The Press SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 1956. Film Censorship

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27990, 9 June 1956, Page 8

The Press SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 1956. Film Censorship

The new film censorship regulations, as described by the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Smith), do not seem very different from the old ones. The onus is still left mainly on parents to decide from the censor’s classification whether their children should see any particular film, with the exception that a few films will be approved only for limited exhibition. Mr Smith is right in thinking that this is a responsibility that parents should accept. If they cannot be trusted to decide whether a film (which must conform to general standards of taste) would be good or bad for their children, they are probably not capable of bringing up their family properly in other and more important ways. The fact that censorship is necessary at all implies, of course, a weakness in our society. If public taste and morality reached the idea] standard they would be sufficient censors in themselves. The aim should be to raise them by encouraging people to think for themselves, helped, perhaps, by the guide the censor gives in his classification. Whether the greater variety of classifications for films not suitable for general exhibition provided in the new regulations is an improvement will depend on how well the public understand the new system. The old division into two broad classes had at least the merit of being simple, and comparatively effective. Theatre managers with double-feature programmes have noticed that a film graded suitable for universal exhibition has attracted less patronage than would be expected if, for reasons of supply, it had to be coupled with another film recommended for adult audiences only.

The real test of the new regulations, however, will be their effectiveness in obtaining compliance with the censor’s direction that children below a specified age are not to be admitted. The present censor (Mr G. H. Mirams) has used this classification to permit the screening of controversial films which should be available to adults and which might otherwise have been banned. The restriction has not, however, been effectively policed. Theatre managers have been left without much authority to do the best they can, and the restriction has sometimes been ignored by young persons and their parents. If it were made an offence for persons below the stipulated age to try to attend a performance, or for owners of theatres to admit them, and if occasional police checks were made, the censor’s direction would be better obeyed. Mr Mirams does his part very well and is entitled to official backing. These are exceptional films and, because of their rarity, cannot have much corrupting influence. The important point is that the good work of a censor sensitive to changing public opinion and the regulations under which he works should not be frustrated. If any restriction is thought necessary it should be enforced; otherwise it would be better to forget the restriction and rely on the good sense of parents, which must be done in the generality of cases.