MOVING PICTURES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16564, 30 May 1914, Page 2

MOVING PICTURES.

ATTACKS BY CITIZENS

REPLY BY MP HAYWARD.

The moving pieties have been somewhat severely criticised iu Christchurch lately, on accouiv of subjects to which some people oh'ect. There are two sides to this c*»estion, of course, and tho side on w'lich the proprietors stand was espiaiii'd in an interview yesterday by Mr H. Hayward, of Wellington, chair-nan. of the New Zealand Picture Supplies Company, who was visiting diis city. In th- 1 first place, M"r Hayward said, the public, did not know the conditions under which the pictures were proclucei- There was a limited quantity of I lms on tho market, and the proprietors in New Zealand could not alwij's get the subjects they wanted. In me second place, tho population of A T ew Zealand was comparatively small. It was impossible to specialise here. The programmes had to be very general in character. No extreme tastes could be catered for. One entertainment had to be provided for the man in the city, the man from the backblocks, the Dunedin Presbyterian, the West Coast miner and the Aiickland gumdigger. In the effort to please so many tastes it was not surprising that the entertainments failed to completely please everybody. In any case, there were always some people who would be dissatisfied. In the circumstances, the proprietors tried to supply an entertainment for the average man and woman in a world of men and women.

Mr Hayward said that, in discussing tho subject in public, he wished to draw attention to the progress the moving picture entertaiurnent was making. It had not yet reached its limit. The weekly expenditure per head of population in Christchurch on hotels was Is fid, while on pictures it was only 2.Jd. The average weekly attendance, at picture entertainments in this city was 26,000. About 8000 of those were "twicers,'* that was, persons who attended more than once. The actual attendance therefore was 18,000 a week, or about only 20 per cent of the population. Evidently there was ample room for the business to expand ■in Christchurch. The picture entertainment, in fact, had become a power. It was gaining tho power which formerly was held by tho Church, and now by tho Press. It would become, perhaps, the greatest factor in forming public opinion. News had been received from London that' the circulation of the leading newspapers ha-d been affected, and that the quantity of fiction read had creased. The pictures already were bringing about many changes. They searched out all nations and all peoples, and they were breaking down the racial prejudices which previously it was impossible to sweep away. Tho moving picture was democratic in spirit and broad in views. It would not have a bad effect on the world. There was nothing, probably, that gave more pleasure to the general public.

In replf to a question in regard to ''One-round O'Brien," a picture to which some people in Christchurch objected, Mr Hayward said that it was merely 'a burlesque on boxing, and. he thought," could have no harmful effect. The films sent to New . Zealand were carefully censored. The strictest censors were in America. In addition, he had given instructions to cut out of New Zealand films anything that might be distasteful to people in this dominion. Every film 6ent to New Zealand was worth its' weight in silver, and many were worth their weight in gold, and every year his company lost hundreds of pounds on account of the pieces that were withdrawn from the films. As a matter of fact, the public was the best censor, and the makers of films would be guided by its voice. TO THI EDITOR. Sir, —With reference to the drivel that has appeared in your columns under this heading, I have witnessed the presentation of the films " Mabel's Predicament " and " One - round O'Brien," and absolutely fail to see anything indecent or disgusting in either. Of course, anyone seeking indecency or suggestiveness can always see it whore it does not exist, and I can only assume, judging by their views, that, the minis of your correspondents "Picture Goer" and "Another Picture Goer," when witnessing these pictures, must have been in a most unhealthy state. Presumably your correspondents are identical with those narrow-minded persons who spill their ink in the summer time bewailing the "awful degradation " resulting from mixed bathing at the seaside, resorts.

The pictures in question could not convey any suggestion of indelicacy to a clean and healthy-minded person.— I am, etc., FRESH AIR,

TO THX XDITOK. Sir, —As another lover of good pictures, and one who has been a regular and frequent attendant at several of our local picture, shows ever since pictures commenced showing in Christchurch, I would like to bo allowed to reply to your correspondent " Picture Goer." Either " Picture Goer" does not go often, or has not been going long, otherwise he would know his statements were decidedly at fault. It is since the establishment of the American firms that picture programmes have so much improved. There are now about a dozen American firms whose names are sufficient guarantee for a film, whether drama or comedy. Prior to this wo were dependent largely on Continental films, which showed cheap, sensational melodrama and alleged comics that ra.n pretty close to and often became unseemly and vulgar. These are rarely seen now, not because of any official censorship, but because the local managers have sufficient knowledge of their public not to screen pictures of an offensive character.

The firms your correspondent mentions, Pathe, Gaumont and Cines, though expert film and though they present some splendid subjects, have been responsible for some of the most daring films shown here, which -while nothing; offensive to the average inind,_ would possibly shock the super-sensitiVe. A Gaumont picture at present showing here may be "instructive," but it certainly is nob " elevating " or " interesting" to see in detail the brutal methods the French fishermen use in handling the harmless crayfish. This might well be omitted. As for the two particular films mentioned by_ your correspondent, the one was ah impossible skit on an impossible boxer, and the other—well, the reception given to and laughter evoked by this and other alleged " low class " American farces, proves that the general public appreciates the unquestionable visible humour of the films, _ and does not concern itself with imagining ulterior suggestiveness.—l am, etc., CRITICISM WITH REASON.