Film Censorship.
Owing to the objectionable character of some of the imported films, the question of an independent censorship was discussed at the latter end of 1911, and in October, 1912, with the approval of the Home Secretary, the Board of Censors was established and official duties were commenced in January, 1913. Entire independence and impartiality were assured, and are claimed to have been maintained by the Board of Censors.
It was decided to issue certificates classed as follows:—
U. Films to be shown to any audience.
A. Films to be shown to adults only.
This Board passes about 97 per cent. of films passing through its hands.
Two rules were laid down—
(1) That the living figure of Christ should not be allowed.
(2) That under no circumstances whatever would nudity be permitted.
The Examiners judged upon the broad principle that nothing should be passed which in their opinion would demoralize an audience. They laid down forty-three reasons for refusing to pass films.
The question is often asked in the public Press, and occasionally in Parliament, “What has become of the censor? Why does he not exercise his powers of suppression? Is there such an office?” This question is becoming increasingly urgent and acute.
There has been a tendency for the last two years to allow to filter through on to the public market films distasteful to modest vision. The so-called comic films are becoming more and more suggestive. We are aware that the modern tendency in female attire is to lower the neck and shorten the skirt. There is beauty in a painted nude figure, showing the perfect formation of limbs; this is from the standpoint of art.
It is the prevailing fashion in modern American “comedy films” for “bathing belles” to figure largely, and this is unnecessary unless the film actually depicts seaside life, surf-bathing, or is advertising a standard bathing costume approved of by the exponents of the “modiste” costume. There are also passages in these films which call for the excision of certain portions.
A flagrant breach of “censorship” is occasioned by allowing a film of the following nature to appear upon the open market. This depicts a Chinaman who runs an opium den, and who is also a money-lender. The story goes that he has designs upon a pretty English girl. To become acquainted, he advances money to her father, followed by further loans, which are used as a lever; for the father finally forces his pretty daughter to marry the Chinaman.
The scene changes to the girl’s bedroom, where the pretty wife, clad in a diaphanous nightdress, has a terrific struggle with the Chinaman.
Only one conclusion is possible, and there is no moral attached to the picture, which only produces a feeling of disgust—that the paternal human nature should have been so shown as actually existing between father and daughter.