Tomorrow's Children

Last updated
Tomorrow's Children
Release Poster "Tomorrow's Childern".jpeg
Directed by Crane Wilbur
Written by Wallace Thurman
Produced by Bryan Foy
StarringDiane Sinclair
Donald Douglas
John Preston
Carlyle More Jr.
Sterling Holloway
W. Messenger Bellis
Sarah Padden
Cinematography William C. Thompson
Edited byArthur Hilton
Color processBlack and white
Production
company
Release date
  • July 1934 (1934-07)
Running time
50 minutes
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish

Tomorrow's Children, also known as The Unborn in the United Kingdom, is a 1934 American drama film written by Wallace Thurman and directed by Crane Wilbur. The film partially criticizes the eugenic policies in practice in the United States during those times. The film was widely deemed "immoral" and "tending to incite crime". [1]

Contents

Summary

The film follows the nature vs. nurture story of Alice Mason, played by Diane Sinclair, who wants nothing more than to settle down with her fiancé Jim and raise a family. This goal crumbles when her parents are forced to undergo sterilization or lose their welfare checks. Alice represents the only real beneficial family member; her aging parents are lazy alcoholics and her siblings have physical and mental disabilities, or criminal ties. But she is told that she too must be sterilized, as their family's corrupt bloodline must end.

Alice's parents grudgingly accept the court order, but she flees the house. Unfortunately, the police soon catch her. Her fiancé Jim makes a bold case to Dr. Brooks, who testifies on Alice's behalf, but it doesn't change the court's decision. Meanwhile, another ally of Alice and Jim, Father O'Brien (played by director Crane Wilbur), begs Mrs. Mason to reconsider the sterilization decision. She refuses, desperate to keep receiving welfare, but she becomes so drunk that she reveals that Alice was a foundling the Masons took in, so she actually isn't of their blood. Father O'Brien races to stop the procedure with the new information. Dr. Brooks is ultimately able to stop the procedure in time.

Cast

Production

The film was the sound film directorial debut of Crane Wilbur. Its subject matter was considered unacceptable in the film industry of the time, and did not meet the standards of the Association of Motion Picture Producers. Instead of being backed by this organization, Foy Productions was forced to present the film to state censorship boards located in New York, Ohio, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland.

The film received negative attention for its prominent themes of genetic alcoholism, deformed offspring, and sterilization. The film was approved only in Pennsylvania and Ohio. [2] Since Tomorrow’s Children deliberately ignored the standard rules of the industry, of leaving these controversial topics alone, the film was denied its license and there was a lot of effort devoted to the delaying of its production. The Producers’ Association was responsible for most of the obstacles in the film’s course. [3]

The original decision to ban the film came from censor Irwin Esmond and Dr. Frank Graves in the State Education department. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court backed Esmond and Graves with three votes in favor of the ban and two against it. Years later in 1938, Foy Productions urged the US appeals court to revisit Tomorrow’s Children, especially in New York. Frederick Crane, of the appeals court, screened the film along with six others to decide its future in the empire state. [4]

Influence and controversy

The film has a very prominent theme of sterilization, or the loss of the ability to reproduce that eliminates the chance of parentage and future offspring. In the early 20th century, the US was flooded with ideals revolving around eugenics.

In 1927, the United States declared that it is in favor of these eugenic processes. Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote, "...society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." This quote would be later used against the U.S. during the Nazi Nuremberg trials. [5] Because the film is a reflection on the evils of society, it went against the status quo and took a stand. Criticizing sterilization and eugenic activities also meant criticizing the standard thought in American culture.

On August 19, 1934, barely a month after Tomorrow’s Children was released, Adolf Hitler, a known eugenics lobbyist, was the recognized sole-leader of Germany for over 1 1/2 years then. As Hitler began his conquest through Germany, the forced sterilization of the bloodlines of different races and religions of people occurred. Hitler’s ideals revolved around humanity becoming its purest by removing the parts he deemed unworthy. Although Hitler began his eugenic practices in 1936, Foy and Wilbur were able to relate the same message through the sterilization of Diane Sinclair's family in the film. Possible references to Hitler's regime in the film include a flag bearing what looks like the Nazi symbol in the background during a conversation between the two doctors. Foy Productions appealed its denied license in 1938 while the Nazi Aryan movement was still gaining power, resulting in the upholding of the decision of the film censorship board. [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics</span> Aim to improve perceived human genetic quality

Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter human gene pools by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior. In recent years, the term has seen a revival in bioethical discussions on the usage of new technologies such as CRISPR and genetic screening, with heated debate around whether these technologies should be considered eugenics or not.

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite the changing attitudes in the coming decades regarding sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It is widely believed to have been weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which involved compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals. Legal scholar and Holmes biographer G. Edward White, in fact, wrote, "the Supreme Court has distinguished the case [Buck v. Bell] out of existence". In addition, federal statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, provide protections for people with disabilities, defined as both physical and mental impairments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Compulsory sterilization</span> Government policies which force people to undergo surgical sterilization

Compulsory sterilization, also known as forced or coerced sterilization, is a government-mandated program to involuntarily sterilize a specific group of people. Sterilization removes a person's capacity to reproduce, and is usually done through surgical procedures. Several countries implemented sterilization programs in the early 20th century. Although such programs have been made illegal in most countries of the world, instances of forced or coerced sterilizations persist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carrie Buck</span> American Supreme Court case plaintiff

Carrie Elizabeth Buck was the plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, after having been ordered to undergo compulsory sterilization for purportedly being "feeble-minded" by her foster parents after their nephew raped and impregnated her. She had given birth to an illegitimate child without the means to support it. The surgery, carried out while Buck was an inmate of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, took place under the authority of the Sterilization Act of 1924, part of the Commonwealth of Virginia's eugenics program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racial Integrity Act of 1924</span> Virginia anti-miscegenation law

In 1924, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the Racial Integrity Act. The act reinforced racial segregation by prohibiting interracial marriage and |classifying as "white" a person "who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian". The act, an outgrowth of eugenicist and scientific racist propaganda, was pushed by Walter Plecker, a white supremacist and eugenicist who held the post of registrar of Virginia Bureau of Vital Statistics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry H. Laughlin</span> American eugenicist (1880–1943)

Harry Hamilton Laughlin was an American educator and eugenicist. He served as the superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office from its inception in 1910 to its closure in 1939, and was among the most active individuals influencing American eugenics policy, especially compulsory sterilization legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph DeJarnette</span> American physician

Joseph Spencer DeJarnette was the director of Western State Hospital from 1905 to November 15, 1943. He was a vocal proponent of racial segregation and eugenics, specifically, the compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill.

In 1928, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Canada, enacted the Sexual Sterilization Act. The Act, drafted to protect the gene pool, allowed for sterilization of mentally disabled people in order to prevent the transmission of traits to offspring deemed undesirable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leilani Muir</span>

Leilani Marietta (O'Malley) Muir, previously named Leilani Marie Scorah, was the first person to file a successful lawsuit against the Alberta government for wrongful sterilization under the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta. Her case led to the initiation of several other class action lawsuits against the province for wrongful sterilization. Muir's advocacy shed light on eugenics, institutionalisation, human rights for persons with a disability, and self-advocacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nazi eugenics</span> Nazi German policy of the murder of "undesirable" persons from the German people

Nazi eugenics refers to the social policies of eugenics in Nazi Germany, composed of various ideas about genetics. The racial ideology of Nazism placed the biological improvement of the German people by selective breeding of "Nordic" or "Aryan" traits at its center. These policies were used to justify the involuntary sterilization and mass-murder of those deemed "undesirable".

Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring or "Sterilisation Law" was a statute in Nazi Germany enacted on July 14, 1933, which allowed the compulsory sterilisation of any citizen who in the opinion of a "Genetic Health Court" suffered from a list of alleged genetic disorders – many of which were not, in fact, genetic. The elaborate interpretive commentary on the law was written by three dominant figures in the racial hygiene movement: Ernst Rüdin, Arthur Gütt and the lawyer Falk Ruttke.

Compulsory sterilization in Canada has a documented history in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. It is still ongoing as in 2017, sixty Indigenous women in Saskatchewan sued the provincial government, claiming they had been forced to accept sterilization before seeing their newborn babies. In June of 2021, the Standing Committee on Human Rights in Canada found that compulsory sterilization is ongoing in Canada and its extent has been underestimated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hereditary Health Court</span>

The Hereditary Health Court, also known as the Genetic Health Court, was a court that decided whether people should be forcibly sterilized in Nazi Germany. That method of using courts to make decisions on hereditary health in Nazi Germany was created to implement the Nazi race policy aiming for racial hygiene.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics in the United States</span>

Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population, played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States from the late 19th century into the mid-20th century. The cause became increasingly promoted by intellectuals of the Progressive Era.

The International Federation of Eugenic Organizations (IFEO) was an international organization of groups and individuals focused on eugenics. Founded in London in 1912, where it was originally titled the Permanent International Eugenics Committee, it was an outgrowth of the first International Eugenics Congress. In 1925, it was retitled. Factionalism within the organization led to its division in 1933, as splinter group the Latin International Federation of Eugenics Organizations was created to give a home to eugenicists who disliked the concepts of negative eugenics, in which unfit groups and individuals are discouraged or prevented from reproducing. As the views of the Nazi party in Germany caused increasing tension within the group and leadership activity declined, it dissolved in the latter half of the 1930s.

The history of eugenics is the study of development and advocacy of ideas related to eugenics around the world. Early eugenic ideas were discussed in Ancient Greece and Rome. The height of the modern eugenics movement came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Sterilization of Latinas has been practiced in the United States on women of different Latin American identities, including those from Puerto Rico and Mexico. There is a significant history of such sterilization practices being conducted involuntarily, in a coerced or forced manner, as well as in more subtle forms such as that of constrained choice. Forced sterilization was permissible by multiple states throughout various periods in the 20th century. Issues of state sterilization have persisted as recently as September 2020. Some sources credit the practice to theories of racial eugenics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenic feminism</span> Areas of the womens suffrage movement which overlapped with eugenics

Eugenic feminism was a component of the women's suffrage movement which overlapped with eugenics. Originally coined by the eugenicist Caleb Saleeby, the term has since been applied to summarize views held by some prominent feminists of the United States. Some early suffragettes in Canada, particularly a group known as The Famous Five, also pushed for eugenic policies, chiefly in Alberta and British Columbia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Margaret W. Thompson</span> Canadian geneticist

Margaret Anne Wilson Thompson C.M. Ph.D. LL.D B.A., was a prominent researcher in the field of genetics in Canada. She was a member of the Alberta Eugenics Board from 1960 to 1963, before joining the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto to complete research on genetics and pediatrics. Thompson's work earned her the Order of Canada in 1988, although her appointment remains controversial due to her role in the eugenics movement. Thompson testified about her involvement in the Eugenics Board during the Muir v. Alberta case in 1996 and was also interviewed in a documentary about the lawsuit.

Marian Stephenson Olden (1881–1981) was an American eugenics activist and an influential figure in the sterilization movement. She founded the Sterilization League of New Jersey in 1937, which unsuccessfully lobbied for New Jersey to pass a law enabling the compulsory sterilization of those considered unfit to procreate. In the years following World War II, the sterilization movement distanced itself from Olden, whose increasingly unpopular views on compulsory sterilization, and abrasive, uncompromising personality were seen as liabilities. The Sterilization League, then known as Birthright Inc., formally severed ties with Olden in 1948.

References

  1. Motion Picture Herald, November 1938, Quigley Publishing Co., Print.
  2. Photoplay, July 1938, Chicago, Macfadden Publications, Inc., Print.
  3. The New Movie Magazine, July 1934, Tower Magazines, inc., Print.
  4. The Film Daily, April 9, April 12, and May 18, 1938, Wid's Films and Film Folk, Inc.
  5. "The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics," Edwin Black, History News Network, September 2003.
  6. The Film Daily, April 9, April 12, and May 18, 1938, Wid's Films and Film Folk, Inc.