Film censorship

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32522, 4 February 1971, Page 10

Film censorship

Sir,—The latest act of censorship committed by the New Zealand film censor has been the cutting of two fine films, both restricted to persons 16 years of age and over. “Five Easy Pieces,” by Bob Rafaelson, and “Catch 22,” by Mike Nichols, are both films of repute, far from being salacious or sensational. The cutting of these films represents a further decline in the operation of film censorship in New Zealand. Of six films admitted in January with an “R” certificate, five were cut. We ask that the Film Censor’s Office be required to publish a monthly list detailing censorship facts for public information. It is clear that the law governing censorship does not allow for works of art to be judged as a whole. Until this provision is written into the Cinematograph Films Act, this mutilation will continue.—Yours, etc.,

PETER BOYES, Secretary, Campaign for Action Against Censorship. February 2, 1971. Sir,' —Ryan’s daughter did sin, but the girl paid (as they say) in a rather more spectacular way than she would in these times. As for the two “unnecessary” scenes, if you were old enough to be there how could they harm? If you were too young, without any knowledge of sexual intercourse, I doubt very much if you would understand what it was all about. The offending scenes did leave something to the imagination.—Yours, etc., (MRS) DIANE PEARCE. February 3, 1971. Sir, —Why all, the outcry about this current movie? Having seen the film in question, I personally believe that everything was in context. Why isolate sections? Extract portions of the Bible and even they can appear “immoral.” The two “offending” scenes did not jar with the beautiful photography and the accurate mirroring of human nature. They were dwelt on, not for sensationalism, to show a contrast between two kinds of love relationships—one incommunicative and incomplete, the other mentally and physically fulfilling. If you must argue that the second “lust” scene -was “sinful,” then surely the woman got her just deserts, Iby mob justice? Is there not

a lesson in the story, then, to satisfy you moralists?— Yours, etc., LOOK AGAIN. February 3, 1971.