"MOVIES & MORALS"

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 88, 11 October 1920, Page 8

"MOVIES & MORALS"

THE POST'S CLEAN-UP CAMPAIGN

CRITICISED

Sir, —Under the above heading a lengthy leading article appears in youv issue of last Saturday. As lam personally interested in the pictures you refer to, I trust you will kindly grant me speace in order to correct a few inaccuracies and at the same time express my regret that you have not made quite sure of all the facts in connection with the subject. Firstly, you state that the picture "was aproved by the censor for exhibition to sexes separately. This is contrary to fact, as the censor issued an "A" certificate, which means that a pictare may be exhibited to mixed, audiences, but is recommended for adult audiences.. Secondly, you say "the picture referred to, however, was shown.in the ordinary way with no discrimination as to sex or age of those to whom it was exhibited—in. short, not in accordance xvith the censor's condition." The firstportion of this statement is out of order, as the picture was shown under the "A" certificate, but with regard to age you have apparently not noticed the Auckland advertisements which clearly set out "Children under sixteen not admitted." Thirdly, you state ". . . yet it had already been refused the sanction of the British Board of Film Censors, but was shown in London in defiance of that authority, which has no legal status." As a matter of fact, this picture was not submitted at all to the British Board of Censors, because there was no necessity for so doing asthe subject was exhibited throughout the United Kindow (not London only as you state) with the full sanction of the National Council for combat-ing venereal diseases and with the full approval of the Ministry of Health. Furthermore, these good people made the age limit fourteen. Hereunder is an exact copy of a letter which speaks for itself :—

"National Council for Combating Yen©real Diseases, 81, Aye. Chambers, Southampton Row, London, W.C, 7th August, 1919. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. With ■ reference to the motion picture production, entitled 'The End .of this Road,' the film has received our authorisation ajnd the approval.of the Ministry of Health for its exhibition through I regular commercial channels in Great I Britain. This is in accordance with the terms of an agreement, dated -21st July, 1919, between Public Health Films, the American Social Hygiene Association, and the National- Council for combating Veineral Diseases, and tho approval of the Ministry of Health. It is anticipatedthat the production will bo of incalculable value in the great educational campaign about to be inaugurated by the, National Council through its 85 branches in the United Kingdom. The council plans to co-operate actively in (securing • the largest possible audiences at the pub- | lie exhibitions of the cinema drama. (Signed) A.C. GOTTO, General Secretary." i In Canada, this picture was passed by ; the Board of Censors in each State anil again, the National Council lent its aid to fthe utmost to have the picture shown everywhere possible, .in proof of which, | I quote as under from the Social Hygiene Bulletin of July, 1920 : — THE CANADIAN NATIONAL COUNCIL. "The Canadian National Council for Combating Venereal Diseases is using motion pictures to it greater extent than ever before in its educational campaign. Dr. Gordon Bates, secretary of the council, estimates that 'The End of the Road' was seen by one hundred thousand persons during its showing in the Province of Ontario."

The above correspondence should prove conclusively to any fair-minded community that this picture has been endorsed by the best of authorities, and was received favourably by tho general public of the United Kingdom and the Dominion of Gauad*. Now, is it not strange that with similar endorsements from, societies, leading physicians, and citizens in the highest positions in New Zealand, an antipathy should be shown by your -paper, may I suggest, before it was even seen by any representative of the .Evening Post? Now, Sir, if you will be fair and give me the opportunity, I will produce to you letters from citizens of New Zealand of indisputably high reputation who have seen the picture. It is to be regretted that you have seen fit to devote over a. column to this subject just at a time when the matter is "sub judice" bo to speak, as to whether the picture is. to be continued on the "A" certificate o. to be exhibited on a "B" certificate, that is to segregated audiences. I trust that you will let me place all the credentials with regard to this picture before you at the earliest possible moment, as I intend leaving for Sydney on Thursday. It might be right to mention that I am not writing on behalf of any firm with regard to thte matter.—l am, etc., HUGH D. WILSON. 11th October. , The picture to which the correspondent refers was, as he states, given an "A" certificate. Subsequently its future exhibition was made conditional on its being shown to segregated sexes. When it was shown in Auckland the Herald described it as "an objectionable film," and further, "To describe 'The End of the Road' as a morality play with an educational value in respect to the public health 'is mere camouflage. "Where it does not pander deliberately to depraved tastes it caters for that deplorable appetite for morbid and disgusting sights and incidents which is unfortunately possessed by a minority of people. ... It ! speedily deteriorates to a degree which creates revnlsion in refined, minds, especially in regard to its excursions into loose morality, scenes of seduction, and incessantly recurring references to and illustrations of foul diseases £-nd the effects of their ravages on human bodies." The Auckland Star' adopted the same | caption to its criticism, viz.,'"An Objectionable Film." The screening was to an invited assemblage of social workers, medical men, ministers of religion, and teachers. The Star's comment was : "We have been informed that the British filmcensor refused it a- license, and .are of opinion that the same course should hava been followed here." The prologue is described as " entirely inoffensive,"-but '"the film largely concerns itself with a nauseating presentsj tion of the advanced effects of syphilis I and kindred diseases, details which ,may have their place in ths clinical laborai tory for the instruction of medical students, but should certainly not form the basis of a public entertainment. The purpose of the producer may have been excellent, but- the result of his work is a film that provides no entertainment, and in its sickening tieta.il disgusts, and, in I our opinion, can achieve no public good." ! The reputation of the film . was such that immediately the proprietors of the .Kvening Post became apprised of it- they j declined to publish any announcement* 1 of it iv the advertising columns or to have any other business relations withit whatsoever. The correspondent questions The Post's statement that the picture "The .End of the Road" was refueed tlie sanction oi' the British Board of Censors. The Post- has good authority for- stating that its sanction was refused. Even conceding that the picture was not submitted as Mr. Wilson says to the British Board of Censors that

fact does not make it any less "an. objectionable film" to quote the description given by both the Auckland Star and Herald. Mr. Wilson complains that "antipathy"' was shown to the picture "before it was ever seen by any representative of the Evening Post." He is quite wrong. The picture was specially exhibited to a responsible representative of the editorial staff of "the Evening Post, at the invitation of Mr. William Katzin, representing Public Health Films, New York. A report on the picture was duly made to the editor, before perusal of the reports of the Auckland Star and JJew Zealand Herald, and before perusal also of an article on "The End of the Eoad" by Sir Sidney Low, in the Fortnightly Review, from which we take the following extracts further supporting the editorial attitude of The Post: —

' "In any. case the moral of The End of the Road is not a. lofty one. I suppose the philanthropists who approve this outrage on taste and decency think it inculcates self-control and restraint. That is not the lesson, if anybody takes the trouble to learn it, to be drawn from this ever-emphasieed exposition of the purely physical possibilties of vicious indulgence. ' The film does not tend to make people virtuous; it can only make them more careful, which is not quite the same thing. . . . Shoddy sentiment is sprayed about this charnel-house, and its sickly perfume mingles with the odour of the di6infectants and the caibolised .sponges, . . . Festering sores, racking torments, disgusting illnesses, paralysis, blindness, insanity, premature decay are pictured and described. . . . If it tends to edification for photographs of diseased Jimbs and putrid bodies to be seen, let such things be published in pamphlets, or leaflets, or treatises, which may be read carefully and quietly, and pondered over with due attention.'•'—; Ed.]