Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:17:56.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trial by Jury: An Alternative Form of Theatrical Censorship in New York, 1921–1925

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

David K. Rod
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Between 1921 and 1925, an experimental form of nongovernmental censorship of the theatre was developed and practiced in New York City. Referred to variously as volunteer juries, citizens' juries, or the play-jury system, the experiment attempted to overcome the shortcomings of existing legal controls on the theatre and to relieve public concerns about the exploitation of sexually suggestive and obscene materials in stage plays. Although the play-jury system was short-lived, a review of its brief career reveals significant accomplishments and can provide a clearer picture of some of the issues confronting the American theatre in the first part of the twentieth century.

Type
Articles
Information
Theatre Survey , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , May 1985 , pp. 47 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © American Society for Theatre Research 1985

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

Notes

1 Hornblow, Arthur, “Flood of Stage Filth Must Be Checked,” Theatre Magazine, 37, No. 6 (June 1923), 7Google Scholar.

2 Mantle, Burns, ed., The Best Plays of 1921–22 and the Year Book of the Drama in America (Boston: Small, Maynard, 1922), p. 515Google Scholar.

3 New York Times, 2 Oct. 1921, p. 22, col. 3.

4 Mantle, , Best Plays of 1921–22, pp. 5, 443–444Google Scholar; New York Times, 19 Oct. 1921, p. 22, col. 1. One writer who saw the play reported that the five remained “well covered up in eleaborate underclothes” (Boyd, Ernest, “Readers and Writers,” Independent, 114 (1925), 272)Google Scholar.

5 New York Penal Code, sec. 1140–a (1909).

6 These figures are cited in the New York Times, 24 May 1923, p. 1, col. 5. The Penal Code itself set no such maximum penalties for a misdemeanor; presumably, the information in the New York Times article reflects current practice.

7 In 1896, John B. Doris, the manager of Doris's Gaiety Theatre, had been convicted by the Court of Special Sessions in connection with a production called “Orange Blossoms,” in the course of which one Mme. Pilar-Morin allegedly disrobed. Since Section 1140–a was not enacted until 1909, the grounds for Doris' conviction were that he was maintaining a public nuisance (New York Times, 19 May 1896, p. 2, col. 1; 26 May 1896, p. 8, col. 4; 6 Feb. 1897, p. 12, cols. 3–4; 24 May 1923, p. 1, col. 5).

8 McAdoo, William, “The Theatre and the Law,” Saturday Evening Post, 28 January 1922, pp. 6–7, 44, 47, 49, 51Google Scholar.

9 New York Times, 8 Nov. 1921, p. 19, col. 1; 15 Nov. 1921, p. 9, col. 1.

10 New York Times, 15 Nov. 1921. p. 9, col. 1; 22 Nov. 1921, p. 21, col. 4.

11 New York Times, 23 Nov. 1921, p. 10, col. 5.

12 The figures appeared in the New York Times three days apart and were apparently provided by Woods (New York Times, 23 Nov. 1921, p. 10, col. 5; 26 Nov. 1921, p. 18, col. 4). Both may have been inflated to strengthen Woods' case.

13 Since the court was being asked to decide on the extent and bounds of the Commissioner's authority, the issue of the alleged immorality of the play did not technically figure into the case.

14 New York Times, 23 Nov. 1921, p. 10, col. 5; 25 Nov. 1921, p. 18, col. 1; 26 Nov. 1921, p. 18, col. 4. The New York Times took action on its own against the play, refusing to print the play's title on its advertising page. Instead, beginning December 13, 1921, readers were provided only with the following indirect reference to the play: “HAVE YOU SEEN THE MOST SUCCESSFUL COMEDY IN TOWN NOW PLAYING AT THE ELTINGE THEATRE?” (New York Times, 13 Dec. 1921, p. 24). Like the two legal actions, this private initiative probably did more to promote attendance at the play than to discourage it.

15 New York Times, 24 Dec. 1921, p. 5, col. 2.

16 New York Times, 4 Jan. 1922, p. 9, col. 4; 21 Feb. 1922, p. 18, col. 2.

17 Mantle, , Best Plays of 1921–22, p. 5Google Scholar.

18 New York Times, 27 Dec. 1921, p. 12, col. 4; 1 Jan. 1922, sec. 6, p. I, col. 1; 15 Jan. 1922, sec. 6, p. I, col. 7; 28 Jan. 1922, p. 12, col. 3; “Pussyfoot in the Theatre,” New Republic, 7 Dec. 1921, pp. 32–33; “The Stage and the Censor,” Nation, 114 (18 Jan. 1922), 59–60Google Scholar; Hornblow, Arthur, “The Flood of Stage Filth,” p. 7Google Scholar; Metcalfe, James S., “Is a Theatre Censorship Inevitable?” Theatre Magazine, 38, No. 5 (Nov. 1923), 9Google Scholar; Hornblow, Arthur, “The Writing on the Wall,” Theatre Magazine, 38, No. 6 (Dec. 1923), 7Google Scholar; Sumner, John S., “The Sewer on the Stage,” Theatre Magazine, 38, No. 6 (Dec. 1923), 9, 78Google Scholar; “Trial by Play Jury,” The Independent, 114 (1925), 256Google Scholar; “The Box Office,” Saturday Evening Post, 21 March 1925, p. 30; Hornblow, Arthur, “Better the Blue Pencil Than the Padlock,” Theatre Magazine, 41, No. 6 (June 1925), 7Google Scholar.

19 New York Times, 24 Dec. 1921, p. 7, col. 3; 5 March 1922, sec. 2, p. 2, col. 3; 18 Apr. 1922, p. 15, col. 1.

20 New York Times, 27 Aug. 1922, sec. 3, p. 24, cols. 1–2.

21 New York Times, 24 Dec. 1921, p. 7, col. 3.

22 New York Times, 25 Jan. 1922, p. 16, col. 2; 1 Feb. 1922, p. 18, col. 4.

23 New York Times. 29 Jan. 1922, sec. 6, p. 1, col. 6.

24 New York Times. 1 Feb. 1922, p. 18, col. 4.

25 New York Times, 2 Feb. 1922, p. 17, col. 5.

26 New York Times, 3 March 1922, p. 15, col. 3.

27 New York Times, 3 March 1922, p. 15, col. 3Google Scholar.

28 Charles Coburn of the Producing Managers' Association accused the various volunteer juries of being inherently prejudiced against the theatre: “They are looking for something immoral and they usually find it. … We want to clean house with the help of disinterested, fair-minded people, not volunteer censors or cranks” (New York Times, 5 March 1922, sec. 2, p. 2, col. 3Google Scholar). A New York Times editorial also urged detachment and criticized Sumner's jury plan (4 March 1922, p. 14, col. 5).

29 New York Times, 11 March 1922, p. 1, col. 4Google Scholar.

30 New York Times, 30 March 1922, p. 17, col. 3Google Scholar.

31 New York Times, 18 March 1922, p. 12, col. 7Google Scholar.

32 New York Times, 30 March 1922, p. 17, col. 3Google Scholar.

33 New York Times, 27 Aug. 1922, sec. 3, p. 24, cols. 1–2Google Scholar.

34 New York Times, 8 Oct. 1922, sec. 2, p. 5, col. 2Google Scholar.

35 New York Times, 18 Apr. 1922, p. 15, col. 1Google Scholar; 21 May 1922, sec. 7, p. 5, col. 1.

36 New York Times, 19 May 1922, p. 20, col. 3Google Scholar.

37 New York Times, 20 May 1922, p. 2, col. 6Google Scholar.

38 New York Times, 24 May 1922, p. 22, col. 2Google Scholar.

39 New York Times, 13 Sept. 1922, p. 18, col. 3Google Scholar.

40 New York Times, 8 Oct. 1922, sec. 2, p. 5, col. 2Google Scholar.

41 New York Times, 29 Nov. 1923, p. 8, col. 2Google Scholar.

42 New York Times, 13 Sept. 1922, p. 18, col. 3Google Scholar.

43 New York Times, 8 Nov. 1923, p. 18, col. 3Google Scholar.

44 “The God of Vengeance,” Outlook, 134 (6 06 1923), 117–118Google Scholar.

45 Accounts of the controversy do not mention objections to the use of prostitution as a dramatic element in the play. Still, if anti-Semitism really was the issue, one wonders why the play did not provoke a strongly negative reaction from audiences at the previous Yiddishlanguage productions.

46 New York Times, 1 March 1923, p. 6, col. 2Google Scholar; 8 March 1923, p. 8, col. 3.

47 New York Times, 24 May 1923, p. 1, col. 5Google Scholar. In his instructions to the jurors, Judge McIntyre forbade them to take into account the lack of protest to previous productions of the play and the defense's argument that the play as a whole was moral in intent. The sole criterion for the jury's decision, said Judge McIntyre, must be whether the play contained material that was immoral by current American standards.

48 New York Times, 29 May 1923, p. 2, col. 6Google Scholar. The other eleven cast members were Morris Carnovsky, Samuel Jaffe, James Meighan, Irving Adler, Aldeah Wise, Dorothee Nolan, Virginia McFadden, Esther Stockton, Marjorie Stewart, Mae Berland, and Lillian K. Taiz.

49 “A Naked Challenge,” Nation, 117 (5 09 1923), 229Google Scholar.

50 New York Times, 26 Oct. 1923, p. 1, cols.2–3Google Scholar.

51 Gillmore, Frank, “Stage Immorality and the Actor,” Theatre Magazine, 38, No. 2 (08 1923), 25Google Scholar.

52 New York Times, 26 Oct. 1923, p. 1, cols.2–3Google Scholar.

53 New York Times, 2 Nov. 1923, p. 19, col. 8Google Scholar.

54 New York Times, 6 Nov. 1923, p. 18, col. 3Google Scholar.

55 New York Times, 4 Dec. 1923, p. 14, col. lGoogle Scholar; 5 Dec. 1923, p. 18, cols. 3, 7; 7 Dec. 1923, p. 24, col. 1; 8 Dec. 1923, p. 1, col. 6. This crusade against the stage was also reviewed in “A Sponge for the Stage,” Literary Digest, 22 Dec. 1923, pp.29–30Google Scholar.

56 New York Times, 8 Dec. 1923, p. 12, col. 4Google Scholar.

57 New York Times, 8 Dec. 1923, p. 12, col. 4Google Scholar.

58 New York Times, 18 Feb. 1924, p. 1, col. 4Google Scholar; 19 Feb. 1924, p. 7, col. 1; 15 May 1924, p. 21, col. 2; 16 May 1924, p. 16, col. 1.

59 New York Times, 24 Sept. 1924, p. 1, col. 4Google Scholar; 25 Sept. 1924, p. 1, col. 3; 26 Sept. 1924, p. 22, col. l; 27 Sept. 1924, p. 17, col. 3; 27 Sept. 1924, sec. 7, p. 1, col. l; 28 Sept. 1924, p. 9, col. 1; 11 Oct. 1924, p. 17, col. 2.

60 New York Times, 14 Feb. 1925, p. I, col. 7; 18 Feb. 1925, p. 1, col. 7; “Another Stage Purification Campaign,” Literary Digest, 7 March 1925, pp. 26–27Google Scholar.

61 New York Times, 20 Feb. 1925, p. 19, col. 5Google Scholar.

62 New York Times, 15 Feb. 1925, p. 1, col. 6Google Scholar; 20 Feb. 1925, p. 19, col. 5; 21 Feb. 1925, p. 1, col. 4; 23 Feb. 1925, p. 5, col. 4.

63 New York Times, 14 Feb. 1925, p. 1 col. 6Google Scholar; 15 Feb. 1925, p. 1, col. 6; 17 Feb. 1925, p. 1, col. 7.

64 New York Times, 18 Feb. 1925, p. 1, col. 7 and p. 6, cols. 2–3Google Scholar; 21 Feb. 1925, p. 6, col. 1.

65 New York Times, 21 Feb. 1925, p. 1, col. 4Google Scholar; 22 Feb. 1925, p. 11, cols. 1–2.

66 New York Times, 22 Feb. 1925, p. 1, col. 6Google Scholar.

67 New York Times, 23 Feb. 1925, p. 5, col. 4Google Scholar.

68 New York Times, 4 March 1925, p. 22, cols. 1–3Google Scholar. Banton had promised to subject each of twelve shows to jury review (New York Times, 25 Feb. 1925, p. 1, col. 7)Google Scholar; four juries were chosen on March 3; and three plays were actually reviewed. I could find no explanation for the discrepancies.

69 New York Times, 14 March 1925, p. 15, col. 1Google Scholar. The Firebrand is a comedy of romantic intrigue, based on an incident in the autobiography of Benevenuto Cellini. Burns Mantle included the play, along with Desire Under the Elms and They Knew What They Wanted, in his selection of the ten best plays of the 1924–25 season (Mantle, Burns, ed., The Best Plays of” 1924–25 and the Year Book of the Drama in America (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1930))Google Scholar. They Knew What They Wanted went on to win a Pulitzer Prize.

70 New York Times, 15 March 1925, p. 17, col. 2Google Scholar.

71 New York Times, 14 March 1925, p. 15, cot 1Google Scholar; 16 March 1925, p. 18, col. 4.

72 New York Times, 14 March 1925, p. 15, col. 1Google Scholar.

73 William Brady called the verdicts “comical” (New York Times, 14 March 1925, p. 15, col. 1Google Scholar), and in June he briefly reopened his production of A Good Bad Woman, arguing that it was no worse than the shows that the juries had acquitted (New York Times, 23 June 1925, p. 24, col. 2Google Scholar). At a meeting of the New York Federation of Churches, Rev. John Roach Straton a conservative Baptist minister, attacked the play-jury system, calling it “extra-legal” and demanding that it be abolished by the city administration (New York Times, 31 March 1925,” p. 23, col. 3Google Scholar).

74 Pizet, Washington, “Common-Censorship,” Forum, 73 (1925), 742–746Google Scholar. Arthur Hornblow, the editor of Theatre Magazine, suggested that the juries' decisions had been mistaken and might lead to the imposition of state censorship of the theatre (“Better the Blue Pencil Than the Padlock,” p. 7); later, he also disagreed with the Pulitzer committee's decision in regard to They Knew What They Wanted (Theatre Magazine, 42, No. 1 (07 1925), 7Google Scholar). Criticism even came from Lawrence Langner, who must have approved at least of the decision of the jury that reviewed the Theatre Guild production. A playlet by Langner, satirizing the deliberations of a play jury, appeared in the June 1925 issue of Theatre Magazine; the jury in Langner's play is composed of such a divergent array of odd personalities that they can reach no decision, much to the dismay of the manager of the show being reviewed, who threatens to close the show unless the jury condemns it (Langner, Lawrence, “Pity the Poor Play Jury!” Theatre Magazine, 41, No. 6 (06 1925), 18, 68Google Scholar).

75 New York Times, 27 Apr. 1925, p. 19, col. 2Google Scholar.

76 New York Times, 23 June 1925, p. 24, col. 2Google Scholar.

77 New York Times, 24 Oct. 1925, p. 14, col. 7Google Scholar.