Judge Golden of San Francisco Replies to Rabbi Newman’s Charges; Negotiations Were in Process Since 1926; DeMille Did Not Keep Promises; Rabbi Wise, in Free: Synagogue Sermon, Urges Withdrawal of Picture in European Countries (Jewish Daily Bulletin)
A statement replying to the charges directed by Rabbi Louis I. Newman of Temple Emanu El against the Anti-Defamation Committee of the Independent Order B’nai Brith, District No. 4, was issued here by Judge Isidore M. Golden, Chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai Brith of the Pacific Coast.
The statement charges Rabbi Newman with a publicity seeking motive and makes public for the first time the connection of the Anti-Defamation League with the “King of Kings” production.
“In 1926,” the statement declares, “the Governing Board of the Anti-Defamation League at Chicago learned that DeMille was projecting this picture. We, of course, knew nothing about it and did not know how much of the story of the crucifixion or the trial as set forth in the New Testament was to be included. This was not the first matter of this kind with which the league has dealt. In every other instance the league, by the use of diplomatic methods and moral suasion, had been successful. In practically every such instance the proposed picture was in its very earliest stages of preparation. We had no reason to believe that the methods that had proved so effective in the other instances would not prevail in this.
“The Governing Board delegated Rabbi Edgar Magnin of Los Angeles to make representations to DeMille, and, if possible, induce him not to make the picture. This Rabbi Magnin tried his best to do. DeMille, however, was adamant. He stated that he and his organization had been engaged in the necessary preparatory work for more than a year, and that the scenario had been written, that the entire picture had been planned, that contracts had been made with a numerous cast, that heavy financial obligations had been incurred, and all in all, that a large sum of money over one hundred thousand dollars, had been actually expended.
“Mr. DeMille further stated that nothing could induce him to forego making this picture; that this picture was to be his crowning achievement–indeed, his life’s work; that he did not desire to make money out of it, and, in fact, he did not expect to make money, and that he would be well satisfied if he lost none; that his object was to present a message to the world; that he wanted this picture to be a companion and a sequel to his other production ‘The Ten Commandments;’ that this picture would be just as desirable, even from our point of view, as was ‘The Ten Commandments,’ and that his idea was to do something of a striking nature to help eradicate religious intolerance and bigotry from the land. Whatever we may have though of these statements, nevertheless he made them, and all Rabbi Magnin’s arguments to the contrary were of no avail.
“Rabbi Magnin pointed out that the mere telling of the story in simplest fashion would in and of itself make impossible of realization the alleged aims and purposes of Mr. DeMille.
“Mr. DeMille occupies an independent position among the motion picture producers, he is independently financed and required no assistance either in making the picture or in disposing of it after it was made. It must, of course, be evident that there is no process or means known to the law whereby Mr. DeMille could be prevented from making this or any other picture if he so chose to do.
“From this situation there was no alternative. The question then was–What to do? We knew then that the picture would deal with the life and death of Christ as recited in the New Testament. Although all this preparatory work had been done, not a single scene had been filmed.
“Since DeMille was determined to make the picture, Rabbi Magnin, as a measure of self-defense, requested his consent to our friendly suggestions in the making and taking of the scenes, to the end that the picture would, at any rate, be authentic, and that no matter would be incorporated that would needlessly create race or religious prejudices. Some may say we should have held aloof and let him go his way and make the picture as he personally saw fit. This was not, however, our view, and we felt then and feel now that, had we abstained then from doing what we could to eliminate all objectionable features within our power, we could justly have been charged with having been derelict.
“Rabbi Edgar Magnin and others labored for months. Of course, the mere story itself is, from our viewpoint, objectionable, and its simple telling necessarily and of its own force creates mischief. We cannot prevent, for instance, the daily presentation of the ‘Passion Play,’ either in Europe or in Los Angeles. We cannot prevent the teaching of the New Testament story in the countless Christian Sunday Schools and pulpits, nor are we in a position to attack the verity thereof as the same is recited in the New Testament. Nevertheless, had it not been for the months of unselfish labor and effort given by Rabbi Magnin and others to this work, the picture would have been inconceivably more terrible than it is today. Without going into details, many scenes have upon our protests been cut out, many others modified or revised, many others reconstructed, and a large number prevented. With respect to some of the objectionable scenes that still remain intact, we were given assurances that they, too, would be climinated before the picture was finally released for public exhibition.
“In February. 1927, and after we learned that the picture was about ready for assembly, the Anti-Defamation League requested the privilege of a private preview in its entirely. It took two months to secure Mr. De Mille’s consent, and it was not until April. 1927, that the private preview was finally given.
“The picture was not completely titled; that is to say, a large number of the sub-titles that accompany the various scenes and which give them interpretation and make them intelligible, were altogether omitted. The representatives of the League at that time protested that Mr. DeMille was not there, that subtitles were omitted, and that, in spite of his assurances to us to the contrary, the picture still had many objectionable features. His assistants then and there promised Rabbi Magnin and the other representatives of the League that our protests would be given due consideration and that they would no doubt be satisfied.
“Mr. DeMille, however, has not kept faith. For this of course, we are in nowise responsible,” the statement declares.
“Later on Mr. DeMille agreed to satisfy our protests by striking out from the picture the features to which we raised objection in connection with its European showing, but refused so to do insofar as its American showing
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
