rttrican It .pictur rectorp tUt ©irettorp of Class /^/ OS'' Bonk .A 1 - G3pyii^htN^_ Scanned from the collections of The Library of Congress AUDIO-VISUAL CONSERV'ATION at The UBKARY t CONGRESS Packard Cannpus for Audio Visual Conservation www.loc.gov/avconservation Motion Picture and Television Reading Room www.loc.gov/rr/mopic Recorded Sound Reference Center www.loc.gov/rr/record THE AMERICAN MOTION PICTURE DIRECTORY A CYCLOPEDIC DIRECTORY OF THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY 1914-15 PUBLISHED BY AMERICAN MOTION PICTURE DIRECTORY CO. CHICAGO, U. S. A. Copyright 1915 by American Motion Picture Directory Co., Chicago, 111. (' \ HE American Motion Pic- ture Directory Company presents this as its first Directory of the moving picture business. This volume is, we trust, the forerunner of editions to follow year by year, it represent- ing pioneer work of this kind, and is subject to criticism and improve- ments. This Company will welcome suggestions and criticisms and en- deavor to improve future edijtions. It is the hope of the managers that the American Motion Picture Directory will become the standard for the business it represents. ©GI,A398979 CENSORSHIP The most perplexing question in connection with the motion picture industry is that relating to the censorship of films. The legal and ethical questions involved are many and complicated. Motion picture censorship arose out of the manufacture and exhibition of a class of pictures depicting sectional, national and class prejudices; the exploitation of notorious characters; insanity; use and effects of habit-forming drugs and narcotics; sacrilegious and allied subjects; barrooms, drinking and drunkenness; vulgarity in pictures; prolonged passionate love scenes; costuming—tights and insufficient clothing; infidelity and sex problems; women smoking and drinking; underworld scenes; opium joints, gambling; dance halls and other objectionable resorts; deeds of violence; pictures dealing with the social evil; the senseless use of weapons; treatment of officers of the law and disrespect for the law; motives and results of crime; crimes of violence against property and persons; prize fight scenes; gambling joints and other objectionable pictures. All reputable film manufacturers recognize the necessity for some form of voluntary control or legal censorship; otherwise irresponsible concerns would turn out a class of pictures which, if not prohibited, would in a short length of time discredit the whole industry, and the greatest form of amusement in the world today would gradually fall into disrepute. To curb this evil intelligently is the most important problem now confronting the manufacturers, pro- ducers and exhibitors. The question arises—-who shall have jurisdiction covering censorship of films? Shall it be the federal government, the state government, municipal governments through their police powers, or shall it be accom- plished in the United States by the film manufacturers voluntarily submitting their films to the National Board of Censorship, a voluntary organization comprised of some of the greatest philanthropists, charity workers and public-spirited citizens in the United States, or shall there be no censorship at all? The National Board of Censorship of motion pictures has given this matter profound and intelligent consideration, yet many of the large film manufacturers refuse to co-operate with them, on the ground that no philanthropic organization has a right to curtail their liberty, any more so than that newspapers, mag- azines, paintings, works of art, etc., should be submitted to a Board of Censorship before their publication or exhibition, their theory being that no Board of Censorship, legal or otherwise, has a right to anticipate that they will produce anything improper, and that each case stands on its own bottom; that after the production of a picture or other work of art, if it is against public taste or in violation of some existing law, then that legal tribunal having jurisdiction over such matters should take whatever action might be deemed necessary. THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CENSORSHIP The late Mayor Gaynor of New York City thus expressed himself on the subject of censorship of motion pictures in a letter to the Board of Aldermen at the time of his veto of a motion picture ordinance: "In our fundamental instruments of government in this country, which we call constitutions, we ex- pressly guaranteed from the beginning, free speech and a free press, and prohibited the passing of any law abridging the same. The provision in the constitution of this state on that subject, which is substantially the same as the like provision in the constitution of the United States, and also of the states generally, is as follows: " 'Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.' "So universal has been the opinion that these constitutional provisions abolished all censorships of the press, and forbade them in the future, that we have been able to find only one attempt in this country to set up such a censorship before this one of yours. Our constitutional provision plainly is that publications, whether oral, printed, or by writing, or by pictures, shall not be restrained in advance, but that everyone shall be free to speak or publish what he sees fit, subject to being prosecuted afterwards for libel, immoral- ity, obscenity, or indecency therefor. There seem to be a few among us who wish us to retrace our steps, and resort to censorship again in advance of publication, and make it a crime to publish anything not permitted in advance by the censor. Do they know what they are doing? Do they know anything of the history and literature of the subject? Do they know that the'' ceffsaj^sliip of past ages did immeasurably more harm than good? Do they ever stop to think that such .censorships now would do even more harm 4 AMERICAN MOTION PICTURE DIRECTORY than they did in past ages, in comparison with what little good they might possibly do? I do not believe the people of this country are ready to permit any censor to decide in advance what may be published for them to read, or what pictures may be exhibited to them. Our laws forbid the publication of any libelous, obscene, indecent, immoral or impure picture or reading matter. Is not that enough? If anyone does this, he commits a criminal offense and may be punished therefor. "If this ordinance be legal, then a similar ordinance in respect of the newspapers and the theaters generally would be legal. Are you of opinion that you have any such power as that? If so, you should probably begin with the newspapers and so-called high-class theatres. Once revive the censorship and there is no telling how far we may carry it. These moving picture shows are attended by the great bulk of the people, many of whom cannot afford to pay the prices charged by the theatres. They are a solace and an education to them. Why are we singling out these people as subjects necessary to be protected by a censorship? Are they any more in need of protection by censorship than the rest of the community? That was once the view which prevailed in government, and there are some among us, ignorant or untaught by past ages, who are of that view now. Are they better than the rest of us, or worse?" THE STANDARDS OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF CENSORSHIP OF MOTION PICTURES Film censorship cannot be reduced to unchangeable rules. Even the principles often must be held tenta- tively until it is known whether a given principle is really no more than a prejudice. Film censorship encounters all those problems which still are obscure at the present stage of our knowledge of social ethics, of the nature of emotional response, of suggestion and of psychological reaction. THE FUNCTIONS OF MOTION PICTURE CENSORSHIP AND ITS EVILS The function of motion picture censorship is to pass upon motion pictures prior to their being released to the general public, permitting only the issuance of the morally unobjectionable ones. Police censorship, however, is one of the chief attributes of autocratic and paternalistic governments. There is involved here a fundamental principle which must not be considered lightly. It is the principle of liberty of speech and liberty of creation. The curtailment of this liberty is a matter of grave social danger. The moving pic- ture show represents expression of dramatic and of news events. In both of these, censorship is a delicate matter, and unless practiced with broadmindedness and liberality, is apt to do more harm than good. As soon as censorship passes beyond the realm of education and suggestive guidance, and becomes a matter of coercion, it is on dangerous ground. Society must, however, in some way, regulate motion pictures without permitting the establishment of a despotic form of legal censorship. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL BOARD AND THE TRADE INTERESTS The National Board of Censorship was organized in March, 1909, by the People's Institute, at the request of the theatres exhibiting motion pictures in New York City. At the request of a majority of the manufac- turers of motion picture films the scope of the work became national in June, 1909. Since that date the board has gained an increasing control over the films exhibited in America, until now it is claimed this or- ganization views over 95 per cent of all films shown to the American public. The board has, since June, 1909, been administered by the People's Institute of New York, whose clerical machinery is utilized in part by the board. These members are drawn from every group, such as professional people, social workers and others interested in motion picture problems.