NURSE CAVELL FILM

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 127, 27 February 1928, Page 9

NURSE CAVELL FILM

LORD BIRKENHEAD ENTERS THE CONTROVERSY “COMMERCIALISING A HEROINE’S DEATH” NEED FOR INTERNATIONAL GOOD-WILL Lord Birkenhead has entered the controversy regarding the Nurse Cavell film. His Lord, ship, who is wholly in favour of the suppression of the film, bases his arguments on two main grounds: the interests of peace and international good* will and what he terms the commercialisation of the death of the noblest woman the war produced. Bv Telegraph.—Press association. Copyright „ (Rec. February 26, 5.5 p.tn.) London, February 25. The “Daily Telegraph” features a letter from Lord Birkenhead addressed from the India Office, Whitehall, and headed “The Real Issues of the Cavell Film.” Lord Birkenhead asks: “Is it in the interests of peace and international good-will to perpetuate by public exhibition incidents of the war which must embitter its memories ? Do or do we not desire a new era of peace to

dawn throughout Europe ? Do or do we not desire by every means in our power to increase the mutual good feeling which must be established in Europe unless all alike are to perish in ruin? Do we serve a useful purpose by exasperating and humiliating a Government which has shown by its repudiation of the Hohenzollern dynasty its opinion thereof? I myself should have thought it was a commonplace that every man and woman who does not wish to see their sons involved in another war would strive to banish the memory of unhappy things.” Replying to the argument that the statue of Nurse Cavell was inconsistent with these views, Lord Birkenhead declares: “A dignified memorial has no relation to a hectic film than a classical picture of the crucified Jesus has to the attempt to commercialise His anguish. Does anyone suppose that a woman who in the moment of her agony could say 'Patriotism is not enough: there must be no hatred or bitterness for anyone,’ could permit her death to be commercialised with the certain result that the bitter memories associated therewith would prevent the sweet restoration of friendship and the good relationship between the nations of the world ? What is the object of this adventure ? Are the profits to be devoted to charity? Will they be used to establish a scholarship to train the new generation of women up to Nurse Cavell standards, or are they intended to enrich the producers? If this is-the purpose, is if decent to exploit the agony and sacrifice of the noblest woman the war produced?”

"NURSE CAVELL MURDERED”

PROFESSOR MORGAN RETURNS TO THE CHARGE (Rec. February 26, 5.5 p.m.) London, February 25. While there are many who consider it is time the British film industrv dropped war films and competed with Hollywood with the thousands of fine stories in the language, the ban on the “Dawn” picture at the dictates of Germany is universally resented. People are asking whether war books wilt be banned also, and will Britain allow German war films to be screened in England.

Not the least interesting aspect of the ■widespread controversy is the declaration of Professor Morgan: “I am in

a position to state the exact facts. They are that Nurse Cavell was not properly tried; she was murdered.” Professor Morgan points out that she was not tried by court-martial, but under a code of laws introduced into Belgium which was only applicable to German subjects. It was a flagrant violation of international law. The French attitude is interesting. There is reason to believe that any attempt bv Germany to prevent the screening in France will be given short shrift.

The “Echo de Paris” describes the prohibition as “Gott strafe Thorndike for daring to impersonate the heroine,” and wonders whether Germany will .demand the removal of the armistice coach from Kethordes, where Germans finaliv gave in. Other newspapers say it is part of a campaign to relieve Germany of the responsibility' for the war. The German Government has thus far remained silent.