Grey River Argus THURSDAY, March 1, 1928. “THE DAWN.”

Grey River Argus, 1 March 1928, Page 4

Grey River Argus THURSDAY, March 1, 1928. “THE DAWN.”

The controversy raging al present in the Home Country con coming the war Him entitled Ihe Dawn,” provides an interesting psychological study of men holding most divergent views on political and social questions of the day. It is strange indeed to find Lord Birkenhead (the notorious “Galloper Smith” of pre-war days) strongly denouncing the portrayal of Edith Cavel’ s. martyrdom on the grounds that, it will stir up old hatreds, and that her sacrifice is being commercialised. “I myself should have thought,” he says, “it was commonplace that every man and woman who does ! not wish to sec their sons involved lin another war, would strive to | banish the memory of unhappy [things.” On the other hand, the pacifist. Mr Bernard Shaw, after seeing the film “Dawn,” which the h'orcign Office fears would give serious offence to Germany, bestows upon it the highest possible character, not merely as a work of art, but as achieving a

z great moral purpose without a ves--5 lige of bitterness, rancour or pro--5 | vocation. He expresses the hope 5 I that it will be shown throughout B | the world, being apparently satis- | J lied that the picture is more cal- " ' eulated to imbue the human mind

generally with a hatred of war,' than Io accentuate any acrimonious feeling existing between the belligerents of the world conflict. Having personally witnessed the film, it must be conceded that Al" Shaw’s criticism is worthy of more consideration than that of Lord Birkenhead or Sir Austen Chamberlain (also a prominent figure in the controversy), despite the commendable attitude adopted by the latter and others opposed to the exhibition of the picture. Their attitude is indeed a. contrast, to the bitter outburst of Professor ■I. 11. Morgan, who apparently de lights in recalling all the lurid de tails, true or otherwise, of this one. of millions of equally ghastly crimes, for which the militarism of modern capitalistic Governments is responsible. ’What is more, he demands that all such ncuseous details shall be embodied in the film. One would have expected a calm and logical survey of the facts from this erudite professor, and a desire, for moderation in any picturised version of the tragedy. Indeed, had the remarks attributed to him bcm made by Lord Birkenhead, one would have assumed that such sentiments were merely in keeping with his actions and litterances of other days. The essence of Lord Birkenhead’s argument is contained in the sincle sentence-

“Does anyone suppose Unit a -woman who in the moment of her agony coidd 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 the sweet restoration of friendship and the. good relationship between the nations of the world. His condemnation of the picture, as far as commercialisation is concerned, is discounted by the fact that “Saint Joan,” the greatest of modern plays, is none the less a noble creation because Mr Shaw amassed a considerable amount of money by it, and no reasonable being would accuse that great Irish genius of “exploiting” or “commercialising” the agonies of one of the most remarkable ami beautiful characters recorded in history. Lord Birkenhead’s advocacy of the prohibition of such films bears a striking resemblance Io a similar proposal made by the Kussians al Geneva, which, emanating as it did from toe ostracised Soviet, was merely treated by tua representative of capitalistic States as a subject foi derision, it; is indeed unforlunate for mankind that the ser.’iments expressed by that, eminent jurist arc not shared by the diplomats at present busily engaged in hair-splitting at the Security Conference. Should the presentation of “The Dawn” have the very desirable effect anticipated by Ale Shaw, it would, indeed be lamentable were the authorities to maintain the ban placed upon it. In any case, r would form a precedent which would be difficult, to follow.