Page:EB1922 - Volume 30.djvu/744

698

likelihood of its being forgotten. During the World War, the Governments engaged in that conflict produced thousands of war pictures to encourage enlistment and keep up morale; and the cinema proved itself to be one of the most potent methods of propaganda in reaching the mass of the people. Films taken on the battle-field, moreover, will acquire more and more his- toric interest as time goes on. Such pictures, displayed in connexion with the course of study at military colleges, have a value above mere entertainment. Practically all Govern- ments, therefore, provided special archives for preserving mo- tion-picture films, especially those dealing with military sub- jects. The taking of pictures of current events was developed as a special branch of the motion-picture industry. Certain com- panies perfected organizations with cameramen acting as their representatives all over the world, and facilities were provided for the rapid transportation and development of news films. These companies began to compete to get their pictures into the theatres at the first possible moment, and motion- pictures of important events were frequently exhibited within an hour or two after the event had taken place. Sometimes pictures showing earlier phases of a prize fight, an inaugural ceremony or occurrence of like nature were displayed even while the event itself was still in progress.

The U.S. Government was probably the first to use the cinematograph for the purpose of disseminating agricultural information among farmers. In 1920 the Department of Agri- culture had in circulation approximately 100 cinema pictures showing such subjects as How to Select a Laying Hen and The Story of Cotton. The films were produced under Government supervision and developed in Government laboratories, which then had a capacity of one reel a week. Towards the close of the decade many private institutions were also undertaking the production of moving-picture films for educational purposes, and the installation of projecting machines in schools and churches was becoming rather general. In 1920 there were in the United States 1,500 schools, universities, and similar institu- tions so equipped, while more than 2,000 had arrangements with local theatres for the exhibition of pictures of special value in connexion with educational work. About 2,000 churches occasionally showed moving-pictures either at the church proper or at some outside place under church supervision. In order to supply schools and churches the " film library," devoted largely to educational subjects, was developed and gave promise of serving a need analogous to that supplied by the circulating library of books. These libraries were at first in- stituted as commercial enterprises, but in the United States in 1920 there was at least one organization which supplied films gratis to institutions that offered to exhibit them free of charge.

Censorship and Regulation. A demand for the regulation, supervision and censorship of the cinema theatre arose very soon after the film began to be used for narrative and dramatic purposes. Regulation was first concerned with construction of the theatre, the elimination of the fire hazard, and the super- vision of audiences; then it came to be felt that the chief danger lay in the pictures themselves. Social workers in nearly every country conducted an agitation for a censorship that would prevent the showing of objectionable pictures.

One of the first countries to establish a national censorship was Sweden (1911); other countries soon followed Spain (1912), Italy (1913-4), France (1916). Censorship was also instituted in Russia and Japan; in the latter country the prohibitions included anything that " contradicts morality and consequently the principle that good brings its own reward and evil its own punishment."

In Great Britain the Cinematograph Act of 1909 provided for the licensing of cinema theatres but not for censorship. As a result, however, of the discussion incident to the importa- tion, chiefly from France and America, of certain objectionable films, the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Assn., with the approval of the Home Secretary, established an independent Board of Film Censors. Exhibitors were not of course obliged to accept the decisions of this Board, yet before the close of the decade

1910-20 more than 97% of the films exhibited in the British Isles were first reviewed by the Board of Censors.

Jn IQ2O the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Assn. adopted a resolu- tion providing lor the expulsion of any member who refused to submit to the censorship of the Board. It might have been expected that such censorship, in view of its close connexion with the trade itself, would prove careless and ineffective. It was, however, the opinion of the Cinema Commission of Inquiry, which conducted a very careful investigation of the whole subject in 1917, that the work of the Board was for the most part conscientious and commend- able. This commission had been instituted by the National Council of Morals ; its report. The Cinema, already referred to, is a valuable treatise on many aspects of the moving-picture industry. One of its conclusions was the recommendation of a State censorship, largely on the ground that the authority of the State could be ex- ercised more effectively than that of an independent board. Testify- ing before the commission, T. P. O'Connor, who had been appointed president of the Board of Censors in 1916 (following the death of G. A. Redford, his predecessor), stated that films were censored with respect to a series of prohibitory regulations, 43 in number, of which the following are typical: " Indecorous, ambiguous and irreverent titles and sub-titles. Irreverent treatment of sacred subjects. The modus operandi of criminals. Cruelty to young infants and excessive cruelty and torture to adults, especially women. Nude figures; impropriety in dress or conduct. Gruesome murders, strangulation scenes, executions. References to controversial politics. Subjects dealing with the drug habit, white-slave traffic, race suicide, etc. Illicit sexual relationships; suggestive scenes of immorality; incidents suggestive of incestuous relations. Scenes tending to disparage

Eublic institutions or characters. Materialization of the conventional gure of Christ."

Besides showing much good sense, these prohibitions indicate to what lengths even a moderate censorship can go; if logically applied such rules would bar many of the plays of Sophocles, Shake- speare and Ibsen.

The British Board of Censors exercised no control outside of the British Isles. In Canada in 1920 each province had a board of censors appointed by the lieutenant-governor in council; in general the censorship was very rigid, but the fact that a film had been approved by the authorities of Ontario, for example, was no guarantee that it would be passed by the board in Quebec, or vice versa. Elaborate regulations for cen- sorship were adopted by New Zealand in 1916, and in 1920 State censorship of films existed in many parts of the British Empire, including India and New South Wales.

In the United States, a non-official censorship, subsequently known as the National Board of Review, was instituted in 1909 by the People's Institute of New York. Its review com- mittee (unpaid) was in 1920 composed of 140 representative citizens, many of whom were engaged in social welfare work. The American Board, unlike its British counterpart, had no direct connexion with the cinema industry; its revenues were derived in part from contributions and in part from a flat charge of $6.25 (1920) per reel which was assessed against the pro- ducer for the review of his pictures. In 1920 nearly 6,000 reels were so reviewed, representing, it is said, more than 99% of the films exhibited in the United States. The censorship ex- ercised by the American Board was on the whole noteworthy for its enlightened character, but while the Board won support in many communities, there were others which seemed to think its supervision was either too lenient or not suited to local needs. By 1921 six states Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Kansas, New York and Massachusetts had established official censorship boards, and agitation for similar laws was in progress in many other states. Certain groups were also advocating a national board of censors to be appointed by the president. National laws to 1921 consisted only of general prohibitions against the shipment of improper films in interstate commerce, though in 1918 the Secretary of the Treasury was empowered to censor imported films.

For the most part, the cinema industry strongly opposed the extension of laws for official censorship of motion-pictures, and the objections put forward were often well founded. For people of the Anglo-Saxon tradition it is hard to justify the establishment of a bureaucratic control over any form of artistic or intellectual ex- pression, whether the medium be the press or the stage. It should be said, moreover, that opposition to censorship by no means involves a covert desire for licentious pictures; even without censorship the exhibitor is fully responsible for the films he shows. Legalized censorship removes the opportunity to show improper films; it is