Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1922-04-06

IN not pass!"
This is the new slogan of New York
theatrical producers who are now mobiliz-
| ing their forces to fight the bill providing
for state censorship of the stage when it
comes up before the legislature at Albany.
| In their frantic efforts to avert such calam-
| ity, they have hit upon novel idea. They
| will consent, they assert, to have all pro-
auctions against which complaints are made
tried by a public jury.
According to this plan, the city authorities
would draw from panel of 800 names, a
jury of IL representative citizens to consider
the character of the production under at
tack. If this jury, after studying the show,
should report against it, then by previous
binding contract all interests concerned
including the manager, playwright and act
ors-would be compelled either to remodel
the Objectionable parts or promptly with
draw the play. If, on the other hand, the
jury failed to support the complaints, the
play would be allowed to continue
In other words, by this unique scheme, the
producers hope to be able to make the pub
lie the arbiter in the matter of questionable
shows instead of a prejudiced state board
Of censorship, probably chosen by the very
reform organization responsible for it's
creation.
There is no board imaginable" declares
one opponent to censorship, which will not
be personal in it's judgments, and to that
extent capricious and tyrannical There is no
harm than good. If the board is radical, the
| range of drama is as sure to be narrowed to
suit radical preference and purpose as it
| must be narrowed to suit the conservatives
if the conservatives should dominate. The
state, in other words, cannot possibly en-
ploy censorship without to that extent en-
trenching personal government. That is the
evil of censorship, which is a deliberate &C
centuation of the most dangerous element in
public control"
hv fho {rrI1 60
would be determined by the personal preju-
dices Of IL jurors, but at least the jury would
not be always the same. The producers would
have the benefit of variety of opinion
since that which seems indecent to some
people appears innocuous to others.
Professional RefOrmers May Object
The great difficulty, Of course, is in get
ting the reformers to abandon their will-to-
power activities and to agree to the plan.
To those who recently witnessed the brave
but futile efforts of the movie producers to
prevent censorship in this state this diff
Guilty would appear insurmountable but the
theatrical producers evidently do not intend
to submit without fight. So far, however,
their campaign has been more subtle than
offensive, their object apparently being to
conciliate rather than to antagonize the CEN
sorship advocates. Thus, it is noticeable that
the theater and the pulpit have recently be-
come very friendly. Ministers of the gospel
are now admitted to new plays on the same
footing with celebrated dramatic critics;
prominent actresses invite them to tea, and
theaters have been offered to them for the
holding of religious services.
1t all started with the recent debate in a
Baptist church between William A. Brady
and DR.. John Roach Straton, who is the lead
er Of the movement for stage censorship. On
this occasion DR.. Straton indicted the mod
ern theater first Of all because of the harm
it does to the girls and women upon the
stage itself, and secondly, because the thea
trica1 managers are capitalizing womanly
modesty and making merchandise of those
female graces and charms that God has de-
signed for holy purposes.
Things that used to be said at stag par
ties are now openly discussed for the bene-
fit of both sexes" he declared. "The red
light district has been supplanted by the
white light district and the price of promo
tion in many cases is the surrender of virtue.
1t is no wonder that under these sad and
tragic conditions one of these directors
turns up now and then with a bullet in his
brain or heart" This last was reference to
the Taylor murder.