The Cannan Commission's recommendations for the censoring of films in the International Settlement avoid the prescription of any startling remedy for such ills as their investigation revealed. Briefly they would establish smaller, more responsible and more representative Board of Censors, the cost being defrayed by a small impost on the industry: they would put film di tributors under bond, as in Australia; they would institute a classification 80 children from seeing uni films; they would, by arrangement with the industry, substitute exclusively letter-press for picture-blocks in posters and advertisements. It will be agreed that they cover most of the ground of criticism levelled against the film industry in Shanghai, Whether the Council will find their proposals practie-Jable in every respect is a matter to be determined. The public will, however, be ready to agree that Mr. A. "M. Cannan, Mrs. Lunkley and Mr. P. C. Colman have effectively and sensibly laid down sound principles of a censorship which cannot be regarded by the cinemas or distributors as unfriendly or unfair. Mr. Colman's interesting report on the investigations which he was able to carry out in Hongkong shows that, thanks to a high sense of their obligations to the public, the authorities in the Colony have done much, with the cooperation of the industry, to protect the public against the erosser forms of cinema display. Although the Cannan Report refuses pointedly to endorse some lof the more extravagant charges against cinema films in Shanghai, it emphatically shows that a reform of the censorship is desirable.
This conclusion is fortified. by the unfortunate tone of the state-lent submitted by the representatives of certain film interests. That statement displays a lofty disregard of public criticism and an attitude which is far from reassuring. In so far as it traverses the facile view that American fi the main culprits in the presentation of unsavoury pictures it is admire able and deserves respect. Its contention, however, that the Council has no power to impose 8 censorship is no more impressive than its comfortable belief that "cranks and reformers" are the sole critics of some of the entertainments presented on the It is regrettable that] the Cannan Commission were not able to receive the views of cinema theatre proprietors who. ignored the invitation to give evidence. Here again the Council will note a lamentable discourtesy and definite denial of the rights of the public. This leads to confirmation of the view that, taking Hongkong as a_ guid Shanghai has been too lenient. The Report makes the, sibly unconscious, revelation that the duties of censor ship, as assumed by the Police, have been fulfilled ex: cessive regard for the convenience of the cinema distribu-all the more noric where relations Government are. concerned, the reverse condition obtains. The Report rightly urges that the Government censorship of films should take place in SI hai.
The absurdity of subject to the delays, inconvenience and financial loss ig from despatch of the films to Nanking is too plain to need elaboration. In any other country censorship at the main point of distribution would undoubtedly be arranged. Perhaps this will receive the attention of the Nanking authorities for the sake-of their own reputation as practical men.
On the other hand, the censors hitherto functioning under the auspices of the two Councils in Shanghai, have meekly accepted! the position that their work should be done almost entirely at the convenience of the film-distributors. In other words the pre-view for censorship takes place at a theatre in "off" hours. The duty of public authorities to study the interests of an industry coming under their official inspection will be generally recognised. Here it seems to have been carried to the point of complaisance leading to surprise that the censors have been as vigilant as they are. The public obligation to them is all the greater on that account. Early adoption of the Commis-ion's plan for a pre-view projection room seems however to be clearly desirable. The spectacle of censors' -obligingly making the round of the theatres at inconvenient hours is a truly diverting reversal of the usual popular conception of the un-Teasonableness of bureaucracy. This perhaps explains the aumocratic note of the statement of certain distributors referred to above. say, in effect, that they claim the right to inflict what they like on the public with the box office as sole arbiter. This logically may appear to be a noble vindication of human liberty. It is nothing of the kind. The factors to be noted in its examination are the checks imposed on free public criticism by the chain system. Moreover the cinema does not respond so rapidly audience's views as the stage does. There is no immediately direct indication to the performers that the house is against them. So often attendance the cinema is the routine habit of men and women seeking a break in the monotony of exi tence. If cinema distributors were really ready to consider public opinion they woud not persist in the presentation of. truly appalling "shorts" in the first part of their programme: This is not a matter for eansorship as the Report points out. It does show that the idea of responding to public taste is not too sedulously cultivated by the distributors. Otherwise it were safe to say that 80 per cent. of [the "shorts" would not be shown. For this reason it {s to be hoped that the Commission's approval of the establishment of an organisation to educate public opinion and enforce its views. will be effectively endorsed. The various societies in Shanghai should take this matter in hand immediately. Mr, Cannan and his colleagues are again to be thanked for a stimulating report which should do real service to the public and to the industry concerned.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.