THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1927. FILM CENSORSHIP.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19717, 17 August 1927, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1927. FILM CENSORSHIP.

It was to be expected that the Rev. Dr. G.ibb's outspoken condemnation of the class of motion picture he saw shown in certain Auckland theatres would be resented by exhibitors here. ' They were put by it on their defence, and have an incontestable right to present a case against the indictment. Theirs is a legitimate business, and they are entitled to speak up for it. Such comments as they have felt bound to make are given publicity to-day, in the hope that what must be recognised as an important and difficult question may be justly considered. There is a case to be answered. Dr. Gibb cannot be laughed out of court, be the attempt made never so politely. He is part of that shadowy yet real entity known as "the public," for which the film industry caters and by whom the censorship has been created and is employed. Moreover, gentlemen of his cloth are expected to interest themselves very actively in matters of morals and taste. Failure to do this would make them seriously blameworthy. Let it be said that his strictures were couched in enthusiastic severity: it is to his credit that he has never been guilty of doing anything by halves, and this example of his downright method has compelled an, attention that otherwise might not have been given. It ought to be given. The motion-picture enterprise has not yet cut all its wisdom-teeth. As an industry it is precociously mature, no doubt, for already it isone of the largest and the bestorganised businesses of the world. In its technical aspects it is so splendidly capable that it seems to have , achieved perfection. But | there is one respect in which it is | still in its infancy: the canons of its aft; are only beginning to be formulated. The painter long ago found principles; the living, oral stage has had centuries of settled guidance : here, in the venturesome blending of the pictorial and the histrionic, is an enterprise as yet so new that the criteria by which it should be judged are still being sought —by the public no less than by the censors; and it is this illdefined situation that makes the troubles from which exhibitors suffer, to an extent that demands the mingling of sympathy with criticism. Acknowledging the assistance ' given them by public criticism, the Australian Commonwealth censors close their last report thus—"Since a censor is not applying the standards of his own likes and dislikes to a picture, but is trying to interpret public opinion, it follows that a censorship cannot adequately perform its work if public opinion is not vocal." This statement should be weighed carefully by all, including exhibitors, tempted to gird at the censor. It does not mean that the censor should be a mere reflex of the picture-theatre habitues: public opinion is wider than that. Nor does it mean what a managerial critic of the reverend critic expresses by saying—"We have to give the public what it likes." Both the censor and the exhibitor are expected, by that part of the public which has, a reasoned opinion, to think beyond the part that may, on any given occasion, be attending picture displays. As a rule, exhibitors do this: indeed, it is "good business" to do so, for their per-

manent success depends on catering for that reasoned and therefore influential opinion rather than the catch crowd drawn by some adventitiously attractive film. Most exhibitors, it may be added, appreciate also the artistic and educative aspects of their business no less'than the wisest of censors. But there are others ; and it is for the defence of the public against them that the censorship is instituted. If all exhibitors were deeply concerned about these aspects and free to act as they wished, and if it were possible to get their consensus of opinion surely and immediately at any moment, the censorship might be abolished safely. For obvious and practical reasons, it cannot be

abolished; and exhibitors, although some of them may criticise a particular censor or a particular judgment by him, agree as a class that his work is necessary.

The necessity lies in that which the exhibitors cannot control the producing part of the enterprise. No one can claim that this is anything like ideal. Let the censors say. They are the best judges. One critic of Dr. Gibb refers to Australia's experience of censorship, giving figures that show the necessit}' for it. The Australian censors agree. "It cannot be said," to quote the words of their last report, "that there is any very general improvement in the quality of films imported into the Commonwealth." This is an implied comparison with the previous year's experience, on which they reported gloomily. "The most damaging indictment that might very easily be brought against it," they say of the cinema, "is not that it is immoral, but that it is vulgar. . . . It is just as well to

speak plainly on these matters. . . . What we would plead for is a little more refinement and less vulgarity. Assuredly there are many films which give the highest form of enjoyment, presenting a good story, dramatically handled, well acted, and beautifully photographed. But there are too many which have none of these virtues. It is the business of criticism to endeavour to reduce their number." The point about this reference to Australia is that New Zealand's supply and that of the Commonwealth come practically from the same sources. Film censorship is just as necessary, and should be just as enlightened, here as there; and to achieve its best work needs just as much the aid of public criticism, so that the cinema may become what a-reasoned public opinion thinks it might be.