Film censorship, 1910s America, and trawling the Proquest news archives
Hello! Been a while since I've posted anything on here. What follows is an essay I wrote for my film history subject last year. Some extra line breaks were added for ease of reading. I'm thinking of posting some more of my essays, potentially... Please, don't dogpile me for inaccuracies and generalisations - I wrote this in an energy-drink-fuelled haze as fast as possible, and if I could have kept more words in, I would have. Alas, those words are now lost to time (and my Google Docs history), so there's no adding them back now. Additionally, I apologise for the referencing; the original was done in footnotes, and no offence, but there's absolutely no way that I'm reformatting my entire reference list to author-in-text just for the 3 people who may read this.
A thousand cuts: motion picture censorship and social instability in early 20th century America
During the late 1910s, the US film industry began to be criticised by various authorities for producing and exhibiting ‘immoral’ movies. Calls for strict censorship and regulation of motion pictures were heard nationwide. Why did simple moving pictures, a seemingly harmless form of entertainment, cause such moral outrage? Who were the most vocal individuals and organisations? This essay will outline the some of the discourse around film censorship in the 1900s and 1910s, using primary sources drawn from historical archives as a basis. Examination of both primary and secondary sources will allow exploration of why and by whom the motion picture industry was criticised, and how this reflected the sociocultural environment of the early 20th century United States.
The first motion pictures depicted a variety of innocuous scenes: a train arriving at a station, a family eating breakfast, figures in a garden. These very early films were more a technological spectacle than entertainment for the masses. As motion pictures grew more widespread and more profitable, various authorities and social groups were shocked (or, perhaps, threatened) by what was portrayed on screen. These “guardians of civic virtue” monitored films from the first motion picture kiss in 1896.[1] The most famous (or perhaps infamous) win for the pro-censorship crowd was the introduction of the Motion Picture Production Code, more commonly known as the Hays Code, in 1934 - but the Hays Code was simply the culmination of a long tradition of film censorship.[2]
Even in the late 19th century, police chiefs, government officials, and religious leaders were advocating for close supervision of theatres exhibiting films. There was considerable fear of moral degradation and increased crime, and many citizens called for authorities to “eliminate objectionable features” of motion pictures, chronicled in many news articles of the period.[3] Given the very recent emergence of film as entertainment, there was no roadmap or infrastructure for what motion picture censorship should look like. This resulted in some trial-and-error.
The work of censorship, particularly post-distribution, required a lot of time and money. Often, this work fell to police officers, who raided theatres or revoked the licenses of exhibitors.[4] Possibly the first instance of this was as early as 1897, when police banned Orange Blossoms and arrested its exhibitor.[5] This early censorship was “fought out largely over the licensing and regulation of theatrical space”, as opposed to the content of the films themselves.[6]
Raids and arrests were a scare tactic, but not a particularly effective one; objectionable films continued to be exhibited because they attracted customers.[7] Additionally, police were acting on tips and complaints, without any kind of systematic review process. Post-distribution censorship was not sustainable. In 1908, Washington, D.C. Police Commissioner MacFarland was quoted as suggesting citizens volunteer “not only to report questionable performances, but to prosecute in court”.[8] Comments like these encouraged the creation of various censorship boards, staffed by members of various social organisations and demographics, each wishing to preserve their moral ideals. These boards advised cities which pictures ought to be shown, cut, or banned.[9]
The organisations which were represented on censor boards can tell us a lot about the push for censorship, as well as US society in general. Those represented on censor boards were often religious leaders, businessmen, politicians, and social workers, whose “motives ranged from a suspicion that anything that was entertaining must be evil to an honest, if misdirected, desire to safeguard the morals of their fellow citizens”.[10] Additionally, the influence and agendas of law enforcement cannot be understated. In Chicago, the very first US censor board (established in 1907) was chaired by the Police Superintendent.[11] According to one Washington Post article, the International Association of Chiefs of Police in 1910 condemned the motion picture industry because “the police are sometimes made to appear ridiculous”.[12] Although law enforcement were not always the sole arbiters of what was allowed on screen, the police maintained an active role in film censorship from the 1890s into the 1910s.
From their inception, censor boards were overwhelmingly white and Christian. Unfortunately, this can be said of most US institutions from the beginning of the 20th century right up to the present day.[13][14] In 1914, Rev. A. J. Carey (an African-American man) was appointed to the Chicago Board of Motion Picture Censorship, seven years after its establishment.[15] This was only after considerable social pressure from community leaders and journalists, and was necessary to prevent the exhibition of films titled with slurs, or which would provoke racial violence.[16][17]
The prevention of violence was one of the major arguments for censorship. The release of the infamous The Birth of a Nation (1915) directly resulted in an increase in racist violence and was one of the catalysts for the “rebirth” of the Klu Klux Klan.[18] However, most arguments against the portrayal of violence on screen were comparatively flimsy. According to a 1908 article in The Washington Post, it was stated at a hearing that “moving pictures exert even greater influence on the young than books or magazines”, and that violence on screen perpetuates violence in reality.[19] It appears that no evidence was given to support this.
In the early years of film censorship, the depiction of violence (even in the case of teaching a moral lesson) was met with uproar.[20] Even the mere suggestion or symbolism of violence was cause for censorship.[21] This is an argument that has been rehashed over the years on many fronts, most relevantly with regard to video game violence. However, no research concretely supports the idea that media violence increases violent crime.[22][23] These claims were (and still are) based on speculation alone.
Prevention of ‘moral degradation’ and ‘sexual deviancy’ was another of the primary driving forces for censorship. Although representations of sensuality on screen were generally criticised, two instances in particular were complex for film censors: the production of ‘white slave trade’ films (which discussed sex trafficking and prostitution), and the spread of both venereal disease and educational films about sexual health. Films that informed on and sensationalised sex trafficking and ‘white slavery’ became hugely popular in New York in 1913, after the release of Traffic in Souls and The Inside of the White Slave Traffic.
Such “vice pictures” were extremely controversial, and resulted in police raids, arrests, and films being banned in several locations (despite being initially approved by some censors given apparent educational value).[25][26] These events sparked a wide debate about freedom of expression. However, after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1915 (which denied motion pictures protection from censorship under freedom of speech), film censorship became more systematic, leaving the industry facing the possibility of “death by a thousand cuts”.[27]
The spread of venereal disease, particularly during the First World War, was another matter of great public concern. A film produced as an educational tool for soldiers, Fit to Fight, was reworked and exhibited to the public as Fit To Win (1919).[28] Once again, a public debate was had around educational value versus indecency. One New York Times article states that, despite the fact that the film had produced “very beneficial results” during the war, the exhibition of it to the general public could have an “immoral effect”.[29] Naturally, what this effect might actually be is not elaborated on.
Both these instances were part of an important discussion about the power of censorship and the power of motion pictures, and entrenched the idea that film had great propaganda potential, as well as the ability to create real social change. It was made clear that “the battle was ultimately for the minds of spectators assumed to be profoundly influenced by the films they saw”.[30] By the end of the 1910s, “the site of regulation shifted from negotiations among local interests over performance space to a Hollywood centered brokering of what was permissible on American screens”.[31]
In trawling archives for these primary sources, it became evident that many of the reasons given by authorities both for and against censorship were not truthful motivations. Did the motion picture industry really care about public health and sexual education, or freedom of speech and artistic expression? Perhaps the writers did, but it’s likely that the exhibitors and producers cared only about profit. Additionally, did police censor motion pictures out of a desire to uplift society’s morals? Or because they perceived film as threatening the status quo, or (as highlighted by the quote from the International Association of Chiefs of Police) they thought motion pictures might threaten the credibility and reputation of law enforcement? These questions may not be able to be answered definitively, but an analysis of 1910s US society can certainly shed some light.
Couvares (2011) characterises the censorship discourse of the early 20th century as a “conflict over popular culture”.[32] He states that there was one major motivation for censorship, of which race and sexuality struggles were aspects: “at stake was power: to assert one's class and ethnic interests over those of others, to take symbolic control over public space, to defend gender and family norms against the disruptive and relativizing force of the marketplace”.[33] Even in the 1920s, the discourse around censorship was seen for what it truly was - a power struggle. David Edstrom, writing for the Los Angeles Times in 1921, identified both censors and producers as “opposing evils”, as “fanatics” and “get-rich-quicks” that were threatening a new art form.[34]
Such social instability was caused by a number of underlying factors, including an immigration boom and rapid economic growth, which led some to feel that “American values and ideals” were under siege.[35] Leff & Simmons (2013) attribute later instability to the “bitter aftershock” of World War I.[36] Political tensions between conservatives and reformers, racial tensions between disparate groups, and the women’s suffrage movement made the early 20th century US a volatile environment. All of these social tensions can be observed through the lens of motion picture censorship; concerns about the exploitation of women being voiced, discussions of freedom of expression versus prevention of violence, religious groups vying for authority, and industry representatives searching for the most financially beneficial solution.
After thorough examination of archived news articles from the period, certain facts about early motion picture censorship are obvious. Initially, censorship was achieved post-distribution, primarily by law enforcement, before transitioning to a process of approval by censor boards. Thus, censorship began to focus less on licensing and physical space, and more on ‘hearts and minds’.
Over the years, there were many pro-censorship arguments, including prevention of crime and violence, prevention of public indecency, and prevention of exploitation or sensationalism. There were also anti-censorship arguments, on the basis of educational value, freedom of expression, and fear of corruption within censor boards, with “too much power in the hands of a few”.[37] Most of these arguments, particularly once motion pictures were established as an industry, were not really put forward out of a desire to do social good, but out of a desire for power.
By examining primary sources discussing censorship, a portrait of the early 20th century US has emerged: volatile, patchwork, and afraid. The censorship of motion pictures was primarily a battle for sociocultural power, in an era of anxiety and instability.
REFERENCES
[1] Thomas Doherty, Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930-1934, New York: Columbia University Press, 1999: p. 5.
[2] Doherty, p. 1.
[3] The Washington Post, “POLICE SHOW CENSORS: ORDERED TO KEEP THEIR EYES ON PICTURE THEATERS...”, Jun 3, 1908, https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/police-show-censors/docview/144839831/se-2.
[4] Shelley Stamp Lindsey, “Oil upon the flames of vice’: The battle over white slave films in New York City”, Film History 9, no. 4 (1997): p. 356.
[5] Frank Walsh, Sin and Censorship: The Catholic Church and the Motion Picture Industry, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996: p. 6.
[6] Daniel Czitrom, “The Politics of Performance: From Theater Licensing to Movie Censorship in Turn-of-the-Century New York”, American Quarterly 44, no. 4 (1992): p. 525.
[7] Lindsey, p. 352.
[8] The Washington Post, Jun 3, 1908.
[9] Mary P. Erickson, “‘In the Interest of the Moral Life of our City’: The Beginning of Motion Picture Censorship in Portland, Oregon”, Film History 22, no. 2 (2010): p. 151.
[10] Walsh, p. 10.
[11] Walsh, p. 7.
[12] Alyssa Rosenberg, “How police censorship shaped Hollywood”, The Washington Post, Oct 24, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2016/10/24/how-police-censorship-shaped-hollywood/.
[13] “A revealing look at racial diversity in the federal government”,The Partnership for Public Service, accessed Sept 8, 2022, https://ourpublicservice.org/blog/a-revealing-look-at-racial-diversity-in-the-federal-government/.
[14] Jeanne Sahadi, “Corporate America promised to get more diverse. But it's still mostly White women making gains”, CNN Business, June 8, 2021, https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/08/success/board-diversity-corporate-america/index.html.
[15] The Chicago Defender, "DEFENDER STOPS RACE RIDICULE IN CHICAGO: WINS FIGHT FOR REPRESENTATION ON BOARD OF MOVING PICTURE CENSORS…", Mar 21, 1914. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/defender-stops-race-ridicule-chicago/docview/493272179/se-2.
[16] The Chicago Defender, "RACE STILL HAS NO REPRESENTATIVE ON FILM CENSOR BOARD…", Mar 14, 1914. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/race-still-has-no-representative-on-film-censor/docview/493279077/se-2.
[17] Fred H. Gresham, "RACE MEN OPPOSE SHOWING…", The Chicago Defender, May 15, 1915. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/race-men-oppose-showing-nigger/docview/493335065/se-2.
[18] Desmond Ang, “The Birth of a Nation: Media and Racial Hate,” 2022. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3740907.
[19] The Washington Post, Jun 3, 1908.
[20] The New York Times, "JUDGES LAY CRIME TO IMPROPER FILMS…", Jan 18, 1925. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/judges-lay-crime-improper-films/docview/103679255/se-2.
[21] The Washington Post, Jun 3, 1908.
[22] Joanne Savage, “Does Viewing Violent Media Really Cause Criminal Violence? A Methodological Review”, Aggression and Violent Behavior 10, no. 1 (2004): 99-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.10.001.
[23] Sarah M. Coyne, “Does Media Violence Cause Violent Crime?”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 13, no. 3-4 (2007): 205-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-007-9044-5.
[24] The Washington Post, "'SLAVE' FILMS SHOWN: AUDIENCE AND OFFICIALS SEE VIEWS POLICE OBJECTED TO…", Dec 23, 1913. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/slave-films-shown/docview/145246570/se-2.
[25] Lindsey, p. 351.
[26] The Washington Post, "STOPPED BY POLICE: "WHITE SLAVE" FILMS FORBIDDEN AT BELASCO THEATER…", Dec 22, 1913. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/stopped-police/docview/145237783/se-2.
[27] Walsh, p. 9.
[28] The New York Times, “A FILM CONTROVERSY”, May 18, 1919. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/film-controversy/docview/100452693/se-2.
[29] https://www.proquest.com/news/docview/100452693/C6D7E6AF510548FCPQ/9.
[30] Lindsey, p. 361.
[31] Czitrom, p. 548.
[32] Francis G. Couvares, “So This Is Censorship: Race, Sex, and Censorship in Movies of the 1920s and 1930s”, Journal of American Studies 45, no. 3 (2011): p. 582.
[33] Couvares, p. 582.
[34] David Edstrom, "SCISSORS REAL MENACE TO ART…", Los Angeles Times, Mar 06, 1921. https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/scissors-real-menace-art/docview/160860956/se-2.
[35] Erickson, p. 149.
[36] Leonard J. Leff & Jerold Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code, Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2013: p. 3.
[37] Erickson, p. 151.
That's all I have to say, I think.