THE BANNED PICTURE

Hokitika Guardian, 27 February 1928, Page 2

THE BANNED PICTURE

(Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, Feb. 20. Wide there are many who consider it time the British film industry dropped war films and competed with Hollywood, with a thousand fine stories in the language, the ban on the “Dawn” picture at the dictates Germany, is universally resented. People are asking whether war hooks will he banned also, and will Britain allow German war films to be screened in England. Not the least interesting aspect of this widespread controversy is the declaration of Professor Aiorgan, ‘ 1 am in a position to state the exact tacts. They are that Nurse Cavell was not properly tried. She was murdered. Professor Aiorgan points out that she was not tried martially, hut under a code of laws introduced into Belgium which were only applicable to German subjects. It was flagrant violation of international law. The French attitude is interesting. There is reason to believe that attempt by Germany to prevent screening ill France will he given short shrift. “ L’Keho de Paris ” describes its prohibition as “ Gott Strafe Thorndike for daring to impersonate the heroine,” and wonders whether Germany will demand the removal of the Armistice coach from Retliardes where the Germans finally gave in. The other newspapers say it is part of a campaign to relieve Germany of responsibility for the war. Tlie German Government has thus far remained silent. TRENCH ANT CRITIC,ISA!. LONDON, Feb. 25. The “ Daily Telegraph ” features a letter from Lord Birkenhead, addressed from the India Office, Whitehall, and headed “Real Issues of 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 or do not we not desire a new era of peace to dawn through Europe? Do or do we not desire by every means in our power to increase mutual good teeling which must he 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 repudiation of the Hohonzollern Dynasty, its opinion thereof? I myself should have thought it was commonplace that every man and woman who does not wish to see then sons involved in another war. would strive to banish the memory of unhappy things. Replying to the argument that the statue (if Edith Cavell is inconsistent with these views. Lord Birkenhead declares: A dignified memorial lias no more relation to a hectic film than a classical picture of crucified Jesus has to the attempt to commercialise liis anguish. Does anyone suppose that a woman, who in tho moment of her agony, could say. ” Patriotism is not enough : there must he no hatred or bitterness for anyone,” could permit her death to he commercialised with the certain result that the hitter memories associated therewith would prevent a sweet restoration of friendship and good relationship between the nations of tlie world. AA hat is the object of this adventure? Arc tlie profits to lie devoted to charity? A\ ill they he used to estblish a scholarship to train Hie new generation of women up to Nurse Cavell’s standard, or are they intended to enrich the producers? K this is the purpose, is it decent to exploit tin 1 agony and sacrifice of tho noblest woman the AA'ar produced.