STAR v. AUTHOR

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 October 1926, Page 8

STAR v. AUTHOR

DEBATE ON FILM.

In order to assist in raising contributions for King Edward’s Hospital Fund an interesting and amusing debate took place m Kingsway Hall on the unusual topic of “Should the Kinema be Tolerated?” The affirmative was upheld by Miss Betty Balfour, the well-known film actress, while Mr G. K. Chesterton maintained the negative, although for different reasons both speakers disclaimed . complete agreement with their propositions. Miss Balfour’s objection to the form of the question was that the word “tolerate” meant “to endure on sufferance,” and on behalf of kinema artists she said they could not tolerate being tolerated. “Think what the kinema offers,” she went on. ‘You can go through me desert with Major Court Ti’eatt or go and visit the Esquimaux ; you can learn all about the home life ami domestic worries of a wasp without (the risk of being s tung.” With a sly dig at her opponent, Miss Balfour added:' “And you can see stories by famous authors at less cost and in less time than it would take to read their books, and with alterations and additions which the authors themselves never thought ot. She illustrated this point by telling the. story of a famous author who, when asked what inspired the plot ot his latest novel, replied, “I just cop ied the film version of one of my earlier ones.” The power of the film or propaganda, Miss Balfour said, was unlimited. It was not necessary to read and write Russian or French hi order to appreciate films coming from the countries where those languages were spoken, and when they thought of the millions of people all over the world whose only recreation or contact with the outside was the films, it would be appreciated that an adequate national film output ranked in importance with the Navy and the Army. There was another thing far more vital. What would magistrates do if they could not in future blame the kinema for the wrongdoings of the small boy? Mr Chesterton said he could not insult Miss Betty Balfour either ny tolerating her or refusing to tolerate her. Her task was therefore bound to be frivolous; otherwise it would be ungracious. He did not believe that little boys were led on to crime by kinemas. In his own childhood, before the existence of kinemas, his personal depravity was always equal to any demands upon it. He suggested another more general kind of objection to the kinema. The film was but an instrument for creating in a large number of people the illusion, almost a superstition, that they had seen Miss Betty Balfodr. As a matter af fact, they had only been pelted with her photographs. The same thing could be said of the film in its less agreeable applications. It was but a veil of illusion between the audience and the real personality of certain things and people. The case against the film was that it was Dart of a ereat modem

tendency, the general effect of which was the creation of unreality on an enormous scale. As Miss Balfour said with sinister truth they could study the life of a wasp without the danger of being stung. That was tn*» point. They imagined they knew all about the wasp, but if they had never been stung they did not. In the same unreal fashion people by means of the film could study an army without the danger of its fighting, or a mob without the danger of its rising. It was asserted by Miss Balfour that the film was a great link between nations. He could only say that, as an Englishman, he objected to his country being invaded and surrounded by American fleets, and in the Americanisation of the film they had a strong example of the evil of centralisation.