FILM CENSORSHIP.
CONDEMNED BY EXPERT. Strong refcienca fo film censorship an<| the need for tho industry to protect itself against adverse legislation was made by Mr John W. Hicks, junr., managing director for Australasia for Paramount Pictures, in trw course of his speech at a "Eet;tpßother lunchoon," hold at the Grand Hotel, Wellington, last week. There was a movement, he Bald, iii favour' of a more drastic censorship, awl it was tho duty of those connected with tho business to get together and organise to combat adverse legislation and things thatwouiu absolutely ruin tho industry if they went on. The picture business did not show the puolic the power thoj wielded, and' they wera even more powerful than tho Press, if they 1 .chose. What could they not do by using the ecreen for propaganda purposes—lor political purposes, oven, Jor instance? In Australia it was estimated that two miHion people attended picture theatres weekly. ' What an immense scope for propaganda! At the same time, he condemned suggestive films and suggestive advertisements a3 utterly wrong. The business tvo.s n. clean one, and should be kept clean. Sentiment played * big part in their business. Sentiment accounted for the success of Charge Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and other great film Mars. Sentiment had made the Arbuckle pictures popular, for they had made the kiddies laugh. If Arbuckle woro proved guilty, the? would never be able to screen another Arbuckle picture. Tho censorship was absolutely wrong. If tho pictures were so bad, wby * wero not tho censors corrupted, an'l he had never heard that suggested. Censorship should not be tolerated in a free country, and he did not believe the people wanted it. They did not censor ordinary theatre plays, women's dresses, or anything of that sort. A voice: We have a pretty iair censorship in New Zealand. Mr Hicks admitted this, but declared cense rehip Tvas wrong in principle. It limited the production and scope of genius. Tl« public was the judge, and if the picture wis not clean the public would have something' to say about it, and the police had the power to suppress it. Ho urged them to work to improve tho industry in every way, and to fight ail advert legislation. The producers were trying to live up to the pubic demand for better and better pictures. The motion picture business was here to stay.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19220403.2.89
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17420, 3 April 1922, Page 11
Word count
Tapeke kupu
395FILM CENSORSHIP. Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17420, 3 April 1922, Page 11
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
Ngā mihi
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.