The Washington times., 1914-09-22
THE BEST
Photopldy Department in
WASHINGTON
George Bernard ShdU
Declares Film
Morals Too
High.

moving picture standard OF mCrahE
s toe high, ,,,
Mr.. SGaw asserts the state should
sndow the pictures TO get the peS'
there is in art,
And Mr. Shaw insinuates thal Ce.t-
sorship talk is mostly rubbish!
There are probably few readers OF
this column who do not appreciate
The fact that George Bernard Sha"
is one of the small class OF men
who dares to say What oLer PeOple
are almost afraid to admit they
link In fact there is some little
ground for the belief that -Ir. Shaw
IS i'm a class all by himself. For MIR.
shaw is the worlds greatest practl-
cal philosopher That Is one OF the
teasons his philosophy is sometimes
so roundly abused. Most of the phil
osophers with which we have to do
are men or women VINO SIT apart a
long way off from the crowd and de-
eide the great questions of life in aC-
cordanCe with standards based solely
on rule-of-thumb ideals. The prac-
ucabillty of their prOnounccments
never disturbed them. Mr. Shaw,
ON the other hand, has made a
study Of the human race as human
race, and has dipped rather deeply
into a number of the activities OF
the race with a view Of finding out
not only what made il do the Things
II did 10, but how the things it did
affected the things it did tnem 70;
For many things ne has never found
an answer And IL is because of this
fact that his philosophy is lilled with
that idea-that you can't lind the
answer to a lot of questions and that
anything that is to be of beneht to
he human family as a whole must
axe into account what the human
family is going to do to it
~ rNgV g c
both the moving picture variety and
The other kinds that they never
consider the human race as human.
And also the trouble with most
moving picture moralists is that
ihey never see a moving picture.
They have their own idea of what
a picture is. but they won't go into
q place that exhibits them. One
Of the most lovable old ladies of our
acquaintance, who has never been
IN a moving picture house in her
life, thinks they are the vilest dens
VI iniquity on earth. She doesn l
know a thing in the world about
'hem-eXcept what she has heard
rom people quite as Ignorant as
herself. Mr.. Shaw has the reverse
Of such an attitude. He is, in a
sense, a photoplay enthusiast, and
he has devoted considerable time
TO an investigation of the effect of
lle play on Ine people dlu-lnlS -
something that nobody else has ever
taken the trouble TO consider-the
effect of the people on the photo
play! 1t is from this latter stand
point, largely, that his discussion of
he film is based. He contends that
the standard OF morality of the film
Is too high because il must be made
TO meet the requirements of such a
wide variety of moral codes. 1t can
not skim the surface of them all. 1t
must be straight standard that
touches all the altitudinous points in
all the moral codes and bridges all
the gaps in such a way that II
forms a lid under which are hidden
many valuable lessons in human
frailty. MI. Shaw says:
The cinema must be not merely
ordinarily and locally moral. but eX-
traordinarily and internationally
moral. 4 film must go round the
world unchallenged if the maximum
Of profit is to be made from it Ordi-
nary theaters in London and Paris
can specialize in pOrnOgraphlc farce
because the relatively small class
which toIerates and likes this SORT
of entertainment is numerous enough
IN huge cities TO support one thea
ter Such .farces, if they go to the
provinces. have to be Bowdlerized
either by omitting the Objectionable
passa ges or slurring them over. But
a film can not be BowdleriZed; it
must be as suitable for Clapham and
canterbury as for Leicester Square.
The result NAV be studied q [ any
picture palace. You have what an
agricultural laborer thinks right.
and what an old-fashioncd governeSs
thinks properly sentimental. The
nelodramas are more platitudinous
than melodrams has ever been be-
fore. The farces, more crudely
~ lnd
ever enacted by living performers.
are redeemed only by the fantastic
imposSibilitieS which the tHCkery
Of the film makes practicable There
Is no comedy, no wit, no criticism
Of morals by ridiCule or otherwise.
no exposure of the unpleasant CON
Eegu~nces of romantic scntimentality
and reckless tomfoolery in real life,
nothing that could give a disagree
= bic shock TO the stupid or shake the
elf-COmplacency Of the SNUG. In
he early days Of the Cinematograph,
when il was a scarce and expensive
curiosity. some of the films were
clever and witty. All that is gone
now. The levelinC down has hC-au
Thoroughly accomplished. Tho Lon
don boy is given the morality OF the
mining camp. and IN" Chinese pirate
has TO accent with rev<r.N.re the
proprieues Of our cathedral towns.
Now. levclin". though excellent in
Income. is disastrous n morals The
moment you allow one man to re-
reive a larger income than another
you are on the road to ruin. Rut tie
moment -Ou prevent on" man hav-
Ing A more advanced morality than
another. YOU are on the sam" road.
And here We are not concerned with
Tn, question Of teaching the London
hoy the criticisms Of current morality
made hv NietZsche. Ibs"n, and
O,-eE "..N
worthy. Hankin. and self Cparion
the popular phrase). nor the phil
Osophv of Rergson These authors
would not bc poDular with children
IN any case. Eut il is quite mis-
take 10 suprDs" that conventional