0VR SUNDAY VISITOR PRESS HOWTO GET BETTERFHMS HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS Can Catholics Really Reform the Movies? OUR SUNDAY VISITOR PRESS Huntington, Indiana Printers and Distributors Nihil Obstat: REV. T. E. DILLON Censor Librormn Imprimatur; ^ JOHN FRANCIS NOLL, D. D., Bishop of Fort Wayne No. 49 How To Get Better Films* Is not the Catholic Hierarchy of the United States grappling with a problem almost too huge when it un- dertakes to reform the movies? Are the Bishops really hopeful of success? While I fear that such questions will spontaneously arise in the minds of many Catholics, whose ecclesiasti- cal leaders are pressing them to reg- ister effective disapproval of the de- moralizing films now so universally exhibited, success should not be one- half as difficult as it might, at first blush, appear. Although the ratio of Catholics to the total population of the United States is only one to five, the ratio is one to three, or even one to two in most of the large cities east of the Mississippi, where the big theatres ex- * A reprint from an article written by Most Rev. John F. Noll, for the American Ecclesiastical Review, April, 1934. 4 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS ist and where, therefore, box office re- ceipts are heaviest. It is true that in many sections of our country the Catholic voice would be “a voice cry- ing in the wilderness”, but not so in the cities and towns where three- fourths of the Catholics of the United States live. Only one-fourth of our people dwell on farms and in villages. These figures should be reversed in relation to Protestantism. Its ad- herents are three-fourths rural and only one-fourth urban. Let us particularize: the city of Chicago is one-half Catholic. Do you mean to say that Hollywood would not be greatly disturbed if suddenly the managers of Chicago theatres reported that attendance at the movies was being cut fifty per cent, and that with the consequent drastic reduction in ticket sales, with no lessening of operating costs, the show-houses could not continue to function ? Success would be compara- tively easy if all Catholics would only rally round their spiritual leaders. The Catholics of Cincinnati, Cleve- HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS 5 land, Detroit, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Newark, Providence, New York, Brooklyn, Hartford, Boston, if they responded almost unanimously and simultaneously, could force a speedy house-cleaning in moviedom. Will Catholics Cooperate? With this theory all will agree, but can we actually procure anything like unanimous and simultaneous re- sponse to the call of our prelates? Can we count even on the majority? The writer thinks so if on a desig- nated Sunday the appeal to our peo- ple be made in every pulpit in the land, if pledges be secured by the united parish societies. Why not designate a Sunday for nation-wide sermons on “The Dan- gers of the Day” of which the cinema, as now constituted, is chief? We must lay aside, therefore our inferiority complex, and decide that we can accomplish this job, as we could accomplish many another with effort more intensive and concen- trated. G HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS Then, is it not foolish to suppose that Protestants would not join us in large numbers in our crusade to im- prove the character of the films? There exists a Federal Motion Pic- ture Council in America, Inc., whose slogan is “mobilize for whole- some motion pictures”. This Council is constituted almost entirely of non- Catholics, and as General Secretary, the Reverend William Scheafe Chase, is soliciting Catholic cooperation for the passage of the Patman Bill desig- nated to secure Federal supervision of motion pictures “at the source of production, before they are filmed, and for the prohibition of blind and block booking”. So much did Bishop Cantwell’s ar- ticle which appeared in the AMERI- CAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW for February appeal to this Federal Council that it had the same reprint- ed and circulated widely. This Or- ganization claims it has the support of the Protestant Episcopal General Convention, of the Baptist Northern Convention, of the General Assembly HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS 7 of the Presbyterian Church, of the National Grange, and various other organizations. So anxious is it to win Catholic support for the clean- ing of the stage that it suggests that the Patman Bill might be amended to satisfy us. Mrs. August Belmont, President of the Motion Picture Research Coun- cil, has announced that her organiza- tion will campaign for more whole- some pictures, and wage a fight against the continuance of block-book- ing, which prevents managers of local show-houses from exhibiting pic- tures of their own and their patrons’ choice. Why should Protestants not be equally interested with Catholics in elevating the standards of motion’ pictures? Why should not all people be equally interested? Only the ad- versaries of Christian morality in- tent on demoralizing youth, could be on the other side. The movie could be the greatest educational instrumentality in the world. It could be the most effective S :’HD'W TO GET BETTER FILMS promoter of morality, the most pow- erful guide of youth along the lines of rectitude, the greatest influence for national unity, for the improvement of our social life—all this because the whole country patronizes the movie and frequently, while only a small proportion is under other direct influ- ence designed to promote religion and morality. The Bishops’ Programs Within the writer’s own diocese Protestants of several cities have set Catholics an example by securing from their people pledges to remain away from the theatre until it desists from serving filth. During Lent, 1934, thousands of Catholic women in his diocese engaged in a house to house canvass to procure such pledges, and 60,000 cards were signed as evidence of serious cooperation with the Bishop’s program. Eaymond R. Cameron is the Execu- tive Secretary of a newly formed De- troit Council of Catholic Organiza- tions which is composed of all local HOW TO GET BETTER EILMS 9 societies for the purpose of building a united front for Catholic Action. The affiliated societies, and they number thirty, have a combined membership of 400,000, are ready to join in this crusade. The Bishop of Monterey-Fresno re- cently wrote to the manager of every theatre in his diocese, urging him to assist in making his own theatre a place of cultural and wholesome re- creation, and assuring him that Catholics will be encouraged to pat- ronize the same if he does, while they will withhold such patronage if he does not. He reminded the theatre managers that the campaign was not directed against them personally, or against their place of business, but against the producers, who have not given them free choice in the selec- tion of their films. It is also reported that the results of this letter of the Bishop have been most gratifying. The Bishop of Fall River prepared a Lenten pastoral on the movies which was read from every pulpit in his diocese. He suggested that all 10 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS Catholics subscribe to a “NIM” Code (“No Immoral Movies”), whose sym- bol will be a white dove, and whose slogan will be the same as the NRA, —“We do our part”. The Archbishop of Cincinnati ordered the pastors of his Archdio- cese each to preach a strong sermon on one Sunday during Lent, at all the Masses, on the motion picture evil as it exists today, and on the moral wrong committed by Catholics who patronize many productions. He asked that a committee be appointed in each parish to keep a watchful eye on advance advertising of movies to be shown within the parish area, and to inform the pastor. He requested the cooperation of the National Coun- cil of Catholic Women, the Holy Name Society, Parent-Teachers’ Associa- tion, the National Council of Catholic Men, the Knights of Columbus, Knights of St. John, Catholic Order of Foresters, and all other societies of the archdiocese. He asked the teachers of schools to carry the cam- paign to the children. HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS' 11 The Bishop of Albany has com- pleted a most effective diocesan or- ganization for the combating of the stage and film evil. He has a Dioces- an Committee, an every Parish Com- mittee, a combination committee of all the parishes of any town or city, also a special “Press and Publicity Committee”. He, too, is carrying the campaign to the school children who are encouraged to wear a button in- scribed “C. S.” (Clean Shows). The Ordinaries of Boston, New York, Cleveland and practically every other diocese, are active in the same direction with a program similar to one of the above, and if every dio- cesan will cooperate for its execution, a victory for God, souls, morality, country, will be achieved. A Monopoly in Europe But American-made motion pic- tures are shown not only in the Unit- ed States. They have almost monop- olized the trade throughout Europe, where a crusade is now forming 12 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS against them, promoted not by the Catholic Hierarchy, but by leading secular newspapers, whose efforts the Catholic Bishops of all European na- tions wil surely encourage and bless. In the LONDON TIMES (secular) date of January 25th, 1934, there ap- peared an article commendatory of the improvement which has taken place during the past year in British- produced films. In this article the writer makes the point: “Once more the British studios showed that their technicians had caught up with the best of their for- eign rivals. “The response of the Empire mar- kets has been swift and substantial. Australia is demanding more and more films from this country. She is the best oversea customer for British films and already a notable financial factor. Canadian enthusiasm comes only second to this. By every post comes letters from cinema-goers and exhibitors in the Dominions, which read something like this: ‘Give us more and more British films. We are tired to death of the sex and gangster HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS 13 American pictures. Go on keeping your films clean’.” The writer continues : “Hollywood’s actresses belong to a grotesque and isolated world, where the incredible is the commonplace, and where the inhabitants prostrate themselves eight times a day before the great god publicity. We have no Mae West, but if we did possess one it would be profitless to exploit her.” In an editorial in the same number of the LONDON TIMES under the caption BRITISH FILMS appeared the following paragraph : • “All who take the films seriously will hope that British-made films will have the future which is forecast for them in an article printed in this issue. The writer believes that they are about to burst forth in triumph from the gloom which like a fog has hung over them for years, and he pro- phesies that ‘the film which apes Hollywood will fail’. That is good news, in keeping with the apprecia- tive reception given this week-end to CATHERINE THE GREAT in Paris. That British films should be forever unable to come up to, or surpass the American was not to be believed ex- 14 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS cept by those who take a very short view of things. If our Correspondent is right, the tide turns at an appro- priate moment. There are many signs that the public has put up long enough with undiluted Hollywood.” Protests equally strong against Hollywood productions have been raised in Austria—^yes, and even in India and Egypt. In an article appearing recently in THE SATURDAY EVENING POST the author pointed out how the Hollywood producers take note of the different attitude of thea- trical patrons in various sections of the country. Commenting on this cleverness of Hollywood the editor of the AVE MARIA remarks : “THE SATURDAY EVENING POST notes for us the posi- tive comparative and superlative degrees of indecency observed when Hollywood makes pictures. In the first filming of a certain play, the lady (of the picture) visits the hero (of the picture) in his apart- ments. She is scantily and sugges- tively dressed. This showing was for the American public. The second HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS 15 ‘taking’ presents the same visiting lady with more, but not so much more, clothing. This release was for Ohio, Pennsylvania and such States as prefer a less negative nudity. In version three the heroine appears be- fore the hero dressed decorously and seated modestly, as is the custom among civilized peoples. This ‘show- ing’ was for England and Ireland. The producers are not very compli- mentary to their native country. They think so little of fellow Americans they feed them raw pictures. They seem to incline to the belief that Americans are cannibals esthetically. They want woman flesh. And Holly- wood, which always gives what it thinks people want, furnishes the flesh. Self-respect calls for an Ame- rican protest expressed as action.” The recently published report of the Department of the Interior, in- corporating the result of a survey of the movies conducted at the expense of the Payne Fund, contains a terrible indictment of the m.ovies. It declares that three out of every four pictures deal with crime, sex, and unwhole- some romance; that practically all the children of the United States at- tend the movies once a week and that 16 ttOW TO GET better films they decidedly change the child’s at- titudes. Are these changed attitudes to prevail in the next generation? If they are, then American morals will be far below the level of those of an- cient Greece and Rome, to which the destruction of their civilization is universally credited. The Producers’ Promise We have learned the lesson that no faith can be placed in the promises of Motion Picture producers. They signed a Code which would have been quite satisfactory to the Catholic Bishops. In fact, it had the endorse- ment of Cardinal Hayes before it was adopted, but there seems to have been no serious intention on the part of the film producers to observe it—because its violation was almost immediate. In an address delivered at the Con- vention dinner of the Diocese of Cen- tral New York, Syracuse, in May, 1931, the Reverend Clifford Gray Twombly, Rector of St. James’ Epis- copal Church, Lancaster, Pennsyl- vania, quoted Mr. William H. Hays, as of March 31st, 1931, saying: How TO GET BETTER FILMS 17 “The adoption of the Code marks the latest and greatest step taken by the motion picture industry in the direction of self-government, to the end that the entertainment, educa- tional and informative value of the theatrical screen shall conform not only to the best standards of this art, but to the wholesome instincts of life.” The Violation of the Promise Then Mr. Twombly appeals to the record following the promulgation of Hays’ statement and notes that of approximately 228 feature films re- leased and reviewed during this time, “41 have been films of gangsters, racketeers, bandits, blackmailers, crooks and gamblers, “27 have been films of prostitutes and mistresses, “65 have been films of illicit rela- tions, marital infidelities, dishonor- able proposals, suggestive talk and all kinds of immoral situations, many of them rankly so! and “3 have been films in which the heroine gave up her virtue to ‘save’ another !” Are Catholics, then, to remain 18 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS away from the talkies until the Hollywood and other producers effect the reforms desired? Not at all, but they are expected to discriminate. If one-fourth of the movies do not of- fend against what is right morally and socially, this would mean that there would be an average of one or two shows a week which they might patronize. We have an opportunity to test the frequently quoted utterance of the late Cardinal Gibbons that “where Bishops, priests and laity work to- gether for a common cause their ef- forts cannot fail”. No other common cause has ever been so worthy of our support as is this cause of clean movies. To no other single influence are all our peo- ple so subject as to the movie—for better or worse. As at present organ- ized, operated and controlled the Mo- tion Picture industry is the most potent agency of harm, the most covert destroyer of faith, the most daring assaulter of morality. For the sake of God and country, of Christ HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS 19 and His little ones, of religion and morality generally, the movie must be reformed. It is within our power to accomplish the task and should it not be equally our highest ambition ? Hc sH ^ THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY By the Most Reverend John J. Cantwell, D. D., Bishop of Los Angeles and San Diego Previous to the advent of the pre- sent widespread industrial depression the figures for the paid attendance at motion picture theatres in the United States were in excess of 100 million a week. Even now, with more than 9 millions of Americans said to be un- employed, with suffering and poverty and hunger widespread throughout the land, the attendance figures hover close to 70 million a week. It is esti- mated that world attendance upon American-made motion pictures at the present time is close to 250 mil- lion a week. The average price of ad- mission throughout the world is about 14 cents—the average price in the United States is about 19 cents. American producers of motion pic- 20 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS tures produce each year more than 84 per cent of the world’s product. Ninety yer cent of all motion pic- tures made in the United States are made by eight producing companies with production headquarters in Hollywood. These eight companies, and a number of smaller units, are members of the “Hays’ Association,” so-called — the Motion Picture Pro- ducers and Distributors of America, Inc., whose president is Will H. Hays, former Postmaster-General of the United States, with oiSces in New York City, at 28 West 44th Street, and in Hollywood, at 5504 Hollywood Boulevard. A California corporation known as the Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., whose presi- dent is Louis B. Mayer (Vice-presi- dent of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corporation), is a subsidiary corpor- ation of the Hays association in New York. All the members of the Holly- wood corporation are members of the Association in New York. The Holly- wood Association operates as a sep- arate corporate entity but is domin- ated and controlled by the organiza- tion in New York. The eight larger companies in Hollywood, which produce 90 per cent of all the pictures made in the United HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS 21 States, are the following : Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer Corporation ; Fox Film Corporation; Paramount Pro- ductions, Inc. ; R. K. 0. Pictures, Inc. ; Warner Bros.—First National Pic- ture Corporation; Universal Pictures Corporation ; Columbia Pictures Cor- poration ; and the United Artists Stu- dio Corporation. This last named Corporation is made up of a number of smaller production units, among which are Twentieth Century Pic- tures, Inc. (only recently organized) ; Samuel Goldwyn, Ltd., Inc.; Caddo Corporation ; Edward Small ; Douglas Fairbanks Corporation; the Mary Pickford Corporation ; and Charles Chaplain, Inc. About Jf80 feature-length talking motion pictures are made each year in the United States. Ninety-six per cent of these are made in Hollywood. In addition, the companies which are members of the Hays’ Association produce 2,500 “shorts” each year — pictures of one and two reels made as entertainment pictures (not com- mercial or educational pictures) for exhibition in theatres. In the production of these enter- tainment talking pictures about 100 million dollars is expended annually. Another hundred million dollars is 22 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS expended each year in advertising these pictures, cfdefiy in newspapers, and a third 100 million is spent in selling and distributing the pictures to the theatres. At the present time there are in the United States more than 16,000 mo- tion picture theatres equipped for the projection of sound, or synchronized, motion pictures. Of this number more than 3,000 are closed at present, due to the widespread industrial de- pression. In addition to the commercial ad- vantages which it was hoped to be gained by native production of pic- tures, a number of the foreign coun- tries opposed the exhibition of Ame- rican-made motion pictures on the ground that these were subversive of decency and public morality. In al- most every country in the world a strict governmental censorship of mo- tion pictures is maintained and many American pictures are rejected by these Censors and not licensed for exhibition on the grounds that these “are not suited for public exhibition.” Previous to the coming of the talkr ing picture, the American-made mo- tion picture sinned chiefly because of its vulgarity. HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS 23 With the coming of the talking pic- ture has come greater and more far- reaching influence. The pictures now impress their patrons not only by sight but with animated sound as well. The talking picture broadened the field of the movies and opened up new channels of art and drama. Screen plays, lifted almost bodily from the fast-degenerating Broad- way stage, were made into movies over night, with the result that the cinema has now become the instru- ment for the telling of tales the like of which used to be confined, a few years back, to the sophisticated stage —or the barnyard. The difficulty with the talking pic- tures as we now have them is that they may have taken to preaching a philosophy of life which, in most in- stances, is definitely the wrong phil- osophy, sinister and insidious. The most competent authority in Holly- wood today is responsible for the statement that many of the talking pictures made out there “teach the philosophy that marriage, the purity of women and the sanctity of the home are outmoded sentimentalities,” unworthy of serious consideration at the hands of “intelligent” Americans. The stories upon which most of the 24 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS present-day movies are built concern themselves with a discussion of social problems. The movies now discuss morals, divorce, free love, race sui- cide, unborn children, sexual relation- ships outside marriage, and “double standards,” the relationship of sex to religion, marriage and its effect “up- on the freedom of women”—^these and a dozen other kindred subjects have been injected into the talking picture. There is no need to argue the effect of all these upon the public who witness them. An examination of a number of the motion pictures recently released for public exhibition suggests that the entire motion picture industry has set itself to the task of seeing which company can produce the most vi- cious film. In great numbers of these recently exhibited pictures there is a definite attempt to create audience sympathy for the violation of the moral law. The subject matter of most of these offensive films deals with sex relations of every conceiv- able kind. Sin is condoned, false mor- al values are instilled in young and critical minds, and thus is lowered both the public and the private stand- ards of conduct of all who see them. When the pictures are not vile in toto —the subject matter—presentation — HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS 25 photography—^dialogue—action— the films are crowded with salacious de- tails—smutty talk, obscene wit, of- fensive situations. If one were to glean one’s knowl- edge of family life in America from the American screen presentations, one would, unerringly, come to believe that adultery is but a slight adventure in romance that any understanding wife should easily forgive. It goes without saying that a number of the films attempt to jmtify adultery while sexual irregularities are played up with enthusiasm and made to ap- pear as acceptable and defensible. A number of pictures selected at random from recent releases measure up something like this; One is based upon seduction, rape and prostitu- tion; two had a foreign—South Sea Isle—locale and offended by a plot embracing aphrodisiac drugs, rape and revenge ; the third, also a picture with a foreign locale, was based upon a romance of native toxicology and nudity; a fourth is the story of a nudist colony which, so far, a number of the political censor boards have refused to license for public exhibit- ion; a fifth was a vile and revolting story of a mother who became a pro- stitute in order to provide luxury and 26 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS education for her son; a sixth deals with an alleged cultural social work- er who makes it a practice to bear children to men she never sees after- wards, the while the “cultured” lady attains to great distinction in the field of social welfare and betterment; the seventh contributed a new study to the unhappy small-town girl made happy by the gay adventurer from the city—she giving him her body “on call”; the eighth was concerned with the lechery of a fanatic monk and his two attempts at rape; the ninth was a rowdy farce with Boc- caccian dialogue; in the tenth adul- tery was justified, or, at least, con- veniently forgotten in a discussion which sought to show that a man’s mistress can be his wife more truly “in the sight of God” than the woman he married. Not all talking motion pictures made in the United States are based upon gross sexual irregularities. Probably one-fourth of them are en- titled to be so classified. Many of the pictures are based upon details which may well incite to crime. Some of them make a point of glorifying not only the harlot but her gangster “boy-friend” as well. But, for all practical purposes, it may be well sustained that twenty-five per cent of HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS 27 all pictures made in Hollywood in the course of a year are definitely had and offensive. Now, it may be asked, who is re- sponsible for all this vileness and worse, that is being made to serve as the instrument of debauchery of the youth of the land? The Jews? Yes — and no. Most of the producing-distri- buting-exhibiting companies are op- erated and managed, when they are not actually owned, by Jews. The only one of the hig eight of the com- panies mentioned in the early pages of this discussion which is definitely free from Jewish influence in its management and direction is the Fox Company. All the other big com- panies are managed by Jews. Jewish executives are the responsible men in 90% of all the Hollywood Studios, and it is these Jewish executives who have the final word on all scenarios before production is actually launch- ed. Certain it is that if these Jewish executives had any desire to keep the screen free from offensiveness they could do so. Back of the Jewish executives, however, stands a group of men and women, all of them classified as “artists”, who are creators of this new school of vice. The actors, as 28 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS such, have little influence on the char- acter of the stories that are placed upon the screen. Players are not ac- tually consulted regarding the moral values, , or lack of them, which a type, or character, which they may be called upon to play, suggests. Along with the director of the picture, the writer is the person who creates all the filth of the picture and it is the writer who is most responsible, next to the managing executives of the Studios. With the coming of the talkies there went to Hollywood hun- dreds of playwrights from the Broad- way stage, authors of vaudeville skits and acts and playlets. Along with these went the authors of current “lit- erary” successes—the writers of the pornographic school whose books have had a great sale in recent years. It is from these men and women that the stories now current on the screen are selected. Seventy-five per cent of these authors are pagans. They are men and women who care nothing for decency, good taste or refinement. Most of them are living lives of infi- delity and worse, wherein there is to be found not a suggestion of respect for religion or for spiritual values. Someone has taken occasion to say recently that “all the worth-while lit- erary talent in the world” hovers near HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS 29 to Hollywood. In large measure this is true if by literary talent you mean those men and women whose works appear to have a popular appeal. And if this be true, then one cannot help but observe that the world of litera- ture today is in a bad way. If this be literature, then write it down that we are in the midst of an almost uni- versal era of cynicism, obscenity and destructive criticism. Our writers for the screen spend much of their talents in glorifying the female liber- tine and the public prostitute, and as panderers of this sort, our motion picture producers have welcomed them, shifting the blame to the public with the excuse that the public wants that sort of stuff and will have no other. It is true in a measure that this sort of stuff seems to be the kind of stuff which American audiences want, but what a sad commentary all this is on our literary achievements ! After a hundred and fifty years of our boasted education, free and un- trammeled, our people care for noth- ing higher than the vaporings of the pig-sty ! In any discussion having to do with moral values in motion picture enter- tainment it is the practice with many 30 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS of the producing people in Hollywood to point to the box-office success of pictures which, to many patrons, are definitely offensive. As a matter of fact, the records indicate that few pictures attain to any outstanding success that are vile, suggestive, or unclean. True, a great number of in- decent pictures have some fair mea- sure of success just as certain popu- lar novels of the present day seem to attain to some success if they are, what Bill Nye used to designate as “spicy.” But as with novels, so with screen plays: The great outstanding successes are as clean as a hound’s tooth. The most popular screen play- ers today are those popularly identi- fied with clean, wholesome entertain- ment (Janet Gaynor, Marie Dressier, Will Rogers, et. al.) HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS 31 PLEDGE OF THE LEGION OF DECENCY I wish to join the Legion of De- cency, which condemns vile and un- wholesome moving pictures. I unite with all who protest against them as a grave menace to youth, to home life, to country and to religion. I condemn absolutely those de- bauching motion pictures which, with other degrading agencies, are cor- rupting public morals and promoting a sex mania in our land. I shall do all that I can to arouse public opinion against the portrayal of vice as a normal condition of af- fairs, and against respecting crim- inals of any class as heroes or hero- ines, presenting their filthy philoso- phy of life as something acceptable to decent men and women. I regret that so many of our daily newspapers seem to have lost all sense 32 HOW TO GET BETTER FILMS of shame in advertising and review- ing these unspeakable productions. Considering these evils, I hereby promise to remain away from all mo- tion pictures except those which do not offend decency and Christian morality. I promise further to se- cure as many members as possible for the Legion of Decency. I make this protest in a spirit of self-respect, and with the conviction that the American public does not demand filthy pictures. Name S' ) o / ^