FILM STANDARDS

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 105, 6 May 1933, Page 21

FILM STANDARDS

CEtfSOK'S CEITICISM

UNDESIRABLE FEATURES

Film producers have not yet solved the difficult problem of striking a happy medium between the release of films suitable for all, yet not depriving the intelligent adult of strong drama and realistic character delineation, according to the Australian Chief Film Censor (Mr. \V. Creswell O'Beilly), whose annual report to the Minister for Trade and Customs was released recently, states the "Sydney Morning Herald." Mr. O'Beilly remarks that the criticisms of British films by the Australian censor in the past have apparently borne fruit. He praises the general improvement in British films, especially in feature items. He deplores, however, the number of bath scenes and the amount of bedroom farce. Although there has been more activity, in the making; of dramatic films in Australia, he does not think that the productions have been of a very high grade by comparison with, the films of their competitors. The report states that in 1932 17S1 standard films of all classes were imported. Of these 1313 came from the United States, 333 from the United Kingdom, and 136 from other countries. None of those from the United Kingdom were finally rejected, although some were subject to eliminations and alterations. Of the films imported from the United States 5.3 were finally rejected by the Censor Appeal Board. In previous years the percentage of British films rejected was more than double the percentage of American films rejected. During the year 378 American feature films were imported, of which 153 suffered cuts or eliminations, and 20 were finally rejected. In the same year 112 British feature films were imported; 38 suffered cuts, but none was rejected. The number of feature films imported from Britain was easily a record, states Mr. O'Reilly. Their standard of entertainment and technical excellence had greatly improved. BATHROOM SCENES. "Generally speaking, prominent English actors splashing in their tubs and spitting dialogue through their teeth might be matineo idols in England, but they make no appeal to Australians, accustomed to the bronzed and statuesque physique of the surf beaches," the report continues. "It would be a kindness to suggest to them that there is neither beauty nor grace in such exhibitions, and that they are more likely to retain their admirers by continuing to cover their forms with their hitherto faultless dress. "We note with satisfaction the attention given to the policy of 'showing tlie ilag.' It would appear that British axithority has provided increased facilities for the presenting of incidents of Imperial significance. That a development of this policy would be welcomed is indicated by the warm response of tho Australian people to the initial efforts." Mr. O'Ecilly considers that tho photography of Australian-made films is good and the settings well chosen. He thinks, however, that the acting is not up to the standard set by tho films of other countries. "Some films much vaunted for their Australian atmosphere," ho says, "must make people in other countries wonder if outback settlers of Australia are simple-minded and childish." He-regards it as unfortunate that one Australian production should have sought slavishly to c-opy the sex suggestiveness Of low-grade films by over-emphasising an admittedly important, factor in a historical incident. "Australian news items," ho adds, "are more than holding their own in interest and technique, and a more general export of them would be one of Australia's best advertisements." AMERICAN "DIRTY LINEN." A protest is niiidc in Uic report against the undesirable emphasis in story and incident u|)on immoral sex relationships, and agu.inst the effort to ilood tho Australian market with pictures depicting gangsters, and civic and political graft in'the United States. "Why should dirty American linen bo washed in the presence of Australian audiences?" asks Mr. O'Beilly. "There are still too niany films which lack a general field," Mr. O'Beilly says, in considering the question of children and films. "The spectacle of a Saturday afternoon audience, 90 per cent, of which is_ composed of children, witnessing a triangle drama, is deplorable. The only relieving feature of such a situation is that probably the morally questionablo element, in films is ignored by children of school age. They are not harmed; they are merely bored. There is, however, a different tale to tell when the adolescent of 15 to 18 years is taken into account." Mr. O'Beilly considers that the year has not brought forward any notable developments in film content, for which he partly blames the depression.