FILM CENSORSHIP.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 283, 30 November 1933, Page 18

FILM CENSORSHIP.

TEACHERS' CRITICISM. REPLY TO MR. FULLER. OPINION OF ENGLISH CENSORS We have received the following letter from Mr. Noel- Gibson, lion, secretary of the Committee of Heads of Auckland .Secondary Schools: — In your issue of Saturday last appeared a letter from Mr. John Fuller criticising the steps we are taking to improve the censorship of , films. Mr. Fuller says that this action is the fad of a few secondary school masters. The public should know that all the headmasters and headmistresses of the secondary schools in Auckland are on the committee, and that their deliberations were spread over 15 months and included interviews with the Minister of Internal Affairs and the censor.

Mr. Fuller refers to what he is pleased to call the "machine-like fashion in which all sorts of education boards, college councils, Presbyterian assemblies and the like are churning out the stereotyped resolutions." Had Mr. Fuller access to the replies of these and other bodies, he would realise that no little consideration was given to the resolutions before they were endorsed. Not a few of these bodies have further suggestions to offer, showing that theirs has not been a "machine-like churning out."

Picture Patrons Consulted. Mr. Fuller characterises our suggestions as unconstructive. Many hundreds have read and considered these suggestions, but 110 one else has as yet offered this criticism. It is difficult to believe that Mr. Fuller has seen our resolutions. They are as follow: —(1) "That, in order to make the censorship of films more satisfactory, the Board of Appeal should be reconstituted as an independent judicial body to be presided over by a stipendiary magistrate, assisted by two associates, one of whom should be an educationist of experience and the other a nominee of the Chief Justice"; (2) "That, inasmuch as parents sometimes find it difficult to judge the nature of a film from the advertisements and posters, the censor be instructed to see that all posters are truly indicative of the character of the film to which they relate, and that the cinema proprietors be similarly responsible to the censor in the matter of advertisements"; (3) "That the censorship should be exercised in the direction of serving the best interests of the community rather than in pandering to the lower tastes of a section of the community."

It may interest Mr. Fuller to knowthat at the outset we sought the opinion of over 3000 picture patrons, and that our resolutions are largely the result of consideration of their replies. Since-cir-culating the jo resolutions, large numbers of people who are interested in entertainments have enthusiastically expressed their approval. We deny that our objection to the present system of censorship is purely theoretical. Does' Mr. Fuller consider that satisfactory judgment can be given where one of the judges is also an advocate in the case? The public does not realise that the present Appeal Board consists of a retired stipendiary magistrate and two. ■women, one of whom is appointed by the trade. The Government, that is to say the people, deem it necessary to exercise censorship over the films which the trade introduces into the country. We consider that the present system of censorship is unsatisfactory, and we put forward definite and constructive proposals to enable the Government to improve the censorship. We know that cdlisorship is not the only problem connected with the film, but it is one, and we have a right to claim that this aspect of the matter is dealt with satisfactorily.

English Opinion. Mr. .Fuller says- that Ave "are deliberately flying in the face of the expert opinions of intelligent people and commissions which have inquired into the whole subject over the wide areas of the British Isles and America." This is a statement which, in its setting in Mr. Fuller's letter, is likely to be misleading. Does Mr. Fuller suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dean of Manchester approve of the display of grossly offensive posters and the repeated exhibition of films giving a false impression of life? Mr. Fuller refers in such a way to these gentlemen and to the work of the commission set up by the British Government as to suggest that they would approve of the present manner of censoring films in New Zealand. The commission's report recommends the setting up by the British Government of a film institute to guide and give information. Mr. Fuller is equally unfortunate in his reference to the British Board of Film Censors, which is appointed by the film trade. Even this body is aware of the evils which we deplore and desires to lessen them. The following quotation from the annual report of the British Board of Film Censors very definitely supports our action and refutes Mr. Fuller's implications :—

"There has unquestionably been a tendency of late for films to become more and more daring," the report asserts, "the result probably of the large number of stage plays which are now presented on the screen, and of the license which is to-day allojved in current fiction. Subjects coming under the category of what have been termed 'sex' films, others containing various phases of immorality, and incidents which tend to bring the institution of marriage into contempt, show a marked increase in number. . . . Even when the story is not in itself wholly immoral, there appears to be a desire to stress the unpleasant aspect which is best described as c sex appeal,' with a wealth of detail which is altogether prohibitive for public exhibition. The board has always taken exception to stories in which the main theme is either lust or the development of erotic passions, but the president has come to the definite conclusion that more drastic action will have to bo taken with regard to sucli films in the future. ..."