STORY OF NURSE CAVELL

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 115, 13 February 1928, Page 9

STORY OF NURSE CAVELL

DISCUSSION AROUSED BY FILM SIR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN REGRETS PRODUCTION Rugby, February 10. Much discussion has been aroused here by the kinematograpli film entitled “Dawn,” produced by the Dominions Film Company, which reconstructs the story of Miss _ Edith Cavell, the English nurse, who in 1915 was court-martialled and shot during the German occupation of Brussels, for helping prisoners of war to escape. The film has not yet been exhibited, nor has it passed the Board of Film Censors yet. This board, ol which Mr. 'l'. I‘. O’Connor is president, has no official status, but is an organisation voluntarily established by members of the film trade. Although makers of the film contend that its underlying theme is against war and its horrors, and that there is nothing in the incidents portrayed that should give offence to any nation, the view is strongly held in many quarters that its exhibition at present may revive bitter memories of war, and retard the healing processes of time. The Foreign Secretary’s views are expressed in a letter sent to Mr. Wilcox, the producer of “Dawn,” in reply to an invitation to a private view of the film. After stating that _he feels obliged to decline the invitation. Sir Austen Chamberlain says that the story of Nurse Cavell is a very noble one, and her memory will be held in reverence, not only by her country- I men, but by all, to whatever country they may belong, whether friend or for- | mer enemy, who admire selfless devo- ■ tion to duty and serene fortitude in the hour of trial. It may be possible to present such a story pictorially without any loss of its beauty, and without any danger of controversy when the lapse of years has made it history, but for himself Sir Austen feels that it is more beautiful in his memory than any picture could make it. If accounts in the newspapers are correct, he would be even less willing to attend the performance. He knows of no authority to justify certain incidents as presented in the film, and their representation can only provoke a controversy over the grave of a woman who has become one of the i world’s heroines. Nurse Cavell had no thought of fame or self, and one cannot doubt what her feelings would have been if she had thought such use was to be made of her sacrifice. There are war films which, whilst recalling heroic deeds and endurance of our own 1 people, call forth no bitter feelings ' elsewhere, but serve only to unite all [ men in admiration of heroism and fortitude. But this film appears to be of an entirely different character, and he must frankly say he feels the strongest repugnance to its production. —British Official Wireless. MR. WILCOX’S REPLY “EMINENTLY SUITABLE FOR 1 BRITISH FILM (Rec. February 12, 5.5 p.m.) London, February 11. Dlr. Wilcox, replying to Sir Austin Chamberlain, said: “1 feel strongly that Nurse Cavell’s selfless devotion is eminently suitable for a British film, enabling the bringing home of the nobility and beauty of her actions,, and the lesson of a duty wonderful;’ done to those to whom her name is only a memory. I cannot too strongly re-

pudiate the suggestion that 1 have endeavoured to capitalise her suffering. My sincerity of purpose will be undoubted when this picture is shown to the public, who are unerring judges as to whether a subject is in good taste.” He adds: “The film is definitely antiwar, The danger of criticising from newspaper reports has never been more apparent than in your condemnation. I keenly regret your unqualified refusal.” The “Daily Chronicle,” in an editorial, describes the filming of the Cavell story as “an outrage against her memory for money-making. No decent person ought to approve it in a, world seeking to bury hatred and build for peace.”—A.P.A. and “Sun.”