"THE PICTURES."

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15669, 6 June 1916, Page 2

"THE PICTURES."

TO THE EDtTOH OF "TTI73 PRESS." Sir.—l noticod with passing interest during the early part of last week a letter appearing over the pen name "Diogenes." to which you had subscribed a footnote, expressing the opinion that your correspondent's "fiery- outburst" concerning a host of mystical evils which he alleged characterised local pictures and picture theatres, was exaggerated. Nevertheless, "Diogenes" persisted in pushing his opinions under your door, until what lie termed your milk-and-watery protest against "movies" swivelled into line with his astigmatised philosophy on the subject and at the end of the week you have squeezed your own narrow anatomy into the cupied by "your excellent correspondent," and have embarked with him on a crusade which both of you doubtlessly consider is laudable and holy. To, me, however, it seems a peculiar fact that crusades of this kind are almost invariably directed against the pleasure of the working class, and itis indeed seldom that you are far on with the business before yoti create an opportunity of spilling ' ink oil the people who "squander" sixpence or a shilling a week on amusement. According to your idea, those who spend that amount on their own pleasure are deserving of severe cen.suro. from you and your correspondents of the "Diogenes" type, whereas those whose amusement and self-keep cost them at the rate of sovereigns per week arc impregnated with the local sense of social atmosphere and are eligible for adulation in your personal and societycolumns. Have you ever printed a letter from "Diogenes" or anyone else in which vitriolic criticism is levelled at the people who pay 6s or so for a theatre seat, or when Mr and Mrs So-and-So and family squander anything from £100 to £1000 on a holiday trip, have you ever raised a word of protest? Of course, you haven't.

To tho working people who cannot afford the luxuries which predominate the -lives of those people concerning whose excesses you are always silent, tho picture theatre must inevitably fill a long-felt want. Yet you and "Diogenes" would deny these toilers their weekly or even bi-weekly meed of pleasure. Why? Firstly, because "Diogenes" prattles about the "unutterable vulgarity" of the pictures screened, and fears for the morals of the future generation. 'Hiis means that "Diogenes" has no faith in the moral standard of the country which raised his forefathers, and that which in England is carefully analysed bv a competent Board of Censors and passed as being morally palatable for the public, offends and shocks the lily-white moral code of "Diogenes." Does "Diogenes" set himself up as a Simon Pure pattern by which the lives of his fellow-men must be shaped? If so, it's obvious that by tho timo our children and "Diogenes's"' children (if he is maternal enough to have children) a re old enough to take a hand in the defence of their own liberty and free thought, the wellbeing of this country will be governed' by a sort of Curfew system, and happiness and joy will be things of the past. As to moral harm which "Diogenes'" in his fantasy sees the children suffering from the "movies," you mentioned, Mr Editor, before your correspondent converted you, tliat enquiries had been made and that his assumption in that direction was upset by the records of the police— w ho should know more about the subject than "Diogenes" does. Then apart from his objections ■ as to the morality of pictures, "Diogenes" also takes a jaundiced view of picture theatres from the standpoint that their hygienic properties are detrimental to the public health in that they are veritable breeding beds 0 f infectious diseases. If that's the case, what about our schools, our trams, our trains, and, yes, our churches? Are they immune from "Diogenes's" castigation because the first three are necessary and the last-named is holy? And why is it that if our picture palaces are unhealthy, "Diogenes" has not flagellated the City Council on account of the fact that no picture theatre in Christ-c-iurch has ever been, prosecuted under the health by-laws? Also, if bigotry and bias are not at the bottom of "Diogenes's" present crusade, how comes it that he missed the opportunity of operating his gimlet recently, when a highly odoriferous circus was permitted > to disseminate the stench, of a mangy menagerie in front of thousands of children who attended the Colosseum? But no! "Diogenes" was probably poking his inquisitional proboscis into New Brighton about that time, with the object of distorting; the summer pleasure of workin;; men and women. But, after all, "Diogenes," and even you, Mr Editor,

express only your own personal opin- | ions concerning the moral and physical merit in our theatres, just as I am now expressing a mere personal opinion, which, happily, differs from yours. Why, then, should you and "Diogenes ' constitute yourselves the mouthpieces of a public who cannot shelter behind an editorial "wo" when placing their side of the question in front of the Government, whose eye you and "Diogenes*' evidently hope to catch? Of course, the public can write you the •same as I'm doing, hut the letters of jicwsnaper >>orrespondents don't cutmuch ice with the present Government, so what's the use? If, genes" really wishes to dp something good enough in this whirligig old world, to earn him a halo i n the next, it's sorely -ip to him to first weed his own cabbage natch, because you know, Mr Editor, as a publisher of police court news, the conduct of some of New Zealand's Church dignitaries during the past couple of years has not been all 'hhat th.e public would expect it to be. . Was it moving pictures ' that turned those dignitaries from the narrow path, "Diogenes" Yours, etc., "WORKER. [We grudge the space for this effusion, isueh. vulgarity and coarseness reflect discredit on the writer, and wii! do nothing but harm to the cause he professes to defend.—Ed. , "The Press."] j