The Motivations of a Censor

1
|
P a g e

The
Motivations
of
a
Censor:

A
Study
of
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer
and
The
Effects
of
his
Times
on
the

Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor
(Motion
Pictures)

Gerald
G.
Huesken
Jr.

HIST
610:
Seminar
in
United
States
History

Dr.
Ronald
Frankum

August
25,
2012

Figure
1:
The
Board's
Official
Seal
of
Approval,
cir
1917

(Pennsylvania
State
Archives,
Harrisburg)

2
|
P a g e

Introduction
-‐
Critiquing
Richard
C.
Saylor
and
his
Work
on
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor

and
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer:

When
looking
back
over
the
history
of
the

United
States,
no
topic
has
spawned
more
controversy

than
the
issue
of
censorship
and
when
(or
if)

government-‐sponsored
suppression
of
information
is

appropriate,
especially
in
times
of
perceived
national

crisis.
Regardless
of
the
time
period,
there
have
always

been
those
who
believed
they
were
acting
in
the
best

interest
of
society
(the
"censor")
and
those
who

believed
that
any
suppression
was
an
infringement
on

their
rights
as
an
American
citizen.
It
is
within
this
vain

of
historical
scholarship
that
Pennsylvania
archivist

Richard
C.
Saylor
produced
an
article
on
the
history
of

the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor
for
motion
pictures
for
a
2004
edition
of
the
academic
journal,
Film

History.
While
looking
to
present
an
"interesting
case
study
of
government-‐legislated
censorship

boards",
Mr.
Saylor
also
attempted
to
show
the
reader
some
insight
into
the
motivating
factors
of
one

of
the
board's
earliest
and
most
influential
leaders,
Pennsylvania
historian
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer.1

Well-‐respected
in
his
time
as
the
biographer
of
prominent
American
historical
figures
such
as

Abraham
Lincoln
and
Henry
Clay
as
well
as
the
creator
of
an
early
seminal
work
of
American
historical

scholarship
(the
multi-‐volume
A
History
of
the
United
States
since
the
Civil
War),
Oberholtzer
served

on
the
Board
of
Censor
from
1915
until
his
dismissal
in
1920.
Throughout
this
period,
Oberholtzer,

according
to
Saylor,
would
become
not
just
a
force
for
movie
censorship
in
the
state
of
Pennsylvania,

1
Saylor, Richard C. "Dr. Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer and the Early Years of the Pennsylvania State Board of Censors
(Motion Picture)." Film History: An International Journal 16.2 (2004): 142. Print.
Figure
2:
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer
cir.
1936
(Temple

University
Archives,
Philadelphia)

3
|
P a g e

but
an
advocate
and
spokesperson
for
the
practice
nationwide
as
well
as
a
campaigner
for
more
Federal

control
over
the
motion
picture
industry.2

It
is
with
this
in
mind,
that
Saylor
tried
to
provide
a
rational

means
to
explain
Oberholtzer's
motivations
for
accepting
such
a
calling.

To
Saylor,
the
answer
lies
in
Oberholtzer's
desire
to
"save
Americans
from
themselves"
and

argues
that
Oberholtzer
believed
he
was
performing
a
vital
service
justified
by

"a
moral
obligation
to

eliminate
salacious
material
from
films
before
the
masses
were
subject
to
its
negative
influence",
an

obligation
that
had
to
be
done
objectively
and
without
the
influence
of
partisan
politics
or
pressure
for

motion
picture
industry.
3

In
Saylor
approximation,
Oberholtzer
was
driven
by
these
moral
convictions
of

public
service
and
his
passion
for
the
betterment
of
American
society.4

When
looking
at
the
historical

record
of
Oberholtzer,
who
carefully
crafted
his
historical
image
for
posterity
with
the
publication
of

numerous
articles,
speeches,
and
even
a
full-‐length
book
(1922's
The
Morals
of
the
Movie),
it
is
easy
to

see
what
Saylor
sees
-‐
a
patriotic
American
citizen
concerned
with
the
direction
of
his
country
and

betterment
of
his
fellow
citizens.
"I
am
no
friend
of
the
censor...or
for
the
matter...any
name
or
political

order
which
suggests
government
control,"
wrote
Oberholtzer
in
the
preface
to
The
Morals
of
the

Movie,
"Indeed
I
am
an
individualist
who
would
dwell...in
complete
freedom
[
if
possible]."5

While
it
is

safe
to
assume,
as
Saylor
has,
that
Oberholtzer
truly
saw
himself
as
a
champion
for
public
good
during

an
era
of
Progressive-‐minded
reform,
the
reality
of
the
situation
is
that
human
beings
are
not

completely
ignorant
of
other
competing
factors,
specifically
one's
class,
politics,
or
survival.

In
looking
at
the
primary
and
secondary
sources
available
both
at
the
Pennsylvania
State

Archives
in
Harrisburg
and
Oberholtzer's
surviving
personal
papers
at
the
Historical
Society
of

Pennsylvania
in
Philadelphia,
a
different
picture
of
Pennsylvania's
famed
motion
picture
watchdog
starts

2
(Motion Picture)." Film History: An International Journal 16.2 (2004): 145-153. Print.
3
Saylor 159, 146
4
(Motion Picture)." Film History: An International Journal 16.2 (2004): 146-150. Print.
5
Oberholtzer, Ellis P. Preface. The Morals of the Movie. Philadelphia: Penn, 1922. 6. Print.

4
|
P a g e

to
emerge.
While
Oberholtzer
may
have
prided
himself
as
politically
impartial
and
morally
objective,
the

evidence
speak
to
a
man
driven
by
relatively
common
class
fears
and
social
norms.
It
is
without

argument
that
Oberholtzer
obviously
fit
into
the
upper
class
of
American
society,
a
noted
and
wealthy

intellectual
who
was
not
immune
to
the
concerns
of
others
like
him.
When
looking
at
the
historical

evidence
through
this
lens,
Saylor's
image
of
the
morally-‐upright
and
objective
Oberholtzer
lessens
and

a
new
image
emerges
of
a
man
with
a
growing
nativist
fear
of
the
influence
of
motion
pictures
over
the

immigrant
and
working
classes,
anxious
over
a
preserved
breakdown
of
law
and
order
due
to
depiction

of
law
enforcement
officials
in
the
movies,
intolerant
of
the
evolving
female
gender
roles
due
to
the

influence
of
movies,
and
far
from
politically
objective
when
conducting
the
business
of
the
state.

5
|
P a g e

Part
I
-‐
Background
to
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor
and
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer:

The
history
behind
the
Pennsylvania
motion
picture

Board
of
Censor
is
one
that
is
born
out
of
the
Progressive
era

reforms
of
the
early
Twentieth
Century.
The
bill,
P.L
1067,
calling

for
the
creation
of
a
state
'Board
of
Censor'
for
the
overseeing
of

motion
pictures,
was
adopted
in
the
spring
of
1911,
with
both

houses
of
the
Pennsylvania
General
Assembly
voting
in

unanimous
support.6

When
the
bill
was
eventually
signed
into

law
by
Governor
John
Kinley

Tener,
Pennsylvania
became
the

first
state
in
the
Union
to
have
a
legislatively
created
board
of

censor
for
the
purpose
of
viewing
and
editing
motion
pictures.7

The
originally
reading
of
the
new
law
provided
for
the
governor

to
nominate
two
censors
(one
male
and
one
female)
for
a
period
of
three
years
to
review
all
films

intended
to
be
shown
in
Pennsylvania
and
authorized
the
Board
"to
approve
such
[films]
as
shall
be

moral,
and
to
withhold
approval
from
such
as
shall
tend
to
debase
or
corrupt
the
morals"
of
the
state's

citizenry.8

6
United States. Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Part IV. Harrisburg: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1912.3905-06. Print.
7
Jowett, Garth. Film: The Democratic Art. Boston: Little, Brown, 1976. 118. Print.
8
Herman P. Miller.Smull's Legislative Hand Book and Manual of the State of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg: C.E.
Aughinbaugh, 1912. 122. Print
Figure
3:
Republican
Pennsylvania
governor

John
Kinley
Tener,
who
signed
P.L.
1067,

creating
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor,

into
law,
cir.
1910
(Pennsylvania
State

Archives,
Harrisburg)

6
|
P a g e

In
1915,
the
Board
of
Censor's
place
as
a
permanent

fixture
in
Pennsylvania
would
be
legitimized
by
the
Pennsylvania

Supreme
Court
and
its
ruling
in
the
case
of
Buffalo
Branch
v.

Breiting.
In
their
final
opinion,
the
justices
"expressed...that
the

promotion
of
public
morals
was
a
chief
function
of
government

"
and
that
the
"
statute
creating
a
[B]oard
of
[C]ensors
was

clearly
an
exercise
of
the
police
power
of
the
state..."9

The
legal

protection
provided
to
the
Board
of
Censor
was
further

strengthened
at
the
Federal
level
when
the
US

Supreme
Court

ruled
favorably
in
the
case
of
Mutual
Film
Corporation
v.

Industrial
Commission
of
Ohio
later
that
year.
Film
distributer

Mutual
Film
Corporation
had
brought
suit
against
the
state
of

Ohio,
claiming
that
the
state's
censorship
law
violate
their
First
Amendment
rights
and
interfered
with

interstate
commerce.10

Despite
these
arguments,
the
Court
ruled
unanimously
against
the
Mutual
Film

Corporation,
citing
that
"[the
Court
could
not]
regard
[the
censorship
of
movies]
as
beyond
the
power
of

government."11

Emboldened
by
these
judicial
decisions,
the
Pennsylvania
General
Assembly
amended

P.L.
1067
in
May
of
1915,
allowing
the
governor
to
appoint
a
second
male
member
to
the
Pennsylvania

Board
of
Censor
and
allowed
for
an
increase
in
state
funding
and
staffing
for
the
Board's
day-‐to-‐day

operations.12

The
Board
would
remain
a
part
of
the
Pennsylvania
political
landscape
until
1956.

It
was
during
this
period
of
expanding
influence
for
the
Board
that
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer

arrived
on
the
scene.
Born
in
Chester
County
in
1868,
Oberholtzer
was
the
son
of
a
former
school

9
Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. The Morals of the Movie. Philadelphia: Penn, 1922. 116. Print.
10
Aronson, Michael. Nickelodeon City: Pittsburgh at the Movies, 1905-1929. Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh, 2008. 167-68. Print.
11
Aronson 168.
12
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Part III. Harrisburg: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1916. 3205. Print.
Figure
4:
Pennsylvania
governor,
Martin

Brumbaugh,
who
appointed
Oberholtzer

to
the
Board
of
Censor,
cir.
1922

(Pennsylvania
State
Archives,
Harrisburg)

7
|
P a g e

teacher,
John
Oberholtzer,
and
a
socially
conscious
mother,
Sara
Louisa
Vickers
Oberholtzer,
who
was

well-‐known
as
an
abolitionist,
poet,
and
spokeswoman
for
female
suffrage.
Educated
at
the
University
of

Pennsylvania
and
later
at
European
universities
in
Paris
and
Berlin,
Oberholtzer
found
his
true
calling
as

a
writer.

From
1889
until
1908,
he
worked
for
a
variety
of
popular
Philadelphia
newspapers
as
an
editor

and
later
branched
out
into
the
field
of
historical
study,
editing
the
popular
American
Crisis
Biographies

series
as
well
as
organizing
a
number
of
historical
pageant
parades
for
the
city
of
Philadelphia.13

In
1915,

Oberholtzer
was
gaining
a
new
reputation
as
an
accomplished
biographer
and
respected
teacher
when

he
was
nominated
by
Governor
Martin
Brumbaugh
to
be
the
newest
member
of
the
Pennsylvania
Board

of
Censor.14

"I
knew
little
indeed
about
the
motion
picture,"
admitted
Oberholtzer,

"...
I
had
only
a
dim

knowledge
of
what
lay
in
the
dramatic
shadow-‐land
to
which
[Governor
Brumbaugh
had]
invited
me.

But
I
said
that
his
tender
of
the
office
pleased
me,
and
I
was
soon
in
my
place."15

13
Glassberg, David. American Historical Pageantry: The Uses of Tradition in the Early Twentieth Century. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina, 1990. 46-52. Print.
14
Pittsburgh, 2008. 172. Print.
15
Oberholtzer, Ellis P. Preface. The Morals of the Movie. Philadelphia: Penn, 1922. 6-7. Print.

8
|
P a g e

Part
II
-‐
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer:
Champion
of
the
Nativist
Upper
Class-‐

"Stories,
or
scenes,
holding
up
to
ridicule
and
reproach…classes,
or
other
social
groups...will
be

disapproved."

-‐
Section
9,
Standards
of
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor16

"Themes
or
incidents
in
pictures
stores,
which
are
designed
to
inflame
the
mind[s]...or
to

establish
false
standards...under
the...classes...will
be
disapproved."

-‐
Section
23,
Standards
of
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor17

The
social
conditions
on
the
early
Twentieth

Century
in
the
United
States
were
times
of
great

economic
and
social
change
for
the
nation.

The

introduction
of
the
Industrial
Revolution
to
the
United

States
had
produced
great
wonders
of
manufacturing

and
technology,
but
had
also
spawned
a
growing

demand
for
labor.
From
1836
to
1914,
over
thirty

million
Europeans
migrated
to
the
United
States,

hoping
to
fill
that
demand
and
start
a
new
life
in
a
new

country.18

These
immigrants
brought
new
customs,

language,
and
political
ideals
that
were
foreign
to
most
native-‐born
Americans
and
helped
to
foster
a

deep
seeded
xenophobic
fear
not
just
among
working
class
Americans
(who
looked
upon
these

newcomers
as
competition
for
their
jobs),
but
especially
among
upper
class
Americans,
who
feared

social
and
political
instability.
Once
released
into
American
society,
many
of
these
new
immigrant

citizens
had
little
working
knowledge
of
the
English
language
and
lacked
the
proper
connections
to
find

good
employment.
Living
in
horrid
conditions
in
the
slums
of
many
American
cities,
these
naturalized

16
17
Oberholtzer 213
18
Evans, Nicholas J. "Work in Progress: Indirect Passage from Europe Transmigration via the UK, 1836–1914."
Journal for Maritime Research 3.1 (2001): 70-84. Print.
Figure
5:
An
anti-‐immigrant
cartoon,
published
in

1898
(The
Library
of
Congress,
Washington
DC)

9
|
P a g e

American
families
would
work
whatever
jobs
would
come
their
way
and
looked
for
new
ways
to
provide

an
escape
from
the
misery
of
their
daily
existence.
The
early
motion
picture
industry
provided
just
such

an
escape.

As
frequent
guests
of
the
movie
house,
not

just
in
Pennsylvania,
but
across
the
United
States,

immigrant
workers
found
that
regular
movie

showings
fit
seamlessly
into
their
work
day,
often

over
lunch
breaks
or
at
the
end
of
working
hours.19

Immigrants
were
also
drawn
to
the
movies
because

they
required
little
working
knowledge
of
English.

"The
Russian
Jews,
the
Germans,
the
Austrians,
who

[have]
not
been
in
this
country
for
a
week

and
does

not
understand
English...goes
to
the
motion
picture

theatre
because
what
he
sees
on
the
screen
is
very
real
to
him,
and
he
understands
as
well
as
the

Americans,"
explains
one
Socialist
daily
from
the
period.20

Movie
theaters
also
provided
a
nature

socialization
ground
for
not
just
immigrants,
but
for
all
working
class
Americans.
Barriers
of
ethnic

isolation,
created
by
the
segregation
of
city
neighborhoods,
were
non-‐existent
at
the
movie
houses,

where
people
could
mingle
freely.21

Despite
the
obvious
positive
effect,
some
conservative
upper-‐class

leaders
were
fearful
that
the
film
industry
could
use
its
influence
to
unite
the
diverse
ethnic
workers
as

never
before.
To
them,
movie
houses
were
becoming
less
about
leisure
and
more
about
politics,
serving

as
centers
for
immigrants
were
people
could
exchange
news,
discuss
politics,
vote,
or
present
radical

19
20
Aronson 21
21
Aronson 21
Figure
6:
An
example
of
a
typical
immigrant
family
to
the

United
States
during
the
turn
of
the
Twentieth
Century,

cir.
1915
(The
Library
of
Congress,
Washington
DC)

10
|
P a g e

ideas.22

The
films
that
were
being
shown
touched
on
issues
that
could
"inflame
the
passions"
of
the

working
class'
anger
towards
the
upper
classes.23

By
the
1910's,
upper
class
America
had
become

increasingly
concerned
with
the
growing
popularity
of
movies
as
an
instrument
of
political
and
social

speech.
They
saw
this
social
unrest
not
in
the
inequality
of
American
society,
but
in
the
growing

influence
of
foreign
political
ideas
such
as
Socialism
and
the
turning
of
the
motion
picture
from
a

harmless
enjoyment
to
a
vehicle
of
social
anarchy.24

As
film
historian,
author,
and
professor
of
graduate

studies
at
University
College
in
London,
Dr.
Lee
Grieveson,
pointed
out
in
his
book, Policing Cinema:
Movies and Censorship in Early Twentieth Century America,
"censorship
[was]
born
out
of
the
social

anxiety
of
the
urban
and
industrial
society."25

It
would
be
this
issue
of
limiting
the
influence
of
pro-‐
immigration
and
working
class
themes
in
the
movies
that
would
drive
the
decisions
of
censorship

advocates

like
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer.

While
the
records
of
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor
are
incomplete,
there
are
tantalizing

clues
to
the
growing
nativist
pressure
of
the
upper
class
and
the
issues
of
labor
and
immigration
on
the

work
of
the
Board
which
Saylor
has
overlooked.26

The
Board's
public
report
to
Governor
Brumbough
for

1915,
bears
out
the
influence
that
movies
are
having
on
the
state's
immigrant
class,
directing
the

governor's
attention
to
the
"fearful...social
implications
of
film"
and
their
ability
to
cause
a
"mania
with

many
classes."27

"...A
few
of
[the]
ills
and
misfortunes
[of
the
motion
picture]
spring
from
a
lack
of

homogeneity
in
the
population
of
the
modern
state,"
wrote
Oberholtzer
in
an
article
for
International

22
23
Pittsburgh, 2008. 26-27. Print.
24
Ross, Steven Joseph. Working-Class Hollywood: Silent Film and the Shaping of Class in America. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton UP, 1998. 29. Print.
25
Grieveson, Lee. Policing Cinema: Movies and Censorship in Early-Twentieth-Century America. Berkeley:
University of California, 2004. 156. Print
26
It is important to note that the Pennsylvania Board of Censor accumulated a large mass of records during it
lifetime, but in 1958 many of these records were approved for destruction by the state. The remaining examples
have been the property of the Pennsylvania State Archives since 1970.
27
United States. Pennsylvania Board of Censor. Report of the Pennsylvania Board of Censor, June - December,
1915. By J. L. Breitinger, E. C. Niver, and Ellis P. Oberholtzer. Harrisburg: WM. Stanley Ray, 1915. 33-34. Print.

11
|
P a g e

Quarterly,
"It
is
a
grouping
of
diverse
and
discordant
elements
which
work
at
cross
purposes
with
each

other."28

From
day
one,
Oberholtzer
believed
that
immigrants
were
the
perfect
target
of
movie

producers,
who
wished
to
use
their
influence
over
this
particular
group
of
people
to
further
their
own

agenda.29

Specifically,
Oberholtzer
pointed
to
the
popularity
of
melodramas
and
violent
action
/

adventure
films
known
as
"crime
serials".
"The
crime
serials
[are]
meant
for
ignorant
classes
of
the

population
with
the
grossest
tastes,"
cited
Oberholtzer,
"[These
pictures
flourish]
in
the
picture
halls
in

the
mill
villages
and
in
the
thickly
settled
tenement
houses
and
low
foreign-‐speaking
neighborhoods."30

Though
not
specifically
airing
his
nativism
publicly,
it
is
not
a
stretch
of
the
imagination
to
see
that

Oberholtzer
is
a
firm
supporter
of
the
American
upper
class
and
their
anti-‐immigrant
sentiments.

Another
batch
of
evidence
to
this
end
can
also
be
found
in
the
types
of
films
that
the
Board
of

Censor
opted
to
review
during
Oberholtzer's
term.

In
July
of
1916,
a
film
entitled
The
Mexican
Slides

was
submitted
to
the
Board
for
approval.
Described
simplistically
as
an
"action
/
adventure
story
set
in

Mexico",
the
Board
ordered
numerous
deletions
from
the
film
including
deletions
of
a
scene
depicting

"soldier's
graves"
and
the
"hanging
of
local
bandits".31

While
not
much
explanation
is
given
in
the

official
record
to
the
context
of
these
deletions,
one
who
looks
at
the
historical
timeline
might
note
that

1916
fell
within
the
time
period
of
General
John
J.
Pershing's
Punitive
Expedition
into
Mexico.
While
it
is

unknown
if
Mexican
nationals
were
numerous
in
Pennsylvania
at
this
time,
the
Board
obviously
did
not

want
to
give
the
immigrant
population
of
their
state
any
sympathy
for
foreign
fighters
like
Poncho
Villa.

Another
film
that
raises
some
question
as
to
the
motives
of
the
Board's
censorship
procedures
was
the

1915
film
The
Nigger.
Other
than
its
obviously
racist
title
(which
the
Board
ordered
changed),
the
film

28
Oberholtzer, Ellis P. "Home Rule for Our American Cities." International Quarterly 6.75 (1903): 403. Print.
29
Oberholtzer, Ellis P. Preface. The Morals of the Movie. Philadelphia: Penn, 1922. 98-99. Print.
30
Singer, Ben. "Early Film Melodramas." Action and Adventure Cinema. Ed. Yvonne Tasker. New York City:
Routledge, 2004. 58. Print.
31
United States. Pennsylvania Board of Censor. Records of the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Rules,
Procedure, and Forms 1915-1956. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania State Archives, 1916. Microfilm. RG-22.

12
|
P a g e

was
required
to
make
numerous
deletions
including
scenes
depicting
"mob
violence".32

Perhaps
the

Board
did
not
want
movie
audiences
taking
their
cues
from
what
they
saw
on
the
screen.
In
May
of

1918,
the
Board
banned
a
film
entitled
The
Heart
of
Humanity,
which
was
characterized
as
a
popular

"Jewish
drama"
relating
to
the
First
World
War
that
had
been
produced
by
the
famed
American
director

D.W.
Griffith.
While,
again,
the
Board's
records
are
incomplete
as
to
why
this
film
was
banned,
it
is

worth
noting
that
the
film’s
portrayal
of
Germans
(who
maintained
a
large
viewing
audience
in

Pennsylvania)
was
considered
very
negative
for
the
time.33

Perhaps
the
most
obvious
examples
of
the
Board's
anti-‐labor,
anti-‐immigration
sentiment
can

be
found
in
the
duel
1917
films
of
The
Tiger
Woman
and
A
Sleeping
Memory.
Originally
submitted
for

review
in
May
of
that
year,
The
Tiger
Woman
told
the
story
of
Russian
debutant
who
kills
her
numerous

husbands
for
their
fortunes
as
she
makes
her
way
across
Europe
and,
eventually,
to
the
United
States.

Billed
as
a
"crime
serial",
the
Board
refused
to
grant
their
approval
to
the
film's
producers,
who
then

took
the
Board
to
court,
but
eventually

lost
before
the
Pennsylvania
Court
of

Common
Pleas.34

An
argument
could
be

made
that
the
Board
refused
to
grant

release
for
The
Tiger
Woman
out
of
fear

that
such
a
negative
portrayal
of
the

state's
Slavic
immigrants
might
insight

ethnic
violence.
In
a
similar
vein,
A

Sleeping
Memory
told
the
story
of
rich
young
women
who
is
forced
to
turn
working
class
after
her
father

32
United States. Pennsylvania Board of Censor. Records of the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Elimination
Sheets 1915-1956. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania State Archives, 1916. Microfilm. RG-22
33
United States. Pennsylvania Board of Censor. Records of the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Legal Briefs
1915-1940. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania State Archives, 1916. Microfilm. RG-22
34
Figure
7:
A
handbill
from
the
Regent
Theatre
in
Albany,
New
York

during
the
week
of
March
5th,
1917
promoting
the
film
The
Tiger

Woman
and
its
star,
Theda
Bara.

(The
Historical
Society
of
New
York,

New
York
City)

13
|
P a g e

commits
suicide.
According
to
the
Board's
legal
records,
the
woman
is
harassed
throughout
the
film
by

representatives
of
the
working
class
for
her
wealthy
upbringing
until
she
turns
to
drug
abuse
to
cope

with
the
social
stigma.35

While
one
could
maybe
see
audiences
feeling
sympathy
for
such
a
character,

the
Board
refused
to
grant
their
approval
to
the
picture
and,
again,
the
producers
of
the
film
took
them

to
court.
Predictably,
the
Board's
decision
was
upheld
after
what
was
described
as
a
"stirring
attack"
on

the
morals
of
the
picture
by
the
Board's
only
female
member
and
Oberholtzer’s
main
supporter
on
the

Board,
Katherine
Niver,
who
objected
to
the
image
being
set
of
the
young
women
in
the
film.
In
these

examples
it’s
easy
to
see
that
the
Board
of
Censor
objected
to
the
ridicule
of
the
upper
classes
by
the

motion
picture
industry
and
promoted
a
nativist-‐flavored
agenda
that
strong
measures
would
be

needed
to
keep
these
fearful
classes
in
check.

35

14
|
P a g e

Part
III
-‐
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer:
The
Law
and
Order
Censor-‐

"Scenes
showing
the
modus
operandi
of
criminals,
which
are
suggestive
and
incite
to
evil
action,

such
as
murder...robbery...[or]
the
lighting
and
throwing
of
bombs...will
be
disapproved."

-‐
Section
5,
Standards
of
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor36

"Views
of
incendiaries,
burning,
wrecking
and
the
destruction
of
property,
which
many
put
like

actions
in
the
minds
of
those
evil
instincts,
or
may
degrade
the
morals
of
the
[people],
will
be

disapproved."

-‐
Section
23,
Standards
of
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor37

Outside
of
his
duties
on
the
Board,

Oberholtzer
grew
to
become
a
national
figure
for

motion
picture
censorship
and
someone
that

upper
class
America
could
look
to
preserve
law

and
order
among
the
working
classes.
In
his
1922

publication,
The
Morals
of
the
Movie,

Oberholtzer
stated
that
film
producers
had
an

obligation
to
the
public
to
provide
wholesome

subject
matter
for
their
films.

"There
is
a

belief...that
the
picture
producer
is
not
living
up
to
his
responsibilities,"
wrote
Oberholtzer,

"...Sometimes
he
is
deliberately
choosing
bad
subjects
so
that
he
can
advertise
this
fact
and
entice

[audiences]
into
his
theatres...to
stir...curiosity
about
the
seamy
side
of
life..."38

Oberholtzer
expanded

this
point
further
in
a
published
article,
stating
that
"[t]heir
film
stories
are
often
set
in
the
under-‐world

[and]
those
who
have
evil
instincts
see
all
manner
of
crime,
indeed
the
detailed
illustrations
of
feasible

methods
of
committing
it.
Keepers
are
told
by
the
inmates
of
reformatories
and
penitentiaries
that
they

36
37
Oberholtzer 214
38
Oberholtzer 16
Figure
8:
Comedian
Charlie
Chaplin
bashes
a
police
officer
in

a
scene
from
his
1916
movie,
Police
(The
Library
of
Congress)

15
|
P a g e

were
prompted
to
wrong-‐doing
by
looking
at
motion
pictures."39

While
Oberholtzer
returned
to
his

familiar
targets
of
melodramas
and
serialized
crime
pictures
to
explain
this
point,
he
is
also
especially

critical
of
slap-‐stick
comedies
and
the
drug
movie
(or
the
"enlightenment
films"
as
he
claims
some

producers
call
them)
when
it
comes
to
these
breakdowns
in
law
and
order.40

The
comedy
film
were
an
especially
guilty
target,
according
to
Oberholtzer,
when
considering

the
work
of
the
most
famous
comedian
of
his
day,
Charlie
Chaplin,
an
immigrant
Oberholtzer
had

publicly
called
"the
fool
of
American
democracy".41

"He
[Chaplin]
set
the
pace
for
other
movie

comedians,"
claimed
Oberholtzer,
"whose
aim...have
put
an
indelible
trademark
up
American
comedy

film."42

That
trademark,
alleged
Oberholtzer,
is
the
mark
of
lawless
behavior
and
a
complete
disrespect

for
the
American
forces
of
law
and
order,
easily
imitated
by
America’s
working
classes
.43

The

"enlightenment
films"
were
another
major
concern
for
Oberholtzer
which
popularization
an

underground
drugs
culture
with
substances

like
opium,
morphine,
and
cocaine
being
popularized
and

justified
by
movie
producers
as
"cautionary
tales"
complete
with
alleged
scientific
studies
and
police

testimony
as
backup.44

While
these
films
gave
rise
to
crime,

Oberholtzer
also
believed
that
these
movies

portrayed
the
forces
of
law
and
order
(such
as

the
police)
in
such
a
negative
light
that
it
would

cause
a
major
lack
of
respect
for
public

discipline
and
a
possible
breakdown
in
the

American
justice
system.
"It
is
clear
that
our

39
Oberholtzer, Ellis P. "What Are The "Movies" Making of Our Children?" The World's Work 41 (1920): 251. Print
40
41
Oberholtzer 73
42
Oberholtzer 73-74
43
Oberholtzer 74
44
Figure
9:
The
popular
Keystone
Kops
from
a
lost
short
film,
cir.

1915
(The
Museum
of
Moving
Image,
New
York)

16
|
P a g e

ordinary
police
and
constabulary
authorities
are
unable
to
exercise
a
suitable
care
over
the
moving

picture
house,"
wrote
Oberholtzer,
"Their
[primary]
duty
is
to
preserve
good
order
in
the
streets..."45

The
popular
Keystone
Kops
series
of
the
1910's
and
1920's
was
another
comedy
series
that
gave

Oberholtzer
fits
for
its
negative
portrayal
of
policemen.46

"The
policeman
and
every
other
officer
of
the

law
has
been
so
much
caricatured
that
by
this
time,
they
[are]
beyond
the
bounds
of…America's

respect,"
blasted
Oberholtzer.47

Such
disrespect
of
authority
and
instruction
on
crime,
gave
rise
to
even

more
concern
among
upper
class
Americans
about
movies
and
their
popularity
among
the
immigrant

and
working
class
populations.

When
looking
at
the
records
of
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor,
a
number
of
films
fit
into
this

category
of
wanting
to
preserve
law
and
order.
An
examination
sheet
from
the
Board
dated
August,

1917
details
requests
to
the
producers
of
a
movie
entitled
Charley's
Picnic
to
delete
scenes
of
characters

"fighting
with
police...”
There
is
also
a
notation
asking
for
the
removal
of
a
scene
where
a
major

character
"thumb[s]
his
nose"
at
an
officer.48

Another
legal
brief
dated
December
of
1915,

details
the
censoring
of
film
entitled
Sealed
Lips,

which
was
based
on
a
popular
novel
of
the
day
The

Silence
of
Dean
Maitland.
In
the
novel
and
film

adaptation,
a
clergyman
impregnates
a
young

woman
and
when
the
father
of
the
girl
finds
out

about
the
pregnancy,
he
attacks
the
clergymen
and

45
Oberholtzer, Ellis P. "The Censor and the Movie "Menace"" Ed. George Harvey. North American Review 212
(1920): 645. Print.
46
Arnesen, Eric. Encyclopedia of US Labor and Working-Class History. London: Routledge, 2006. 449. Print
47
Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. The Morals of the Movie. Philadelphia: Penn, 1922. 76-77. Print.
48
Figure
10:
A
still
from
an
Australian
remake
of
Sealed
Lips

called
The
Silence
of
Dean
Maitland
from
1934
(The
Museum

of
Moving
Image,
New
York)

17
|
P a g e

is
killed
accidently
in
a
fall.
In
the
end,
the
clergyman's
best
friend
gets
the
blame
for
the
father's
death

and
goes
to
jail
for
twenty
years
while
the
clergymen
lives
a
successful
life.
In
the
Board's
unnamed
legal

brief,
Sealed
Lips
is
characterized
as
a
film
"calculated
to
inspire
contempt
for
the
administration
of

justice"
while
also
calling
for
major
deletions
to
the
film,
which
the
Court
of
Common
Pleas
eventually

obliged.49

In
Oberholtzer's
mind,
the
movie
industry
must
support
the
social
agenda
of
the
traditional

American
family
to
these
new
immigrant
citizens,
vales
of
the
home,
the
school,
and
the
church,
when

considering
their
film
topics
and
it
is
the
job
of
the
censor
to
make
sure
that
happens.
"He
[the
movie

producer]
is
not
a
teacher...or
a
moralist,"
wrote
Oberholtzer,
"...he
is
wanting
in
the
most
rudimentary

sense
of
social
responsibility
with
reference
to
his
fellow
man."50

To
Saylor,
this
is
related
to

Progressivism,
however,
an
argument
can
be
made
to
the
class-‐based
and
nativist
sentiments
of
the

time
and
a
desire
to
preserve
the
status
quo
as
it
stood.

49
50

18
|
P a g e

Part
IV
-‐
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer:
The
Anti-‐Feminist?
–

"Pictures
and
part
of
pictures,
dealing
with
abortion...will
be
disapproved.
These
will
include

themes
and
incidents
having
to
do
with..."birth
control"...and
similar
subjects"

-‐
Section
8,
Standards
of
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor51

"Views
of
women...will
not
be
disapproved
as
such,
but
when
women
are
shown
in
suggestive

positions
or
their
manner...is
suggestive
or
degrading,
such
scenes
will
be
disapproved."

-‐
Section
20,
Standards
of
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor52

The
act
that
created
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
was
very
specific
in
who
would
serve,
gender-‐
wise,
on
this
panel
-‐
two
men
and
one
woman.53

While

Oberholtzer's
personal
papers
offer
little
insight
into
his
views
on

women
in
general,
historians
have
been
left
to
wonder
what

Oberholtzer's
true
thoughts
on
femininity
were.
Was
he
unduly

biased
towards
women's
because
of
his
own
mother's
background

in
the
suffrage
movement?
Did
Oberholtzer's
views
of
women

soften
after
working
with
a
capable
female
censor,
Mrs.
Katherine

A.
Niver,
who
he
politically
supported?
Such
questions
are
hard
to

pinpoint
for
"Oberholtzer
the
man",
but
the
views
of
women

presented
by
"Oberholtzer
the
censor"
are
very
clear
when
put

into
the
context
of
his
class
status.
In
a
publication
he
wrote
early
in
his
career
entitled
The
New
Man:
A

Chronicle
of
Modern
Times,
Oberholtzer
offers
some
possible
insight
into
his
feelings
on
women.

Created
as
a
kind
of
modern-‐day
version
of
Plato's
Republic,
Oberholtzer's
characters
engage
in
a

philosophical
discussion
of
the
role
of
women
in
modern
American
society.

As
one
character
phrases
it,

while
they
are
all
members
of
a
"great
upper
class"
where
men
and
women
have
equal
access
to

51
52
Oberholtzer 215.
53
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Part III. Harrisburg: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1916. 3205. Print.
Figure
11:
Sara
Louisa
Vickers
Oberholtzer,

mother
of
the
famed
censor,
from
1898

(The

Historical
Society
of
Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia)

19
|
P a g e

education
and
betterment,
the
"intellectual
forces
of
women
will
show
a
lower
average
than
the

intellectual
force
of
men
of
the
same
class"
in
almost
every
instance.

Thought
women
will
continue
to

advance
in
knowledge
and
status,
they
will
never
be
equal
to
men,
concludes
Oberholtzer's
characters.54

Is
Oberholtzer
underlying
his
writing
with
his
own
personal
thoughts?

54
Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. The New Man: A Chronicle of the Modern Times. Philadelphia: Levytype, 1897. 450-
59. Print.

20
|
P a g e

In
his
1922
publication,
The
Morals
of
the
Movie,
Oberholtzer
gives
little
insight
into
his

thoughts
of
female
actresses
or
directors,
but
he
is
very
critical
of
the
amount
of
sex
being
portrayed
in

motion
pictures
and
how
it
might
affect
the
image
of
women
overall
in
society.
Calling
these
films
"sex

pictures",
Oberholtzer
chastises
the
motion
picture
industry
for
trying
to
pawn
these
films
off
as

"educational",
warning
young
women
not
to
betray
the
pure
image
of
their
gender.55

Oberholtzer
is

equally
critical
of
movie
producers
using
women's
issues
to
sensationalize
their
movies
such
as
films

about
female
diseases,
sexual
intercourse,
or
abortion.
"These
[sexual]
scenes
are
introduced
for

entertainment,"
wrote
Oberholtzer,
"Someone
sees
value
in
them
for
general
sale...and
he
takes
them

out
on
circuit
for
gain."56

While
it
is
easy
to
agree
with
Oberholtzer's
objections
to
the
amount
of
sex
on

the
screen
as
Saylor
points
out,
what
is
not
often
realized
is
the
huge
role
that
movie
houses
and
motion

pictures
played
in
the
women's
suffrage
movement
for
recruitment
and
publication
purposes.
Whereas

movie
theatres
acted
as
socialization
center
for
immigrants
and
the
working
class,
they
also
served
as
a

political
center
outside
the
social
norms
for
women.57

Unlike
the
playhouse
or
theater
of
their
parent's

generation
where
tradition
dictated
a
women's
place,
movie
houses
were
much
more
liberal,
allowing

both
single
and
married
women
of
all
classes
to
freely
intermix
as
well
as
take
an
active
role
in

presentation
of
films
and
the
discussion
of
topics.

Women's
rights
leaders
often
persuaded
theater

owners
to
show
films
with
pro-‐suffrage
themes
and
several
women
became
important
actresses,

55
Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. The Morals of the Movie. Philadelphia: Penn, 1922. 30-31. Print.
56
Oberholtzer 36.
57
Princeton UP, 1998. 26-27. Print.

21
|
P a g e

producers,
or
even
directors
in
the
early
motion
picture
industry.58

While
Oberholtzer
doesn't

completely
dismiss
such
activities,
one
can
see
how
the
upper
class'
view
of
suffragettes
may
have

caused
him
a
few
tough
decisions
on
the
Board
of
Censor.
"The
good
which
can
occur
from
instructing

the
young
about
such
[topics]
under
proper
circumstances
I
would
not
underrate,"
Oberholtzer
admits,

"...but
to
cry
sex
[or
gender
rights]...from
the
highest
places...is
in
my
judgment
contrary
to
public

policy."59

58
Ross 27.
59

22
|
P a g e

When
examining
the
records
of
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor,
one
movie
in
particular

jumps
out
as
the
ultimate
limit
to
Oberholtzer's
"tolerance"
for
women's
issues
in
film.
The
movie
was
a

1916
release
entitled
Where
are
My
Children?,
which
dealt
with
the
issues
of

female
contraception
and
abortion.60

Such
topics
were
central
in
the
debate

over
women's
rights
in
early
Twentieth
Century
America
stemming
in
part
from

the
trial
of
Margaret
Sanger
for
disobeying

New
York
contraception
laws
to
the
public

criticism
of
the
unfair
nature
of

contraception
help,
which
was
open
to

women
of
wealth
and
privilege,
but
not
to

their
neighbors
of
lower
origin.61

The

brainchild
of
female
director
Lois
Weber,

who
used
her
movies
to
speak
to
women's

issues,
the
film
told
the
story
of
a
prominent
district
attorney
who
is
prosecuting
a
doctor
for
providing

illegal
contraception
when
he
discovers
that
his
wife
has
been
a
regular
client
of
the
accused
doctor,

even
receiving
abortions
from
him.
Enraged,
he
confronts
his
wife,
threatening
her
with
charges
of

manslaughter
for
their
unborn
children.62

The
film
was
deemed
too
controversial
for
show
in
many

states
and
Oberholtzer,
in
testimony
before
the
Pennsylvania
Court
of
Common
Pleas,
called
the
film

"unspeakably
vile"
and
lead
the
charge
to
ban
it,
claiming
that
it
"tended
to
debase
or
corrupt
[the]

morals
[of
young
women]".63

In
response,
Weber's
production
company
took
the
Board
to
court,
but

withdrew
their
appeal
after
their
"educational"
defense
was
gutted
when
the
Board's
lawyers
entered

60
Mahar, Karen Ward. Women Filmmakers in Early Hollywood. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006. 96-97. Print.
61
Mahar 97.
62
Princeton UP, 1998. 97. Print.
63
Figure
13:
The
title
card
for
the
Lois
Weber
film
Where
Are
My

Children?
(The
Museum
of
Moving
Image,
New
York)

Figure
12:
Female
film
director
Lois
Weber

(The
Historical
Society
of
Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia)

23
|
P a g e

into
evidents
excerpts
from
the
pro-‐contraception
book
Birth
Control,
which
Weber
had
used
as
her

inspiration
for
the
movie.64

These
selection
was
further
heightened
with
the
showing
of
one
of
the

movie's
scenes
where
the
death
of
a
lower
class
servant
girl
is
due
to
a
purposefully
botched
abortion.

Fearful
of
the
social
impact
among
Pennsylvania's
lower
classes,
such
testimony
did
not
sit
well
with
the

Court
ensuring
that
even
if
producers
has
continued
with
their
case,
defeat
was
a
foregone
conclusion.65

While
Oberholtzer's
true
feelings
on
women's
right
might
remain
a
topic
of
debate,
it
is
clear

that
there
were
limits
to
Oberholtzer's
open-‐mindedness
on
feminist
topics
when
they
went
against

established
social
norms
of
the
time.

64
65
Procedure, and Forms 1915-1956. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania State Archives, 1916. Microfilm. RG-22

24
|
P a g e

Part
V
-‐
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer:
The
Political
Player-‐

"The
Board
shall
consist
of
three
residents
and
citizens
of
Pennsylvania...well
qualified
by

education
and
experience
to
act
as
censors
under
this
act."

-‐
Section
3,
Pennsylvania
Law
for
Censorship
of
Moving
Pictures66

"The
[members
of
the
Board]
before
assuming
the
duties...shall
take
and
subscribe
the
oath

prescribed
by
the
Constitution
of
Pennsylvania,
and
shall
enter
into
bond
with
the

Commonwealth..."

-‐
Section
10,
Pennsylvania
Law
for
Censorship
of
Moving
Pictures67

"The
type
of
[person]
who
is
adapted
for
this
branch
of
service
should
not
be
hard
to
discover,
"

wrote
Oberholtzer,
"without
any
question
members

of
such
Boards
should
not
be
politicians...Though

they
may
fill
every
other
department
of
government

with
riff-‐raff
of
the
political
party,
here
is
one
place...

where
there
is
room
for
only
the
finest
judgment
and

the
highest
probity."68

While
such
sentiments
are

admirable,
the
Board
of
Censor
itself
was
anything
but

a
non-‐political
player.
If
there
is
an
area
of
agreement

with
Saylor,
it
is
that
from
its
members
to
the
movies
it
chose
to
edit,
politics
was
influential
in
the

Board's
decision-‐making
process
under
Oberholtzer.
While
Saylor
makes
light
of
this
topic,
the
influence

of
politics
on
Oberholtzer
goes
much
deeper
than
simple
objectivity.

Oberholtzer's
appointment
to
the
Board
in
1915
was
the
subject
of
political
whispering
from
the

start
and
he
openly
admitted
that
his
appointment
was
due
to
his
friendship
with
Governor
Brumbaugh,

who
Oberholtzer
had
worked
under
during
his
time
in
the
Philadelphia
public
school
system.69

The
other

66
67
Oberholtzer 207
68
Oberholtzer 179-180
69
Figure
14:
The
facade
of
the
Pennsylvania
State
Capital

prior
to
its
dedication
in
1906
(Pennsylvania
State

Archives,
Harrisburg)

25
|
P a g e

original
members
of
the
Board,
J.L.
Breitinger
and
Katherine
Niver,
were
equally
well
politically

connected.
Breitinger
was
a
fundraiser
for
the
Republican
Party
and
Niver
was
the
wife
of
an
influential

Pittsburgh
editor
and
a
friend
of
former
Governor
Tener's
wife,
the
man
who
original
signed
the
movie

censorship
bill
into
law.70

From
the
start,
the
Board
would
be
fighting
political
battles
not
only
with
the

state
and
the
movie
industry,
but
among
each
other.
Oberholtzer
openly
despised
Breitinger's
continued

political
activities
and
lobbied
to
have
him
replaced,
which
eventually
happened
in
1917.

"[Breitinger's

removal]
was
brought
about
for
the
reason
that
his
political
activities
were
preventing
the
Board
from

giving
the
State
the
best
service,"
testified
Oberholtzer.71

Obviously
anyone
preserved
as
an
obstacle
to

the
business
of
the
Board,
became
an
enemy
in
Oberholtzer's
mind,
even
if
it
included
members
of
the

General
Assembly.
In
April
of
1917,
a
bill
was
proposed
by
State
Senator
Charles
Snyder
that
would

lessen
the
power
of
the
Board
by
making
it
reportable
to
Auditor
General's
office.72

Incensed,

Oberholtzer
began
a
letter
writing
campaign
to
friendly
members
of
the
Senate,
urging
them
to
vote
the

measure
down.
His
efforts
ultimately
proved
successful.
The
Board
even
went
so
far
as
to
curry
political

favors
from
other
branches
of
the
state
government,
such
as
the
courts
(who
provided
regular
support

through
their
rulings),
and
from
the
local
political
districts
themselves
by
the
placement
of
their
offices

and
screening
rooms.73

Outside
of
Harrisburg,
Oberholtzer
saw
the
motion
picture
industry
as
a
political
monster
unto

itself
and
vowed
to
keep
politically
charged
topics
out
of
Pennsylvania's
movie
houses.
"They
[the

motion
picture
industry]
revile
politics
and
yet
they
enter
it...[bringing]
themselves
face
to
face
with
the

very
condition
which
they
profess
to
abhor,"
blasted
Oberholtzer.74

He
proposed
the
idea
of
a
Federal

70
Aronson 171-172
71
Oberholtzer, Ellis P. Letter to Miss Emily P. Bissell. 8 Mar. 1917. MS. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA.
72
United States. Pennsylvania State Senate. Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Part I.
Harrisburg: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1917. Print. 1213.
73
Oberholtzer, Ellis P. Letter to William E. Crow, Esq. 14 Jan. 1918. MS. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
74

26
|
P a g e

Board
of
Censor,
creating
lists
of
movies
deemed
decent
for
national
viewership
(the
so-‐called
“white

lists”),
prepared
preliminary
Federal
legislation,
and
traveled
the
country
speaking
and
writing
on
the

benefits
of
movie
censorship.75

“I
have
spoken
in
many
parts
of
Pennsylvania
and
in
other
states
about

[this]
subject
and
we
have
gained
creditable
recognition
all
over
the
country..where
what
we
do
is

watched
and
followed,"
triumphantly
wrote
Oberholtzer.76

Two
examples
of
Oberholtzer's
political
agenda
on
the
Board's
work
can
be
seen
with
the
review

of
two
politically
charged
films,
1915's
The
Birth
of
a
Nation
and
1916's
War
Brides.
Long
considered
a

classic
of
American
cinema,
The
Birth
of
a
Nation
was
a
movie
that
cut
to
the
heart
of
Oberholtzer's

political
and
professional
experience,
especially
when
it
came
to
the
villainous
character
of
Austin

Stoneman,
widely
considered
to
be
based
on
fiery
Pennsylvania
Republican
Thaddeus
Stevens.
In
a

letter
written
to
the
owner
of
a
Philadelphia
movie
house,
Oberholtzer
expresses
satisfaction
that
the

Stevens-‐based
character
has
been
deleted
from
the
film
prior
to
its
release
in
Pennsylvania,
"I
am
glad

you
are
making
some
eliminations...so
that
the
memory
of
old
Thad
Stevens
will
not
be
quite
so
much

outraged
in
his
own
State..."77

Saylor
makes
the
argument
that
Oberholtzer
objected
to
the
negative

portrayal
of
Stevens
on
historical
grounds,
but
there
is
reason
to
believe
that
objections
were
also
made

out
of
political
necessity
as
well.
Pennsylvania
was
firmly
a
Republican
state
and
any
negative
portrayal

of
any
Republican
figure
could
have
inflamed
public
passions.
"If
the
press
is
a
large
factor
in
politics,"

warned
Oberholtzer,
"[than]
the
screen
may
be
a
yet
greater
one..."78

It
is
not
hard
to
see
Oberholtzer

dutifully
protecting
his
Republican
supporters
in
Harrisburg.
The
implications
of
the
1916
film
War

Brides
go
even
bigger.
Set
in
war-‐torn
Europe,
the
movie
focused
on
German
soldiers
attacking
and

raping
civilian
women.
While
Oberholtzer
was
not
known
as
a
friend
to
Pennsylvania's
German

75
Oberholtzer, Ellis P. "The Censor and the Movie "Menace"" Ed. George Harvey. North American Review 212
(1920): 641. Print.
76
Olberholtzer, Ellis P. Letter to the Senator Boies Penrose (R-PA). 14 Jan. 1918. MS. The Historical Society of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
77
Oberholtzer, Ellis P. Letter to Mr McSween, Cheastnut Street Opera House. 3 Sept. 1915. MS. Historical Society
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
78

27
|
P a g e

population
(his
appointment
in
1915
had
been
criticized
due
to
anti-‐German
remarks
he
had
made
in

the
past),
the
Board
ordered
significant
cuts
to
the
film
before
it
was
granted
release.7980

Perhaps
this

could
be
seen
as
another
example
of
nativist
sentiment
until
two
years
later,
upon
America's
entry
into

World
War
I,
Federal
authorities
order
War
Brides
and
any
other
German
films
banned
completely,

fearful
that
they
would

"[run]
contrary
to
the
spirit
which
should
exist
in
this
country
in
its
present

crisis."81

Despite
this
Federal
order,
the

Board
was
encouraging
by
the
idea
of

using
motion
pictures
to
support
the
war

effort.
"Many
of
the
transcripts
in
film
of

war
conditions
in
Europe
awaken

enthusiasm..."
states
the
Board's
1917

report.
Later
records
for
the
Pennsylvania

Board
of
Censor
show
a
marked
uptick
in

the
amount
of
newsreel
stories
marked

for
a
approval
by
the
panel.82

Despite
Oberholtzer's
sizable
political
influence,
in
the
end
it
would
not
save
him.
When

Governor
William
P.
Sproul
took
office
in
1919,
the
film
industry
pushed
to
have
Oberholtzer
removed

from
the
Board.
Seeing
Oberholtzer
as
"too
heavy
a
political
load
to
carry",
Sproul
relieved
him
of
his

position
despite
a
massive
letter-‐writing
campaign
by
supporters
to
save
his
job.83

79
Mayer, B. J. Letter to Governor Martin Brumbough from the German-American Alliance of Pennsylvania. 19
May 1915. MS. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
80
81
Brown, Francis S. (Pennsylvania Attorney General) Letter to Frank R. Shattuck, Philadelphia. 23 Oct. 1917. MS.
The Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
82
83
Hamilton, Clayton. "Movie, Censor, and Public." The New York Evening Post [New York City] 30 Dec. 1922:
128-32. Print.
Figure
15:
A
scene
from
the
1916
film
War
Brides
with
German
soldiers

storming
into
the
home
of
a
female
civilian
(The
Museum
of
Moving

Image,
New
York)

28
|
P a g e

A
Final
Conclusion
–
Putting
Dr.
Oberholtzer
in
the
Context
of
his
Times:

While
Richard
Saylor
does
an
admirable
job
presenting
one
side
of
Dr.
Ellis
P.
Oberholtzer's

character,
it
is
obvious
there
is
much
more
to
this
man
than
just
a
loyal
and
morally
conscience
public

servant.
Oberholtzer
was
a
man
that
was
molded
by
the
times
he
lived
in
and
the
social
surroundings

that
defined
the
early
Twentieth
Century
in
America.
Issues
of
nativism,
class,
gender
roles,
and
social

order
massively
influenced
Oberholtzer’s
motivations
on
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censor
and
his
view

of
feminism
in
society,
his
desire
to
preserve
law
and
order
in
the
streets,
and
his
anxiety
to
the
rising

tide
of
immigrant
and
working
class
furry
influenced
the
films
Oberholtzer
helped
censor
all
of
which

were
justified
by
a
moral
constitution.
His
quest
to
continue
such
work
would
lead
him
into
the
unsavory

world
of
politics,
a
world
that
would
give
him
great
influence,
but
would
eventually

cost
him
his

position.

While
Saylor’s
image
of
Oberholtzer
as
a
moral
crusader
should
not
be
completely
ignored

because
it
does
provide
a
certain
context
for
viewing
how
Oberholtzer
viewed
himself
and
his
time

period,
the
greater
influences
of
nativism
and
class
conflict
should
not
be
ignored.
To
omit
such

historical
evidence
from
the
great
narrative
of
history
is
neither
right
nor
safe,
because
it
changes
the

human
complexity
of
our
state's
leading
historical
figures.
While
the
issue
of
censorship
may
always
be

an
issue
that
is
debated
and
legislated
by
civic
authorities,
it
is
important
to
keep
in
the
back
of
our

minds
the
lessons
of
the
past
and
remember
how
societal
norms
plays
on
our
morals
and
our
decisions

of
right
and
wrong
for
they
will
be
remembered
for
posterity,
much
like
the
actions
of
Dr.
Ellis
P.

Oberholtzer.

29
|
P a g e

Figure
16:
Official
Seal
of
Approval
of
the
Pennsylvania
Board
of
Censors.
This
seal
was
required
to
be
placed
at
the
head

of
each
film
shown
in
Pennsylvania
between
19
14
and
1956.
(Pennsylvania
State
Archives,
Harrisburg)

The Motivations of a Censor

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

Similar to The Motivations of a Censor

Similar to The Motivations of a Censor (16)

More from Gerry Huesken

More from Gerry Huesken (10)

The Motivations of a Censor