CENSORSHIP OF FILMS

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 142, 13 December 1933, Page 8

CENSORSHIP OF FILMS

(To the Editor.) . ■ Sir»—l humbly suggest to your readers that the best answer I can give to Mr. Gibson's "reply" to my appeal to him for cold facts to support his attitude towards censorship is to merely ask the public to compare his effort with my own. As an "answer" to a definite request for information Mr. Gibson's letter is a classical example' of avoidance of every vital point, -with a'single exception—he admits that the "3000 picture patrons" referred to him were as we suggested, children under the charge o£ teachers who are behind this agitation. But there Mr. Gibson stops. What is his reply to my queries regarding the questionnaire, the conditions under which it was* submitted to the children, etc. He quotes a portion of a letter received from "the" Minister of Education—(l understand it would be more correct if Mr. Gibson said an "ex" Minister of Education) —to this effect: "The questionnaire eeems to have been well framed ... the confidential nature of the inquiry should have secured sincerity (note 'confidential'), . .' < ■ the replies certainly contain evidence that the influence of the love and sex film* is regarded as demoralising, and I agree that this feature • especially calls for modification and improvement. In some degree these answers amount to' an appeal; for protection." ■■~-.' ■■•■■■ Now, in the. name of common ' sense, how can this communication from a Minister of Education to an educationist seeking . Support be regarded as an adequate reply to the challenge we have put to Mr. Gibson?, Before we can place credence upon this angle, surely we are entitled to know exactly how the examination _o£ pupils was conducted and the information obtained. I suggested before that the children, approached, in classrooms under the supervision of their own teachers seeking a certain type of information for a certain purpose, would to a large extent advance the replies expected of them._ I go further now and I ask an* person with the slightest idea of, phychology it it would not be a fact that ideas would be put into the children's heads by the very nature of tlie direct questions submitted to them. One does not need a very com-, prehensive knowledge of children to realise that suggestion is a tremendous factor in inspiring answers to leading questions. Once again I appeal to Mr. Gibson for further information. We would also be grateful for a list "of the films most criticised by the minors. The very essence of the reply of the Minister of Education to Mr. Gibson bears out what I said in my previous communication —that if the majority of the answers* supplied by the juveniles referred to features passed by the Censor with an "A' certificate, then the value of the children's evidence is discounted. Again the Minister refers to an appeal for protection. AVhafc greater protection can we have than the Censor's recommendation plainly advertised and the fact that, people who take the trouble to be guided thereby can act accordingly and certainly keep their children from them?

How can any reconstituted tribunal, as suggested by Mr. Gibson, alter this fact one iota? Mr. Gibson places much reliance on the manner on which education boards—(again notice that he is still within his own sphere)—and others are supporting the stereotyped resolution which has been scattered about the country. 'He carefully makes no reference to those boards which after careful discussion of the resolution have simply marked it "received." Presumably none of the boards is correct in its attitude unless it takes the anglo which is after the own hearts of Mr. Gibson and his colleagues. We now come to Mr. Gibson's astonishing statement, "As long as the Appeal Board is not an' independent body it cannot have the confidence of the community." Mi1. Gibson objecfe point blauk to an industry employing thousands of people and with enormous responsibilities being represented, even as a minority, on a board which exercises jurisdiction over certain aspects of that business. from the point of view of- common justice the Minister who appoints the; Appeal Board naturally wishes to make it thoroughly representative^—and why not? Ido not need to stress this any more in order to demonstrate that Mr. Gibson's attitude is actually a reflection on the Minister himself. "Because the trade is represented, the board cannot be impartial," infers Mr. Gibson. This is neat. He would, of course, say that as long as there ifi included on the ATbitration Court a representative of the employers or of the employees its findings cannot be just; as long as Marine Courts of Inquiry have a mariner as assessor, their findings must be regarded with suspicion! \ •'' Supposing, for the sake or argument, a body of theatre proprietors got it into their heads that the time was ripe for them to agitate for an inquiry into the system of secondary school teaching in Auckland —and the fact that part of the curriculum includes examination ' papers on a primarily adult entertainment known as the.cinema gives rise to this suggestion—would Mr. Gibson advocate that a proposed tribunal of /investigation should under no circumstances include an educationist? Please, Mr. Gibson! Mr. Gibson's attitude towards the difference between the "recommendation" and "apointment". of the present trade representative on the Appeal Board is illuminating. It is pleasant to realise that, were Mr. Gibson, as a secondary etehool teacher, to set me in an examination paper the question, "What is the difference between being recommended for a position and getting, the job?" and I answered, "Nothing much;" I would still receive the, full ten marks. Children, note! My only "anxiety" (as Mr. Gibson puts it) is to observe the elementary law of journalism which is "Get your facts right." So Mr.| Gibson is still where he started. He fcas furnished no. reliable evidence whatsoever. He has given us no specific cases of juvenile delinquency being traced to the influence of the cinema, and so forth. He has told us nothing except that he approached 3092 children in then: classrooms and got from them a set of replies, whereupon he and his colleagues proceeded to frame certain resolutions which they asked education boards and other bodies, as a matter of course, to. support. The censorship system as at present constituted must be declared innocent until it is proved- to be guilty. What sane jury would convict on the evidence placed before it by the self-appointed prosecutor, Mr. Gibson? In conclusion, I regret that Mr. Gibson has dragged Homer into this. He had nothing-whatever to "do with it.—l am, ctd ■ A. K. McELWAIN.