THE BANNED FILM

Otago Witness, Issue 3860, 6 March 1928, Page 31

THE BANNED FILM

DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT. LONDON, February 27. In the House of Commons, Mr Amery, in reply to questions, said that he had not received any request to communicate with the dominion Governments on the subject of the exhibition of the film “ Dawn.” The German Government had made no representations to the Colonial Office on the subject. Sir Austen Chamberlain stated that the German Embassy on October 26, 1927, drew the attention of the Foreign Office to " Dawn,” and was informed that the Government had no powers of political censorship. The German Ambassador on January 24 spoke to him on the subject, and as he personally felt strongly on the subject ho interviewed Mr T. P. O’Connor and begged him particularly to give attention to the character of the film when it was submitted to the Board ot Censors. Colonel Crookshank asked : “ Have the members of the German Embassy, the Government’s film adviser, or any member of the Government seen the film? ”

Sir Austen Chamberlain replied: “ I have not seen it, and, for the reasons already explained, do not propose to see it in any circumstances.” Sir Austen Chamberlain continued that the Government’s adviser on November 3. 1927, told him that Mr Wilcox had thus described the shooting scene:—“One of the firing party definitely refuses to level his rifle at Nurse Cavell and is shot on the spot. The 'rest line up, and on the order ‘ Fire ! ’ raise their rifles in order to fire above her head. She falls to the ground fainting, and an officer steps forward and despatches her.” “ I believe this is an entirely incredible version of the event,” Sir Austen Chamberlain said. “ I feel it is an outrage on the noble woman’s memory.” Commander Kenworthy asked why no objection was taken during the preparation of the film, and Sir Austen Chamberlain replied: “ I have other things to attend to than study forthcoming films and newspapers, and therefore acted on Mr Wilcox’s description of the film to the adviser.”

Sir. Austen Chamberlain raid that it was not true that nobody in authority had seen the film. The Government’s adviser saw the film and discussed it with Mr Wilcox.

Sir Austen Chamberlain, further questioned, said that his own objection to the film was restated by the Earl of Birken head in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday. What he did in the matter was undertaken on his own responsibility. If he had to act again he would do the same. Sir Austen Chamberlain told a questioner that the exhibition of the German film, “ The World Through German Spectacles,”. was prohibited in the occupied territories by the Rhineland High Commissioner

THE PRODUCER’S DENIAL. LONDON, February 27. Mr Wilcox, replying to Sir 'Austen Chamberlain, denies supplying the Government adviser with the details described. They do not form part of the film, and were never taken. He met the adviser only once, when the latter unofficially visited the studio without reference to “Dawn,”, and saw certain scenes of the actual firing party. . “ On the command to the firing partv, “ ReajJy! ” Rammeler’s refusal to shoot is played to where the officer steps forward. The actual shooting is not shown, but is merely reflected in the expression of Nurse Cavell, who faints. The firing party is brought back to “ Order,” and as the officer moves from the side of the firing party the scene is transferred to the Lutheran chaplain’s face, his expression indicating what occurs. Thereafter the scene dissolves to a line from Rupert Brookes s poem, “ In Some Corner of a Foreign Field,” etc, which dissolves to Nurse Cavell’s grave. The firing party does not fire over her head, and the officer does not give the coup de grace. The actual shooting is not shown, and it is utterly untrue to say that the adviser or any other official has seen the film, though the adviser asked by telephone this afternoon if he might. I am showing Dawn ’ privately in Berlin next week.”

A FAVOURABLE VERDICT. LONDON, February 29. The film “ Dawn ” was shown privately to pressmen, and the general verdict is that the picture is not sensational, but that Miss Sybil Thorndike’s acting >s superb, and that the picture is a splendid example of British kinematography.

LETTER FROM THE AUfHOR.

LONDON, March 1. Mr Berkeley, author of the “ Dawn ” film story, in a letter to the Daily Mail, cites the press praise of the film, and adds: “In ignorance of what it portrayed Sir Austen Chamberlain and the Earl of Birkenhead have gone out of their way to vilify the work of Mr Wilcox and myself as repugnant, unsavoury, hectic, an outrage on humanity, horrible and indecent.. None of these epithets ’s remotely justified, and nothing ever hurt me so deeply as to be condemned unheard by the Government’s spokesmen. Both are perfectly familiar with my work in the cause of international appeasement. The Earl of Birkenhead accused me of receiving tainted money, and Sir Austen Chamberlain implied that the project was one. in which a gentleman would not be engaged. I appeal to Sir Austen Chamberlain and the Earl of Birkenhead to behave "like Englishmen and withdraw.”

QUESTION OF CENSORSHIP. LONDON, March 1. The Cavell film led to a series of questions in the House of Commons on film censorship. Mr F. Hall suggested that the Government department be made responsible for the matter.

Sir William Joynson-Hicks (Home Secretary) said that hitherto there was insufficient evidence to show that the present system had failed on the whole to secure an adequate standard svstem based on licensing by local authorities, who generally relied on the Board of Film Censors. W here the latter did not ■ pass a film "t was open to the owners to apply to she local authorities for permission to show the film. The Government was satisfied that the matter was better left to ‘he municipalities. Mr Hall: Then why should a member of Cabinet approach the censor with a view to banning the film?” Mr Neil Maclean : “ If it is proposed to leave the matter to the municipalities, why not abolish the Board of Film Censors? ”

Sir William Joynson-Hicks said : “ I imagine that the House will desire me to leave, the fullest discretion to the municipalities. W hen the scheme of censorship is debated I will be prepared to make a full statement on the origin and progress of censorship.