Censor’s Ruling On ‘Ulysses’ Criticised

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31360, 4 May 1967, Page 14

Censor’s Ruling On ‘Ulysses’ Criticised

“The Victoria University of Wellington Film Society strongly deplores the decision of the Film Censor (Mr D. C. Mclntosh) to restrict the exhibition of Joseph Strick's film ‘Ulysses’ to sexually segregated audiences,” the so-

ciety’s research officer (Mr P. Boyes) said yesterday. “This decision not only bespeaks a disregard for the audience’s intelligence, but lends a taint of pornography to what we have every reason to believe is a serious and important film. “The Bishop of Auckland has deplored the decision, and criticised the Censor for allowing a film to be shown which necessitates the segregation of the sexes. Whettier the film necessitates anything of the kind is debatable; what is to be deplored is the way in which the Censor has wittingly or unwittingly created an unsavoury and ludicrous atmosphere for the film to be shown in. “We are cheered to read letters from correspondents who feel that this extraordinary decision should not pass without criticism, and hope that the Censor has taken note of this expression of public opinion, which is so important to his view of what films are acceptable. “Joseph Strick, director of ‘Ulysses,’ has suffered from censorship in this country before: his documentary, “The Savage Eye’ was cut, and his famous version of Genet’s “The Balcony’ was banned. It is specious of Mr Mclntosh to mention the literary version of “Ulysses’ as a justification for showing the film, when a book like ‘The Balcony’ wasn’t sufficient to prevent his banning the film. “We sincerely hope that the version of ‘Ulysses’ to be seen in New Zealand has not been cut by the distributors, or prior to its importation; we are glad that the Censor did not cut the film; but we are sony that he has made a restriction which lends itself to ridicule and whose effects can only be such as to impair a balanced appreciation of the film. “We are hopeful that the public scorn for this decision will lead the Censor to abandon this sort of certificate in the future. “It is important that from articles published about the making of the film and from 1 reports which have so far ' reached New Zealand, it is evL - dent that the film is a significant work of art of our times, ' the sort of work which com- ’ monly suffers from censor- : ship. It appears that the imposition which film censori ship represents on people’s ’ cultural freedom is at last ’ being tired of by the people of New Zealand. Surely an examination of our censorship system is long overdue.”