A student of child psychology (blessed word) opines that a child criminal is often the outcome of the cinema—forgetting, probably, that child-criminals existed long before the “movies” were even thought of, and overlooking the fact that “penny dreadfuls” used to be credited or discredited with this in the days gone by.
Nevertheless, the film as a new force must be recognized. At a recent Congress on Child Welfare, held in Brussels, the importance and value of the moving picture was referred to as frequently as its dangers; and it was agreed that the problem was not how to nullify, but how to harness this new power.
For the sake of the children it was proposed that a form of moral control of films should be set up. The control, it was suggested, should be exercised by a central and special commission composed of persons nominated by the Government and chosen from members of elected bodies, from associations of artists and literary people, from societies for the protection of childhood, and also from firms having an interest in the film business, producers and importers of films. Special exhibitions for children were advocated. This important phase is treated upon at some length in this volume.
The film has, however, a wider sphere than in the confines of the juvenile—that of the adolescent and the adult, summed up in the one term of “the Public.”
“Public instruction should be the first object of Government,” declared Napoleon (although Buonaparte never foresaw that he would be so ignominiously filmed in divers manners for the “instruction” of posterity). It is incredible, however, how much instruction the Public receives from the cinemas. It is, therefore, an enormous power for good or for evil.
It is well to review the position in this volume and not to shirk the issue.
All manner of indictments have been levelled against the cinemas. Writers have vied with each other in their condemnation. “The producers have prostituted a noble, useful, and marvellous art before the money god of the films,” it has been publicly asserted.
Much is being done to “ban” improper films, and it would be better for the reputation of the film-world if these immoral photo-plays were “taxed” out of existence. Such films are not “towards the education of your daughters,” as Shakespeare writes. The Public can be its own Censor. In the meantime educationists and social-reformers can strive to guide public opinion.
“I have hope that society may be reformed, when I see how much education may be reformed,” said a German writer once; and the reform of the film will come about possibly only by the people educating the film-producers to the view that it requires something else than the “adults only” brand.
While this volume advocates “direct action” against this class of film it is not intended unduly to emphasize the seamy side of the case. It is recognized to the full that there are many splendid films being “released” daily, and many managers are rendering a public service by “featuring” only the best class of picture. These many admirable productions are to be commended, and it is for the public to encourage the producers by patronizing those houses where refinement is the rule, to the exclusion of the other brand. Cinemas are public educators.