The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

136 CINE TECHNICIAN September 1955 THERE IS STILL TOO MUCH VIOLENCE TV/ITHOUT any doubt a major »» problem with which the Board of Film Censors has been faced since the war has been the prevalence of scenes of violence and brutality in the films submitted for censorship. Although this article is concerned only with the experience of the British Board, we know that the problem has equally exercised the minds of censors in most other countries. In the years immediately following the war this undesirable trend no doubt to a certain extent reflected the aftermath of a period when violence had become the familiar accompaniment of our daily life. On the most charitable view it represented an attempt to portray on the screen some of the more characteristic psychological features of that post-war period and, on the general ground that an art should within reasonable limits be allowed to express the salient mood of its times, stories and incidents were permitted by the Board which might not have been accepted in another period. By the middle of 1948, however, any plea of realistic portrayal of contemporary circumstances had lost its validity and the continued choice of stories of a brutal and sadistic character, with their dependent incidents, could no longer, in the Board's view, be regarded as acceptable and was likely to meet with severe and justifiable public criticism. They were warned For this reason a warning was addressed in May 1948, impartially to both British and American producers, that the Board would not in future be prepared to grant its certificate to any film in which the story depended in any marked degree on the violent or sadistic behaviour of the characters or to allow in any film any incident in which there was recourse to needless violence. When a warning of this kind is conveyed, it is, of course, necessary to wait for some four or five months before one is able to assess accurately the effect it has had — the obvious reason being that during that time the Board will be receiving films whose production was completed before the warning was delivered. By November 1949 it was, however, clear says A. T. L. Watkins Secretary of the British Board of Film Censors in this article specially written for the Cine Technician that the response had not been satisfactory, since the Board was still having to make a large number of cuts with the object of removing brutal shots or sequences. Further letters were accordingly addressed to both British and American producers, in which the warning was repeated in even firmer terms, and in which it was made clear that the Board would continue to demand substantial cuts wherever necessary and that, where the making of cuts would not suffice to remove from a film the general element of excessive violence, a certificate would be refused altogether. In order to assist producers to comply with the Board's requirements, a detailed statement was enclosed clarifying the kind of shots and incidents to which exception would be taken. What has happened since this second warning was sent out nearly six years ago? There has been some improvement, but the improvement has been relative and not by any means sufficient, as the following recent figures will show. In 389 feature films examined during the first seven months of 1955, 624 cuts, either major or minor, had to be made. Of these cuts 275 were necessary to remove excessive violence or cruelty. This means not only that 44 per cent of the cuts currently being made by the Boarcf'come under the heading of " Violence ", but that in 275 instances in seven months the Board's clear warnings have been disregarded. This is a sad state of affairs and at the same time disappointing and frustrating to a Board which derives no pleasure whatever from cutting films and causing inconvenience to producers and directors. This continued disregard of a clearly stated policy involves not only the Board's examiners, but also film editors who have the often technically difficult and laborious task of complying with our requests, in a great deal of extra and unnecessary work. None of these considerations, regrettable though they are, will cause the Board to abate its policy by one jot. We shall continue to exercise the maximum vigilence and to ask for the necessary cuts, however substantial and whatever their effect on a film. Are we too strict? Is the Board being unreasonable ? Are we being too strict ? Here is a story with the answer. A short time ago a film containing a great deal of unnecessary violence was substantially cut by the Board. Through a genuine mistake on the part of the responsible print manager, the uncertified version was screened at the press show. Reaction from the critics was prompt and decisive. Two of the best-known complained in the strongest terms of the violence in the film, which they regarded as wholly unjustifiable and contrary to all acceptable standards of public entertainment. This illustrates surely beyond argument what Press and public reaction would be, if the Board did not firmly adhere to its present policy. And what is that policy ? Expressed quite simply in the letters addressed to producers it is this: " The Board does not object to the tough sort of incident or sequence which is a necessary ingredient in, for example, a gangster film. The Board objects — and this applies to all films — to the gratuitous introduction into a film of violence and brutality beyond the legitimate needs of the story." Can anyone quarrel with this? Surely only those whose films depond for their appeal on the exploitation of undesirable elements and who have the mentality which believes that an overdose of sadism is what the majority of the public wants and what pays the largest dividends at the box office. There are too many such pro