mr. Hess as their lawyer to fight the attempt of any censor to make cuts in pictures they had produced. This same Mr. Hess immediately wrote to the governors of some states, Oklahoma, Kansas, and some others, that if censorship was not abolished or if the movement now on foot to introduce censorship was not stopped, his clients, the picture producers, would refuse to ship films into these states, and warned them that any suits that might be started by "movie" houses on account of not receiving service, would be brought against them as representing their respective states.

The film producer is using his immense wealth and his great power to defeat censorship. He has been fighting censorship ever since it was organized. Especially the trade papers contain [560] articles, letters, etc., to bring to the attention of the managers of theatres their duty to stand behind the producer in their attempt to abolish censorship.

As a sample of the film producer's idea on film censorship I quote a few passages of an article on this matter just now appearing in the March issue of a trade paper.

An official censor, empowered to say what the people shall see on the screen and what they shall not see, is an obstacle in the way of moral and intellectual progress, as well as a czar whose existence is a denial of democracy. Official censorship is bad in theory and worse in practice. 

The very idea upon which it is based denies the fundamental truth that real growth and development must be free, and experience gives abundant testimony to the fact that censorship is almost invariably characterized by stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry, and sometimes selfish interest.

Another trade paper for February has the following to say, regarding a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Associated Motion Picture Exhibitors of Brooklyn and Long Island, who met to protest against a bill introduced by Assemblyman William F. Brush of Orange County, New York, designed to create a State Motion Picture Censorship.

A resolution was unanimously adopted against the enactment of this bill into law and a committee of five was appointed for the purpose of opposing the proposed legislation. 

It was the consensus of opinion among the speakers present that this bill is the most iniquitous piece of legislation ever aimed at the motion picture industry since its inception.

The unscrupulous means which the film industry employs and the enormous amount of money spent by them to accomplish their task of defeating censorship are proof sufficient that censorship is necessary.

Another and more potent reason why censorship is absolutely necessary is found in the influence for evil which the moving pictures exercise upon children. Bad and immoral pictures imprint an indelible mark upon the minds of children, pervert their reasoning power, and serve them as guides in their own actions. Only last week a very interesting article appeared in one of Chicago's daily papers, which explains this statement fully. It proves at the same time without a shadow of [561] doubt how pernicious most of the moving pictures are, if they produce the effects mentioned in the statement I am going to quote. This article appeared under the heading: "Movies replace church as guide to children," and reads as follows:

The church has taken a back seat for the movies. Instead of it being the secondary influence on the welfare of children it has been relegated to the fourth class. The three important influences to-day are the home, the school, and the movies. 

This is the opinion of Professor Ernest W. Burgess, teacher of sociology at the University of Chicago, who yesterday reported to the Council Censorship Commission the results of observation made by 237 teachers of the fourth, sixth, eighth, and high-school grades of the effect movies have on children. 

He said of the 100,000 children tested, over 50 per cent were vitally affected by the motion picture. 

"Parents of to-day are confronted with a different child-welfare problem from that faced by our forefathers," said Professor Burgess. 

"The average child is more influenced by the movie than by the church and it is the parents' duty to see that children are kept from seeing harmful pictures." 

Twenty-three teachers reported that movies create irresponsible and selfish views among children. Other teachers found these effects: 

Belief that life is for excitement . . . . . . 14
False and distorted views . . . . . . 82
Unfits child for future duties . . . . . . 38
Adult and blasé views . . . . . . 13
Non-acquired views . . . . . . 11
Broadened views . . . . . . 10
Assists judgment . . . . . . 8
Belief in luck . . . . . . 8
Dissatisfaction . . . . . . 5
Prepares for future duties . . . . . . 2
Other bad effects . . . . . . 5
No reports . . . . . . 51

On the question of whether the movies cause a lack of respect for authority:

Yes . . . . . . 84
No . . . . . . 62
Yes, with reservation . . . . . . 55
Non-committal . . . . . . 14
No reports . . . . . . 18

Do the movies make the child precocious about sex life?

Yes . . . . . . 112
No . . . . . . 27
Yes, with reservation . . . . . . 39
Non-committal . . . . . . 35
No reports . . . . . . 20

[562]

Dr. Fred Z. Zapffee, reputed neurologist, advised that children be permitted to go to movies only once a week and that the show be not longer than one hour and a half. He said modern pictures cause children to become irritable, nervous, excitable, and that of the 500,000 who visit the movies weekly over 40 per cent visit the theatres at least three times a week. 

Chairman Timothy D. Hurley and the other members of the commission expressed surprise at the revelation. The commission is conducting an investigation into the censorship situation.

How can censorship be made strong, effective, and at the same time universal? One used to see an official stamp at the end of all pictures, saying, "Approved by the National Board of Censorship". If this organization could be composed of men who were imbued with a true sense of their great responsibility, with the knowledge of the seriousness of this all-important position, and with moral courage to exercise the power entrusted to them, then and only then could it bring results that are demanded for the sound morality of the general public. In the past this national censorship has apparently had neither the courage nor the vision to realize their great responsibility to eliminate passages, pictures, and subtitles that are destructive of the morality of men. "By their works you shall know them."

In my opinion an effective national board of censorship is the only means of successfully counteracting the evil of bad and immoral pictures, and of cutting out those passages that are apt to rouse the movie fan unto sin. It seems to me that no priest as an individual could make any successful effort to combat this great evil.

Only by the concerted action of persons in authority, only by the full and hearty coöperation [sic] of Archbishops and Bishops who would sign their names to a resolution empowering a committee of three or four to approach the right tribunal to demand safeguards for the morality of men, women, and children, can adequate censorship be obtained, a censorship that would be universal and vested with authority extending over all the pictures produced.

A national censorship of from six to twelve persons, representatives of all denominations and classes who have the moral welfare of the community at heart, and who would be clothed [563] with absolute power to reject any objectionable film, or objectionable features in a film, would in my mind be the happy solution of this vexed problem.

Priests, ministers, and professional men working together on this board to eliminate or at least to minimize the danger of corruption of morals of old and young, would be the ideal way. There would then be no necessity for a state or city censorship.

I admit with Father Garesché that the subject is an extremely disagreeable one. But I am also convinced that silence is no longer golden, and that something must be done soon to check the evil influences of the film industries. Surely someone could start the ball rolling.

I have made a suggestion. Someone else may probably make a better one, until we come to the modus agendi that would seem certain of success.

Chicagiensis.

Footnotes:

1. These titles are taken at random from pictures produced during the last three months.

---

Source: Chicagiensis, "Censorship of the 'Movies'," The Ecclesiastical Review 60 (May 1919): 557–563.