New-York tribune., 1916-06-19

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: The letter signed "A Believer in Cen
sorship" and printed under the heading De
cadent Movies" in your paper June 4, 1916
is provoking Of specific answer. The writer
may have seen, as he claims 70 have seen.
many thousand pictures; il he has perceived
so little that is beneficial and so little that is
significant his belief in the efficacy of censor
ship is we'll founded But what, should like
to ask. of the belief Of that mass Of people
to whom the motion picture in its fascination
and mower to amuse has become as the bread
Of life? Do they look upon it as an unmiti-
gated and growing evil, demand that it be
edited for them and submit to the philosophy
that a few arbitrary censors, who do not
share in their enthusiasm, whose vision does
not extend beyond their own noses or whose
taste penetrate the magic ring Of their own
conception Of culture and morality, are well
equipped TO cut and butter their bread for
them? | should wish to hear from those peo-
pie as to whether or not, after watching so
many thousand pictures, they are led to the
conclusion that censorship is necessary.
Just what, would like to ask "A Believer
in Censorship" is permitted on the screen
which would have a few years back invoked
a storm of criticism" that if presented or
published or permitted anywhere else a few
years ago would not have invoked the same
Everywhere e-on the stage in literature, in
the forum and press-things are permitted
to-day that would have shocked our fathers
The forces Of our age have created a chasm
between what they talked about and what we
talk about; IL follows that the motion pict-
ure-the voice raucous, if you wil-most
representative of our age as its new medium
of expression is heard on the younger gene
ration's side of that chasm. Again, contrary
to "A Believer in Censorship" the motion
picture may be compared with the magazine
to good purpose. At its worst it is not as
nsidious as some of the stories which GER
tain of our most popular magazines print and
upon which they depend for their stability
Fasity exists in both, Of course, as it does
in all popular forms of entertainment where
the aim is oftenest 10 oyeremphasize life
rather than truly reveal it; but the pictures
arc frankly melodramatc and pictorial; many
Of our magazines and best sellers are sur
reptitiousy false 70 life and shadowed with
suggestion. II follows that one can just as
safely enter a motion picture theatre without
fear Of having ones morals besieged as one
can open the pages Of such publications.
The communication goes on: THE National
Board OF Censors could. if it 80 desired, ac-
complish a decided reform, but certainly is
not doing so at present" Does the writer
mean to say that the National Board Of Re
view, which, | take it, he refers TO, could
manage this reform by holding the same con-
ception of censorship as is held by the legal
state boards, whose most notable success lies
in their abuse and mutilaton OF pictures the
unobi iectionable impartially with the objec-
tionable. by basing its principle not on the
desire TO help the motion picture in con-
structive sense but rather on the aim 70
prune it after the manner Of those reformers
who have no sympathy with the less cultured
enthusiasm Of the masses for what though
often crude, is thrilling. who have no pa
tience with which 70 await the slow develop
ment of raw medium of expression into an
art form and whose interest lies chiefly in
the pleasure Of finding fault rather than in
that Of being entertained?
The National Board Of Review, by trying
10 work in a constructive advisory capacity
with the producers. by endeayorng to gauge
the sentiment Of motion picture audiences
throughout the country. by recognizing as
valuable the opinion of those through whom
the motion picture has become the peoples
theatre and rejecting that opinion in its
critical action on pictures, is working out
policy that will amalg gamate in motion pict-
ure production what is best in the motion
picture and best in the taste of its audience
The contention that hundreds Of thou
sands OF small children witness films every
day which would be suitable for presentation
only before an audience composed of the
most hardened persons" is so erroneous as 20
! be ridiculous Must We believe the motion pict-