Pinocchio and Snow White bring joy and delight to the thousands of children who have crowded the theaters to follow its charming tales and live the fairy tale with the keenest pleasure. With the same enthusiastic energy they will enter the local movie house and gaze in fascination at pictures of gangsterism, sophisticated sex life, and horrors which may plant all kinds of unfortunate ideas in their youthful imaginations. The potency of movies as an influence on children's minds is almost immeasurable. To attempt to determine how far reaching was this power over juveniles, some $200,000 was spent by the Payne fund and their findings published in nine carefully compiled volumes. Among the discoveries made by these studies were the emotional impact of the rapidly moving panorama on the very young child and the subsequent fatigue therefrom, the amazing retention of movie scenes by all children, many of whom remember what they have seen with tremendous influence of the movies on conduct and attitudes. In regard to this, the volume of the Payne fund studies. entitled "Movies, Delinquencies, and Crime" says:

Several important indirect influences disposing or leading persons to delinquency or crime are discernable in the experience of male offenders. Through the display of crime techniques and criminal patterns of behavior; by arousing desires for easy money and luxury, and by suggesting questionable methods for their achievement; by inducing a spirit of bravado, toughness, and adventurousness; by arousing intense sexual desires; and by invoking daydreaming of criminal roles, motion pictures may create attitudes and furnish techniques conducive, quite unwittingly, to delinquent or criminal behavior.

One may detect in the case of delinquent girls and young women influences

similar to those spoken of in the case of young men. Motion pictures may play a major or minor role in female delinquency and crime by arousing sexual passion, by instilling the desire to live a gay, wild, fast life, by evoking longings for luxury and smart appearance, and by suggesting to some girls questionable methods of easily attaining them; by the display of modes of beautification and love techniques; by the depiction of various forms of crime readily imitated by girls and young women; and by competing with home and school for an important place in the life of the girls.

Motion pictures play an especially important part in the lives of children reared in socially disorganized areas. The influence of motion pictures seems to be proportionate to the weakness of the family, school, church, and neighborhood. Where the institutions which traditionally have transmitted social attitudes and forms of conduct have broken down, as is usually the case in high-rate delinquency areas, motion pictures assume a greater importance as a source of ideas and schemes of life.

Motion pictures are a relatively new factor in modern life. While primarily a form of recreation, they play an appreciably important role in developing conceptions of life and transmitting patterns of conduct. They may direct the behavior of persons along socially acceptable lines or they may lead, as has been indicated, to misconduct. They may be, therefore, an agency of social value or of social harm.

Somewhat the same thing has been said more recently by Dr. George Gardner of the Judge Baker Guidance Center, of Boston. This center is a nationally known clinic dealing with juvenile problems and many of the children whom they serve are young delinquents. from the juvenile courts. Dr. Gardner says:

In the first place it may be said-in fact it is said that inasmuch as the criminal always gets caught in the end, inasmuch as the police are always triumphant (finally such moving pictures should deter criminals and stamp out juvenile. criminal tendencies in children by showing them that crime doesn't pay. I have been particularly interested in this point and have carried this question to the only reliable source of information that I have, namely, to the delinquent boys themselves. I think one of my boys-a boy who at 13 years and 2 months had committed 30 nighttime burglaries-gives us the answer when he casts this oft-used

argument aside by saying, "Yes, but what a hell of a good time they have in the movies before they're caught!" A denouement of 15 minutes successful police activity hardly ever erases 1 hour and 15 minutes of pockets full of money, big cars, expensive clothes, hotels, travel, and women. To be sure, such pictures do not glorify the criminal himself, but you will not deny that they do glorify the criminal act and its immediate rewards. If you sit day after day listening to the delinquent's movie experiences, likes and dislikes, and parallel them with the boy's own fantasy life and ambitions, you will not question which portion of the crime picture interests and impresses the boy most.

A second argument advanced by those who see no danger in subjecting children to these pictures runs as follows:

"All children see these movies and only a few children are delinquent, hence such movies are harmless." Without elaboration of my primary theme regarding maturity, my only answer to this is an analogy-perhaps a poor one. Most children have measles and get over them, but because I have had under my care a few children who died from the complications attendant upon measles, I would never think of encouraging parents to expose their children to the disease.

Though one cannot say that some moving pictures implant the desire to commit crime, one cannot deny that the techniques of carrying out a criminal act are sometimes first observed in the moving picture theater. By techniques I mean the formation of the gang unit; the assignment of roles to individual members; the methods of breaking and entering; the look-out; the get-away; the efficacy of firearms and lesser armamentaria, the use of the shyster lawyer and the fix. To be sure, these techniques are in many instances handed to the individual boy as a part of the culture of his neighborhood group, but where do the solitary delinquents, the many delinquents from the better social milieus, acquire this knowledge? I am told frequently that it has been acquired at the moving pictures. I am sure that in more than 50 percent of the more serious types of juvenile delinquency the techniques-all or in part-have been observed as moving picture entertainment.

The vast influence of the movies is reflected in many ways; skate sales, they tell us, increased 150 percent in the 11 years of Sonja Heinie's delightful skating pictures, the sale of amateur movie cameras soared after Clark Gable's picture Too Hot To Handle, while Shirley Temple is reputed to be responsible for the large number of children's beauty salons which have come into existence all over the country, to which little girls of three are brought in for manicures. Just how the movies are conditioning the thoughts of people about marriage and home life, however, is satirically described by E. B. White in a recent Harper's Magazine. He writes:

The newspapers of course keep one informed of the marriages, birth, deaths, separations, divorces, and salaries of the stars. If Gable weds Lombard, I know about it. When Tone and Crawford reach the end of the road I am informed. Separations and divorces are scented with the same delicate orange blossoms as marriages and elopements, the same romantic good fellowship. One of the most interesting accomplishments of the film community, it seems to me, is that it has made real for America the exquisite beauty of incompatibility. Divorce among the gods possesses the sweet, holy sadness which has long been associated with marriage among the mortals. There is something infinitely tender about the inability of an actor to get along with an actress.

**

This tradition of post-marital affection, which is discernible everywhere, is having its effect, I do not doubt, on the culture of our land. Occasionally, a divorce court judge is heard pouting about it, but the girls and boys of America eat it up. Marriage is becoming just a sort of stepping-stone to the idyllic life which lies ahead for the graduates of the course; the wedding march is just a prelude to the larger music of the spirit which accompanies the communion between ex-spouses.

As a former juvenile court probation officer I know too well the effect of such pictures as Little Caesar and Scarface, two popular old gangster pictures, which inspired more than one boy to try to be a "big shot" at crime and girls to think that "gun molls" were to be imitated if life was to be exciting. In recent years the emphasis has been changed, due to the good work of Mr. Breen, and the Ĝ-man is the hero and the

gangster is always caught. But before he is caught, what a lively life he leads. I have yet to find a small boy who frequents gangster movies who thinks that the G-man or the judge who sentences the gangster are half as fascinating as the gangster himself.

In a sense the exhibitor in small-town or neighborhood theaters is the guardian of the children of the neighborhood and even the adults, for in leasing movie entertainment, he is leasing potential education, moral influences for good or bad, and even propaganda. On their propaganda power, the Washington Times-Herald of yesterday (June 3, 1940) had this to say

Mr. KENNEDY. Is it proper to introduce that statement at this time? If it appeared in yesterday's paper, it certainly has nothing to do with these hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, it might be technically objectionable, if we were in a court proceeding, but as we all know, a great many things are received in these hearings and it is common to take into a statement things that would not be received in a court, and so in line with things already in the hearing for instance, we have had newspaper editorials in the hearings, and I think it is all right.

Mr. KENNEDY. My objection is based upon the fact that we now have the rebuttal of some of the testimony that has been given here for the past 2 weeks, and this article appeared in yesterday's paper and has no reference to the hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, we have received a good many statements of a general nature.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will submit to your good judgment in the matter, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I think in accordance with our regular practice, it may be received.

Miss LYFORD. Thank you.

(The article referred to is as follows:)

THEATERS DELETING WAR SCENES AS HYSTERIA INFECTS AUDIENCES; FANS BOO NAZIS, CHEER ALLIES.-RABBLE-ROUSING OF 1917 RECALLED; EMOTIONS SEEN PERILOUS TO PEACE

By Betty Hynes

War hysteria, a formidable threat to our neutrality and to any hope of maintaining the peace, is rapidly infecting, like the dangerous disease it is, our cinema audiences. The last 2 weeks have inspired spontaneous demonstrations among movie spectators-one notably when the commentator of a news reel remarked that the plane shot down was a Stuka, German dive-bomber.

Whatever one's sympathies, it is frightening to hear the mob shout for the hero Allies and against the villainous Boche. "That," we are told, "is exactly what happened in 1917 and got us into the last holocaust."

Some of the theaters are deleting war scenes from their news reels, a relief in the face of the deluge of horror stories being dinned into our ears. Movie houses will make a valuable contribution to the mitigation of our war nerves if they can maintain on their screens dramas and comedies that will offer us the essence of pure entertainment as well as temporary havens of escape and relief. They won't be able to do it, however, unless Hollywood stands firm against the threatening emotional inundation.

UNINTENDED RABBLE-ROUSERS

Pictures like The Mortal Storm and Four Sons were not originally made to be rabble-rousers. They were finished and ready for release before the European conflict broke all bounds, and they are aimed at a pre-war Nazi-ism, the former dealing with a German family tragically divided one against the other; the latter with the invasion of Czechoslovakia, now so remote in memory as to seem fictional. The temptation to producers to turn out war story "quickies" and cash in on the present situation must be a difficult one to resist. But if most of the studios adhere to their programs as outlined in recent conventions they will obviously

dodge the dynamite.

in this crazy world.

Their plans for comedies and musicals sounded cheering

Thus it was idle and a little foolish of Mr. Pettijohn to compare the problems of his beloved industry to that of shoes or cars, when its influence is vastly greater. And it becomes easier to see why each exhibitor must be given the right to select the most important part of his theater business himself; namely, the pictures he is to show his patrons.

It is essential that such a powerful social force should be organized along lines consistent with our pattern of self-government, liberty, and home rule just as our school system is.

II. The opponents place themselves in the position of arguing that the public taste is so low that the public must be protected from itself.

To most Americans such a theory is absurd.

In an attempt to prove this absurd theory, jumbled figures giving lists of cancelations of alleged good pictures were presented by Mr. Pettijohn and two or three other opposition witnesses. It is surprising to see that Mr. Pettijohn had no hesitation in waving before this committee the same old list which he waved like a flag at the Senate hearings last year. Look at this list and you will find as we found last year that he makes no differentiation between cancelations of affiliated or big chain theaters, where special cancelation privileges prevail, and independent exhibitors' cancelations, which are so hedged around with restrictions as to be almost worthless. Moreover the pictures included in the list are ones which on careful analysis make it obvious as to why they are canceled. The following excerpt from the Senate hearings of last year gives this in detail (pp. 543, 544, 545):

"Music for Madame. Featuring Nino Martini who simply did not register on the screen. Last of a series of failures that ended Jesse L. Lasky's career as a producer. R. K. O., October 1937."

I saw this and even the costumes and scenery looked apologetic.

"Quality Street. Draggy costume picture featuring Katherine Hepburn, who has been dubbed rightly or wrongly by the exhibitors as 'box-office poison.' R. K. O., March 1937.

"Hitting a New High. Opera star in farce where she appears as a 'bird woman' in the jungle to gain publicity. Unspeakably bad pcture. R. K. O., December

1937.

"The Great Garrick. Sophisticated costume picture that was a failure in the first runs. Lacking entertainment value, it just died. Warner, October 1937. "April Romance. Richard Tauber, an unknown star. It will be remembered that Mr. Rodgers mentioned heavy rejections on this picture-3,800—and Romeo and Juliet-560. Considering the latter fare for the movies and the stars not equal to their responsibilities the contrast is to the credit of the exhibitors and their patrons. M. G. M.

"The Saint of New York. Unknown stars. Series featuring a modern Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. No change in competition with popular crook and mystery stories featuring Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan. R. K. O., June 1938.

"Winterset. Fine but excessively morbid story featuring stage stars without screen reputations. Purely a 'class' picture and should have been released to art theaters. R. K. O., November 1936.

"A Midsummer Night's Dream. Scholars have long contended that this was a play to read, not to be staged. Artistic, maybe, but terrible entertainment. Not calculated to increase public's regard for Shakespeare. Warner, October 8, 1936. It will also be remembered that Warner Bros., after road showing this picture at high admission prices, then withdrew it for a season before releasing it to the exhibitors.

"Great Expectations. Henry Hull in terrible make-up which it is reported, is heading him for Lon Chaney roles. No entertainment value. In this Universal did for Dickens what Warner Bros. did for Shakespeare. 1935.

"Under Your Spell. In this Twentieth Century tried to make a star of Lawrence Tibbett, notwithstanding the failure of a better company, M. G. M., to do so. Voice does not overcome his features, and apparently the public will have none of him on the screen. November 1936.

"The Good Fairy. Pure fantasy; public did not know what it was all about. Since it was not a great picture, nothing was lost. Sissy title discouraged attendance. Not screen material. Universal, February 1935.

"New Faces of 1937. Joe Penner, Milton Berle, Parkyakarkus in worst hodgepodge of cheap vaudeville ever screened. Several members of cast passed from the screen forever-we hope. Rejections reflect credit on all concerned. R. K. O July 1937.

"The Green Pastures. One would like to feel this all-Negro fantasy would have universal appeal. Another 'class' picture for art theaters. Warner, August 1936. "Crime and Punishment. Somber story released on Christmas 1935, to compete with a better picture-French, I think-same story and same title playing art theaters. Not screen material. Columbia, December 25, 1935. "That Girl from Paris. Which finally washed up Lily Pons, a grand singer, who simply did not belong on the screen. Poor story, worse acting. January 1937.

"In addition to the foregoing pictures on Mr. Pettijohn's list, Mr. Rodgers mentioned that there were a good many cancelations on Dickens' A Christmas Carol. This was purely a seasonal picture released to the Music Hall in New York and other first-run theaters during the holidays. Under the lengthy protection prevailing in most parts of the country, the picture was not available to the independent subsequent-runs until many weeks thereafter. It simply is not good business to play a Christmas picture on St. Valentine's Day. If Mr. Rodgers will release the picture to the subsequent runs next Christmas, he will not be bothered by_cancelations."

Proof that public taste in movies is high, not low, may be seen in the fact that we find listed as excellent box office returns in Harrison's Reports, the following wholesome and lively pictures for the 1938-39 period: The Star Maker; Second Fiddle; Stanley and Livingstone; The Rains Came; Four Feathers; The Real Glory; Eternally Yours; First Love; Rose of Washington Square; Young Mr. Lincoln; Wuthering Heights; Union Pacific; Invitation to Happiness; Love Affair; Dark Victory: Pygmalion; Calling Dr. Kildare; Three Smart Girls Grow Up; Golden Boy; The Old Maid; Goodbye, Mr. Chips; Wizard of Oz; Out West with the Hardys; Sweethearts.

Certainly a public which chooses to spend their money to see these pictures has a pretty wholesome taste. As long as standards of decency and good taste continue to spring as they do now from the family, the local church and the local school, we need not fear that the public will prefer the cheap, the tawdry, and the salacious. Leave the control of movie programs near to local forces and you will insure fine, wholesome choice of entertainment.

III. The opponents contended that cheap theaters for salacious pictures will increase after the Neely bill becomes law. So far as there is a market for such pictures, these theaters do business now in some large cities. Such pictures can be banned, or the theater license revoked under existing police power.

With greater activity by local groups in connection with the legitimate movie houses it will be harder after the Neely bill is law for such fly-by-night houses to keep open.

IV. The opposition witnesses frequently declared that the bill is a censorship bill.

The Neely bill does not involve censorship in any way. Such an idea is a straw man set up by the opponents to shoot at. There is nothing in the bill that prohibits the making of any kind of pictures; the bill is to prevent the objectionable pictures, when they are made, from being put over on an exhibition for a public that does not want them. There is nothing in the bill, contrary to the statements of the opponents, which gives any minority a power in the selection of the films for any community. What will happen will be home rule in the selection of films through the box office. The 33 national organizations supporting the Neely bill with their local branches and other groups, like the Legion of Decency and Better Films Councils, which stand for social welfare and public interest will carry on with renewed responsibility for cooperation with the exhibitor to insure the real expression of the communities' desires. An illustration of the kind of organization which stands ready to be of assistance is that the Worcester Better Films Council, a representative of which, Mrs. Howard Shepard, appeared before you. The list of organizations included in this council was impressive as it represented 52 local groups of varying interests and activities. Other such organizations exist in many small towns and city neighborhoods.

V. The opponents held that the public knows what it is seeing when it attends the movies and that they choose by stars, producer, director or title the films they wish to see. Producers and directors, however, are not as well known to ordinary moviegoers as producers and directors may think. Moreover their popularity may rise to heights with one good picture and be completely lost by a poor one. As to choosing by stars, that was possible where stars were "typed." However, this year no moviegoer choosing by stars would have expected that Ginger Rogers, who heretofore played gay and charming heroines in pictures featuring music and dancing, was to appear as a prostitute in her newest release Primrose Path. As to titles they have always meant little or nothing, witness 235749-40-pt. 2—36