FILM CENSORSHIP

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17957, 8 December 1932, Page 7

FILM CENSORSHIP

DIVIDED OPINIONS DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE AMERICANISM RESENTED (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this clay. A vote on the estimates for assistance to the film censor gave members an opportunity to criticise this branch in the House last night, Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labor, Napier) commencing with an indictment of picture posters and asking whether the censor was responsible, for allowing their display. Ajlr. 0. Carr (Labor, Timaru) declared that he had noticed during the holidays, when a large number of children were attending picture theatres, that films bearing an “A” certificate were screened, which he had no hesitation in describing as salacious. Mr. Barnard asked why a film describing the live-year-plan in Russia had been barred when it had a great educational value. Apparently people were not being allowed to• know that .the Russians were making a success of a system which was not a capitalist system. He also objected to the large proportion of American films showing the worst features of American life. Why was not a larger proportion of English films provided? “Over 40 per cent, of the films shown in New Zealand are British,’’ declared the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, Minister of Public Works, who added that this matter was pretty closely discussed at Ottawa. There was, however, the difficulty that film exchanges handling British films bought on the British censor’s certificate, but films which got past in England might not fit in with the ideas of the New Zealand censor-.

CENSOR’S DIFFICULTIES Efforts were being made to standardise as far as possible the requirements and give British producers an idea what films might or might not be passed in New Zealand. He had seen several films dealing with Russia in New Zealand theatres. “You get American twang and American slang wherever you go,” declared Mr. R. A. Wright (Coal., Wellington Suburbs). “Young New Zealanders had been fairly clear of slang, but this could not be guaranteed to-day under these conditions, and as for a certificate that pictures were to be shown only to adults, that was humbug. Mr. Carr: Half price for children. Mr Wright added that he could understand the difficulties of the censor, who realised that it was ruinous to film importers if he cut films too severely,, but something ought to bo done to prevent such a large supply of undesirable Amen, can pictures. There should be a prohibitive duty. We did uot seem to be getting all the good British pictures available, and he had heard that the Americans were cornering them. “I object to the whole vote, because I tliinlc the censorship is a nuisance,” said Mr. P. Fraser (Labor, Wellington Central). It protected neither the old nor the • young, he continued. _ The tragedv was that Elstree was making a silly attempt to imitate Hollywood with its comedies, though some of the best nictures seen in New Zealand came from Elstree. He did uot object much to bright American speech, though he thought the nasal accent had been a hit worn out. Anyhow it did uot appear on the estimates. The chairman, pointedly: That ns so. CONTROL BY POLICE The Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon. A. Hamilton, assured members that the film censor was quite free to exercise his good judgment, and no direction was given to him that Russian or any other films should be banned. If members had experience, of the censorship task they would realise its difficulties. The censor did cut out a lot, and he censored picture posters too. Mr Barnard: Then he does it poorly. The Minister: You have to consider the material he has to deal with. I think the standard has been improved ot late. , There had been quite a number of appeals against the censorship lately, and the picture people, he believed, weie just as desirous as the Government to keen the standard high. Mr. A. S. Richards (Labor, Roskul) asked why the organisation, Friends of the Soviet Union, was prevented from exhibiting*a Russian film in Auckland after they had taken a theatre. Who controlled the, films, the police or the censor? he asked. ' “Both,” replied the Minister. the police have the right to control a film.” Mr. Richards protested that partiality and injustice had been shown towards the intellectual section of the people, because one part of New Zealand could see this film, and in Auckland it was barred.