Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:42:58.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local Public Opinion: The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures and the Fight against Film Censorship in Virginia, 1916–1922

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

JENNIFER FRONC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the conflict that ensued when the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures (a New York City-based organization that opposed any form of legal film censorship) entered the debate over Virginia's state film censor board. Virginia's engagement with film censorship emerged out of its history and politics, particularly in regard to race relations. Elite white Virginians lived in fear both of federal intervention (with the specter of Reconstruction not far behind them) and of a local usurpation of political power by black Virginians. The National Board of Review (NBR) was largely ignorant of this situation, which worked against their goals and ability to cultivate reliable allies. In the 1910s and 1920s, film raised issues about authorities – locally based and oriented versus nationally oriented authority, private authority and municipal, state, and/or federal authority.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , August 2013 , pp. 719 - 742
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A. M. Gunst to National Board of Censors, 16 May 1916, folder “Regional Correspondence – Virginia, Petersburg–Winchester–Washington,” Box 79, National Board of Review of Motion Pictures records, Manuscripts and Archives Division, New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations. Hereafter NBR.

2 Board to Gunst, 16 May 1916, Folder “Regional Correspondence – Virginia, Petersburg–Winchester–Washington,” Box 79, NBR.

3 See Czitrom, Daniel, “The Politics of Performance: Theater Licensing and the Origins of Movie Censorship in New York,” in Couvares, Francis G., ed., Movie Censorship and American Culture (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996), 16–43Google Scholar; May, Lary, Screening out the Past: The Birth of Mass Culture and the Motion Picture Industry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 56–57Google Scholar.

4 Frank Couvares coined the term “vulnerable viewer.” “Introduction,” in Couvares, 3. See also Beisel, Nicola, Imperiled Innocents: Anthony Comstock and Family Reproduction in Victorian America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Friedman, Andrea, Prurient Interests: Gender, Democracy, and Obscenity in New York City, 1909–1945 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 7Google Scholar.

5 Parker, Alison M., Purifying America: Women, Cultural Reform, and Pro-censorship Activism, 1873–1933 (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Wheeler, Leigh Ann, Against Obscenity: Reform and the Politics of Womanhood in America, 1873–1935 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

6 Grieveson, Lee, Policing Cinema: Movies and Censorship in Early-Twentieth-Century America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

7 Wittern-Keller, Laura, Freedom of the Screen: Legal Challenges to Film Censorship, 1915–1981 (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2008), 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Wittern-Keller, 24.

9 In 1926, Massachusetts reinstituted a “colonial-era Lord's Day observance law that permitted the exhibition of only those entertainments considered by the commissioner of public safety or local mayors to be ‘in keeping with the character of the day.’” Wittern-Keller argues, “Massachusetts became the only state to provide for censorship not by establishing a censor board but by empowering local officials based on blue laws. This … localized structure stood for thirty years before it was struck down by the state supreme court.” Wittern-Keller, 29.

10 H. T. Jones to McGuire, 1 June 1921, Folder “Regional Correspondence, Georgia, Atlanta, 1920–1922, March”, Box 53, NBR.

11 Corresponding Secretary to Mr. George A. Metzger, 27 April 1918, Folder “Regional Correspondence, Oregon,” Box 68, NBR.

12 McGuire to the Motion Picture Exhibitors League of Portland, Oregon, 2 Aug. 1917, Folder “Regional correspondence – Oregon,” Box 68, NBR.

13 McGuire to Mr. M. P. Bullard, 26 Oct. 1916, Folder “Virginia: Petersburg–Winchester,” Box 79, NBR.

14 McGuire to the Hon. George Ainslie, 28 Apr. 1916, Folder “Regional Correspondence – Virginia, Petersburg–Winchester–Washington,” Box 79, NBR.

15 Richmond employed a version of the Boston Plan, which allowed the public to call attention to any film that seemed objectionable, and the Police Department would assign an officer to view the film and make a decision. “Mayor Received Report on Every Movie Film,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 19 April 1916, 14; “New Movie Ordinance Creates Censor Board,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 9 May 1916, 1.

16 McGuire to Mr. M. P. Bullard, 26 Oct. 1916, Folder “Virginia: Petersburg–Winchester,” Box 79, NBR.

17 Barrett, Wilton A., “The Work of the National Board of Review,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 128Google Scholar, The Motion Picture in Its Economic and Social Aspects (Nov. 1926), 175.

18 The National Board of Review to the Editor of the Richmond Virginian, 10 May 1916, Folder “Regional Correspondence – Virginia,” Box 79, NBR.

19 NBR to the Richmond Virginian, NBR.

20 Covill to World Film Corporation, 16 March 1917, Folder “Bridgeport – Hartford,” Box 49, NBR.

21 Assistant to Director-General to Covill, undated, Folder “Bridgeport – Hartford,” Box 49, NBR.

22 Executive Secretary to A. M. Gunst, 16 May 1916, Folder “Regional Correspondence: Virginia, Petersburg–Winchester,” Box 79, NBR.

23 McGuire to the Hon. George Ainslie, 28 Apr. 1916, folder “Regional Correspondence – Virginia, Petersburg–Winchester–Washington,” Box 79, NBR.

24 Richard L. Forstall, “Virginia Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990,” US Bureau of the Census, accessed 14 March 2011, www.census.gov/population/cencounts/va190090.txt.

25 Fuller-Seeley, Kathryn, Celebrate Richmond Theater (Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press, 2002), 20Google Scholar.

26 Ibid., 20.

27 Heinemann, Ronald L., Harry Byrd of Virginia (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1996), 20–1Google Scholar.

28 “No Morals by Legislation,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 21 March 1922, 4.

29 See also Hohner, Robert A., Prohibition and Politics: The Life of Bishop James Cannon, Jr. (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999), 72–90Google Scholar; Holloway, Pippa, Sexuality, Politics, and Social Control in Virginia, 1920–1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Wallenstein, Peter, Blue Laws and Black Codes: Conflict, Courts, and Change in Twentieth-Century Virginia (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2004), 5–9Google Scholar.

30 Holloway, 40.

31 Smith, J. Douglas, Managing White Supremacy: Race, Politics, and Citizenship in Jim Crow Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

32 The op-ed “Autocracy of Censorship,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 26 Feb. 1922, 4, asserts a relationship between state censorship, as a concept, and the New York State Republican Party. The op-ed “Our Legislative Suspects,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 28 February 1922, 4, suggested that New York-based motion picture interests had intimidated Virginia's assemblymen. H. T. Jones of Paramount Pictures' Southern Enterprises tried to offer McGuire a southern perspective when he wrote, “Things which originate and exist in New York seem to possess something of ‘black magic’ when brought to the South.” 27 May 1921, Folder “Regional Correspondence, Georgia, Atlanta, 1920–1922, March,” Box 53, NBR.

33 Wheeler, Marjorie Spruill, New Women of the New South: The Leaders of the Woman Suffrage Movement in the Southern States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 38–71Google Scholar.

34 Thomas Nelson Page quoted in ibid., 32.

35 The film censorship bill was introduced, and defeated, in the 1918 legislative session. Richmond retained the NBR-backed Boston Plan until the state board supplanted it in 1922.

36 Senning to NBR, 24 July 1919, Folder “Regional Correspondence – Virginia, Petersburg–Winchester–Washington,” Box 79, NBR.

37 Bernstein to McGuire, 1 Jan. 1920, Folder “Regional Correspondence – Virginia, Petersburg–Winchester–Washington,” Box 79, NBR.

38 Bernstein to McGuire, 1 Jan. 1920, NBR.

39 Assistant Secretary H. F. Sherwood to Rev. Dr. George M. Brown, 27 Dec. 1916, Folder “Bridgeport – Hartford,” Box 49, NBR.

40 Mary Gray Peck, “Report on State Censorship Situation in Virginia,” Folder “Executive Committee Minutes and Reports, 1919–1920,” Box 118, NBR.

41 Ibid.

42 “New Movie Ordinance Creates Censor Board,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 9 May 1916, 1; “Censorship of Movies Killed by Committee,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 19 May 1916, 1.

43 Peck, “Report.”

44 Peck, “Report.”

45 Peck, “Report.”

46 There are a series of letters, dated 1916 through 1920, from Executive Secretary W. D. McGuire to D. W. Griffith's production company, requesting remittance to cover Peck's travel expenses and salary. Folder “Subjects Correspondence: Gray – Griffith,” Box 28, NBR.

47 “Prepare for Women Vote,” 19 Feb. 1920, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1. In a 1964 interview, Adele Clark, one of the founders of Virginia's Equal Suffrage League (ESL), explained that many southern legislators favored state woman suffrage amendments but opposed the federal woman suffrage amendment. She told the story of Delegate Young, a former Confederate soldier, whom she described as one of the ESL's strongest supporters. He supported ratifying the Virginia state constitution to extend the franchise to women. However, when the ESL was trying to secure support for the federal amendment, Delegate Young said, “Ladies, you cannot expect me to vote for anything federal. I still bear in my body a wound I received in Chancellorsville, and I would not vote for the federal government to do anything about the electorate.” She goes on to say, “So we lost him. And of course there was the prejudice that still is evident about federal things in many of the southern states. So Virginia did not ratify the Nineteenth Amendment.” Oral history interview with Adele Clark, 28 Feb. 1964, Interview G-0014-2, Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Published by Documenting the American South (19 March 2012), http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/playback.html?base_file=G–0014–2.

48 In “Autocracy of Censorship,” the author noted that the New York State Board of Motion Picture Censorship comprised Republican appointees, who, he imagined, censored films like The Birth of a Nation for partisan political reasons. However, the author seems to misunderstand or conflate some facts in his piece, possibly for rhetorical purposes, eliding the NBR with the New York State censorship board in the construction of his argument.

49 Mrs. J. Allison Hodges, “Report on Motion Pictures,” Folder “Regional Papers – Vermont to Washington,” Box 153, NBR. Mrs. J. Allison (Mary Gray) Hodges, a prominent Richmonder, was active in both local and national organizations. She served as the president of the Richmond Woman's Club from 1916 to 1918, as president of the Virginia Federation of Women's Clubs in 1923, as the Virginia secretary for the National Civic Federation, and as vice regent of the North Carolina room of the Confederate Museum in Richmond. She was also a member of the Society of Colonial Dames, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. She was married to Dr. J. Allison Addison Hodges of the Medical Society of Virginia, an influential scientific racist. “Biographical Files, 1923–1925, Mrs. J. Allison (Mary Gray) Hodges,” Folder 11, Box 1, Virginia Federation of Women's Clubs Records, 1907–1958, Accession #25115, Library of Virginia. Hereafter VFWC. See also Treadway, Sandra Gioia, Women of Mark: A History of the Woman's Club of Richmond, Virginia, 1894–1994 (Richmond: The Library of Virginia Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

50 GFWC president Alice Ames Winter was deeply involved in motion picture issues; she became the director of the Department of Studio and Public Service for the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America in 1929. Following her administration, the GFWC first created its Motion Picture Commission in 1925. Headed by Mrs. Alfred T. Lee, it was housed in the “Education of the Adult Citizen Division” of the Applied Education Department. Virginia Federation of Women's Clubs, “1923–1925 Yearbook,” Folder “Biographical Files, 1923–1925, Mrs. J. Allison (Mary Gray) Hodges,” Box 1, VFWC.

51 “Projects: Resolutions,” 11 May 1911, Box 14, “Oversize, Research Cards, Administrations, 1907–1930,” VFWC.

52 Hodges, “Report on Motion Pictures,” NBR.

53 Ibid.

54 By March 1923, the official publication of the VFWC, Club Life in the Old Dominion, 1, 4, noted that Mrs. Allison Hodges of Richmond was still serving as the head of the Community Service and Motion Picture Division, housed in the Department of American Citizenship. In Folder 10, “Biographical Files: 1921–1923, Mrs. Henry Lockwood”, Box 1, VFWC.

55 Hodges, “Report on Motion Pictures,” NBR.

56 The other categories were “gambling made alluring or attractive,” “religion or law ridiculed or held in contempt,” “irreverence,” “grewsome [sic] subjects or death scenes,” “suggestive or objectionable exposure of person,” “infidelity or disregard of marriage vows,” “any sex problem handled in an objectionable manner,” “habit-forming drug using made attractive,” “criminal methods in a way to give instructive ideas,” “any obscenity, immorality or vulgarity,” “objectionable bedroom scenes,” “did moral of play (if it had one) outweigh scenes that might otherwise be considered improper,” “did it have any educational feature,” and “advertising matter O. K.?” Some version of this survey was employed by many of the GFWC's member clubs. Hodges, “Report on Motion Pictures,” NBR.

57 For African Americans in North Carolina, theaters provided segregated seating areas, such as the balcony. See Regester, Charlene, “From the Buzzard's Roost: Black Movie-Going in Durham and Other North Carolina Cities during the Early Period of American Cinema,” Film History, 17 (2005), 113–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In Virginia, African Americans attended separate shows or different theaters altogether. This pattern existed prior to passage of the Massenburg Public Assemblages Act in 1926. By 1930, Richmond only had two black-owned theaters (out of 15 theaters in total) serving the 52,988 black people who comprised approximately 38% of Richmond's population. In the period from 1910 to 1930, African Americans made up roughly 30% of Virginia's population – yet far fewer than 30% of Virginia's movie houses welcomed black audiences. According to US Census data, the white population in Virginia was 1,389,809 in 1910, 1,617,909 in 1920, and 1,770,441 in 1930. The black population was 671,096 in 1910, 690,017 in 1920, and 650,165 in 1930. The total population in Virginia was 2,061,612 in 1910, 2,309187 in 1920, and 2,421,851 in 1930. Of Virginia's population, 32.55% was black in 1910, and 67.41% of the population was classified as white. In 1920, the black population was 29.88%, and the white population 70.06%. In 1930, the black population was 26.84%, and the white population 73.10%. Campbell Gibson and Kay Jung, “Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals by Race, 1790–1990, and by Race and Hispanic Origin, 1790–1990, for the United States, Regions, Divisions, and States,” US Census Bureau, accessed 24 May 2010, www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html.

58 Hodges, “Report on Motion Pictures,” NBR.

59 G. Walter Mapp (Democrat) was a state senator from Accomac on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Acknowledged by his contemporaries and historians as “the leader of the moral reform element in the state senate” through the 1910s and 1920s, Mapp was also the leader of the “dry” faction in the state, having fought for, and won, state prohibition. He also supported a bill against prostitution in 1916 and voted for the woman suffrage amendment in 1920. Mapp worked closely with many women's organizations in Virginia, including the Women's Christian Temperance Union (which supported his censorship bill) and the Virginia League of Women Voters. Heinemann, Harry Byrd of Virginia, 49–57. See also Holloway, Sexuality, 43–4.

60 McGuire to Speed, 2 March 1922, Folder “Regional Correspondence, Vermont, Morrisville–Wilmington–Virginia, Speed's Tour,” Box 78, NBR.

61 Jobson to McGuire, nd, Folder “Virginia – Petersburg–Winchester, Box 79, NBR. She noted in the first sentence of the letter that she was replying to McGuire's letter of 24 Feb. 1920.”

62 NBR to Mrs. Philip Speed, 14 Oct. 1921, Folder “Regional Correspondence, Vermont, Morrisville–Wilmington–Virginia, Speed's Tour,” Box 78, NBR.

63 Speed to Mrs. Randolph Maynard, 23 Feb. 1922, Folder “Regional Correspondence, Virginia, Petersburg–Winchester–Washington,” Box 79, NBR.

64 The NBR worked closely with the Commission on Training Camp Activities. See, for example, Orrin G. Cocks to Hon. W. R. Mayo, mayor of Norfolk, 14 Sept. 1917, Folder “Virginia, Alexandria–Norfolk,” Box 78, NBR.

65 McGuire to Speed, 10 Feb. 1922, Folder “Regional Correspondence, Vermont, Morrisville–Wilmington–Virginia, Speed's Tour,” Box 78, NBR.

66 Speed to McGuire, 19 Feb. 1922, Folder “Regional Correspondence, Vermont, Morrisville–Wilmington–Virginia, Speed's Tour,” Box 78, NBR. Bryant's wife, Anne Eliza (née Tennant), was influential among Virginia's clubwomen. Others in attendance included Mrs. J. Allison Hodges (Chair of the VFWC's Motion Picture Committee), Mrs. Randolph Maynard (who was involved in the campaign for women's higher education in Virginia), Mrs. H. A. Sampson (Emma Speed Sampson, journalist and Mary Mason Speed's sister-in-law), and Miss Page Williams (member of the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities).

67 Speed to McGuire, NBR.

68 The Queen of Sheba is presumed to have been lost in a fire that occurred in the Fox Studios in the 1930s; a few still shots exist, showing Blythe in revealing costumes.

69 Speed to McGuire, NBR.

70 Speed to McGuire, NBR.

71 “Novelist has Tilt with Dr. M'Daniel at House Hearing,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 28 Feb. 1922, 1.

72 Ward to McGuire, 17 March 1922, NBR.

73 McGuire to Ward, 20 March 1922, NBR.

74 NBR to the editor of the Harrisonburg News, 14 June 1916, Folder “Virginia, Alexandria–Norfolk,” Box 78, NBR.

75 Speed to McGuire, 16 March 1922, NBR.

76 Speed to McGuire, NBR.

77 Speed to McGuire, NBR; “Chase Intimates Movie Men Hold Lash over Solons,” 27 Feb. 1922, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1.

78 Harry Bernstein to W. D. McGuire, 9 March 1922, Folder “Regional Correspondence: Virginia, Petersburg–Winchester,” Box 79, NBR.

79 “Filibuster Threat Furnishes Scare to Bill's Backers,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10 March 1922, 1.

80 Ibid.

81 “Discuss Measure at Public Hearing before Delegates,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 27 Feb. 1922, 1.

82 “Holds Premier Place in Public's Interest Last Day of Session,” 11 March 1922, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1. If Mapp's opponents had invoked cloture, parliamentary procedure would have required the cloture petition to be read, then ignored for one full day while the Senate was in session. Because it was the last day of the legislative session, the bill, in theory, would not be taken up again until the second day of the new session.

83 Ibid.

84 Bernstein to McGuire, 15 March 1922. The Virginia State Board of Censors was established by H. B. 346 Chapter 257 of the Acts of Assembly, approved 15 March 1922, and went into effect on 1 Aug. 1922.

85 Report of the Virginia State Board of Censors for July 1, 1924 to June 30, 1925 (Richmond: Davis Bottom, Superintendent of Public Printing, 1925), 2, in Folder “Annual Reports, Bound and Printed, 1924–1965,” Box 48, Division of Motion Picture Censorship Records, Accession #26515, Library of Virginia. Hereafter DMPC.

86 Ibid., 2–3.

87 Ibid., 2. A group of anti-censorship ministers in Richmond opposed the Mapp Act because they thought that only immoral films needed to be reviewed by the NBR and that films that dealt with history, science, and religion should be treated “just as a book.” “National Censorship of Films Proper Plan,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 13 March 1922, 3.

88 When Harry Bernstein wrote to the NBR to share the terrible news about the passage of the Mapp Act, his only consolation was “hope” that the “right kind of men be placed on this Board.” Bernstein to McGuire, 15 March 1922, NBR. This hope was not unfounded. Mrs. Channing (Nadine) Ward contacted McGuire and reassured him that the first appointment to the State Board of Censors was “a very excellent choice” – Evan Chesterman. She noted that Chesterman, a writer and former member of the state board of education, had “been associated with newspaper and educational interests for many years [and] can be counted upon for a broad-minded constructive policy. In addition to Chesterman, Emma Speed Sampson and R. C. L. Moncure were the other initial appointees. Ward described Emma Speed Sampson as “a writer, a fine broad minded woman with a keen sense of humor.” Ward to McGuire, 23 March 1922, NBR. Even the exhibitors initially believed that they had little to fear from the governor's appointments. Jake Wells wrote a letter of introduction for Evan Chesterman to the NBR, asking that the NBR teach him “the general way of reviewing pictures.” Wells to McGuire, 15 May 1922, Folder “Regional Correspondence Virginia, Petersburg–Winchester,” Box 79, NBR. The NBR also invited Emma Speed Sampson to New York for an orientation and training session, although it is not clear that she attended.

89 Report of the Virginia State Board of Censors for July 1, 1925 to June 30, 1926, 3, DMPC.

90 Ward to McGuire, 23 March 1922, NBR.

91 Untitled memo, Folder “Regional Correspondence Virginia, Petersburg–Winchester,” Box 79, NBR.

92 “1923–1925 Yearbook,” VFWC.

93 Report of the Virginia State Board of Censors for July 1, 1924 to June 30, 1925, 2.

94 Smith, Managing White Supremacy, 102.

95 Virginia Board of Censors, memo on The House behind the Cedars, Folder 9, Box 54, DMPC.

96 Oscar Micheaux to Virginia Motion Picture Censors, 13 March 1925, Folder 9, Box 54, DMPC. It is interesting to note that Micheaux's films do not appear on the NBR's list of controversial films.

97 R. C. L. Moncure to Oscar Micheaux, 22 April 1932, Folder 5, Box 56, DMPC. The Virginia Board rejected several of Micheaux's earlier films, including Son of Satan (1924) and The House behind the Cedars (1925). For a discussion of these films see Regester, Charlene, “Black Films, White Censors: Oscar Micheaux Confronts Censorship in New York, Virginia, and Chicago,” in Couvares, Movie Censorship and American Culture, 159–86Google Scholar; Smith, 100–3.

98 Hoberman, J., The Magic Hour: Film at Fin de Siècle (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003), 138Google Scholar.

99 Moncure to Micheaux, 21 April 1932, Folder 5, Box 56, DMPC.

100 Johnson, Robert, The Radical Middle Class: Populist Democracy and the Question of Capitalism in Progressive Era Portland, Oregon (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.