The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-09-26
ARTICLE ~.

bhODQC AIO4N dlOuS uOcb nOl ONS4'
4 come all the obstacles to the use
OF proletarian film by the labor or
CARNATIONS. A difficulty equally grave
with that of production is the question
of exhibition possibilities: the ques-
ton; How can we bring our pro-
letarian films before the broad
masses p
This problem is unfortunately no
easier, land in certain countries even
harder), than the problem of Great
ing the films. The state, with its
bourgeois administration, has sur
rounded also this field with veri-
table barbed wire ENHANCEMENT, lest
its monopoly be broken thru. and at
tackled on any side. The most inn
portant and most significant means in
the hands of the bourgeois govern
ment against the presentation of re-
evolutionary films is the censor. All
capitalist countries have an extremely
strict and sharp film censorship, that
is much stricter than existing press
or dramatic censorship. Censorship
regulations are put forward on the
ostensible ground Of protecting good
taste" for saving the youth from the
evil influence of bad films, and other
Jesuitical excuses. In truth, as is
proven by the actual practice of the
censors, its function is first of all to
establish political control of all mo-
ton pictures.
A S examples we can cite the atti-
tude of German film stations, of
which there are several, in Berlin,
Munich, etc. While the censors pass
all films containing outspoken, base
faced monarchist propaganda, they re-
ject categoricalIy pictures Of prole-
tartan tendency. It is demanded that
in = Russian film the scene showing
soldiers taking their oath be eliminat-
ed because one sentence pledges the
recruit to defend socialism with his
life. Censorship is today one of the
greatest obstacle to the presentation
Of proletarian revolutionary films.
"a. But even after these troubles are
fortunately overcome there hobs up
another, namely, the economic difficult
ties Of presentation Most countries,
TO nuture their own film industry, |
now impose heavy import duties and |
other restrictions against foreign |
films. So, also, Germany in 1924 ruled |
that only German producing firms |
could import foreign productions |
Since naturally, no working class or
ganization possessed its own studios |
they would be barred from the use
Of Russian films, were it not possible |
thru various by-ways to attain them |
Similar restrictions prevail in almost |
all countries.
But even with the extraordinary |
good fortune to obtain the films with |
the aid of commercial film company
and~en top of this to get it thru the |
censors, then comes the question, |
What shall we do with this finally |
imported and released picture?" "In
what manner can we now bring it be !
fore the general public, before the |
broad masses of workers and peas
ants?'
THE normal way chosen by CONNER |
cial film concerns is that of the |
big film exchange. In every country |
on earth there are these big exchang-
es which supply the market with its
films. All principal exchanges are
interlocked with the major production |
units and more or less dependent up
on them. Hence it is Understandable
that the entire question of film rental
is viewed from the angle of profit,
and that the choice and distribution
of films is made solely upon this bas-
is. In recent years the leading film
companies of Germany, as the Ufa,
etc, have embarked upon the policy Of
owning or controlling the theaters
in all principal cities and villages.
Ufa thus compels the optiences to
view its own productions and those OF
its subsidiaries. In Berlin alone Ufa
now has twenty theaters, as many as
AahfnQer has aaiO0na