Films and violence

Press, 12 June 1986, Page 20

Films and violence

Sir, —I agree with J. R. Allison’s views (June 6) regarding the censorship of films. There was a call for the chief film censor’s replacement made last year by Wellington women’s groups because of certain films he had passed as suitable for public viewing. Mr Arthur Everard has held this post for 15 years and this is too long for any one person to sensitively interpret society’s standards. I consider that his decisions no longer reflect the acceptable community standards, particularly regarding the level of violence. It is also time that the criteria for film censorship were reviewed so that restrictions could be imposed on films depicting antisocial attitudes, e.g„ towards honesty and theft.—Yours, etc., M. W. WRIGHT. June 6, 1986.

- Sir, —Mr Everard is having a difficult time at the moment, but that would be normality to the brief of film censor. On the one hand is the school of free choice, whereby any restriction to exercise personal judgment is considered to be a denial of liberty. On the other, the lobby of decent

community standards, concerned with a diminishing morality and an increased crime rate. In between are children. It can be assumed that adults are what they are and will choose video subjects to suit. It can also be assumed that anyone (the censor), habitually viewing whatever material, will become gradually less sensitised. If censorship aims to protect youngsters from exposure to salacity and violence, it fails. If not, it is superfluous. It may be more effective, like the message on a cigarette packet, to enface video tapes thus: “Warning — contents may corrupt.”— Yours, etc., N. D. GOODER. Westport, June 7, 1986.