Evening star., 1933-01-22

lVl philosopher, and one who
clings to his faith of not
liking more than one or two plays
a year, now comes forth with an
article called 1.-The Smutty Cen
sors" lin the American Spec
tator), in which he roastS the
cinema for being manhandled by
those in authority. He claims
that since the cenSors have called
a comparative "hands off" on the
drama the drama has become as
pure as the lilies Of the field, and
that since the cenSors have begun
to take the screen seriously 1t has
produced many weeds which
should be routed with all possible
speed.
Says he: I'm only two new
plays produced thus far this sea-
son, whether in New York or else-
where, has there been any ap-
Proclamation to the smut that used
to smear the stage in the days
And both plays, The Stork is
Dead and The Great Magoo,
were abrupt failures and were
removed to the storehouse in
short order.
But consider the talking pic
lures. These pictures, as is suffl-
ciently known, are under the di-
rect censorship control not only
of the cities and States, but, in
ternally, of the Hays offices in
California and New York. Yet
they have become Smuttier and
dirtier than the pictures ever were
before, and Smuttier and dirtier
than the dramatic stage has ever
dared to be. Things have got
to such a point, indeed, that the
trade journals often have to iden-
tify this or that picture as safe
for the family trade lest neigh
borhood exhibitors unwittingly
book samples of the other kind
for their unsuspecting respectable
customers"
Mr.. Nathan then goes on to
prove his point by bringing up
such films as THE Cockeyed
World" THE Thirteenth Guest"
and Tempest" and dozens and
dozens of others" in which "the
public has been treated to lines,
illusions, bits Of business, etc,
that the censorless dramatic the
ater would not think of riSking."
1T would not be fair to say that
Mr.. Nathan doesn't know his
business as far as the cinema is
concerned, but we would politely
like to suggest that perhaps he
has not looked into this as far
as he might have, and that his
statements, although not false,
are exaggerated far beyond real
ity. On the one hand Mr.. Nathan
points to only two plays pro
duced in New York and else
where" which suffered by their
basenesS - and overlookS such
works as Dinner at Eight" a
grand entertainment, but one
which nevertheless would never
reach the screen intact. On the
other hand, he points to three
films, two of which have met with
thorough disapproval, which ne
accuses of debaSing the puDllcS
morals, and communicating them
more than the stage, in its wick
eldest moments, ever did.
We politely object to Mr..
Nathan's statement that pictures
"have become smuttier and dirtier
than the dramatic stage has ever
dared to be-" We seem to remem-
ber vague shades of certain
Lulu Belle" and a certain Pagan
Lady," and one Constant Sinner"
and dozens of others" which the
screen would blush to reproduce.
While we do not mean to say
that the films are free from eYil
influences, it has occurred to us
that at this particular moment
they are accomplishing such nice
things, such new and interesting
examples of real dramatic value,
that it seems unkind to give them
q dig as being more sullied and
sorrier than ever-which they are
not.
COME people seem to want to in
Sist that no good can come
from the screen. They are SO
set in their old ways, so pro-
foundly moved by the fact that
the talkieS mean Hollywood and
that Hollywood means deStruc-
tion, that it is impossible for them
to take the talkies seriously. No
matter what they do the talkies
are held up as childish efforts,
weak and vain and in no way
comparable to the drama. And