Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

“WAR PROPAGANDA”

ADMIRALTY ASSIST IN MAKING FILMS HEAVY COST INVOLVED By Cable.—Press Association. — Copyright. LONDON, Tuesday. “tPHE whole thing is propaganda for militarism and war,” declared Commander J. M. Kenworthy, Labour member for Hull, in complaining in the House of Commons about the extraordinary assistance given by the Admiralty in the production of several films. The Mediterranean Fleet, he said, had put to sea and had carried out manoeuvres, which had cost many thousands of pounds, for the purpose of being filmed. He said the whole thing was propaganda for militarism and war. The President of the Board of Trade, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, in reply to a question, said 34 feature films were produced in Britain in 1925, 23 in 1926, and probably 60 would be produced by the end of 1927. When the debate on the Cinematograph Bill was resumed, Colonel J. Wedgwood, Labour member for New-castle-under-Lyme, moved as an amendment to strike out the provision that the quota of British films must include a proportion of long as well as of short films. Her contended that this would create a monopoly for the few firms which were equipped to produce long films. The amendment was rejected by 225 votes to 142. A further amendment that the exhibitor should show the date of registration of each registered film, whether British or foreign, was rejected. QUESTION OF QUOTA Sir Charles Oman, Conservative member for Oxford University, then moved an amendment that the licence of a renter or exhibitor might be revoked on a third conviction for failure to comply with the quota provisions. He said the amendment was designed to deal with wealthy and contumacious offenders. It was well known that the Bill was opposed by the wealthy proprietors of foreign companies. The Minister said he thought it was only fair to leave the question to the free vote of the House. The power of revocation was not one to be given lightly, because it might mean shutting up a man’s business. The debate was then adjourned.—A. and N.Z.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19271117.2.90

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 204, 17 November 1927, Page 11

Word count
Tapeke kupu
339

“WAR PROPAGANDA” Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 204, 17 November 1927, Page 11

“WAR PROPAGANDA” Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 204, 17 November 1927, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert