‘Dawn’ Officially Condemned

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 277, 13 February 1928, Page 1

‘Dawn ’ Officially Condemned

WOULD PROVOKE CONTROVERSY OVER WORLD- HEROINE’S GRAVE Chamberlain Refuses To See Film By Cable. — Prats Association. — Copyripht. LONDON, Saturday. r[E story of Nurse Cavell is a noble one. Her memory will be reverenced, not only in friendly, but in ex-enemy countries, by all who admire selfless devotion to duty and serenity in the hour of trial,” wrote Sir Austen Chamberlain to the producer of “Dawn.” “I know of no authority to justify certain incidents in the film, and their representation can only provoke controversy over the grave of a woman who has become one of the world’s heroines.”

•JHE first official British comment on th® Edith Cavell film, “Dawn,” *Wch is the subject of much controTers y. Is contained in a letter written by the Secretary of State for Foreign i®»irs, to the producer, Mr. Wilcox, la this he declined the latter’s invita- *° witness a screening of the film. It may be possible to present the ™ry without loss of its beauty or “auger of Controversy when a lapse years makes it history,” said Sir Austen. "Personally, I feel it is “Ore beautiful in the mind than any Picture could make it. “In no circumstances, therefore, do I care to see ‘Dawn,’ howover the story is treated. If, as I presume, the Press accounts of , • picture are correct, I am even *** willing to attend a screening.

th ere are war films which, while . recf dl the heroic deeds and en- » ce ot British people, call forth , “ tter feeling elsewhere, but only , e lo unite all men in admiration Heroism and fortitude. But ‘Dawn’ t m 411 entil- ely different character. ® st sa y I feel the strongest rebgnanee to its production.” j. r Austen Chamberlain, acting Mr y ’. in uddition to his letter to £ vwi C o x , has written to Mr. T. P. ]j« E ? or ’ President of the Board of '^loraMe SO effec P t ointinS ° Ut f ‘ lm ’ S PRODUCER'S REPUDIATION to Sir Austen, Mr. Wilcox Cav.ii’ 1 feel strongly that Nurse entlv 8 selfle ss devotion is eminiuri» SU *tabl® for a British film, makuobilir ®°* B ** > le to bring home the and ts beauty of hex- actions, do t lesson of duty wonderfully only’. ,h °se to whom tier name is remidi ™ emor y- I cannot too strongly enrton. the su SSestion that I have lug °,T d to eupitallse her sufferhot h«. j sincerity of purpose will shown , ou bted when this picture is ind-“ t 0 the Public, who are merring *°°<l ta? l ° whether 3 subject is in

Yi-T"j* i» definitely anti-war. * “■"Ber of criticising it from

newspaper reports has never been more apparent than in your condemnation. I keenly regret your unqualified refusal to witness a screening.” The “Daily Telegraph” says official circles emphatically deny the report that the British Government, at the request of Germany, has taken action with a view to preventing the showing of “Dawn.” The German Ambassador was unofficially informed that the British Government was not empowered to prohibit or amend films on diplomatic or political grounds. Nevertheless, in British diplomatic and political quarters it is felt that the exhibition of the film would prejudic the present excellent relations between Britain and Germany and European pacification and reconciliation. “OUTRAGE AGAINST MEMORY” The “Daily Chronicle” describes the filming of the Cavell story as an outrage against her memory for moneymaking purposes. It says no decent person ought to approve it in a world which is seeking to bury hatred and build for peace. A British Official Wireless message says the film was produced by the Dominions Film Company. It has not yet been exhibited, nor has it yet passed the Board of Film Censors. This board has no official status, but is an organisation voluntarily established by the members of the film trade. Although the makers of the film contend that its underlying theme is against war and its horrors, and that there is nothing in the incidents portrayed which should give offe.uce to any nation, the view is strongly held in many quarters that its exhibition at present might revive bitter memories of the war and retard the healing processes of time. According to the “Daily News,” Miss Sybil Thorndike, who plays the role of Edith Cavell in the film, “Dawn,” says Nurse Cavell was not the victim of an individual action, but of the tragic circumstances insepar-

able from war. The way to prevent such tragedies was to abolish war. If “Dawn” created an anti-war mentality, it would be worth while. SIR AUSTEN’S STAND ENDORSED BY PRESS “NOT FARE FOR SCREEN” British Wireless—Press Assn.—Copyright Reed. 12.30 p.m. RUGBY, Sunday. The discussion regarding the film entitled “Dawn” continues. Practically all the newspapers strongly approve the line taken by the Foreign Secretary. The “Daily News” declares that no delicacy of treatment can remove a film centred on Nurse Cavell’s death from the class of war films, “and in defining that conviction so finely and so decisively, Sir Austen has performed a public service,” says the paper. The “Manchester Guardian,” in welcoming Sir Austen Chamberlain’s letter, says: “He expresses with admirable strength and simplicity the feelings of all who care for a better understanding between nations. However carefully the story of Nurse Cavell’s sacrifice be told, it cannot, in our time, be appropriate fare for the screen.” — A. and N.Z. ...