New Britain herald., 1925-02-02
FILM CENSORSHIP OF DOUBTFUL UTILITY

 many other citizens believe un- necessary.
 The question is brought to the fore in Connecticut through the bill of Representative Ernest L, Averill who wishes a state board of review to pass on films.
 An important part of the plan is that the three members of the board would go on the state pay roll. so that there would be three additional political plums to hand out. Another important feature is that there would be fee of S2 charged for reviewing film Of l. 900 feet or less and $2 for each ad- ditional film,
 What the film producers do not like is state boards of censorship. If every state has a censorship board which is a law unto itself, what will become of the films? they ask. These boards rarely agree as to what is objectionable in film, and an attempt to meet the differing re- ouirements of various state boards is a hopeless task. The result is that the industry is placed in a strait jacket.
 There are records of censorship boards perpetrating ridiculous mutilations of films, until no sem bIance to the original remains and with a result that is worthless from any standpoint. If there were broad minded individuals with @ trained art sense on these boards the situation might be different; but in too many cases members ol such boards are composed of pseudo-reformers or political ap- pointees.
 No film producer, spending hun dreds of thousands of dollars in the production of a film based on the conceptions of trained artists of the craft, should be compelled to risk the mutilation and destruction Of his screen play merely because It does not meet with the varying ethical, moral and artistic ideals Of 4S separate and distinct censorship boards, Rather than run such risks he will produce films solely worthy of being shown to Kindergarten classes.
 On the other hand, the film in- terests can do much to head off the censorship bug by avoiding sex titles. in which the words "passion' "loye lure" stolen sweets" and the like prcdominate. Such titles usuallv are mere catch-pcnny de- vices. Some of the classic stories o' literature have been embalmed ir Aims but their titles changed tc conform to this childish practice Film producers should reVamp theli ideas about the value of sucA titles . tbev seem to think that title tha' suggests a bad woman has higf box office value Perhaps it has but it also stimulates the prcsen'a' lion of censorship bills in the leg's' minds?
 If is claimed that the producer of no good" film need worry aoou censorship, as every good" film will be passed intact. This is no true. Plenty of film versions O classic stories remaining true to th' scenes and actions of the originals found in every public library AaN' been mutilatcd. Even many BiDLica stories, if filmed true to the eNac accounts in the Book, would fail '' pass some censors.
 Censorship bodies are given 'n'
 EIYt exercise too much power, No Ill" rroducer should be thrown upon tn mereies of some appointees cage to wield power.
 And what about the bad films f there is no censorship, what is U nrevent them from being shown U the evident detriment of adOlescen minds ?
 It is said by some theater owner nat an out-and-out wicked hln u,,u i'll the seats in nearly any the ater and that the urge to turn 'hi .nec,es of warped public taste | eosncial account is irresistible pnscrupulous dollar chasers anon nroancers - and there are a 'e' spcb. as there are such indiNio"" ,p every business and profession