The Movies — Good or Evil?

By John K Berokoff,
Молоканское* Обозрение : The Molokan* Review, August 1947, pages 8, 13.
[* This 10-issue mislabeled journal was produced by Dukhizhizniki]

OF THE NUMEROUS prolonged disagreements and unsettled differences between the older and younger Dukhizhizniki Molokans, none are so puzzling to the latter as the opposition of the old folks to motion picture shows as a form of recreation. It is thought by the younger generation that this opposition stems from ignorance only, or from an old-fashioned and unreasonable desire to suppress a craving for innocent amusement — a craving which in their opinion does not conflict with any scriptural injunction.

The moving picture show, they argue, is not only good amusement and recreation, but it is an educational institution as well. By attending them periodically one could learn of the kind of world we live in and educate ourselves in the manner of life led by its inhabitants. In two or three hours one could travel around the world, so to speak, visit the most inaccessible places, see the most beautiful cities, enjoy the many natural wonders of the world etc., etc. Isn't it unreasonable to oppose this?

To this argument the elders who are not acquainted with the movies and getting the impression that the "movies" are, perhaps, engaged principally in an unselfish educational enterprise, could find no rejoinder. Nevertheless, they often wonder why with all the facilities for enlightenment so conveniently accessible to their children, they are still so far removed from knowledge of the basic truths of life that their fathers learned from a simple study of the scriptures.

Viewing the life of the Dukhizhiznik Molokan community in general, they are deeply disturbed over the growing apathy among their younger members to all religious matters and wonder if perhaps this easy education may not be the cause of it. They wonder too why the divorce rate among their younger generation has grown so alarmingly and why their attitude toward the holy bonds of matrimony is so flippant and not unlike the attitude of some Hollywood people the old folks read about.

That the moving picture is unequaled as a medium of education, none could deny.* Unfortunately this tremendously powerful force has fallen into the hands of selfish and greedy financial interests who have no scruples about exploiting the baser human emotions for their own monetary gains. They do not hesitate to spend fabulous millions to promote their favored or favorite stars by all forms of propaganda, with the result that the people look upon them as something perfect and they seek to imitate them in everything—dress, manners, color of their hair or their lip stick, the number of times they change their wives or husbands, even going to the extent of naming their children after them—knowing full well and apparently caring very little that privately, these so-called stars for the most part lead the most scandalous life.

[* It's surprising that neither Berokoff nor his admirers promoted Dukhizhiznik (nashi) educational films and videos; nor did Berokoff move out of the city to an ideological isolated "refuge".]

Of course their lives would have been of no concern of our elders, were it not a fact that our younger generation seek to imitate them as zealously as any other group of people. If you do not believe this, compare the names of the present generation of Dukhizhiznik Molokan children to the names of the older Dukhizhizniki Molokans. You will see that biblical names are replaced by names of moving picture stars. John or James or Paul have been replaced by Richard, Ronald or Bobbie. There are no more Marys but many Shirleys and Bettys. In short, the influence of the Bible has been replaced by Hollywood.* As a further proof of this, examine the Dukhizhiznik Molokan divorce rate or look into any east side cocktail bar and you will convince your self that Dukhizhiznik Molokan women as well as men exert themselves to the limit in trying to live as they see life portrayed on the screen.

[* Good project for a reader to tabulate from directory names, analyze and send in for posting. Need to compile first names by year (or date) of birth, location born, sort by age, classify first names (Biblical, Hollywood, other), plot frequency distribution and calculate Chi-Square statistics. Similarly analyze divorce rates by decade after immigration.]

If the younger generation would examine this controversy from this angle, they would appreciate the attitude of their parents and come to the conclusion that their objections to the movies are not so unreasonable after all—especially if an unbiased testimony of a famous authority like Edgar J. Hoover is taken into consideration.

[Berokoff must have been aware of F.B.I. investigations among his people, especially the COs and his work with them. Subversive aliens were being arrested and deported. He may be intentionally complementing, or flattering, Hoover in print to publicly document his friendly support, perhaps to avoid further F.B.I. investigations.

Today we know how politically corrupt Hoover was, and that his department, which he ran like a dictator for 48 years (1924 -1972), spied on many immigrants, including Spiritual Christians.

The late John Slevin told me that on a whim he got a copy of his own F.B.I. file that he knew was compiled during WWII, which was more than 100 pages, and what he could read (much was blacked out, redacted) shocked him because the F.B.I. spent so much time reporting trivia. Slevin was a UCLA college student, a CO and an avid reader of Tolstoy. (Research in-progress)]

In a recent article in This Week* the F.B.I, chief, writing about the juvenile delinquency and crime in America, has this to say about motion pictures: "Today's movies, many of them dealing with crime, exert a tremendous influence upon pliable young minds. Law enforcement files are replete with the stories of juvenile offenders who confess to having derived the ideas for their crimes from the movies." No one could challenge the statement of this famous police authority or accuse him of ignorance or unreasonableness when he further states that "... what is needed is supervision by the parents allowing youngsters to attend only wholesome pictures."

[* "How Good a Parent Are You?" This Week Magazine, Los Angeles Sunday Times, April 20, 1947, page 5 (or April 9, page 3). This large article is cited and quoted in several publications online, see notes below.]

But the question comes to mind: Are there any wholesome pictures? Are there any pictures to which a girl or a boy would, with a clear conscience, invite their Dukhizhiznik Molokan parents to accompany them? There are. To say that there are none would be lurid prejudice, but such pictures are very few and far between.[*] If this was not so, the F.B.I. chief would not have been compelled to utter such a strong condemnation of the movies in general.

[Why did Berokoff not list any approved movies?]

The fact of the matter is, that the central theme of nearly all picture stories is either a love triangle or a thrilling crime story or a combination of both, usually depicted in a manner that leaves no doubt in impressionable young minds that the life of a criminal or a home-breaker is fun and worth trying, at least. This sort of an educational diet has been fed to a whole generation of patrons the world over. Indeed, the public has become so callous to such a fare that it will not be drawn into a theatre except, by sly innuendos in the advertisements which lead the public to believe that the picture advertised is so brazen that the censorship boards were induced to pass it by some clever ruse or other.

The situation is anything but wholesome to maturing young minds. It clearly indicates the origin and cause of the worst crime wave and juvenile delinquency in the history of the world. It is to a large extent responsible for the modern day promiscuity of the sexes of all ages and classes the like of which the world has not witnessed since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. Further, the movies have established and encourage the fashion of semi-nakedness for women which in turn has caused the streets of American cities to be unsafe for women of all ages unless they are accompanied by well-armed male companions.

This, in short, is the parental side of the controversy. It is based on scriptural texts which enjoin the followers of Christ to walk not after the desires of the flesh because the works of the flesh are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelry revellings, and such like. But, if we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit, for the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering gentleness goodness, faith, meekness, temperance (Galatians 5:19-25).

Which of these do you choose?
Notes

Hoover's extensive article, which also ran in the New York Herald Tribune and other papers, blames parents for much of the nation's crime. He listed 7 ways parents failed: (1) neglect, (2) broken homes, (3) unhappy homes, (4) bad examples, (5) lack of discipline, (6) doting parents, (7) outside influences. Berokoff only addressed #7, and briefly quoted Hoover's comments about movies, not radio or print (books, magazines). Why did Berokoff avoid about 90% of Hoover's message about blaming parents? Why did he focus only on movies while ignoring all the other ways?

Also in 1947, Hoover wrote "The Juvenile Child," Texas Parent-Teacher Magazine, vol. 25 , October 1947, page 6, further addressing juvenile delinquency.

"How Good a Parent Are You?" was cited here:
Also by John K. Berokoff, edited by Andrei Conovaloff
Spiritual Christians Around the World
Identifiable Factors Which May Cause Delinquency Among Children of Elementary Age in Gainesville, Texas