The Spirit of 76
This is building up to a larger topic.
-
In 1917, a movie producer by the name of Robert Goldstein was sentenced to 10 years in jail, due to the release of his now-lost movie, The Spirit of 76.
This is an interesting bit of history, and ties in with other things starting around the same time; in some ways, it might well have dictated the future of Hollywood, and potentially, the United States.
-
1917 was the period of silent films. However, it was also the year where the United States entered WW1, and consequently, the Espionage Act of 1917 was passed which specifically outlawed attempts to undermine support for war-time ally Britain.
There are a few books on the topic of Spirit of 76 in general, but true to form, they intend is to rewrite history as opposed to document what actually took place.
Robert Goldstein was originally in the business of custome rentals serving Hollywood. However, through a series of events, he became part owner of DW Griffith’s ‘The Clansman’ movie, which went on to become highly successful upon release.
He then raised $250,000, built a studio (‘The Continental Producing Company’), and set off to create his own epic movie, somewhat loosely based upon the American Revolution, “The Spirit of ‘76”.
During production, the movie saw its set of troubles. A fire razed the two-story plant occupied by the Continental Film Producing Company, but eventually the movie was ready for release, and Goldstein rented the Orchestra Hall in Los Angeles for its first showing.
However, I’m skipping a significant part here. Because before he got to Los Angeles, Goldstein was set to open in Chicago. Unfortunately, the Chicago Censor Board barred it. See, the movie features clips of redcoats assauting a woman, and bayonetting a baby - and this, at a time where the United States were fighting Germany in World War 1.
So upon request, in order to clear the censor board, Goldstein made a series of cuts to the movie to get it through, and eventually, it was rubberstamped. It was ready for its showing.
However, when the movie opened in Los Angeles, the offending scenes were restored. And this is where contemporary controversy arrives, because I’ve seen a number of articles and even a book claim that this either didn’t happen, or was an accident.
Fortunately, I’ve located enough clips from the long-gone ‘Moving Picture World’ to document what took place, per the industry times itself.
What no-one questions is that the movie was barred. What furthermore is also not up for debate, is that Goldstein was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was considered collaborating with an enemy, ie, Germany.
When the case opened, he naturally denied charges of espionage and collaboration. However, the prosecutor established that no other member of the team had anything to do with a restoration of the offending parts in question, which left him legally exposed.
While arguing in court, Goldstein claimed he had been framed, that he was dealing with ‘unscrupulous partners’, who made repeated attempts to remove him from the picture. I can find absolutely no evidence to back this up. In fact, I somewhat doubt this happened, because the events do tie in pretty well as it is.
So in March, 1918, before the trial came to a ruling, creditors started circling, and all bankruptcy asset sales were requested stopped. In May, Goldstein was found guilty. And this article (on the right) is interesting, because it contains several interesting parts, which I have found nowhere else on the web.
First off, only around $120,000 of the $200,000 spent on producing the money was found via stock subscription - meaning Goldstein himself put in around $80,000.
The majority of investors were German, it was charged. This, I have not been able to confirm, but I would argue that surely the defence lawyer would easily have dismissed this, were it not true. I would be inclined to believe this, but I won’t include in summary, because the evidence here isn’t strong enough.
But most damning - on the stand, Goldstein admitted to restoring the scenes in question. He deliberately ignored the censorship board, while a war was waging. He had received warnings in this regard, yet chose to ignore these, and released the film with the offending scenes in question restored. I fail to see a defence here — he was clearly guilty. His stated reason matters little, what matters is that he deliberately acted against given advice.
The case document can be located here.
Of the ten years sentence, he only served three before his sentence was eventually commuted. Upon release in 1921, broke, he attempted to finally release his movie, but with the audience having moved on, and with a severely tarred reputation, it fell flat. And to compound the misery, due to reputational damaged, Hollywood refused to hire him. His appeals fell on deaf ears.
With that said, there are a couple of points of interest which deserve further note. The $80,000 he put into the project he raised through partial ownership of DW Griffith’s ‘The Clansman’ - a movie, which became highly succesful under a different name - ‘The Birth of a Nation’. This saw its release in 1915, and it wasn’t just spectacularly successful, it was also incredibly controversial; even still to this day it is by some considered the most racist movie ever made.
-
So to sum up in this regard -
“The Birth of a Nation” was (still is) an extremely racist movie.
It was however very successful, and made Goldstein wealthy.
Using some of this wealth, he produced “Spirit of 76”…
… which was barred due to running afoul the Espionage Act of 1917.
Goldstein deliberately caused his own problems by restoring the offending scenes.
The movie starred a mixed-race lead actress.
And it features a scene in which the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Got it all? Good. Because the three points in bold will slot right into the next article.