Soviet Pictures Shown in Britain

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1010, 28 June 1930, Page 25

Soviet Pictures Shown in Britain

anomalous situation ARISES ATTITUDE OF CENSORS Once again the extremely odd organisation of the film censorship has led English exhibitors into an embarrassing position. The Russian film, “Mother,” has teen banned by the British Board of Film Censors, presumably on account of its propaganda in favour of Com munism. A society calling itself the Masses Stage and Film Guild wished to show the film. It was specifically precluded from doing so on the authority of the London County Council. The film is now being shown publicly in a cinema licensed by the West Ham Town Council, which has a large Socialist majority. Another film is being shown publicly in the West End of London which has been the subject of the acutest controversy in regard to its Communist propaganda. The film is called “The End of St. Petersburg.” It was made under the aegis of the Soviet authorities in Russia, and it purports to be an historical account of the Bolshevik revolution. The film has certain technical virtues, but manifestly its aim is to propagate Communism in this country. Every so-called “bourgeois” in the

film is a villain and every member of the proletariat an unconscious hero. TUe film did not pass the English censor without considerable negotiation.

Ultimately it received his certificate oa condition that certain sequences showing pictures of mutilated corpses were deleted. Both of these films are owned in England by a company known as “Atlas Film Co., Ltd.” The moving spirit in that company is Mr. Emile Vivian Burns, who happens also to be a member of the provisional council of the Loudon Workers' Film Society. This was formed last year for the private showing in England of films likely to appeal to the advanced Labour movement. Mr. Harry Pollitt was elected I as a member of the provisional coun- j cil of the society. I had a talk yesterday with Mr. Rurns, writes a correspondent of the ; London “Daily Mail.” I said to Mr. Burns: You are a con- ) vinced Communist and anxious to pro- ; pagate the practice of Communism in j this country? Mr. Burns agreed. I said to Mr. Burns: You believe that the films are the most potent I form of propaganda in the world? Mr. Burns agreed. I said to Mr. Burns: Is the Atlas Film Company, Ltd., an organisation j for the propaganda of Communist j ideas, or for the commercial exploi- j tation of films which acquire a pub- j lieity value by reason of their having been banned by the censor? Mr. Burns said: The Atlas Fiim j Company, Ltd., is a commercial con- , corn designed to show English people - unusual films. The ban of the British Board of Film Censors is being set completely j at naught. The hoard, indeed, has ; no power to compel a local authority, Socialist or otherwise, to accept its ! ruling. Exhibitors are asking how soon this anomaly will cease.

Cantor earned £150,000 in two years as the star of the stage production of ‘Whoopee,’ while I, as the producer, netted only £IO,OOO. My first picture will probably be based on scenes from various editions of the Follies.” Mr. Ziegfeld, who is now 61, has produced his famous Follies yearly since 1907, and nearly every edition has run for a year. He is the foremost producer of spectacularTevues in the United States, and has staged more successes than any other producer. He is the manager and lessee of the Cosmopolitan and Ziegfeld Theatres in New York, and is married to Miss Billie Burke, the actress. In the meantime the British producers are complaining a good deal about the conditions under which they are working, writes a London commen-