The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-08-11
Liberal Viewpoint
BY DR.. HARRY ELMER BARNES

THE fundamental cultural issue involved in
L the movement to purge the movies is one OF
far greater significance than is perceived usually
It goes more deeply than the question of the
profits of a great industry or the salaries of its
artists It also is something wider than the issue
of whether or not self-constituted bodies shall
censor the education, morals and art of the
American people.
1t brings sharply to the fore the basic ques-
ton of who shall be our guides in so advanced
and highly civilized an age as the second quarter
of the twentieth century.
Moving pictures are more than an industry.
They are, or certainly should be, a prominent
element in our culture ranking with the news
papers, radio, and the stage.
They already have attained a marvellous de-
velopment as a manifestation of applied science
and popular art In spite of all the valid crit
icism which may be leveed against them it is
doubtful whether any other notable product of
recent capitalstic enterprise offers more to the
public for its money or contains so slight an
element of evil in proportion to the educational
and recreational facilities provided.
A LMOST any sane and civilized man would,
N however, welcome any intelligent move
ment, within or without the films, to insure
better pictures. We would profit greatly if we
could have productions which dealt with more
vital and realistic themes. The movies could
do far more than they achieve at present IN
the way of popular education and social
guidance Even from the artistic standpoint,
where the movies are admittedly strongest,
there is immense room for improvement.
While not movie addict myself I certainly
have seen representative movies which fall into
every category of film productions 1 have
never seen in any movie open to the public any
production which struck me as even moderately
approaching obScenity or immortality
have been impressed much more frequently
with inSufferable dullneSS or the incredible
triviality and imbecility of many pictures. There
are some very popular film clowns who seem TO
me in every way far more Objectionable than
hundred May Vests or Clara Bows. 1 say
this not as an apostle of solemnity, for can
enjoy Eddie Cantor very thoroughly ana even
can take the Marx Brothers couple OF times
year with some gusto.
EVEN this most deadly charge against the
T. movies-that of a prevailing trend toward
trivality nonsense and too often sheer imbecility
may be lodged quite as much against the Amer
lean public as against the film industry.
personally am we'll acquainted with some
of the leading producers and know that they
would much prefer to make their millions out
of worthy and educational films if they could
do so.
Many a producer has spent large sums in
making pictures which dealt intelligently with
an important current social theme only to find
that the antics of one of his clowns brought in
a hundredfold more paid admissions.
InaSmuch as the film industry is not char
liable enterprise, but one of the most highly
organized and extensively equipped of capital
istic undertakings, it hardly can be blamed if it
produces what the public wants.
1t is nothing else than the old, old story
of having to vend the wares for which there
is a mass demand if we are going to operate an
elaborate industry under the profit system.
No honest and fair critic of the movies well
can allege that the producers have been as
reluctant to give us films providing both social
education and a high order of entertainment as
the public has been in giving the necessary sup
port to such laudabe efforts.