December 20, 1922:
God of Vengeance
opens at the Provincetown Playhouse. The review in the
Times
says that the play “has been widely played on the Continent of Europe and was produced here at the Jewish Art Theatre . . . but it is not likely to achieve popularity in English unless Greenwich Village should develop an appetite for the seamy side of life beyond anything it has as yet displayed.”
February 2, 1923:
God of Vengeance
moves a few blocks away to the Greenwich Village Theatre, where it remains for two weeks.
February 19, 1923:
God of Vengeance
moves to Broadway’s Apollo Theatre, with significant and imprudent cuts made to the script in an apparent effort to clean up a bit of the “seamy” elements of the play for an uptown audience. In so doing, the love story between Manke and Rifkele becomes distorted.
February 26, 1923:
In an article about brewing legal action to censor literature and movies, the
Times
reminds its readers of the “play jury” formed a year earlier in response to numerous groups calling for censoring various plays. Actors, playwrights, and publishers entered into an agreement “to furnish a voluntary censorship in the form of a play jury system,” with the jury drawn from the general public. Rather than prohibiting a play from opening, the jury would investigate complaints and decide whether the show could
stay
open. No play had yet been brought before the jury, but there were those who now wanted
God of Vengeance
to go on trial. The head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, a state censorship body, resisted, but not because he approved of the play. He felt it was not “the kind of a play the New York public will support,” and as he believed it would not run, he decided not to put it before the play jury.
March 6, 1923:
Producer Harry Weinberger and the 12-member cast of
God of Vengeance
are indicted for “violating the penal code in giving an alleged indecent, immoral and impure theatrical performance,” the
Times
reports the next day. They learn of the indictment from a detective between the second and third acts, and are told to appear in court the following day. The performance continues uninterrupted and no one is arrested. Weinberger, who is also a lawyer and will represent himself and the cast in court, tells the
Times
he believes this to be an unprecedented act and is willing “to make a test case of it, if necessary, in his fight against censorship.” According to the newspaper, the indictment is the result of numerous complaints alleging that the play is anti-Semitic. Among those who filed a complaint was Rabbi Joseph Silverman of Temple Emanu-El, who said that the play “libels the Jewish religion.”
March 9, 1923:
When
The New York Times
refuses to run ads for
God of Vengeance
following the indictment, Weinberger writes to the paper, “It seems to me hardly fair or becoming for
The New York Times
to act as censor and pass judgment on a play before a final decision of a jury has been reached.” The ban remains. He also invites Adolph Ochs, publisher of the paper, to attend a performance. Ochs goes, agrees with the charges, and believes the show should be closed. The paper’s hostility toward the play is ever-present in its coverage.
March or April, 1923:
Weinberger solicits support from prominent writers, religious leaders, academics, and members of the public and issues a pamphlet defending
God of Vengeance
. Eugene O’Neill calls censorship “the last cowardly resort of the boob and the bigot.” Constantin Stanislavsky writes that the play was “presented throughout Russia during the days of the Czar and there was no protest against it.”
Asch, who has remained silent throughout the ordeal, writes an open letter in which he finally speaks up on behalf of his play. “In the seventeen years it has been before the public, this is the first time I have had to defend it.” Although the major outcry against the play, reflected in the indictment, is its so-called anti-Semitism, Asch also addresses the relationship between Rifkele and Manke. “The love between the two girls is not only an erotic one. It is the unconscious mother love of which they are deprived . . . . I also wanted to bring out the innocent, longing for sin, and the sinful, dreaming of purity.”
As to the charges of anti-Semitism, he says, “No Jew until now has considered it harmful to the Jew. It is included in the repertoire of every Jewish stage in the world and has been presented more frequently than any other play.” He rejects the label of “Jewish” writer, saying, “I write, and incidentally my types are Jewish for of all peoples they are the ones I know best.” He goes on to say that the play has been seen in countries where there are few Jews, and the fact that it has been embraced everywhere makes
God of Vengeance
“universal.”
April 14, 1923:
God of Vengeance
closes on Broadway after 133 performances.
April 16, 1923:
God of Vengeance
reopens in the Bronx, at the Prospect Theatre.
April 22, 1923:
Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the renowned founder of The Free Synagogue in New York City, gives a sermon denouncing censorship of all kinds of artistic endeavors including the attack on
God of Vengeance
, which he calls “one of the most deeply moral plays I have seen."
May 23, 1923:
A jury deliberates for 90 minutes and finds Harry Weinberger and the cast of
God of Vengeance
guilty for “giving an immoral performance.” The
Times
says that the verdict is “the first conviction by a jury in a case of this kind.” The defendants are released on bail and face up to three years in jail and a fine of $500.
In reading the instructions of Judge John McIntyre to the jury, it appears, with the distance of time, that he was urging a guilty verdict. He told the jury to ignore the play’s reception in Europe because the moral standards and viewpoints in New York were different. He also pointed out a law prohibiting participation of any kind in an “impure, immoral or obscene play which would tend to corrupt the morals of youth or others.” He added, “The people of the State of New York are anxious to have pure drama. They are anxious to have clean plays. They are opposed to immoral and indecent productions. Decency should be upheld, and anybody who disregards decency and who portrays obscenity may be regarded by you as guilty.”
May 25, 1923:
The New York Times
publishes an editorial with the heading “Better Than Censorship.” The paper calls the verdict “a timely reminder that existing laws furnish adequate protection for public morals.” In essence, although they clearly didn’t see it that way, they were advocating for censorship by jury, rather than by a “censorship commission.” The editorial also reveals that “several respectable amateurs of the theatre” had been prepared to testify in defense of the play, and says approvingly that the Court determined they were just “so many irrelevancies” and did not allow them to speak. The
Times
refers to this as “due process of law, not haphazard judgments under a censorship.” The editorial concludes, “It is a wholesome thing for all to know, that there is a Penal Code to which painters and writers and playwrights and actors and theatrical managers must pay due regard.”
May 28, 1923:
Harry Weinberger and Rudolph Schildkraut are each fined $200 “for giving an immoral performance.” The rest of the cast receive suspended sentences and are released. Judge McIntyre explains that he chose to be lenient because the conviction was unprecedented, but warns the defendants that if they should ever again participate in an “immoral” play, they would be sentenced to jail.
Following sentencing, Weinberger says he will file an appeal. He subsequently issues a statement addressing the verdict, which begins, “Jewish religious bigotry entrenched in power is responsible for the indictment in the case.” He goes on to say, “This case is of national importance. It is the first of its kind, and questions of vast importance about the law involved will have to be determined, if serious plays are to be presented in New York and elsewhere. If the regular Broadway managers do not realize it at this particular moment, they will in the near future . . . When [they] find conviction follows indictment and their theatre licenses revoked they may regret their rushing into print about this conviction to show how ‘moral’ they and their plays are.”
June 13, 1924:
In response to a letter from Weinberger seeking financial assistance for his appeal, Roger Baldwin, founder and executive director of the ACLU, writes, “Of course, this is a free-speech fight and we’d be very glad indeed to give it whatever incidental aid we can.” But he makes no commitment to helping with the costs.
October 1, 1924:
Baldwin sends a letter to Weinberger explaining why the ACLU will not provide support. “We do not believe that the right of the public to censor plays on the grounds of morality can be questioned. It has been accepted for several centuries.”
October 26, 1923:
The
Times
reports that the play jury (see February 26), which had been allowed to lapse without ever bringing a play to trial, was about to be resurrected for the purpose of adjudicating four Broadway plays currently “showing to crowded houses.” The move was made at the urging of the secretary of the Society for the Suppression of Vice – and following consultation with Actors’ Equity Association – who was unhappy with the handling of
God of Vengeance
. He felt that going through the court system took too long, explaining that
God of Vengeance
“ran six months after indictments were found” [including its run in the Bronx] and that the defendants got off too lightly. The four plays targeted were not revealed “on the ground that to tell them would give undue advertising where it was not deserved.”
October 31, 1923:
A notice of appeal is filed with the court to request review of the
God of Vengeance
verdict. In addition to trying to “vindicate the play and all those connected with it,” Weinberger says that he is also seeking “to have defined for all time the right of freedom of the drama.”
December 7, 1923:
The
Times
runs an article with a heading that reads “Eliminate Parts of Indecent Plays,” and a subheading that says “Alarmed by Threats of Prison Terms, Producers Start a Reform Movement.” According to the piece, two unnamed plays had cut “objectionable features” following complaints. One producer also “promised to expurgate anything else considered objectionable by the proper authorities and expressed a willingness to abandon the entire play if that were deemed necessary.”
January 21, 1924:
The conviction against Harry Weinberger and the cast of
God of Vengeance
is reversed, and a new trial is ordered.
January 23 1924:
The
Times
runs an editorial in which it explains the decision for a retrial. Judge McIntyre did not allow the text of the play into evidence, claiming that it could have been altered after the immorality charge. But the Court of Appeals judge ruled that McIntyre should have tried to authenticate the text before dismissing it out of hand. The editorial then makes the case against the state having an official censor and against a court trial, but doesn’t dismiss censorship outright. The editorial favors the idea of a play jury in theory, but concedes that it “proved impracticable.” In the end, it says, “such cases are best left to the jury of public opinion.” It concludes that if
God of Vengeance
had been allowed to run, it likely “would have been neglected for saying an undisputed thing in a way peculiarly revolting.”
September 25, 1924:
Following is the opening paragraph of an article in the
Times
. “The dialogue in
What Price Glory
was partly expurgated last night after Commissioner of Licenses William F. Quigley had appealed to the army, the navy, the Department of Justice, the Police Commissioner and the Corporation Counsel to assist him in suppressing profanity and nudity in Broadway shows. Conflicting statements were made as to whether or not the chorus in
Earl Carroll’s Vanities
made additions to their costumes.” The producer of
What Price Glory
, Arthur Hopkins, had received word that an arrest was to be made after the second act and the show would be used as a “test case.” So, he said, some words were dropped from the script, and he would seek “legal advice before I restore them.” Close to three dozen “special service men” were on call outside the theatre ready to make arrests, but the script changes kept them at bay. The secretary of the Society for Suppression of Vice actually wrote a letter to Quigley admonishing him for calling in the military.
February 25, 1925:
The
Times
reports that the play jury will be functioning again in the next few days, and that complaints against 12 shows will be submitted for review. The first jury will be chosen by the police commissioner from 130 names approved by the district attorney. The names of jurors will not be released publicly, and the titles of the shows under investigation will be confidential – not even those associated with these works will know. If the jury finds a play guilty of immorality, the script will have to be modified or the play will be closed. The article says that Actors’ Equity “has written in all contracts a clause that it will abide by the action of the jury.” It is speculated that the first play to be put forth before the jury will be Eugene O’Neill’s
Desire Under the Elms
.
March 4, 1925:
The
Times
prints an editorial approving of the procedure above. By January, 1927, one play had been condemned, two had been modified, and four others were “passed on but not condemned.”
April 3, 1926:
The indictments against Harry Weinberger and the cast of
God of Vengeance
are dropped; there will be no retrial. The assistant district attorney says that a new trial would likely be lengthy, and “I do not believe that the interests of justice require that the defendants be retried at this time.” How and why the State reached that conclusion is not explained in the
Times
, which devotes just four paragraphs to the news on Sunday, April 4. The article is barely noticeable on page 25 of a 210-page edition, in which the largest space is given over to an ad for Gimbels department store.
February 4, 1927:
The play jury is disbanded because, for many reasons, it didn’t work. District Attorney Joab Banton, who oversaw the system, announces that although “he hates censorship almost as much as immorality,” he would now criminally prosecute those involved in “indecent” plays.
