CINEMA CENSORSHIP

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 135, 5 December 1933, Page 8

CINEMA CENSORSHIP

(To the Editor.) ■ Sir, —In his endeavour to disclose certain alleged discrepancies in Mr. John Fuller's letter ,on the present censorship agitation, Mr. Noel Gibson has not only fallen into error in several respects, l?ut has made a certain statement which, while on its face valuers a vitally important plank to his platform, is actually subtly misleading. Firstly, referring to the present constitution of the Films Appeal Board Mr, Gibson says: "The public does not realise that the present Appeal Board consists 'of a retired stipendiary magistrate and two women, one of whom is appointed by the trade." In referring 'to the "trade" representative Mr. Gibson is adding to what he is pleased to infer is the "ignorance" of the public. The representative (Mrs. E. J. Eighton) was recommended by the trade, but appointed by the Government—"that is to say" (to quote Mr. Gibson) • "the people," and as an educationist Mr. Gibson will,>l am sure, be the first to acknowledge the striking difference in meaning of the words "recommended" and "appointed." The other woman member of the board was recommended by certain women's social welfare societies and appointed by the Government, which also placed the retired stipendiary magistrate in his position. It will be seen, on the I facts, that the Government actually ap- ; points all members of the board (and, incidentally, the censor), so that the essence of Mr. Gibson's advocacy would appear, to bo somewhat "futile, or at least a little late in arriving. But there is d more'important point, and ono that it behoves Mr. Gibson to clarify j immediately, in view of the fact that ho claims to be acting in the interest of the public at large. He says in his statement to "The Post": "It may interest Mr. Fuller to know that at the outset) we sought tho opinion of over 3000 picture patrons, and that our resolutions are largely the result of consideration of their replies." I hereby ask Mr. Gibson to state publicly—' (a) IE it is a fact that his "3000 picture patrons," or the great majority of thorn, were school children who, without warning and during school hours r were furnished with a Questionnaire and instructed to submit their answers forthwith. (b) Is Mr; Gibson prepared tp publish the questionnaire, together; with' a comprehensive—riot a selected—assortment of the answers supplied, and the average ages of the children involved; also,the, grounds |on which Mr. Gibson and the secondary school teachers consider the juveniles competent to judge the cinema tp eueh an extent that their opinions warrant interference with the present'system.'v. -■'-/■■■' The public, on whose behalf Mr.; Gibson has assumed the role of; "moral: protector," are surely entitled to the fullest' possible information as to what Mr. Gibson and his association, are getting at, and on what they are basing their campaign. That there is some doubt on the subject is borne out by a report received from a country district—and we are perfectly willing to submit it to Mr. Gibson if he wishes to see it—where a member of a school board, on being asked why lio supported the Auckland resolution, replied: "Well, to be truthful, I did not seem to get the gist of it at all, and I thought the best way out wrs to bo on side with the majority and tho Auckland school committee." , In his last annual report the Government censor pointed out .that a large per-

centagc of films reviewed were recommended as suitable for adults. If Mr. Gibson and his supporters are basing their opinions on replies from children who, as one of yoiiL' correspondents has already pointed out, would naturally furnish the replies expected of them, the ground having been nicely tilled, then these opinions, in view of the censor's statistics, fall to the ground. It is time Mr. Gibson, on behalf of his organisation, placed all his cards on the tablo and provided facts—not theories —to support whatever claims he has td warrant interference with Government censorship, which, to any right-thinking person, is more than adequate at tho moment. A little practical experience in the theatre would bring home forcibly to Mr. Gibson tho fact that the public themselves are tho severest censors; and that the box officcH attest only too well to the cinema proprietors, who must bow to the public demand if they are to protect themselves and their hundreds of employees, that only tho best, entertaining, imd wholesome pro* ductions ore patronised. Which is why suuh a tremendous advance been ni/uo in recent years in the quality and tone of features presented in this country.—l am, A. R. McELWAIN, John Fuller and Sons, Ltd., , -Wellington.