“Child of Ignorance”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 146, 10 September 1927, Page 23 (Supplement)

“Child of Ignorance”

Is Censorship Attempting to Stifle the Industry? A CRITICAL PUBLIC Bu the MOVIE EDITOR 'I’ILL \ exatious subject of censorship has again been in the * public eye of late. First, we had the outburst by the Uev. Dr. Gibb. It was so exaggerated that little notice was taken of it. Then came the appointment of the new censor (Mr. Tanner). Thirdly, we had an appeal fc r a woman to be appointed to assist the censor.

WITH these periodical outbursts, the most interested party of all, the public, is always neglected. The public will not stand for indecent pictures. The big men in the industry realise that. That there has been an improvement within recent years in the general tone of films no fairminded person will deny. In the main, this has been due to an intelligent desire to follow the public demand. At the doors of the movies is laid the blame for the crimes and vices of the day. More silly suggestions are made for the improvement of the standard of pictures than for anything else in the world. The result is a bad name for a mighty industry. The standard of motion pictures to-day is such that the really sound and intelligent critics, like Arthur James, make short work of the reformers. “Pictures have progressed and found their standards because of the essential decencies evident to their makers, and because the amusement-going public, most stringent censor of all, will not stand for rotten films,” he says. “Remember that, you critics, for every time you allege—whether you have ever seen the inside of a picture theatre or not —that filth and suggestiveness are cast upon the screens, you insult the vaster majority of your fellow men and women.” Of “Gigolo.” a recent picture, it was remarked in America that Edna Ferber’s book gave more of the life of the “pander man” than appeared in the picture, and that it might have made

a million dollars more if that had been left. Having seen the picture and having held that it was splendid in its emphasising of dramatic points without offence, James’s journal, “To-day,” took the trouble to find out about why it had not been treated with the same liber; 1 scissors’-hand that was evident in tli 2 wonderful German production “Variety.” It w is learned that “Gigolo” had been made with a definite deference to the decencies, and in accord with the rules of order laid down as right and proper by Wi; . H. Hays, leader of the industry. Il was apparent, on seeing the picture that nothing of dramatic strength had been sacrificed and that a better and finer picture had been produced because the director was both on his mettle and his honour. “Giiiolo” was not cut, “Variety” was, io its ruination. “No bitter argument against censorship has; reached us for a long time,” says Mr. James. “Believe it or not, history rings loud with the truth — censorship is the child of ignorance! Pictures have progressed and have found their standards because of the essential decencies evident to their makers. Censorship is becoming unpopular because those who foster and promote it are out of touch with the fine uses to which the greatest avenue of human expression has been put.” The screen was conceived in science, fostered and progressed despite ignorance and stands triumphant over the little souls who would hamper and annoy its progress.