FILM CENSORSHIP

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 3, Issue 725, 28 December 1933, Page 2

FILM CENSORSHIP

HAS THE CENSOR GOT A PROPAGANDA COIVIPLEX.' QUIBSTION IN CHRISTCHURCH. Christchurch, Thursday. Has the New "'ZeaTahd'' filhTleensbr (Mr. W. A. Tanner)' a propaganda complex ? That is the question members of the Christchurch Film Society are asking themselves at present, for— without seeing the productions — Mr Tanher has advised that seve'ral piatures offered by the London Film Society will not be allowed to be screened here. These picturbs are Russiah or Italian, and evidently the fear of Soviet or Fascist propaganda is very real. The society has been offered 12 films by the London ' society, and already the censor has notified that three will not be allowed to be screened. In addition, three Italian films' are at present in the country, and the censor will allow only oue of them to be released. Officers of the Christchurch society are unwilling to comment on the whole question, though it is possible that efforts will he made to improve ihe present position while films legislation is before a Select Committee of th'e House of Representatives • Basis of Decisioins. The censor, it appears, bases his judgment of the- fitness of the films for "New Zealand audiences on long reviews received from the Old Country, and evidently he places film societies on the same footing as ordin,ary picture audiences, though it is in his power to issue a "C" certificate for eertain productions. Ceneral surprise is felt at the censor 's uncertain attitude Over two productions — ("The Blue Angel" (Russian), and "Nnder the Roofs of Paris" (Freneh), both of which have been shown in London and enthusiastically received by crities and audiences. ' A Christchurch man saw "The Blue Angel" three times while he was in London on a trip, and thoroughly enjoyed the picture. He could see nothing in it to which anyone could take exception. Among film society members it is thought that the censor is animated by a fear of propaganda which may be spread by a foreign-made film. t Tbey eonsider that he loses sight of the fact that a 'foreign film can be produced as a work of art without a taint of propaganda. Most foreign productions come into this category. However, it is thought that the censor fears both Soviet and Fascist propaganda, as has been shown by his attitude toward Russian and ItaIlian pietures. At first "Turk-Sib," merely a pictorial reeord of the construction of a Russian railway, was banned because of the fear of propaganda, but there was no suggestion of this in it. It really was a rather unexciting technical film.