FILM CENSORSHIP

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 105, 31 October 1933, Page 7

FILM CENSORSHIP

AUCKLAND PROPOSALS

APPEAL BOARD PERSONNEL

The controversial subject of film con.' sorship was dealt with, by the Board oi Governors of the Wellington Technical College last night. The discussion was introduced by the circular letter sdnt to educational and local bodies by the committee of the heads of the Auckland eecondary schools. The board favoured some of. the views presented, but as the general opinion was that it would be difficult, and in somo cases undesirable, to; put into practice the whole of the 'Auckland, Committee's recommendations, it was decided to take no action. The" chairman (Mr. W. H. Bennett) said that the first objection in the circular was to the composition of the censorship appeal board, which consisted of Mr. W. G. Eiddell, the former Sti^ pendiary Magistrate, Mrs. K. Preston, the woman appointed by tho Government, and Miss Eighton, representing tho film interests. It was suggested that the board should consist of two Magistrates and an educationist. Mr. Bennett considered that that would be all right from an educationist's point of view, but it had to be remembered that tho Appeal Board had to consider more than whether the films were suitable, for school children. It might be held that the film interests should not be- represented, as they could be considered to be judges of their own'case. Mr. T. Forsyth thought that the picture interests were entitled to representation. . Mr. J. N. Wallace saw no objection to the constitution of the present Appeal Board, and pointed out that if the eduentionists wero to be represented other interests'would be entitled to the tame consideration. WIDER REPRESENTATION. Mr. J. Read: It appears to me that if we, support the censorship at all we should have it done by a more representative body. Of course, the idea of censorship has been challenged in all flarts of the world. "There are times," he said, "when one goes to a s li oW — W ell, I must say the last time 1 went to one the chief characteristic was how much the principal character could swear and how facile he was in sex matters. I thought it was one of the most disgusting things I had seen. Apparently a picture like that is passed by the censor and does not come before tfye Appeal Board. I don't think thero was anything decent in it and I spoke to others who thought the same. _ I have seen films privately shown which the censor would not pass, and thero was nothing in them except a most exemplary moral matter —no sex at all. Who is to bo the judge? One can see that thero ia a great difference of opinion. If we are going to support anything in the way of censorship, it should be on much wider lines than at present. I shall oppose tho Auckland proposal." \ ' The chairman said that, 'the Appeal Board only came into it when the censor had refused to pass a picture. . APPRECIATING TINE POINTS. Mr. Wallace: I don't know whether the present censor has read widely enough to note all of the fine points in the films. Some of them are so raw that they make my hair stand on end. The director (Mr. E. G. Eidling) explained that if the Appeal Board passed a film rejected by the censor it went out marked as approve by-the censor.' The chairman said that.th^ second resolution by the Auckland committee would entail-a vast amount of w_ork for the censor, as he would bo required to see that all posters and advertisements were indicative .of- the film they related to. Mr. Forsyth: The posters are very important. Mr. H. Morton considered it was absurd to'ask the censor to see that the ■posters were indicative of the films, though it was all right to judge whether they"were indecent. ■ Mr. J. P. Luke thought that the control of the posters was in the hands of the local bodies, but other members said that the control related only to the licensed boards and not to posters displayed at a theatre entrance. ONE CENSOR ENOUGH? ; Mr. L. MeKenzie asked whether.it was sufficient to have only one censor in view of the great amount of work involved. Was one man able to do full justice to 'each film? • _ - The chairman said that the third resolution was to the effect that the censor Bhould see that each film would serve the best interests of the community rather than pander to the lowest tastes of a section. . Mr. Luke: That is what censorship is set up for. . On the motion of Mr. J. N. Wallace it was decided to take no action.