The Grey River Argus. SATURDAY, June 10, 1933. FILM CENSORSHIP.

Grey River Argus, 10 June 1933, Page 4

The Grey River Argus. SATURDAY, June 10, 1933. FILM CENSORSHIP.

From time Io lime eompltiints are being made, regarding the passing by the. film censoring officer of details in a film story Avliieh are considered below the accepted line of decency, and lay his ideas of circumspection open to the, grave question of those who while being patrons of the talkies feel that some “tightening up” is occasionally required so that there need not be the display of all the details of a picture which are neither edifying nor material to the story of the film. Whilst the more prudish and exacting of picture patrons complain at comparatively small lapses in this direction, the great body of picture patrons, though not entirely approving of all they see displayed, seldom get far beyond voicing their disapproval. It is a fact that a number of the, ultra-melodramatic films depict to the merest detail many scenes which could be entirely “cut” without detracting one whit from the plot of the picturised story. It happens, whether by chance or intention.

that such pictures usually have the benefit of the best possible ' advertisement, when they are announced as being “recommended for adult audiences.” It is contended that the need for such an announcement should be unnecessary were films subjected to the scrutiny which the Censor, if he does his duty properly, would be thorough and searching, eliminating every inch of the film which might in his opinion conflict with the good taste of those patronising picture theatres, it is all very well to say that in most cases people are only looking at human nature being depicted on the screen and that therefore what is true to life should need no cutting. But it so happens that when exception is taken to any scene in a film story it is because some quite unnecessary emphasis is given to the non-elevat-ing side of human nature which grates on the senses of those who take time to discriminate. What is sordid and even lewd surely cannot lie desired as something to feast the eyes on. Yet episodes which conn 1 under both headings are often presented after the censor’s certificate has been displayed as a preface to the picture. Those familiar with the work- entailed in censoring pictures will understand well the drudgery of sitting all day keenly scrutinising films on a screen of reduced size. And none will deny that there are times when a fagged-out censor may let things past his eagle eye, since he cannot be expected to be more alert all the time than the average man or woman. He would need to be more than human to be so immaculate. When his task of examining miles of film of every type all Ihe year through is realised it will be admitted that his work is of- its kind a. herculean one. In the matter of film censorship however, the censor does not appear to be the last word. It appears that in eases where the Censor rejects a film, the film-owner has the right of appeal to a Board, whose decision is final, and if the Board should pass the film, the Censor is bound to give a certificate of approval, even though in his judgment it is a bad film. A reference to the annual reports of the Censor indicates a number of instances* where the Censor’s rejection of films has been overruled and the pictures have been released. The fly in the amber appears to be just in this particular. Either the Censor is capable of doing his duty and should be permitted to do it untrammelled or else the whole work should be carried out by the Board. Weakness appears to lie in the fact that the work of one officer can be stultified by those standingover him as the result of the complaint of a disgruntled picture owner. One of the most popular actors of the nineteenth century once put the question to another of his profession, “’Why sully one fair clean mind?” The trite question could well be asked today of the Board of censors when films of doubtful merit are placed before them for their strictures or commendation. If the question were honestly answered there would lie no further complaints from the discerning public as to the quality of film stories presented in picture theatres.