Oct, 18.
To the written statement of the representatives of the Motion Picture Association of China on the censorship of films attention has beer' drawn in these columns. Tt seems to have given rise to garding the Cannan Commission. In particular its suggestion that "the Council cannot undertake to appoint commissions each and every time an individual writes letter of complaint to the pre is taken to advance the view that the Cannan Commission had its genesis in the Council's perusal lof a single letter to this journal. The Association's compliment is appreciated, but modesty compels the prosaic admission that it, is unearned. The Council, like the Cannan' Commi no body of ers" on whom the Motion Picture Association pours such genial m. The appointment of Commissions is not lightly conceived. The Council had, on its own account, ample evidence that the public were by no means satisfied with the existing form of censorship. It felt that the only way to judge whether the dissatisfaction was well-founded was to call in the aid of a small Commission. Whether the Report so produced meets with approval disapproval is immaterial. As-persians on the three members who undertook a public duty on the invitation of the administration of the Settlement are certainly ill-advised. It will not be easy to induce people to come forward and render such services in the future if they are to be afterwards assailed as failing to bring to their task the necessary qualities of impartiality and the open mind. Such criticism, if it had to be made, should have been forthcoming when the personnel of the Commission was first announced. The opportunity having been neglected, common decency demands silence on that point now that the Report is completed and published, The representatives of the Motion Picture Association must be acquitted "of this solecism. It comes from zealous supporters of their theory that cranks and reformers are the foster parents of the Commission.
The Motion Picture Association's truly diverting effort to stand facts on their heads and produce a beautiful array of red herrings is worthy of some of the best traditions of the screen comic. Censorship is described as "fundamentally unjust because it gives a handful of persons the ight to dictate what the great mass of people shall see and hear"
Admirable sentiments are these. Censorship is in theory undesirable but the fact remains that it, exists, even in Shanghai. Provided it be exercised with discretion, with appreciation of the valuable services which the cinema renders to the public and without vindictiveness, such as seeks to penalize a whole or-sanitation because of the alleged demerits of a single film perhaps outside its own tion, censorship can help rather than hinder the relations between the cinemas and their patron: The Cannan Commission were n called upon to decide whether a censorship should be imposed but to say how the existing censorship could be improved, The need for censorship of films is recognised in most countries. Tt is also admitted that the mere exercise by the police of the power of dealing with "immoral, obscene and other undesirable matter" is not sufficient, Indeed the film industry itself is by no means happy about police control and the Cannan Commission have drawn attention to the fact that often "the great mass of the people" in Shanghai is being dictated to by a subordinate officer of the Police Department. But objection to dictation by "a handful of persons" would more validly be raised in respect of the operations of the magnets of the cinema industry than adduced to decry efforts on the part of the public to protect it in the mass from exposure to the evil effects of that dictation. Mr. Koehler, in a thoughtful letter published elsewhere, seems to imagine that the—Report advocates a fanatical suppress sion of public amusements, He also overlooks the fact that the Commission endeavours to point the way to-creation of that better-trained censorship for which he pleads. He will hardly agree that the studios are the sole depositories of taste, intellectual excellence and morality. The root of the argument of the Motion Pictures Association lies in the special pleading of this passage:
"Why should the Council inter-fore with a legitimate business in order to cater to a few mothers who cannot prevent their children from attending the cinemas." This has been seized upon to elaborate the delicious view that, because capital has been largely invested in the cinema industry, no check in the public interest should be imposed upon it, In the XXth Century it is refresh ing to read such Gradgrindian It protests that the films exercise certain qualities of instruction and entertainment. It cannot deny therefore that these qualities can be a8 effective for evil as for good. The possession of capital for launching film-production does not necessarily imply a monopoly of virtue, artistic taste or educational ability. Those who have but a nodding acquaintance with
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.