FILM CENSORSHIP.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 290, 8 December 1932, Page 20

FILM CENSORSHIP.

CRITICAL MEMBERS. DIFFICULTIES OF WORK. DEFENCE BY MINISTER. (.By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. The vote on the Estimates for assistance to the Government film censor gave members an opportunity to criticise this branch in the House last night. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) denounced picture posters, and asked whether the censor was responsible for allowing their display. Mr. C. L, Carr (Labour, Timaru) declared he had noticed, that during holidays, when a large number of children attended picture theatres, films bearing an "A" certificate were screened, which ho had no hesitation in describing as salacious.

Mr. Barnard asked why a film describing the Five Year Plan in Russia had been barred, when it had great educational value. Apparently people were not being allowed to know that the Russians were making a success of a system that was not a capitalist system. He also objected to a large proportion of American films showing the worst features of American life. Why was there not a larger proportion of English films ? "Over 40 per cent of the films shown in New Zealand are British," declared •the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, who added that this matter was closely discussod at Ottawa. There was, however, the difficulty that film exchanges handling British films bought on the British censor's certificate, but films which got past in England might not fit the ideas of the New Zealand censor. Efforts were being made to standardise the requirements and give British producers an idea of what films might or might not be passed in New Zealand. He had seen several films dealing with Russia in New Zealand theatres.

"American Twang rnd Slang." "You get the American twang and American slang wherever you go," declared Mr. R. A. Wright (Government, Wellington Suburbs). Young New Zealanders had been fairly clear of slang, but that could not be guaranteed to-day under these conditions. As for the certificate that a picture was to be shown only to adults, that was humbug. Mr. Carr: Half-price for children. Mr. Wright added that he could understand the difficulties of the who realised it would be ruinous to film importers if he cut films too severely, but something ought to be done to prevent such a large supply of undesirable American pictures. There should be a prohibitive duty. We did not seem to be getting all the good British pictures available, and he had heard that the Americans were "cornering" them.

"I object to the whole vote, because I think the censorship is a nuisance," said Mr. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central). The censorship protected neither the old nor the young. The tragedy was that Elstree was making a silly attempt to imitate Hollywood with its comedies, though some of the best pictures seen in New Zealand came from Elstree. He did not object so much to bright American speech, though he thought the nasal accent had been a bit worn out.

Desire to Keep Standard High. The Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. Hamilton, assured members that the film censor was quite free to exercise his good judgment, and no direction was given him that Russian or any other films should be banned. If members had experience of the censor's task they would realise its difficulties. The censor did cut out a lot,, and he censored picture posters, too. Mi. Barnard: Then he does it poorly. The Minister: You have to consider the material he has to deal with. I think the standard has been improved of late. There had been quite a number of appeals against the censorship lately, and the picture people, he believed) were just as desirous as the Government to keep the standard high. < . Ban in Auckland Only? Mr. A. S. Richards (Labour, Roskill) asked why the Friends of the Soviet. Union were prevented from exhibiting « Russian film in Auckland, after taking a theatre. Who controlled the films— the police or the censor t The Minister: Both. The police hare the right to control a film. Mr. Richards protested that partiality and injustice had been shown towards an intellectual section of the people, because one part of New Zealand could see this film and in Auckland it was barred.