BRITISH FILMS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 109, 11 May 1931, Page 8

BRITISH FILMS

VIEWS OF A CENSOR

REASONS FOR REJECTION

i (From "The Post's" Representative.) SYDNEY, 30th April. On more than one occasion the Chief Film Censor of the Commonwealth, has been bitterly assailed because he has seen fit to reject a-number of British talkies. It has been said that because tho percentage of British films rejected was greater than the percentage of American films, the Censor (Mr. Oresswoll O'Riolly) lias shown an anti-Brit-ish bias. The latest outcry followed tho rejection of "Capo Forelorn," by tho Australian actor, Frauk Harvey. The action of this drama takes place in a lighthouse off the New Zealand coast, and the fact that the film had been released for exhibition in, New Zealand was freely commented upon. Mr. Harvey, who is now appearing in Melbourne, admitted that ,-.tho drama Was "strong stuff," but he denied that there was anything to which any man or woman could take offence unless he or she was of a particularly prim and proper type. The situations were not any worso than those repeated.over and over again, in American films. This film, by the way, has since been released by the. Film Censorship Appeal Board in Australia, and will commence its Sydney run. this week-end. Thanks to the publicity given to Mr. 0 'Bielly 's action it is bound to be a success... ; CENSOR'S DEFENCE. Mr. O'Biclly has now oome forward with what seems to be a very logical defence of his ■ attitude. "An examination, of figures and percentages with respect to eliminations and rejections during the past few years," ho says, "does not afford much ground for1 asserting that there has been an improvement in the moral standard of the pictures submitted. Australia is too small a portion of the world's market to induce producers to pay much attention to our censorship requirements, and as long as the peoples of the world differ in customs, habits, and morality, it will be necessary for some authority in each, community to have the right to. say what should and what should not be screened. Whatever the shortcomings of the Australian censorship may be,\it has succeeded in keeping out the more harmful productions, and its, mere existence has undoubtedly prevented : the .entry of still more objectionable pictures. COMMENT MISUNDERSTOOD. "The outspoken comments in my report last year regarding the character of British films were misinterpreted, and misunderstood. Criticisms offered in sorrow and with a sincere dosire to lead to an improvement were taken in some quarters as showing an anti-British bias. I am glad, however ; to say that there is a marked improvement in some of the recent British films, surpassing the American in every department of production and entertainment value. There are still, however, too great a proportion which, are oi poor quality. Even when some of the latter are passed by the: censorship, either the distributors or tho exhibitors will not show them, which is rarely the case with American films. It is a pity, also, that British producers are exploiting the ' bedroom farce ad nauseuni^ Surely thero arc other humorous ideas and situations available than men and women ; getting into one another's rooms.' There is also a tendency for smartness and sophistication to step over the bordoj line into suggestiveness .and indecency. " V Last year 525 feature films were imported into the ,; Commonwealth., ■■.'Of these only 50 came from tho' United Kingdom- and five from other countries. A total of; 181 . American films 22 British films, and two from othei countries were^ passed with elimina^ tions, and 17 American films and foui British wcro finally rejected. The percentage of American films rejectee was 3.2 and British 8 per cent. . The number of short films finally rejected was double the number of feature films. That was due to the undesirable types of that class of film which continued to be imported.