EDITH CAVELL FILM

Grey River Argus, 13 February 1928, Page 5

EDITH CAVELL FILM

ADVERSE CRITICISM “Incidents Not Justified” CHAMBERLAIN'S REPUGNANCE. (Received February 12 at 5.5 p.m.) LON DON. Fe brua ry 1 1. The first official British comment on the Edith Cavell film. “Dawn,” the subject of much controversy, is contained in Sir Austen Chamberlain ’.s let ter declining an invitation to see it:— “The story of Nurse Cavell is a noble one. Her memory will be reverenced not only in friendly bul in ex-enemy countries by an armiring selfless de-

votion to duty, and serenity at the hour of trial. It may be possible -to present the storv without loss of its

beauty, or danger of controversy, when the lapse of years makes it history. Personally I feel it is more beautiful in the mind than any picture could make it. I in no circumstance, -therefore, care to see ‘‘Dawn’’ however the story

is treated. If as I presume the press accounts of the picture are correct, I am even less willing to attend a per formance. I know of no authority to justify certain incidents presented therein, and their representation can inly provoke controversy over the grave of a. woman who has become one of the world’s heroines. There are war films which, whilst recalling heroic deeds of endurance by Britishers, call forth no bitter feelings elsewhere, only serving Io unite all men in admiration of heroism and fortitude, but “Dawn”! is of an entirely different, character. I must say I feel the strongest repugnance to its production.” WILCOX’S REPLY. NO OFFICIAL ACTION TO BE TA K EN. LONDON, February 11. Mr Wilcox, replying to Sir Austen Chamberlain, said: “I feel strongly! that Miss Edith Cavell’s selfless devotion is eminently suitable for a British film, enabling the bringing home of the nobility and beauty of her actions, and her lesson of duty, so wonderfully done, to those to whom her name is only a memory. 1 cannot too strongly repudiate the suggestion that I have endeavoured to capitalise her suffering. My sincerity of purpose will be ini* doubled when this picture is shown to the puldic, who arc unerring judges as to whether the subject is in good taste. ’ ’

He adds: “The film is definitely ."iiliwar. The danger of criticising from newspaper reports has never been more apparent than in your condemnation. I keenly regret your unqualified i ef usa I.

The “Daily Telegraph’’ says that official circles emphatically deny the report that tin* Government at the re quest of Germany has taken act ion with ■i view to preventing the showing of ‘ ‘ Dawn. ’ ’

The German Ambassador was un officially informed that the British Government was not empowered to prohibit or amend films on diplomatic or political grounds, nevertheless British diplomatic and political quarters feel that the film would prejudice the present exre’lent Anglo-German relations, and European, pacification and reconciliation. Sir Austen Chamberlain is acting personally. In addition to the letter, Mr Wilcox has written to Mr T. P. O’Connor, President of the Board of Film Censors, pointing out the film’s deplorable effect.

I he “Daily Chronicle,’’ in an edit orial, describes the filming of the Cavell story as an outrage against her memoir tor money-making. No decent per sou ought to approve of it in a world seeking to bury hatred ami build Tor peace.