Patrolling the Boundaries of Race: Motion picture censorship and Jim Crow in Virginia, 1922-1932

Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 273-291

  Smith, J Douglas ^a  

^a OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61149618985     PISSN: 01439685     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01439680120069416     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Lamar T. Beman (compiler), Selected Articles on Censorship of the Theater and Moving Pictures (New York, 1931), p. 219.
2. Virginia State Board of Censors: 1923 Censorship Law and rules and regulations, (Richmond, 1923), p. 3, copy located in folder entitled 'Motion picture censorship', box 44, Executive Papers, Harry F. Byrd, 1926-30, Library of Virginia. In April 1927, the Board of Censors was renamed the Division of Motion Picture Censorship and placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Law. I address at length in my dissertation many of the broader influences on shifting racial boundaries that are mentioned here. See J. Douglas Smith, Managing white supremacy: politics and culture in Virginia, 1919-1939 (PhD dissertation, University of Virginia, 1998).
3. A word about sources is in order. During the first 10 years of the board's existence, the censors screened annually between 1500 and 2100 films. On a handful of occasions each year, the board rejected in its entirety a motion picture on account of extensive objectionable material. In such instances, producers had the option of making significant cuts and resubmitting their film for consideration; more than half of the films rejected in this manner were approved upon resubmission. Most of the board's work, however, did not concern the outright rejection of a film, but rather the elimination of specific scenes or pieces of dialogue. In a fairly typical year such as 1926-1927, the board ordered 392 eliminations from 165 films. As soon as these cuts were made, the board granted its seal of approval and allowed the film to be shown in the Old Dominion. Every two weeks, the Virginia censors mailed a bulletin to theater owners throughout the state which detailed the eliminations and rejections. See: Report of the Division of Motion Picture Censorship, July 1, 1934, to June 30, 1935, p. 4, copy in box 33, Department of Law, Virginia Division of Motion Picture Censorship, Record Group 5, Library of Virginia (hereafter cited as RG 5). The records of the Division of Motion Picture Censorship contain thorough files on the films rejected in their entirety. Unfortunately, I have located only one of the hundreds of bi-monthly reports which detailed eliminations in the records. Consequently, this article is based on the films rejected in their entirety, as well as one film that underwent minor eliminations. Furthermore, most of the actual films discussed in this article have been lost, although several Oscar Micheaux films have been discovered in recent years.
4. Edward de Grazia and Roger K. Newman, Banned Films: movies, censors and the First Amendment (New York, 1982), pp. 13-14;
5. Richard Maltby, 'To prevent the prevalent type of book': censorship and adaptation in Hollywood, 1924-1934, American Quarterly, 44 (December 1992), p. 558 (quotation); Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio Industrial Commission, 236 US 230;
6. Ford H. MacGregor, Official censorship legislation, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 128 (November 1926), pp. 170-172. The Mutual decision was not overturned until 1952.
7. For opposition to censorship laws, see Beman, Selected Articles on Censorship, pp. 34-48, 181-234.
8. Ruth Vasey, Foreign parts: Hollywood's global distribution and the representation of ethnicity, in Francis G. Couvares, Movie Censorship and American Culture (Washington, DC, 1996), p. 234, notes 9-10 (quotations in note 9);
9. MacGregor, Official censorship legislation, pp. 173-174.
10. William Marston Seabury, The Public and the Motion Picture Industry (New York, 1926), pp. 161 (first quotation), 173 (all other quotations).
11. J. R. Rutland (compiler), State censorship of motion pictures, in The Reference Shelf: briefs, bibliographies, debates, reprints of selected articles and study outlines on timely topics (New York, 1923), pp. 148-150 (quotation on p. 149);
12. de Grazia and Newman, Banned Films, pp. 22-23.
13. List of 'don'ts' and 'be carefuls', in Raymond Moley, The Hays Office (Indianapolis & New York, 1945), pp. 240-241 (quotation on p. 240);
14. Leonard J. Leff and Jerold L. Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, censorship, and the Production Code from the 1920s to the 1960s (New York, 1990), pp. 7-8, 284-286;
15. Richard S. Randall, Censorship of the Movies (Madison, WI, 1968), p. 201.
16. Ruth Vasey, The World According to Hollywood, 1918-1939 (Madison, WI, 1997), p. 79;
17. Vasey, Foreign parts, p. 221;
18. Vasey, The World According to Hollywood, p. 151 (quotation).
19. Thomas Cripps, Slow Fade to Black: the Negro in American film, 1900-1942 (Oxford, 1993), pp. 41-69;
20. John Shillady to Westmoreland Davis, 10 October 1918 (quotations), folder entitled 'Moving pictures, censors for,' box 18, Executive Papers, Westmoreland Davis, 1918-1922, Library of Virginia (hereafter cited as Davis Papers).
21. Thomas W. Dixon to Westmoreland Davis, 6 February 1918 (first quotation), W.J. Horsley to Davis, 2 January 1919 (second quotation), box 18, Davis Papers.
22. Censorship in Kansas, in John Eugene Harley, World-Wide Influences of the Cinema: a study of official censorship and the international cultural aspects of motion Pictures (Los Angeles, 1940), pp. 67, 85 (first quotation on p. 67);
23. Standards of Maryland State Board of Censors, Film Year Book, 1922-1923, p. 339 (second quotation);
24. Pennsylvania State Board of Censors. Standards, Film Year Book, 1926, p. 437 (fourth quotation);
25. Maltby, 'To prevent the prevalent type of book, pp. 572-573;
26. Frank Walsh, Sin and Censorship: the Catholic Church and the motion picture industry (New Haven & London, 1996), p. 28 (first quotation);
27. Morris L. Ernst and Pare Lorentz, Censored: the private life of the movie (New York, 1930), p. 17 (third and fourth quotations).
28. Films rejected in toto since August 1, 1922, folder entitled 'Rejections year 1946 and prior years', box 31, RG 5;
29. Report of the Virginia State Board of Censors, July 1, 1925, to June 30, 1926 (Richmond, 1926), pp. 2-3 (first quotation), box 33, RG 5;
30. Report of the Virginia State Board of Censors, July 1, 1924, to June 30, 1925 (Richmond, 1925), p. 2 (second quotation), copy in box 33, RG 5.
31. Reasons for the rejection of Cracked Wedding Bells, 5 October 1923, folder entitled 'Cracked Wedding Bells 1923', box 31, RG 5.
32. Cripps, Slow Fade To Black, pp. 170-202 (quotation on p. 170).
33. Henry T. Sampson, Micheaux Film Corporation: Oscar Micheaux, in Blacks in Black and White: a source book on black films (Metuchen, NJ, 1995), pp. 142-169 (first quotation on p. 142; second quotation on p. 169).
34. Charlene Regester, Black films, white censors: Oscar Micheaux confronts censorship in New York, Virginia, and Chicago, in Couvares, Movie Censorship and American Culture, pp. 162-164 (first and second quotations on p. 162; third and fourth quotations on p. 164).
35. C.C. Collums, Jr, Norfolk, to Evan R. Chesterman, 27 February 1924, John L. Branch to Chesterman, 27 February 1924, Mrs C.L. Cornelius to Chesterman, 12 March 1924, Chesterman to Manager, Attucks Theater, 28 February 1924, Chesterman to Manager, Idle Hour Theater, 28 February 1924, Chesterman to Manager, Dixie Theater, 14 March 1924, Chesterman to Mayors of Danville, Lynchburg, Portsmouth, Newport News, Roanoke, and Norfolk, 29 February 1924 (quotation), Maryland elimination bulletin: week ending January 26, 1924, Unlawful exhibition of Negro picture 'Birthright', 13 March 1924, all in folder entitled 'Birthright - unlawful exhibition - 1924', box 31, RG 5.
36. Evan R. Chesterman to CC Collums, Jr, 28 February 1924 (quotation), Emmanuel Levy to Chesterman, 29 February 1924, M. Barney to Chesterman, 29 February 1924, G. W. Kessler to Board of Censors, 15 March 1924, Chesterman to Emmanuel Levy, 3 March 1924, Chesterman to M. Barney, 3 March 1924, Chesterman to G.W. Kessler, 18 March 1924, Chesterman to John L. Branch, 14 March 1924, Unlawful exhibition of Negro picture 'Birthright', 13 March 1924, all in folder entitled 'Birthright - unlawful exhibition - 1924', box 31, RG 5.
37. Evan R. Chesterman to Oscar Micheaux, 28 February 1924 (quotations), unlawful exhibition of Negro picture 'Birthright', 13 March 1924, both in folder entitled 'Birthright - Unlawful Exhibition - 1924', box 31, RG 5.
38. T.S. Stribling, Birthright (New York, 1922); 'The story', an advertisement for Birthright, folder entitled 'Birthright - unlawful exhibition - 1924', box 31, RG 5;
39. Sampson, Blacks in Black and White, pp. 283-285. I should note that the 1924 version of this film no longer exists. Micheaux remade Birthright in the late 1930s, but that version of the film is only available through the Library of Congress and is not easily accessible. I have pieced together the story through advertisements and reading the book on which it was based.
40. Maryland eliminations bulletin: week ending January 26, 1924, folder entitled 'Birthright - unlawful exhibition - 1924', box 31, RG 5. The references to bloodhounds chasing Cissie and Bobbs actually shooting blacks must have been invented by Micheaux for the film, for they do not appear in the book.
41. In re film entitled 'A Son of Satan': reasons for rejection, 22 July 1924, folder entitled 'Son of Satan - 1924', box 31, RG 5.
42. To the managers of all colored theaters in Virginia, 22 July 1924, Oscar Micheaux to Virginia Board of Censors, 6 October 1924, Evan Chesterman to Micheaux, 9 October 1924 (quotation), all in folder entitled 'Son of Satan - 1924', box 31, RG 5.
43. Oscar Micheaux to Virginia Board of Censors, 14 October 1924, folder entitled 'Birthright - unlawful exhibition - 1924', box 31, RG 5.
44. Evan R. Chesterman to Oscar Micheaux, 21 October 1924 (quotations), folder entitled 'Birthright - unlawful exhibition - 1924', box 31, RG 5; representative of Micheaux to Chesterman, 23 October 1924, folder entitled 'Son of Satan - 1924', box 31, RG 5.
45. J.D. Hofheimer to Emma Speed Sampson, 24 October 1924, Evan R. Chesterman to Hofheimer, 25 October 1924 (quotation), Chesterman to Davis Lee, 25 October 1924, Chesterman to Norfolk Chief of Police, 25 October 1924, Chesterman to Manager, Attucks Theater, 27 October 1924, all in folder entitled 'Son of Satan - 1924', box 31, RG 5. The Norfolk Journal and Guide on 25 October 1924, p. 4, carried an advertisement for the film's exhibition which listed 27-29 October as the dates it would be shown.
46. Evan R. Chesterman to Oscar Micheaux, 27 October 1924, folder entitled 'Son of Satan - 1924', box 31, RG 5.
47. Davis Lee to Evan R. Chesterman, 28 October 1924, S.W. Ironmonger to Chesterman, 29 October 1924, Oscar Micheaux to Chesterman, 30 October 1924, Board of Censors to Micheaux, 7 November 1924, Chesterman to Micheaux, 10 November 1924 (quotation), folder entitled 'Son of Satan - 1924', box 31, RG 5.
48. Evan R. Chesterman to C Lee Moore, 10 November 1924 (quotation), folder entitled 'Birthright - unlawful exhibition - 1924', box 31, RG 5; Chesterman to Oscar Micheaux, 13 November 1924, folder entitled 'Son of Satan - 1924', box 31, RG 5.
49. In re film entitled 'A Son of Satan': reasons for rejection, 22 July 1924 (first and second quotations), folder entitled 'Son of Satan - 1924', box 31, RG 5; eliminations for Circle the Enchantress in Bulletin of Virginia State Board of Censors, Report for two weeks ending 22 November 1924 (all other quotations), copy in folder entitled 'Last Man on Earth - 1924', box 31, RG 5 (emphasis in original).
50. Post No. 1, Anglo-Saxon Clubs, has 400 members, Richmond News Leader, 5 June 1923, p. 18 (first quotation);
51. Peggy Pascoe, Miscegenation law, court cases, and ideologies of 'race' in twentieth-century America, Journal of American History, 83 (June 1996), p. 59 (second quotation);
52. Commonwealth of Virginia, Acts of Assembly, 1924, pp. 534-535 (third quotation on p. 535). The bulk of this paragraph and subsequent references to the Anglo-Saxon Clubs come from a chapter in my dissertation devoted to their activities.
53. See Smith, Managing white supremacy, chapter 2.
54. Films rejected in toto since August 1922, p. 4, folder entitled 'Rejections year 1946 and prior years', box 31, RG 5; memo entitled 'The House Behind the Cedars' (quotation), folder entitled 'The House Behind the Cedars - 1925', box 31, RG 5;
55. John Powell to Arthur James, 8 July 1925, folder 2, box 56, John Powell Papers, University of Virginia (hereafter cited as Powell Papers).
56. Memo entitled 'The House Behind the Cedars', folder entitled 'The House Behind the Cedars-1925', box 31, RG 5.
57. Telegram from Oscar Micheaux to Virginia Board of Censors, 13 March 1925 (first and second quotations), Micheaux to Virginia Motion Picture Censors, 13 March 1925 (third quotation), folder entitled 'The House Behind the Cedars - 1925', box 31, RG 5.
58. Oscar Micheaux to Virginia Motion Picture Censors, 13 March 1925, folder entitled 'The House Behind the Cedars - 1925', box 31, RG 5.
59. Films rejected in toto since August 1922, p. 4, folder entitled 'Rejections year 1946 and prior years', box 31, RG 5;
60. Evan Chesterman to Oscar Micheaux, 18 October 1925 (quotations), folder entitled 'The House Behind the Cedars - 1925', box 31, RG 5.
61. John Powell to Arthur James, 6 June 1925, folder 2, box 56, Powell Papers; statement of Louise Burleigh (quotations), folder entitled '1926 Jan-June', box 3, Powell Papers;
62. J. David Smith, John Powell, Hampton Institute and the issue of racial equality, in The Eugenic Assault on America, pp. 51-52.
63. John Powell to Arthur James, 6 June 1925 (quotations), Powell to James, 8 July 1925, folder 2, box 56, Powell Papers; statements of Earnest S. Cox and Louise Burleigh, folder entitled '1926 Jan-June,' box 3, Powell Papers;
64. Smith, John Powell, Hampton Institute and the issue of racial equality, pp. 52-54.
65. Reasons for rejection of The Love Mart, folder entitled 'The Love Mart - 1928', box 31, RG 5.
66. White Cargo - rejected in toto June 18, 1930, folder entitled 'White Cargo - 1930', box 31, RG 5.
67. Memo entitled 'White Cargo - Trio Productions', 29 July 1930, Evan R. Chesterman to Trio Productions, Inc, 31 July 1930 (quotation), films rejected in toto since August 1, 1922, p. 6, all in folder entitled 'White Cargo - 1930', box 31, RG 5. That blacks and whites did not patronize the same theaters in Virginia allowed for a practical application of the double standard in the censor's decision. Unlike most cities in the South where blacks were assigned to the balcony or some other inferior section of theaters, separate theaters served blacks and whites in most parts of the Old Dominion. Consequently, the censors assumed with confidence that white theaters could exhibit White Cargo without any danger of black patronage. No law in Virginia mandated such a practice; in fact the Public Assemblages Act of 1926 required only that separate seating be provided. The situation led the Norfolk Journal and Guide to decry the 'rank discrimination' suffered by that city's blacks who were effectively prevented from viewing 52 of the best films each year. The Tidewater Weekly laid the blame squarely on the shoulders of Loews, the owner of many of the theaters in Norfolk. The Journal and Guide noted that Loews had lifted the ban in Portsmouth, but continued to deny blacks first-class entertainment in Norfolk. 'A situation such as Loews has promulgated in Norfolk should not be permitted to obtain', reasoned the paper. 'Something is radically wrong with a system that will permit such gross discrimination and if something is not done to correct the above abuse it should be taken to the courts for examination.' See: An outrageous situation, Norfolk Journal and Guide, 31 December 1932, editorial page.
68. R.C.L. Moncure to Oscar Micheaux, 22 April 1932 (quotations), Moncure to Manager, Dixie Theater, 22 April 1932, Moncure to John R. Saunders, Attorney General of Virginia, 25 April 1932, all in folder entitled 'Veiled Aristocrats - 1932', box 31, RG 5.
69. Oscar Micheaux to Virginia Motion Picture Censors, 13 March 1925 (quotation), folder entitled 'The House Behind the Cedars - 1925', box 31, RG 5; South protests exhibition of 'Birth of a Nation', Norfolk Journal and Guide, 14 February 1931, p. 5; Resolution on The Birth of a Nation passed by white ministers and laypersons in Virginia, folder entitled 'Virginia Interracial Commission/Committee, 1922-1945', box 35, Adele Clark Papers, Virginia Commonwealth University.