THE CAVELL FILM

Evening Star, Issue 19801, 27 February 1928, Page 4

THE CAVELL FILM

BAN UNIVERSALLY RESENTED WIDESPREAD CONTROVERSY LONDON, February 25. While there are many who consider it is time that the British film industry dropped war films and competed with Hollywood, with 1,000 fine stories in the language, the ban of the ‘ Dawn ’ picture at the dictates of Germany is universally resented. People are asking whether war books will be banned also, and will Britain allow German war films to bo 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 martially, but under a code of laws introduced into Belgium, which were only applicable to German subjects. It was a flagrant violation of international law. The French attitude is interesting, and there is reason to believe that any attempt by Germany to prevent the. screening in France will be given short shrift. . The ' Echo do Paris ’ describes the prohibition as “ Gott strafe Thorndike to- daring to impersonate a heroine,” , and wonders whether Gerjpany will do-

mand the removal of the armistice coach from Rethordes, where Germany finally 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. PERPETUATING BITTER MEMORIES. EARL OF BIRKENHEAD’S VIEWS. LONDON, February 25. The ‘ Daily Telegraph ’ features a letter from the Earl of Birkenhead, addressed from the India Office, Whitehall. and headed, “The Real Issues of the Nurse Cavell Film.” He asks: “Is it in the interests of peace and international goodwill to perpetuate by public exhibition incidents of the war which must embitter its memories.? Do we or do we not desire a new era of peace lo dawn throughout Europe? Do or do we not desire by every men''' in our poster to increase the mutual good feeling which must be established in Europe unless all alike are to perish in ruin? Do wo servo a useful purpose by exasperating and humiliations _ 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 ~ee is or her 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, the Earl of Birkenhead declares: “A dignified memorial has no more relation to a hectic film than a classical picture of crucified Jesus has to attempt to commercialise His anguish. Does anyone suppose that a woman who in a moment of agony could say; ‘ Patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness for anyone,’ cCuld permit hew death to be commercialised, with the certain result that the bitter memories associated therewith would prevent the sweet restoration of friendship and 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 bo used to establish a scholarship to train a new generation of women up to Nurse - Cavell standards, or arc they intended to enrich the producers? If this is tho purpose, is it decent to exploit the agony and sacrifice of tho noblest woman the war produced?