FILM CENSORSHIP

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 145, 16 December 1933, Page 11

FILM CENSORSHIP

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Why not be fair with the picture industry and give credit where it is deserved? Pictures, like everything else in the world, hav-e their faults; but picturegoers must admit that over the last few years a marked improvement in the tone and subject matter has been displayed. Even if perfection hag not been attained we have had some beautiful pictures ("Cavalcade," "King of Kings," etc.), and as the producers are striving to improve, why keep throttling them? What about the literary efforts of some authors, the work which any immature youngster can purchase in book form and gloat over; not a word is said about these. It is a fact that the picture producers have been, and are, in collaboration with Church dignitaries, and the medical fraternitj', endeavouring to produce better pictures, and surely British justice compels us to give them credit that is due to them for this. Motion pictures do not glorify, crime, or immorality. The evildoer in every instance reaps the penalty of his or her evil doing. Credit should also be (riven for all the interesting pictures on travel, historical, and industrial matters which purely set a standard of excellence worthy, of gome kindly comment. Moving, picture criticism is.rampant these days, and is getting rather tiring for those of us who Can take the broader view. I.for one will admit freely that I have enjoyed enlightenment, and have gained much knowledge from pictures, particularly the ' travel and industrial series; and even from the others involving the problems'of life.—l am,ete., -.■:. N.A.B.

On the same subject "Father of Five" writes:—"The film censorship controversy is again brought to. our notice in the report of meetings of the Palmerston North High School Board of Governors, and that of a similar body presiding over the Hutt Valley High School. The attitude of these two ..bodies, together, with that of the AVellington College Board, must strike many parents as strange. . . . Mr. J. A. Nash, M.P., of Palmerston North, states that he has seen the censor at work, and if any man is doing his job, he is. May I point out that parents riding in to business every day of the week also see the result| of the censorships (or.lack of such) on the hoardings, which in many instances constitute aiv affront to an intelligent public, who are fast growing weary of sex appeal and pictures which are provfeg a serious menace, to youth. . . ." As an instance showing the urgent need for. a greater control of entertainments put on for children, the correspondent states that some weeks ago he sent two of his little girls, aged 7 and 11, to a picture theatre catering at Saturday's matinee almost entirely for children. Instead of a picture suitable to the child mind, the children saw a picture with a ghastly murder. For the evening the picture w.is advertised as recommended by the censor for adult audiences. "I think, Sir, that this state of affairs should be rectified, and it is against such that every parent should protest, the Wellington College Board of Governors notwithstanding. Failing a greater degree of censorship there is only one way out which personally I intend to take in future, i.e., not to send the children at all, unless quite sure the picture is a good one for them to see; but surely in this age we may hope for some better control by the authorities responsible. I would like to offer my congratulations to tltose people who are] doing such great work on behalf of suitable entertainment for our young people,, and the pubjjc generally." ■■

[When a pruture is passed bjr the Censor as "recommended for adult audiences" this fact must be stated iri advertisements of the programme, and a notice to the same effect must be displayed at the entrance to the theatre bo that intending patrons may be warned and may use their discretion in allowing their children to see the picture. If the exhibitor failed to display the notice a breach of the regulations was committed and should be •reported to the Internal Affairs Depart, ment. If, however, the notice was shown, the responsibility for seeing that children did not attend rested on parents.—Ed.]