The Film and the Nations

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 189, 12 May 1928, Page 17

The Film and the Nations

Implications of a Recent Controversy

..—-..HE Board of Film Censors is an unofficial body appointed by I the trade and responsible only to the trade, says 6 | ‘Scotsman’ “They have no authority to prohibit the exJL hibition of a film, if those concerned in its production are determined to disregard the decision. The local authori - ies, however, have an overriding discretion in their own districts. “They can refuse sanction to a film which has been passed by the Board of Censors, or they can sanction a film which the Board ms rejected. The last word is with the local authorities. The system is perhaps a little casual; but it has on the whole worked well. l a film has been rejected by the Board of Censors on moral grounds--the commonest cause of rejection, one may imagine—there is little likelihood of the decision being reversed by any local authority. “If, on the other hand, a film has passed the Board, but nevertheless contains dbubtful features, a local authority has still the power of refusing a licence for its own district. There have been remarkably few cases of conflict between the Board and local authorities, and from that it is permissible to conclude that, the system has, on the who e, worked well/at least, so far as concerns the protection of public morals. “A political censorship is, however, not a task that any British Government, would like to undertake as a regular duty. It would involve the exercise of a dangerous and invidious discretion, and it might raise as many international difficulties as it would solve. So long as the Government have no direct responsibility, they have a convenient ans ' vcr to any request by a foreign Government which they consider unjustified. “If, on the other hand, the Government took upon themselves the power of a licensing authority, they might expose themselves not only to the censure of home critics, but also to the censure of foreign Governments. ■lt seems, therefore, on the whole better to leave matters as they are.” "The actual work of viewing for censorship, points out tnc “Yorkshire post,” “all the . multifarious films constantly pouring into this country is serious enough, but this task would be nothing compared with the possible labours which might accrue to the responsible Minister in the House.

“Opposition Members who delight in worrying the Government with curious inquiries at question time would fin’d a most fascinating new field for their activities. 'ls the Minister aware that a close-up of Miss Flossie Fayre was excised by the Censor from the last reel of the film . “Seething Passion,” and, if so, on what grounds is he prepared to justify this action?’ An overwhelming case for an official film censorship is surely needed before we can be expected to view with equanimity the prospect of such demands on the time and energy of the House of Commons.” There is considerable opinion, however, in favour of official censorship, and this attitude is alluded to by the “Birmingham Post,” which states:—

“The question is bound to be asked: If we must have a censor of film . would it not be infinitely better to establish a censor having an official status, competent to take political as well as other considerations into account, and' competent, furthermore, to enforce his decrees? The worst , of all censorships, surely, is the censorship .which is erratic, incalculable and uncertain: which will be here respected and can there be disregarded; which cannot be effectively called to account for its mistakes. “Apart from other considerations, kinema proprietors can justly claim the assurance which the licence of the Lord Chamberlain gives to theatrical managers. There is much to be said for a policy which would make the censorship of films—-assuming it to be required a function of an extended Lord Chamberlain’s department. And the objections to that policy which seem so serious to Sir W. Joynson-Hicks will be generally deemed to possess little weight. “It is quite unnecessary to ‘imagine the, position of the Home Secretary if every film were the subject of questions in the House.’ . No need is felt to ask controversial"questions concerning the approval given

to or withheld from plays. ■ If we remember rightly, Parliament remained untroubled by questions when ‘The Mikado’ was banned out of regard for Japanese susceptibilities; and the censorship of films by the same authority need present no greater difficulties.” “An official ■ censorship has this advantage, that one knows where one is with it,” observes the “Evening Standard.’’ “There is. or there should be, a known and publicly responsible individual who stands up to be shot at when one of his decisions is questioned. But it has its disadvantages as well. “Censorships are at best stupid things, and the best of them is likely to make stupid mistakes. Now, when a government takes to itself powers to say that this or that shall not be done, what is done is generally assumed to have not merely .its consent but its approval. “This can be clearly seen from what has happened with the Italian Press under the Fascist regime. It is an unfortunate position, and we ought not to run into it in a blind revulsion. Probably the best solution, for the present at anyrate, is the existing system handled with the greatest discretion by all concerned.” “The censorship of the stage was, indeed,” says the “Outlook,” “originally established for reasons of politics and not of public morality, while that of the film has developed in the reverse direction; but the principles which govern them arc the same, namely, the protection of mankind against its baser self, and they should be subject to the same rules of procedure. “In short, we believe that the time has come ;to put the censorship of films upon an entirely fresh footing. ' The censor must be answerable to Parliament for his actions, either directly or through some Minister to whose department his office is attached. “Furthermore, he must act' in such a way that in future no organisation, after spending .vast sums of money upon the production of a picture, shall see its efforts brought to naught merely through some misunderstanding which need never have arisen at all, and could easily have been prevented if the scenario had been discussed with the censor before the first foot of the reel was shot, “It should not be beyond the powers of British statesmanship to remodel the censorship along such lines as these, and then all of us, producers and public alike, would know exactly where we stood. If the present conti'oversy results in such a settlement as this it will not have been in vain, for by such a reform alone can a repetition be avoided of the conflict which has arisen over the release of a picture of whose unsuitability for public presentation there can hardly be two opinions among decent citizens.” The “Times,” referring to the Cavell film, concludes its leading article by saying:-— “There must be some public control in reserve. If the local authorities elect to set aside the ban on ’Dawn,’ the discovery will be made that a rather ridiculous mouse has given birth to this mountain; that a film has received publicity entirely disproportionate to its artistic merits, its historical accuracy, or its capacity for harm; and that Sir Austen Chamberlain has allowed his judgment to be led paradoxically astray by a sense of public duty and lively personal honour quite characteristic of him an<j in itself entirely creditable. . ’ “If the film had been exhibited in the ordinary way Germany' would have found nothing, as the published descriptions (Show, malicious, in its details or even in its inaccuracies, but a scrupluous and even over-scrupulous determination to avoid offence. Nor would they have found anything vindictive in its reception by British audiences—the same audiences which will presently be witnessing with equanimity Germany’s pictorial record of her military exploits in the first year of War.

“On the other hand there would have been all the plainer speaking on the gross impropriety of selecting this high theme of sacrifice, and the prized though tragic memory of events only thirteen years old, as a subject for the commercial screen.”