Repost: Pastors and the Censorship of the "Movies" (1919)

[256] Not long ago, in one of our large cities, the Secretary of one of the Boards of Censors of Moving Pictures gave an address on the atrocious evils of this business and the great need of censorship to keep the movies from corrupting the public, and especially ruining the imaginations and the minds of children. There were present a number of the clergy, and when the lecturer illustrated his remarks by sections taken from some of the condemned films, one of the witnesses avers that divers of the clergy were heard to groan audibly in their [257] horror at the realization of the lengths to which unscrupulous manufacturers of moving pictures were going in presenting the vulgar and the impure. Those groans, one thinks, are very significant. They show how little some of our zealous pastors realize the wholesale corruption which is going on in their very parishes, and they witness too that the appreciation of the evil would move our zealous pastors to try more energetically to remedy it.

So very atrocious and indecent are some of the moving pictures of to-day that one can scarcely write frankly of them for general publication. Even to describe vaguely the excesses of the screen would make unfit reading for the general public. Indeed it is a subject on which one had rather be silent altogether. But fancy what the reality must be if the account itself is so distressing. And these vile pictures are being offered for the daily delectation of that public, including our own people and the innocent children, day after day on 17,000 screens.

The subject is a particularly urgent one just at this present time, and requires all the vigilance and zeal of the clergy to prevent permanent injury to the souls intrusted [sic] to our care. The only secure remedy for the abuses of the moving pictures is censorship. A movement is on foot to establish this censorship. It is important that pastors' intimately concerned to know the gravity of the situation, be prepared, when the time comes in their locality, either themselves to initiate agitation for censorship, or to support such a movement when it is set afoot by others.

Effective boards of censorship exist at the present time in Pennsylvania, Ohio, the city of Chicago, and perhaps in a few other places. Altogether, about eleven per cent of the population of the United States is protected in this way. All the rest of the country depends for its protection either upon the activities of local organizations or on the sometimes precarious diligence of the police.

Where competent boards of censors exist, their activities seem both successful and satisfactory. So far as they go, they are really an answer to the problem of repressing the more obviously objectionable excesses of the movies. Their standards are sensible and competent, and their decisions given with [258] a great deal of moral courage when one considers the potent interests arrayed against them. The better element among the manufacturers of moving pictures are themselves in favor of the control of moving pictures, since they realize that the production and exhibition of bad films react unfavorably on their legitimate profits, and they are only anxious that the movement for censorship may take a turn that will give them as little trouble as possible, while at the same time it suppresses the unscrupulous. So that if public opinion can be generally aroused to the need, there seems to be no good reason why censorship may not be made so universal and so effective that the public may be protected from the more glaring abuses of the movies. As for the constructive side, the building-up of a movement for the use of the movies in all their varied possibilities of instruction, inspiration, and the propaganda of sound principles and sentiments, this is a problem by itself and one even more important than the subject of this present paper.

Censorship has then been sufficiently tried for one to be able to assert that it is a success and offers a solution of the negative part of the problem of the movies, the suppression of the worst films. As to the need of censorship, the reports and experiences of the censors themselves afford a wealth of authentic evidence. To begin with, let us quote briefly from the remarks of the Secretary of the Board of Censors of Pennsylvania, as given in a recent issue of The Queen's Work. This official, whose experience with the drama was very extensive before he was appointed to the Board of Censors of the State of Pennsylvania, declares that he was amazed when he began to censor the moving pictures. The flood of crude vulgarity depicted on the screen astonished even more than it disgusted him. He was appalled to see that the influence of the movies is actually toward the destruction of popular taste, the killing of the legitimate stage, and the implanting in the minds of the people a craving for sensationalism, cheapness, and degradation. He sums up in this way the result of three years' careful observation:

Seventy-five per cent of all the films which are now being made and shown have to deal with some topic connected with crime, violence, or villainy of one sort or another. Twenty [259] per cent of the films are what is called slapstick comedy, rough and vulgar burlesque, without any elevating note, and sometimes with very little reasonable entertainment. And five per cent of all the films that have come under observation are educational. Of course, not all the seventy-five per cent which deal with crime and violence are objectionable, because such themes, though sensational in themselves, may be turned to instructive or at least entertaining ends. But a great part of them are absolutely degrading in their influence on the spectators, especially on the immature and children.

The worst of the crime pictures [says the Doctor] is the serial. It is merely the old-time dime novel translated into pictures. It goes on from incident to episode for weeks and months, each installment trying to outdo the last in excitement and sensationalism, and every boy in the neighborhood howls with delight when he sees the announcement that the next episode will be exhibited in the local theatre [sic].

All the objections which were urged against the dime novel, intensified by the vividness of the screen, hold against the serial picture. The ordinary five-reel feature, on the other hand, is the old-time slushy, sentimental novel reduced to pictures, and it does its own harm, giving unreal views of life, fostering cheap sentiment and false ideals, and open to pretty much the same objections that were urged of old against the mushy novel which is its prototype.

But perhaps most deplorable of all is the moral teaching of the movies. Those who have observed the output of the films during the last few years can scarcely find words strong enough to condemn the atrocious license taken by irresponsible directors of moving pictures to portray the most harmful and unspeakable themes. A glance at the weekly report of the Pennsylvania Board, for example, will suffice to convince anyone of the dreadful need for supervision in this regard. This deplorable evil cries for a remedy and it is on the consciences of our pastors, mothers and fathers and of all decent people to see to it that the situation is radically remedied. 

All these details, however, will prove less convincing, in setting before our pastors the true state of the moving picture business, than some literal quotations from the documents of the boards of censors themselves. One must overcome a disgusted reluctance to speak of the vile details of indecency, vulgarity, and crime which enter into this business. But nothing else will give so convincing an object-lesson of the real condition of an amusement which is filling every night of the [260] year 17,000 moving-picture theatres in the United States, entertaining every day some twelve million people, and has got itself into the position of the greatest beyond measure of all organized forms of entertainment, the fifth largest of all commercial enterprises in the country, and in which is invested some five to six hundred million dollars. Quite a lot of material has come our way bearing on this unsavory subject, and we feel it a sort of duty to make it known in this way to priests in general.

To begin with, let us look over the standards which the Pennsylvania Board of Censors have formulated after their experience of four years, after examining perhaps seventy or eighty million feet of film which has come before their censors during the four years ending with April 1918. In 1918 the Board issued the following set of rules, entitled "Standards of the Board." They indicate the principles on which eliminations are made in films that are given permission to be shown in the State, or the standards according to which entire films will be refused such permission. The point to be made in this connexion [sic] is that these standards formulate pretty completely the chief objectionable features actually observed by the censors during their inspection of the current run of films, since if the abuses noted were not common they would not have come up for inclusion in the prohibitions issued by the Board.

Standards of the Board.

1. The Board will condemn pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with "white slavery". The procuration and prostitution in all forms, of girls, and their confinement for immoral purposes may not be shown upon the screen, and will be disapproved. Views of prostitutes and houses of ill-fame will be disapproved. 

2. Pictures, and parts of pictures, which deal with the seduction of women, particularly the betrayal of young girls, and assaults upon women, with immoral intent, will be disapproved. 

3. Pre-natal and childbed scenes, and subtitles describing them, will be disapproved. 

4. Pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with the drug habit; e. g., the use of opium, morphine, cocaine, etc., will be disapproved. The traffic in habit-forming drugs is forbidden and visualized scenes of their use will be disapproved. 

[261] 5. Scenes showing the modus operandi of criminals which are suggestive and incite to evil action, such as murder, poisoning, house-breaking, safe-robbery, pocket-picking, the lighting and throwing of bombs, the use of ether, chloroform, etc., to render men and women unconscious, binding and gagging, will be disapproved. 

6. Gruesome and unduly distressing scenes will be disapproved. These include shooting, stabbing, profuse bleeding, prolonged views of men dying and of corpses, lashing and whipping, and other torture scenes, hangings, lynchings, electrocutions, surgical operations, and views of persons in delirium or insane. 

7. Studio and other scenes, in which the human form is shown in the nude, or the body is unduly exposed, will be disapproved. 

8. Pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with abortion and malpractice, will be disapproved. These will include themes and incidents having to do with eugenics, "birth control", "race suicide" and similar subjects. 

9. Stories, or scenes holding up to ridicule and reproach races, classes, or other social groups, as well as the irreverent and sacrilegious treatment of religious bodies or other things held to be sacred, will be disapproved. The materialization of the figure of Christ may be disapproved. 

10. Pictures which deal with counterfeiting will be disapproved. 

11. Scenes showing men and women living together without marriage, and in adultery, will be disapproved. Discussion of the question of the consummation of marriage, in pictures, will be disapproved. 

12. The brutal treatment of children and of animals may lead to the disapproval of the theme, or of incidents in film stories. 

13. The use of profane and objectionable language in subtitles will be disapproved. 

14. Objectionable titles, as well as subtitles of pictures, will be disapproved. 

15. Views of incendiarism [sic], burning, wrecking and the destruction of property, which may put like action into the minds of those of evil instincts, or may degrade the morals of the young, will be disapproved. 

16. Gross and offensive drunkenness, especially if women have a part in the scenes, will be disapproved. 

17. Pictures which deal at length with gun play, and the use of knives, and are set in the underworld, will be disapproved. When the whole theme is crime, unrelieved by other scenes, the film will be disapproved. Prolonged fighting scenes will be shortened, and brutal fights will be wholly disapproved. 

[262] 18. Vulgarities of a gross kind, such as often appear in slapstick and other screen comedies, will be disapproved. Comedy which burlesques morgues, funerals, hospitals, insane asylums, the lying-in of women and houses of ill-fame, will be disapproved. 

19. Sensual kissing and love-making scenes, men and women in bed together and indelicate sexual situations, whether in comedies or pictures of other classes, will be disapproved. Bathing scenes which pass the limits of propriety, lewd and immodest dancing, the needless exhibition of women in their night dresses or underclothing, will be disapproved. 

20. Views of women smoking will not be disapproved as such, but when women are shown in suggestive positions or their manner of smoking is suggestive or degrading, such scenes will be disapproved. 

21. Pictures or parts of pictures which deal with venereal disease, of any kind, will be disapproved. 

22. That the theme or story of a picture is adapted from a publication, whether classical or not; or that portions of a picture follow paintings or other illustrations, is not a sufficient reason for the approval of a picture or portions of a picture. 

23. Themes or incidents in picture stories, which are designed to inflame the mind to improper adventures, or to establish false standards of conduct, coming under the foregoing classes, or of other kinds, will be disapproved. Pictures will be judged as a whole, with a view to their final total effect; those portraying evil in any form which may be easily remembered or emulated, will be disapproved. 

24. Banners, posters or other advertising matter, concerning motion pictures, must follow the rules laid down for the pictures themselves. That which may not be used upon the screen, must not be used to announce and direct public attention to the picture, in the lobby, on the street, or in any other form.

These standards present a résumé of the more common and flagrant indecencies and vulgarities of the screen. But it is from the weekly reports of the Board that one obtains the details of the sort of vileness, violence, and crime that is being poured into the imaginations of children and the impressionable at their nightly visits to the movies. Let me take some instances at random from recent reports. The Board of Censors issues every week a report giving the titles of films condemned entirely during the week and of the parts ordered cut out of films that were allowed to be shown after these eliminations had been made. A number of these recent reports lie before me, and from them I shall give some typical instances.

[263] 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 go to the moving-picture theatres, and besides it would be imprudent to do so for more than one reason. On the other hand, the general remarks about the dangers and abuses of moving pictures that one hears are not convincing enough to stir one to action. But in the reports of the authorized censors one finds convincing details. The reliability of these reports may be judged from two considerations. One is that their findings, as given below, have been complied with by the manufacturers of the films and the exhibitors, who would have legal recourse if they were not accurate, and who have eliminated the objectionable features or have acquiesced with the order forbidden the exhibition of whole films anywhere in the State of Pennsylvania. The second is that this board maintains itself and enforces its findings in spite of the natural resistance and opposition that it meets from interested persons and corporations. Here then is material that is authentic and definite.[1]

Now for some of the detailed cut-outs ordered by the Board. I clip them at haphazard from the weekly sheets. The board takes cognizance of posters and sheets as well as of films. Here is a case in point:

"The Kaiser's Finish." A. Warner.

Sheet:—Condemned.

2—six sheet of the Crown Prince and other German officers and partly nude women in very vulgar attitudes of seduction. One of these women is lying upside down across a man's lap with her foot and bare limb extended high in air, while man drinks from her slipper. Caption underneath reads, "Underground Kultur—Professional Women from Berlin entertain German officers, whilst men die in the Trenches".
1—8x10 reproduction of condemned six sheets.
1—28x22 colored photographic reproduction of condemned six sheet.

[264]

Here are some of the eliminations ordered in this film—among many others.

R 6 A Elim. subtitle, "I train the women to amuse my officers by mixing them with the professionals. While the revelry is progressing I do my work. It is inspiring."
B Elim. subtitle reading in part, "For the women of Belgium we have a special purpose."
C Elim. subtitle reading in part, "We don't kill Belgium women. We keep them to entertain the officers", etc. 

R 7 A Elim. subtitle, "The first step to barbarity and degeneracy. The Dungeon of Lust", etc.
B Elim. all lewd and lustful scenes in dugout, including vulgar dancing and contortion and sensual kissing.
N Elim. all views and subtitles connected with the visit of the monarch to the home of the peasant woman, his assaulting her, arranging his dress, the incident of her father striking him and being killed. The idea is to remove all incidents connected with physician's story explaining Richard's birth.

Yet this film is marked (Reconstructed), which means that it was worse before, but has now been made over.

I merely cite the following as specimens of the reports of last year:

Inspiration. Mutual.

A. Throughout each and every eel eliminate each scene where models pose in the nude. This includes views of the models in the nude, whether posing or not, either full figure or only a portion of person exposed.
B. Elim. all subtitles relating to models posing in the nude.
C. The view of model posing for the caste is allowed, etc.

The Donkey Did It. L-Ko. State No. 31810.

R I A. Elim. view of woman pulling trousers off a preacher, while he is caught in the fork of tree.
B. Elim. view of woman holding up preacher's trousers.
C. Elim. all views of preacher running about without trousers.
D. Elim. . . . .
E. Elim. views of girls dancing around preacher in undergarments.
F. Elim. subtitle, "Where is your pants?"

[265]

The Struggle Everlasting. State No. 32765.
High Arts prod.—6 reels.

Condemned in accordance with Section 6 of act and nos. 1, 6, and 19 of the Rules and Standards. This picture deals with immorality, in that it portrays, etc.

Lost and Found. A-Kay Co.—1 reel. State No. 32811.

Condemned in accordance with section 6 of the Act. This story is irreverent, sacrilegious, and holds up to ridicule things that are sacred.

The Girl of To-day. Vitagraph.

R. I. A. Elim. memory of vision of girl after being ravished.

The list of censored films that is given in detail presents the most vulgar, indecent and sacrilegious collection of pictures that can be imagined.

It is to be remembered that all this disgusting vileness occurs as interludes in films, the remainder of which was allowed to be exhibited.

This is the sort of thing that is being shown without hindrance, save from local and occasional protests, throughout nearly nine-tenths of the land. It is exceedingly distasteful to read such degrading vileness. But the pastors of souls, reflecting that their own people and particularly the children of their congregations, are exposed to see such episodes vividly presented to their impressionable eyes and imaginations in the intense and absorbing interest of the moving-picture theatres almost any night that they go to the movies, will wish and work for the day when a sensible and universal censorship may keep at least these flagrant abuses from being inflicted on the general public.

All the indecencies and vilenesses [sic] here described were at least eliminated from the 1500 moving-picture houses of Pennsylvania by the effective vigilance of the Board of Censors there. The same result may be brought about in other places through similar laws similarly enforced. True, the subject is an extremely disagreeable one and it would be much pleasanter to remain silent concerning things so repulsive and disgraceful. But this evil closely concerns the souls of the people and especially of children. It is necessary for our pastors to be informed, and such an object-lesson as the above, disagreeable [266] though it e both to give and to take, is the most direct and efficacious means of bringing home to us all the acuteness of the situation. Once informed, one cannot doubt that the priests of the entire country will prepare to take effective action.

Edward F. Garesché, S.J.
St. Louis, Missouri.

Footnotes:

1. The editor should be moved to apologize for presenting any of these details in a respectable magazine, if it were not for the fact that they indicate what sort of scenes, with all their horrid vulgarities, are attracting young people everywhere—and children whose parents exercise no supervision.

---

Source: Edward F. Garesché, SJ, "Pastors and the Censorship of the 'Movies'," The Ecclesiastical Review 60 (March 1919): 256–266.