Film Censorship

Press, Volume C, Issue 29669, 13 November 1961, Page 3

Film Censorship

Sir—Enjoyment of sex is normal. Therefore in suggesting that those who enjoy sex are “corrupt,” is adopting a totally untenable position. The word "corrupt” can only be rationally used of sex which is indulged in without love, discrimination, or responsibility. Unfortunately, one can sell and corrupt sex and still be perfectly “respectable,” eg, by entering into a loveless, materialistic marriage for egotistic reasons. Sex, thus corrupted, turns sour and trivial, and produces the disillusioned, negative reaction common in Western society. In considering censorship, arguments based on genuine concern must be separated from those based on unnatural reactions to sex. This controversy began! over objections to “No Lovej for Johnny,” which was re-] stricted to those over 16. It) is, therefore, not relevant fori “AJVI.” to become indignant] about the /“innocent” and! “immature teenagers.” With] proper education people should have, by the age of 16. a reasonably mature moral outlook.—Yours, etc., M.D.S. November 12, 1961. Sir, —I would remind I “M.D.S.” that I initiated this correspondence with a spirited defence of “No Love for Johnny”—the first intelligent film satire I had seen for ages—against a proposal that it should be banned. He now quotes a passage from my last letter, out of context, and proceeds to misinterpret it, I am not for banning films I don’t like, but I repeat that ' ‘pornography should be recognised for what it is”—not by “MJJS.” or by quoters of Holy Writ, but by the people initially] responsible for judging! screen standards of value. If they decide that the; spectacle of the penultimate preliminaries to mating are suitable for portrayal I personally don’t care twopence, but as a criterion of accepted social behaviour it doesn’t conform to my old-fashioned concepts of decency. As for “frank books,” I have to read a good many of them professionally and notice that those which find their way into the lending libraries are usually kept under the counter.—Yours, etc., BOADICEA. November 10. 1961. Sir, —As a teacher whose film memories go back vividly to silents of the 20’s, I have no doubts on the powerful influence of films on people generally and on young people in particular. Films of adventure, romance, comedy, heroism, etc, have brought pleasure and sometimes inspiration to our everyday fives. The principles of censorship are that good eventually triumphs over evil and that realism is portrayed without recourse to indecency or offensiveness. An increasing number of films of recent years offend by (1) employing profanity and vulgarity; (2> acceptance of low moral standards and giving intimate details; (3) dwelling too much on the neurotic and abnormal; (4) dragging in and playing up the sex angle unnecessarily. "Saturday Night, Sunday Morning” and “No Love for Johnny” are two cases in point. Much cd modern fiction offends for the same reasons and too many recordings are obnoxious both , musically and in sentiments . expressed.—Yours, etc, BETTER CENSORSHIP. November 10, 1961.