PICTURE SHOWS.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15604, 31 May 1916, Page 5

PICTURE SHOWS.

TO THE EDEToa OF "tTHE PRESS." Sir, —I feel sure there must have been a twinkle in the editorial eye when my plain, matter-of-fact statement was described as a fiery outburst. And in accusing roe of exaggeration I am equally sure that you are simply trying to draw attention to my statements. Put one after the other, as my questions wero, they carry with them a formidable V indictment, but which one of them coouveys any exaggeration? Ask the police of this town about the stealing, rca<l the reports from other countries, and rememocr that for one case that comes before «io police dozens receive chastisement from their parents, and some, alas! go totally unpunished. Ask the police, again, about other immoralities. Again, from the point of view of disease, can you imagine more likely conditions for its development than a gloomy building where for many hours people breathe and re-breathe the same air—where people bring children with measles, influenza, or, possibly, skinning after scarlet fever? Do you think this exaggeration? I can assure you that some mothers seem to care nothing about these matters, and I have frequently seen such eases in the public trams. Now, as to the moral effect of some of the pictures, putting on one side the matter of good taste, I unhesitatingly say that I have seen films which were bofch immoral and degrading, that made me feel quite lowered on coming out in God's pure sunlight. Wake up, Mr Editor—go to some of these places yourself. Don't carefully pickj but do as the people do, go to anything that is being shown. I think then you will help to start a crusade against this insidious but none the less deadly evil. While the big folk who build these picture pocket the profits, it is the poorer people, who have not any home interests, who provide the money. The working man who finds the price of living has gone up and turns restless over-the paltry sacrifice he is asked to make, still finds the money for the weekly, and often bi-weekly, visit to the pictures, and how the young people find the money to go over and over again is one of those problems the answering of which may make you feel inclined to help the movement to restrict the hours during which pictures may be shown, and penalise all who bring young children to look at them.—Yours, etc.,

I DIOGENES. fWe liavo referred to this letter in our "Leader Notes."—Ed. "The Press."] TO TTTE EDITOR OF "TirE ITIESS." Sir, —Your correspondent "Diogenes" seems to have indeed been living the tub life, and thereby cramped his mentality and his outlook. If he had como along with mo recruiting, he would, perhaps, have rejoiced that the cheap "movies" had come, bringing enjoyment and enlightenment within reach, of families with slender purses. "Diogenes" must not forget that if children were barred, Mother would seldom be able to get out with Dad. "Diogenes" j has perhaps never seen that wonderful picture "Quo Vadis?" where tho figure i of the Christ is made ,to appear before | Peter, who had turned his back on j Rome and his duty.— ¥ours, etc., PETER TROLOVE.

To THE EDITOR OF "THE TRESS." Sir, —Please permit nic space in your columns to express my iiearty appreciation of your correspondent "i>iogenes's" sentiments appearing in this day's issue of "The Press'' anont the increasing and manifold evil consequences arising from picture sliotve, which without doubt are a colossal public danger, insidiously undermining the moral and physical development of the rising generation. The apathetic attitude of our so-called leaders of thought, lay and clerical alike, in regard to " these "shows" seems most miraculous indeed. One shudders at "Diogenes's" graphic pen picture of their baleful effects, and one wonders what on earth has come over our rulers, spiritual and temporal, who permit and connive at the existence of such a slate c f things. The benevolent institutions wc have are altogether insufficient to appease the public conscience in regard to the ponderous encroachments of this evil. The Society for the Protectioii of "Women and Children may be well-intentioned; but here I if is simply imbecile. We have a society for the prevention of cruelty "to animals." Alas! Mr Editor, what is to become of our own race! If "IHogenes" speaks true, and I, for one, can testify from personal observation that a ll he says is quite true, there is no exaggeration, as suggested in your footnote; on the contrary, very much more that he has left unsaid can be classed in this melancholy category. No time should be lost in taxing these unwholesome places of "amusement," as you very properly suggest, a nd a heavy penalty should be imposed on any parent or guardian who permits any infant under sixteen rears of age to frequent such places.—Yours, etc., W. L. CHRYSTALL.