CENSORING FILMS

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 67, 17 September 1917, Page 8

CENSORING FILMS

RESULT OF A YEAR'S EXPE- >_- , RIENCE :r . ; .-:-;.-.:;;.^-r..-"-:'.:

On 16th September,^ 1916,- Mr.. W. Joliffe commenced his arduous .anot^ re-sponsible-duties as iCensor of cinema fiim's. A Post reporter waited on him this morning 1 to hear what he .had to say.! about the result of the year's working. What; he was asked, are your-par-ticular functions? '

The duty of the Censor, he replied, is stated in the Act. Section 4 says that the; approval of the Censor shall not be given'in the case,of any-film which, in the opinion ."of; the Censor, depicts any matter that is against public order and decency, or the exhibition of which for any other reason is, in the opinion of the Censor, undesirable in the public interest. ,;■ ;. .■■•■ ■ '■'.:■ . ■;

■'On what principle do you act in carrying out your censoring?" he was asked. •

".'.'lt is'difficult," said Mr. Joliffe, "to formulate principles which will apply to every case, ( -but ,f matter coming within the following classes is not allowed 'to pass:—(l) The commission of crime in a manner likely to be imitated, especially by the young, or to give information as to'methods to persons, of 'si criminal" tendency; (2) indecency ,in the matter, of dress; (3) the treatment of 'religious subjects in an irreligious or irreverent, manner ; (4) matter likely to prorfiote disloyalty to the King and country, or;to adversely affect friendly feeling towards our Allies;'. (5) 'matter likely to effect class hatred." ".'.;'

* Continuing, Mr. Joliffe said that, during the year, 1952 pictures had been, examined, containing 4,438,660 feet, oi about 856 miles,."nearly as far as from Wellington to Auckland and, back .again.'. •Of these, 36 have been absolutely turned down, and. cuts (ranging from-750ft to< 15ft) have been-.made in 227. films..; ..Not-. withstanding these figures, it has been publicly stated by one reverend * gentleman that the position is worse to-day than before the Act was passed; and another reverend t gentleman said that the worst picture he had ever seen was under the certificate,of. the. Censor. Three other reverend gentlemen, in a joint letter controlled by .a member.'of the' Legislates*, suggested that the organised power of money accounted for such pictures as "Intolerance" having, been passed by the Censor. "What about the so-called 'educational' pictures?" was another question aeked. "Certain pictures," said Mr. Joliffe, "claimed by the producers to be educational, in that, while .depicting vice they contain a moral lesison, have been condemned by some people, who argue that young persons are more affected by the display of vice than by the warning conveyed. Of such pictures are those of the vampire class, illustrating a phase of life practically unknown in New Zealand, and therefore the moral, it any, is' unnecessary. This class of picture has plmost disappeared. In such pictures as "The Common Law,' emphasising the necessity for' marriage, 'Where Are '-My Children?' dealing with what is called 'race suicide,' the'moral aspect decidedly predominated, and in my^opinion they were more [ likely to do good than harm. I-am not aware whether those who argue against 'screen morals' extend their argument to such a position- as 'The Enemy,' which, to my mind, conveyed a stronger lo*son' on.the evil of drink than any sermon, lecture, book, or picture I have, heard, or-read or seen. Such pictures as 'Intolerance' and' 'Hypocrites' (which powerfully illustrate the characteristics suggested by their titles) have been loudly, condemned by some —and as. loudly praised by others. In my opinion there was nothing in either to, warrant the attacks made on them."