Film Censorship

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 986, 31 May 1930, Page 27

Film Censorship

ITS EFFECT ON TALKIES Recent Productions Discussed

RECENTLY a great deal oi been aroused in motion p rulings promulgated by the . Distributors of America, Inc., the laconic title of “the Hays Such h statement at this t of curbing the frankness of tal It sweeps away the growing l films have developed beyond 1 SENSORSHIP of talking pictures, in -which dialogue must be woven tightly and significantly, was obviously more difficult than cutting into the looser construction of the pantomimic silent picture, remarks a writer in the “New York Herald-Tribune.” If these new pictures, with their new frankness, were to be shown at all they had to be shown pretty much in their original condition. But now the organisation whose function it is to act as buffer between the picture industry and the State or local censor has reaffirmed the old order of things, apparently with the consent of the producers concerned. Conflict is not to be expected, but readjustment is certain. For the roster of recent pictures—good pictures —which violate the principles enunciated in this code of screen behaviour is impressive and significant. Whatever one may think of the at-

titude expressed in this code, which, after all, has something to say for I itself, it is obvious that Hollywood I will have to haul in its horns if this pronouncement is to be anything more I than a scrap of paper. PROFANITY IN PICTURES “Pointed profanity,” says the Hays statement, “is forbidden.” At once there arises the memory of Victor I McLaglen and Edmund Lowe commenting on one another in “The Cockeyed World.” It was not very profane profanity, nowhere within shouting distance of much that is freely said on the stage, but it was pointed and so comes under the ban. “Those who felt it as a welcome re lief from strong men in pictures who said: ‘Oh, shucks! ’ and had prevl ously had to content themselves with lip-reading in ‘What Price Glory v ’ will find that the new day was all too short. “11l the delicate matter of drink m a dry land the code lays down mat ‘the use of liquor in American life shall be restricted to the actual requirements of characterisation or plot,’ ” continues the writer. “Interpreted in the spirit of the context this seems to mean that villains should drink when it cannot bo avoided and heroes should drink only previous to regeneration, if at all. “One wonders if Gary Cooper in | ‘The Virginian’ was justified in joining the crowd about the whisky barrel at the barbecue and in visiting the bar on the day of his marriage. “One recalls Edward G. Robinson’s performance as Tony in ‘A Lady to Love,’ and his accompanying bottle of wine. It is true that drinking cripples him; yet it is also true that he is eminently unrepentant, taking j his medicine in wine and clinging to [ the bottle on his bed of pain with the j stubbornness of a nursing infant, j Charles Ruggles’s jovial toping in ‘The Lady Lies,’ undoubtedly steps beyond the ‘actual requirements of i characterisation or plot. “Other infringements are not j scarce: the pop of the cork and the rattle of the shaker have been among the most popular sound effects yet achieved in synchronised pictures, whether set in American life or elsewhere.” In the matter of relations between j men and women, the article continues, I the Hays code is admirably explicit: j "that the sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld; that adultery shall not be explicitly treated or justified.” At this point, it must be remembered that the heroines of such pictures as “A Lady to Love,” “The Lady Lies,” and both women characters in “Anna j Christie” were guilty within the meaniug of the act, either in legal or in ecclesiastical terms. Moreover, all three of them came through gallantly j and, as far as the pictures show, were I due to live happily ever after, j “Condemned” shows a gaol bird \ planning elopment with the warden’s j

t comment and criticism lias ieture circles on the censorship Motion Picture Producers and known to the picture world by office.” time, obviously for the purpose Ikies, is of immense importance, relief, in America at least, that the bounds of censorship. [wife; it is doubtful whether the warden’s timely death removes the moral stigma of such planning. This is the department in which the about-face counselled by the code will he mos: far-reaching. SYMPATHY WITH CRIME It is dubious how well such pictures as “Condemned” and “The Valiant” would come off if strictly examined under the section which states that “crimes against the law shall never he presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the crime as against law or justice.” There is “Alias Jimmy Valentine” in direct definanee of the contention that “methods of crime shall not be presented in explicit detail on the screen,” and “The Virginian” and “The Mighty” again appear as culprits. One or two of the songs in “The Love Parade” skate dangerously near the section concerned with double entendres; so does some of its dialogue. And so on and so forth. The pictures named above are, almost without exception, those which are generally ranked among the best examples of the new order. They are well scattered among most of the major producing companies, with no one reaching any further int: . regression. than any other. “If the Hollywood of today were the Hollywood of three years ago, it might be certain that the lid would fit tightly. But those who have carried over from the old regime will have their hands full curbing the activities of the newcomers among writers and directors to whose attitude toward these things much of the widely welcomed new spirit can fairly be ascribed," concludes the article. “Disinfecting the Hollywood product will be a Herculean task, with all these new people about to whom such inhibitions are unfamiliar. Yet the final yes and no still lies with men trained in the older traditions, for the advent of dialogue produced very little change in the inmost sanctums of the film colony; and herein lies the greatest likelihood that this code means what it says and will be peaceably enforced.”