FILM CENSORSHIP.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Issue 1521, 19 June 1919, Page 33

FILM CENSORSHIP.

ELIMINATING THE SUGGESTIVE

Since Mr. Jolliffe commenced work as Government Film Censor in September, 1916, he has had under review 11,248,730 feet of film. For the year ending March 31st, 1919, he censored 3,479,860 feet. The year’s pictures would be sufficient to reach, in airline distance, from Dunedin to Auckland, and the total output could be stretched from Wellington to Adelaide. In the year ended 31st March, 1918, 5,761,570 feet of film were censored in New Zealand, but that included many of the pictures which were on circuit when the censorship was introduced, and which were not new importations. Last year’s total was also dragged down to a certain extent by the epidemic. In November, 1918, only 79,740 feet were censored, and in December only 183,880 feet. For the first two months of the current year the totals were, as compared with last year: April, 274,260 feet (350,200); May, 368,340 (490,900). Talking to a “Post” representative, Mr. Jolliffe said that the greatest number of the films were still from the American producers. Recently he had had two British productions and one French picture, the first released since the cessation of hostilities enabled the picture industry to start again. Of one of the British productions he remarked that if the British producers kept anywhere up to that standard they would wipe the American market out. From now on more British and French productions may be expected. The censor was asked if he noticed much change in the type of picture coming to him —whether the effect of the censorship was being studied by the trade. He replied that the picture which was likely to be rejected as a whole because its nature was objectionable was not now being sent to New Zealand. The suppliers had studied New Zealand’s requirements to this extent. But the pictures which were not of an objectionable character required as much censorship in details now as formerly. That is to say, as many cuts required to be made now as at the beginning. In April he turned down one picture completely and made twelve cuts from others; in May, no picture was rejected wholly, but 22 cuts were made. Mr. Jolliffe has two deed boxes filled with cuts and another almost full. Any immoral person who may plan to burgle these boxes, and start an illicit picture show calculated to make the flesh creep, may be warned that it is not worth while. The cuts by themselves are most innocent little things—very innocent —babies, for instance. It is only the context that brings them under the guillotine. Sub-titles are often suggestive, and out they come. Besides the immoral there is the horrible, which has to come out —in fact, anything which makes the picture unwholesome or vicious to a broad-minded man. Comedies often come under the ban for overstepping the bounds in details. Topical, industrial, and scenic films are subjected to the same scrutiny as the drama, not that they often require it, but nothing is left to chance. One occasion when a cut was made from a topical film was when pictures of the trans-Atlantic submarine Deutschland were received. The picture was allowed to pass; but the sub-titles had evidently been edited by a proGerman, for they glorified the exploits of the Germans. Sometimes there are other little things, not so objectionable, but which should be modified on broad patriotic grounds. For instance, there has been extravagant praise by sub-titles of America at the expense of the Allies. For American consumption it may be quite good; but here it would make the picture unpopular, and even offensive. At one time there was a fear of German propaganda conducted through the moving pictures; but Mr. Jolliffe said he came across no instance of anything approaching it save in the Deutschland case referred to. In war pictures the military and naval authorities abroad exercised their own censorship for scenes likely to divulge information of value to the enemy, and as the genuine war *pictures were mostly branded “official” that censorship proved sufficient. In only one case that Mr. Jolliffe recollected was the military censorship exercised in New Zealand —that was in a series of pictures of Timaru, produced for the borough council. There was a hospital ship lying at Timaru wharf, and, though the film censor thought this quite harmless for exhibition in New Zealand, the military authorities stopped it.