The Waterbury Democrat., 1934-07-13
EpY0UR CHILDREN
By Olive Roberts Bsrton .
x1ZS U zzl 5l5ESs. E.E

Have been looking over the mat ter of the Patman bill proposed
 this past spring to create Q federal
 motion picture commission for the purpose of regimenting the moving
 picture industry and creating a na- tional censorship of pictures. The arguments used in favor of the bill Gin which, by the way, congress was mot interested"), could be summed up in very few words. Better pictures, lessened production cost. protection of the home.
 general counsel for the Motion
 Pictures Producers and Distrtbu- tors of America, in opposition to the bill, claimed it to repudiate the N. k. A., to be discriminatory, "confiscatory', and "nonenforce- ablef; 'impracticable", unconstj-
 tutional', and so on, which in one syllable words means "it just can't be done"
 And added, and rightly, that the
 inevitable result in case of the sue
 cess of the proposed censorship, would be new companies spring ing up everywhere, "bootlegging" worse pictures than ever.
 Movie "Bootiegging" Believe it or not, but almost all, | if not all of the picture companies now turning out films have their
 own mutual restraining Jaws. If you think you see bad pic tures," said ex-Governor Carl B. ! Milliken, secretary of the associ-
 ation, then give thanks for what
 you do not see. It takes eternal vigilance to keep the public pro- tected." And added words to the effect that many of the pictures
 that seemingly shocked the public
 were thoughtfully chosen and re-
 troactive in their effect. They put
 over subtle lessons that never
 show. We know this to be true, i but however that may be, think that a national censorship would
 fail absolutely, as most national
 moral censorships have done in
 the past. It would be matter of more expensive bureaus and com-
 missions to support, with all the
 rep tape and political entangle-
 ments, loop-holes and evasions. | There were good arguments in the bill and basic truths in the op- position. But all in all I am glad
 it did not pass and see only more 1 confusion in movie censorship if
 any such bill ever does pass. sense in that case the danger of
 the type of pictures we have so far
 been spared-the French postcard type. It would be almost inevit-
 able, I believe, because hundreds
 of small and uncontrolled com panies would spring up, outside of | all organization, and it would be l impossible for the federal agents to stop the avalanche Not many people have the slightest concep- 1 ton of the enormity of the indus | try, even as it exists now. It
 would be ten times as large then and the millions of dollars year
 spent in trying to cope with the
 situation would be well nigh use-
 less.
 Effect of Bootlegging l I think many of the pictures
 now turned out are very bad. get sick of the pernicious society
 show that excuses every sort of
 social vice. I get sick of bad plots
 and suggestive lines, of low-mind-
 ed comedies and 1ow-down songs; | SICK or VulSarlIy ana cHedpneSS
 and punk. I dislike the "block"
 system that saddles bad seconds to good features and compels man. agers to take them. But all in all about three-fourths of pictures are good. The suggestion make is to
 bring some force to bear on the
 existing producers. The public is
 that force. Boycott the rotten" shows. Motion pictures are big busi- ness out for money. Of course.
 But when empty theaters face low pictures these will die of disap- pointment.
 The public will get what it de- mands and nobody can save it but itself. Not even the federal gov ernment. But in one way it is
 just as we'll the matter of such a bill as Mir Patman proposed came up. It may worry some of the | more daring companies back into line, and cause them to do little
 more black-penciling on their own account.