FILMS AND MORALS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 119, 10 August 1927, Page 4

FILMS AND MORALS

WHY CENSORS CUT PICTURES ILLUMINATING DISCUSSION An illuminating discussion on j the moral tone of a film, the name of which was not disclosed to the public, took place between the Commonwealth Film Censor. Professor Wallace, and the chairman of the Film Commission, Mr. W. Marks, M.P., in Melbourne last week. The film, which the commission agreed to refer to as “D. 8.,” has been ! rejected by the censor. Mr. Marks wanted to know why, as , he thought it was the best picture he | had seen, and that there were many others 100 per cent, worse. Mr. Marks was told by Professor Wallace that the film had been rejected in British Columbia, Manitoba, and cut down in Philadelphia, Ohio, Alberta, and Virginia, and the only place where it was allowed to be screened in its entirety was New York. Mr. Marks: My morals may be bad. blit I thought it was one of the best films I had seen. A QUESTION OF MORALS Mr. Marks asked why th>? film had been rejected when “The Honeymoon Express,” which he considered 100 per ■ cent. worse than “D. 8.,” had been passed. Professor Wallace explained that he did not know anything about “The Honeymoon Express,” but said the censors took every precaution to prevent immoral scenes appearing. Fie said that if they had a case of seduction shown clearly, the film would be rejected. but if the same were shown in a. modified form, and it was necessary for the drama, they would not reject it. The Chairman: But the humour was simply priceless. I tried to keep the tears of laughter back. In “The Honeymoon Express,” girls in negligee, bare to the knees, were shown. Professor Wallace: I am sorry I didn’t -see that. The Chairman: You must not miss it. (.Laughter.) I am trying to find out why one film is barred while another, which meets the condemnation of everybody, is allowed throuigh. I saw a picture called “The Magician” in Sydney, and the theme shocked everybody in the theatre. It showed a man preparing to cut the heart out of a maiden in order to squeeze it to promote life, but the hero arrived in the nick of time. The public certainly got a thrill out of it, and there were screams everywhere. MAN FAINTED “A man sitting next to me fainted and fell down three flights of steps,” added the chairman amid laughter. “That film was absolutely impossible. How did it get through?” Professor Wallace: Because it was strong drama. The Chairman: But the man about to cuit out the maiden’s heart was too bad. It is very hard on film renters to have that film rejected while others are allowed in. Doesn’t that point to the great hardship of one-man censorship? Professor Wallace: You will always find hardships no matter what sort of censorship exists. I don’t think a renter will be any better off under a board than he is under a single censor. “PALM GREASE” The Chairman: Without making any insinuations, would it be possibie for any “palm grease” to pass from the importers to the subordinate censor?— I understand that before I came into this position there were difficulties in that way. I have been told that before 1922 that was possible, but I don’t know whether it is true. It is utterly impossible now.

Beginning his evidence, Professor Wallace said the censors were blamed for bad films, which no amount of trouble could make good. Advertising caused a lot of worry, and films were often advertised, as though nothing hod been done to them. The censors were supposed to examine poster advertisements, but they fouind that many were being sent through the post direct to the exhibitors. He made an effort to clean up the advertisements, and took the drastic step of demanding £SO for each picture, to ensure that it was properly advertised. Another difficulty had arisen by importers reconstructing the films before they were sent to the censor. Some films were cut stupidly in America, and he thought it could be done much better here. The censors were working under regulations which forbade blashemy, obscenity and anything offending public morality. Ninety per cent, of the complaints about films received by the censor from the public came from parents, saying the pictures were a disgrace. Ho always pointed out that they were working under an Act of Parliament, and tnat it would be disastrous if thev cersored films for the benefit of children only. It meant keeping- back good dramas from the adults.