MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION

Evening Star, Issue 21742, 9 June 1934, Page 19

MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION

CHAIRMAN REPLIES TO CRITICISM PRAISE OF CENSORSHIP “ Censorship is, after all, a negative process, and it is impracticable to reduce all films to the mental level of the child,” declared Mr A. Harris, M.P., who was chairman of the committee vhich recently inquired into the motion picture industry, when replying to criticism of the film censorship (states the ‘Dominion’). Mr Harris said there had been no doubt in the minds of the committee that the censor was carrying out a very difficult job and doing it well. When asked to comment oh editorial references to the committee’s findings which appeared in newspapers in various parts of New Zealand, particularly with respect to the licensing of theatre's and the censorship of films, Mr Harris said the committee’s' recommendation about theatre licensing had apparently been misunderstood. The committee did not recommend the immediate control of ’ theatre licensing. The members were satisfied, after hearing the evidence, which was not published, that owing to the conditions existing in the industry and the limited number of first-grade films available, some provision was necessary to prevent unfairtrading practices tending toward monopoly of the industry by the larger interests. ERECTION OF NEW THEATRES.. Similar considerations in the past had influenced the Government in making the Board of Trade Regulations, and in the committee’s report certain measures were recommended which were designed to prevent recurrence of these conditions. It was not certain that these measures would be effective, and the committee recommended that power be taken for the direct control of theatre licensing should the conditions existing at any time warrant this course.

The evidence under this heading showed that the theatre takings in New Zealand had decreased during the last four years from £1,750,000 to just over £1,000,000, and during this period a considerable number of theatres_ had been erected, and a theatre building “ boom ” was apparently in operation. The report was therefore directed to explain the economic position for the information of the investigating public, and to show that the financial conditions existing did not appear to warrant an extensive theatrebuilding programme. THE APPEAL BOARD.

Dealing with the question of censorship, Mr Harris said the principal representations were made on behalf of a deputation from the Secondary Schoo} Teachers’ Association and allied organisations, and he noted that this body made similar representations to the Minister for Finance, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, in Auckland, just before the publication of the committee’s report. In the written stateiiient submitted to the committee the deputation said: “We desire to make it plain that we are not lodging a complaint against the present censor in person; we rather came to the conclusion that he is aiming at studying the best interests of the community, but -is gravely handicapped by the over-riding of the Appeal Board.” The effect of the representations, Mr Harris continued, was that in the opinion of the deputation a modification of the Appeal Board would result in better censorship. A list of fifty-six films to which exception had been taken by school children in answer to a questionnaire- was submitted. These pictures had been screened at different times during the last four years, and many of them had been seen by individual members of the committee. CENSOR’S STATEMENTS.

Mr Harris said that the reply of the censor with regard to these representations was very convincing. An examination of the list of pictures submitted showed that thirty had been recommended for adult audiences; in twelve cases excisions had been made from the film as originally submitted, and in only one case had the film been passed by the Appeal Board after rejection -by the censor. The figures in the last annual report of the department illustrated the position. It wa's shown that 487 feature films were imported, and of these forty-eight, or 10 per cent., were rejected by the censor. Twenty appeals were held and in only eight cases was the censor’s decision- reversed. Excisions were made by the censor from about 20 per cent, of the films submitted.

The censor stated in his evidence that he was not affected in any way by the Appeal Board’s decision, and iii fact if he were doubtful about a picture it was his practice to reject it in order to get the board’s opinion. In these circumstances it would be seen that the proportion of appeals allowed by the board was approximately what would be expected since there was bound to be a difference of opinion even amongst censors with respect to a particular film. EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROL.

The basis laid down by the British censor, was well known in New Zealand, and a similar basis had been in operation here for a number of years past. An investigation recently made showed that during a period of eighteen months fourteen films which had passed the British censor had been rejected in New Zealand, while, on the other hand, no case could be found of a film having been approved by the New Zealand censor, but rejected in Britain. There were considerable technical difficulties in present-day censorship. The effect and interpretation of silent films could in many cases bo brought into compliance with the censorship standards by modification of the subtitles, and this could be done in New Zealand. In the case of talking pictures censorship could ; only be exercised by cutting out portions of the film, and if this process were carried too far the story value of the picture was destroyed.

“ After hearing the evidence there was no doubt in the minds of the members of the committee that the censor was carrying out a very difficult job, and doing it well,” concluded Mr Hams. “ Censorship i s after all a negative process, and it is impracticable to reduce all films to the mental level of the child. The censor indicates by his certificate ,thaf certain films are more suitable for adults, and the legislation requires that this ■ recommendation shall be published in all newspaper advertisements. It is left to the parents and guardians to decide what films children shall see. and this responsibility cannot be passed on either to the censor or the Government.”