THE BANNED PICTURE

Grey River Argus, 27 February 1928, Page 5

THE BANNED PICTURE

A HEATED CONTROVERSY

Professor’s Allegations NURSE CAVELL KILLED WITHOUT TRIAL. (Received Feb 26th al 3 p.m.) LONDON, Februarp 23. While there are many who consider it tune the British film industry drop ped war films and competed with Hollywood, with a thousand fine stories in the language, the ban on the “Dawn’ ’picture al the dictates of Germany, is universally resented. People are asking whether war books Will be banned also, and will Britain Allow German war films to be screened in’ England.

Not the least interesting aspect of this widespread controversy is the declaration of Professor Morgan, ‘‘l am in a position t<> state the exact facts. They are that Nurse Cavell was not properly tried. She was murdered.’ Professor Morgan points out that she was not tried martially , but under a code of laws introduced into Belgium which were only applicable to German subjects. It was a flagrant violation of international law. The French attitude is interesting. There is reason to believe that attempt by Germany to prevent screening in France will be. given a short shrift.

I? Echo de Paris describes its prohibition as ‘‘Gott Strafe Thorndike for daring to impersonate the heroine,’ and wonders whether Germany will demand the removal of the Armistice coach from Rcthardes where, the Germans finally gave in.

The other newspapers say it is part of a campaign to relieve Germany of re ponsibility for the war. The German Government has thus far remained silent.

“Exploiting Sacrifice” FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. BIRKENHEAD’S TRENCH ANT CRITICISM. (Rcccivnl February 26 at 5 p.m.) LONDON. February 25. The Daily Telegraph features a ter from Lin’d Birkenhead. addressed from the India Office, Whitehall, ami headed “Real Issues of Cavell Film.’’ He asks: Is it in the interests of peace and international goodwill to perpetuate by public exhibition incidents of the war which must embitter its memories. Do or do not we not desire a new era of peace to dawn through Europe? Do or do we not desire by every means in our power to increase mutual good feeling, which must be established in Europe, unless all alike are to perish in ruin? Do we serve a useful purpose by exasperating and humiliating a Government which has .shown, by repudiation of the Hohenzollern Dynasty, its opinion thereof.’ I myself should haw* thought it was commonplace that every man and wo man who does not, wish to see their sons involved in another war, would strive to banish the memory of unhappy things. Riplying to the argument that th*’statue of Edith Cavell is inconsistent with these views, Lord Birkenhead declares: A dignified memorial has no more relation to a hectic film than a classical picture of crucified Jesus has to the attempt to commercialise his anguish. Does anyone suppose that a woman, who in the moment of her agony, could say, “Patriotism is not enough: there must be no hatred or bitterness for anyone,” could permit her death to be commercialised with the certain result that the bitter memories associated therewith would prevent a sweet restoral ion of friendship ami good relationship between the nations of the world. What is the object of this adventure"? Are the profits to be devoted to charity.’ Will they be used Io establish a scholarship to train the new generation of women up to Nurse Ca veil’s standard, or are they intended to enrich Ihe producers? If this is the purpose, is it decent to xploil the agony and sacrifice of tin. noblest woman the War produced.