MOTION PICTURES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19759, 9 April 1926, Page 12

MOTION PICTURES.

WORK OF THE CENSORS, AUSTRALIAN REPORT. POSITION’ OF CHILDREN. jF-itou Ole Gws Cokeespokdf.nt.) | SYDNEY. April 1. ■ I Interesting sidelights concerning th» motion picture industity are contained in the recently-issued annual report of the Australian film censois. Of most importance are the standards the censors accept in passing a film for public exhibition in. tilts country. ‘The censors,” the report states, “consider the needs and wishes of tiie normal adult person. We do not as a rale censor with audiences of children in view, although the effect of a film on (he child mind is occasionally taken into account. Much criticism is just that films are allowed to pass that children should not see. If we were censoring for children, we should, for example, rule out many films dealing with divorce. It would, however, be a great mistake to bring the art of the movies down to the level of a child's entertainment. More harm than good would come out of keeping back from, thg people strong, genuine drama which handles the facts of life boldly and without puriency It may he necessary to classify films, passing some for adult audiences only. The solution of this problem, wa feel, is on tht lines of classification. There cannot be but the slightest doubt that many of the films pa»sed by the censors ate liable to harm children’s minds. A decision as to what ought to he done would be timely.” In recent months, the report added, it had been found necessary to take a more decided stand against films representing criminals and heroic persons. These films, instead of being cut and altered, were now being returned to the country from which, thev came Jazz films dealing with the alleged goings on of modern youth presented a peculiar problem, not always easy to solve. The censors believed that the public interest was best served by handling these films very firmly. After stating that there are scenes in films which “sin grievously against good taste.” but which the censors cannot rule out under the present regulations—scer.cs that might readily pass in comedy, but become objectionable in serious drama—the report stated: “Sentimentality, or ‘sob-stuff/ is the greatest moral and artistic shortcoming of the modern film, and it is the reason why many people of intellect dismiss films in general as trash. It might well be maintained that this sentimentality docs, in the long run, more harm than the positively indecent scenes can do. I's influence is of a mere insidious kind. It establishes for the unthinking an entirely false scale of values. A censorship is tor the most part powerless at this point. IT übtiess this sentimentality is a passing phase, perhaps in part due to the pro ducer’s mistrust of the capabalities of the audience. As a rule the British film it less apt than others to lose grip and go off into vapid and too-tearful sentiment.” The censors regarded with more favour a film which handled a dramatic situation powerfully, even if it was a trifle too realistic, than one which, though diiectly not objectionable, “juggled with the facts of life, and sought to endow its less pleasing features with meretricious splendours.” The report gave some statistics showing what a grip the United States film manufacturers have on the Australian market. Of J 7f»3 films imported into the Commonwealth during the period under review, 1555 came from the United States, 1.48 from Britain, and 62 from other countries. In the United States lilies were 5650 reels, with a total footage of all copies of 22,641,912, against 299 reels and Cfi-J,oo4ft from Britain, and 193 reels and 515,792 ft from other countries. Commenting on these figures the censors stated: “Few British films were imported during the year. The factor of price jontributed to this. American films have earned their profits before arrival in Australia, whereas this is not the case with British films. The system of block-book-ing, by which an exhibitor is compelled, or found it advantageous, to book a whole year's programme in advance, is another factor contributing to the dearth of British films. Moreover, the big American companies all have agencies here, but the British companies are scarcely represented at all. . . . The question of encouraging British films is a live one in all the dominions, but it will not be safe to take action until a regular supply of film is absolutely assured! . The time has come Tor evolving an Empire scheme. Dominion Governments seem eager to do their part. It is for the Home Govern, raent to give a lead.”