While the local controversy on the subject of the reformation of {he firn business, continues, ft may interesting io refer"to the activities of the British Board of Fum Censors, whose annual report was published about a month fo, Something "over "$000,000 ft sot film were submitted to them for examination, and itis interesting to ote that 0 Utue az 1l,928 ft, Wwas rejected, including " trenty~ three "complete "ims. Objection was taken to. 504 films In sume degree, but, inthe main, effective remedy war secured. ty proper cutting. When the type of picture that was rejected is considered, it not only clear to what extent Producers will go in their search For sensation, but saito serves to demonstrate that the need for cen sorship is indeed very real and that it is only the work of the examin fers which prevents the "exhibition of pictures against which a [greater Outery would be raised than fas been up to the Drewent, The grounds for rejection are stated as foliows:— lage service, Offensive burieque of the mar-
Rist unit" scenes details connected therewith. a steraty homes "and intinat
akinesia complications caming within the pronbited degree'
Comic suicides.
Extreme valgilty and sugestiveness Grociy Yo aninats.
Methods "of "crime capable of Industrial unrest and violence, too frankly for public exhibition.
Infense brutality and sordidness, coupled with promiscuous immorality: and objectionably misleading themes purporting Uustate arts of the Britsh Em-Brien officers in uniform shown in reprehensible situations.
'The above list is a pitiful revelation, for it supports the contention that' some producers will draw from any source, no matter how putrescent it might be, so long as the result is to be interpreted in terms of good box office receipts, It does more; it gives a very shrewd dea of the producer's estimation of the public, and from that point of view tends to support the conten tion that not only should the public be protected from the producer, lout also from itself, and the conclusion to be drawn therefrom that, however much the institution of Censorship may call for eritiism, conditions in the world do not at present justify its removal.
The Board seems to have been following a very well defined policy, and apart from rejections which judging from the above list require no justification, there are others the reason for which is. not, perhaps, quite as plain, Thus in animal pictures the Board has decided that it is most unwholesome for children, especially of tender years, to witness acts of cruelty on the screen because the cumulative effect of such incidents would undermine their moral No incident, however Innocent it might be is permitted WE it conveys the idea of cruelty, This doctrine is carried to the sage where objection follows even when it is known to them that the whole scene isa "fake", Thus:
"The following instance is given.
was a common practice, especial: 1 Wild West' dims, for the hero, on horseback, to jump over a high cliff. The horse and. rider were next. seen at the foot of the cliff, the impression being created many aninds that the horse had actually been driven over and maimed in the fall. 'Those with a knowledge of the technical sid knew that a dummy man and horse were wed, and that the maimed horse was' a well-trained and ex-Pensive animal that had. acted the Part most effectively. 'The whole episode was so well carried out that @ was mistaken for realism, with the result that the Board came to the conclusion that it could not allow the incident, although the examiners" very well imew it was a fake'
A somewhat less important ter, but one which may have considerable repercussion in other Jditections, is the ruling that films Jot current events stung together with a running story will in future foe subjected to censorship. It is perhaps easy to realize that though the presentation of events may partake of something in the nature purveying news, it is possible that the running commentary may have the effect of distorting its values. Yet it is open to very considerable argument that certain features of the newsreels themselves require similar attention. The activities of the press photographer and cinetnatographist have of late veare assumed a macabre quality which undoubtedly needs some restraint. jas witness the photographs of the Jéead body of John Dillinger, and Jot comparatively recent lynchings, fand the exhibition of a newsreel iit a local theatre recently of the exfhumattion of the dead man Sta risky, the opening of his coffin and the "exposure of his face on the screen. There is no real room on the screen for morbid sensation alist. It is interesting to note that the strictness with which British censorship is exercised has led entirely new departure, Producers are now submitting the scenarios of their subjects to the censors before production is commenced, and the Board is assisting them by giving advice on the possibility of such subjects being acceptable. That tends to reduce the Likelihood of producers turning lout films foredoomed to condemnation, and, the report states,. is even taken advantage of by' foreigners who hope eventually to show in Great Britain, The report conveys the general impression that, "though censorship is very often severely criticized, it is serving 2 very real purpose and that it affords to the general public some degree of protection without which it is impossible to realize what objectionableness would not be shown on the screen. It also (Continued on page 341.)
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.