Film Censorship

Press, Volume C, Issue 29671, 15 November 1961, Page 7

Film Censorship

Sir, —'Hie list of criteria for censorship given by “Better Censorship” sounds quite reasonable, until it is used to denounce two thoughtprovoking films from the books of intelligent and responsible authors. This merely confirms that there are no criteria for censorship that are not very liable co abuse. I agree with censorship or guidance for those below a certain age, but mature adults should be free to read or see any books or films they widh, even the most outrageous “pornography,” for if "pornography” were not banned it would soon became relatively uninteresting, just as nudism is the best antidote for striptease shows. The censorship addicts have made the development of modern literature and films one great strip-tease show. Let us get the last at the “clothes" off, I say, and, our curiosity satisfied, pass on. to the more serious problems of the world. —Yours, etc, MJ)S. November 14, 1961.

Sir, This correspondence suggests the framework of a dirty short novel or scenThe author first writes a dirty short novel or scenario. and then, in the same work, goes behind the scenes into the dirty thoughts and private lives of those correspondents who write sesquieenturies of verbiage pro and con. Sequels to such a work are obvious, namely, the reactions of other readers to both original and correspondence and then further reactions of ekpanding circles at good pay-dirt types. So watch out, “Boadicea,” “MJJS,” et al.— Yours, etc.. FOUR LETTERS. November 14, 1961.

Sir,—“Better Censorship” and “F.T.M.” are two more examples of playing on words without understanding them. Contrary to all claims, such things as pornography, indecency, lusts, desires, illegitemacy, contraceptives, have all defied the biggest

ecclesiastical and legal brains in the House of Lords. They are far too generic and variable for any definition. And in the 50 years since I left Sunday school I have witnessed more variations than anybody could possibly count. And as for “better” censorship, in actual practice it is the very reverse; always consisting of subterfuges based upon the impossibility of definitions,—Yours, etc, COLONEL PRIGG. November 14, 1961. [This catreqpondence may now cease.—Ed, “The Press.”!