The Bioscope (Mar-June 1914)

THE BioscoPpE, JUNE 11, 1914. — ‘In the Shadow ot the Throne.” A CATHOLIC PROTEST. This remarkable picture, which is being handled by the Power’s Feature Film Company, Limited, has occasioned a good deal of excitement during its exhibiticn in Dublin, being made the subject of a controversy which has re sulted in much letter writing and discussion, and a disturbance which had its sequel in the Northern police court, when two young men were fined 5s. each for their manner of protest. A letter was published in The Freeman's Journal on June 2nd in which the writer describes his impressions of a convent scene which takes place towards the end of the play, and asks ‘* How long is Catholic Dublin going to stand this sort of thing?” Alderman Farrell, the managing director of the Phibsboro’ Pic ture House, wrote to the Freeman's Journal offering to pay £100 to any city charity if Mr. Donelly’s version of the scene was proved correct, and Mr. J. A. King, the manager of the theatre, after denying Mr. Donelly’s statements, invited the paper to view the picture. he letters were published with a fcotnote by the editor, accepting without hesitation the statements of Alderman I*arrell and Mr. J. A. King, and unreservedly apelogisine for the publication of Mr. Dcnelly’s letter. On June 4th a spec’al detailed description of the film was printed in the Freeman's Journal, in which the writer, while stating that Mr. Donelly has sya gave that were not zr PRIN a NS U WANT THE BEST FILMS\'WEYR in the pictures at all, refers to the convent scene as a ‘“‘travesty” of convent life, points out in detail the ritual as a ‘“‘ very objectionable feature,” and considers that the seclusion of a convent is not a proper subject for the cinema show. This article and Mr. Donelly’s protest seem to have inspired the two young men, for on Friday night they attended the theatre, and after an appeal to all Catholics to leave the house threw ink over the screen and the orchestra, and being charged at the police court, defended their action as imsiigated by conscientious scruples and cited the article and protest as a proof that the film had been condemned by press and public. The men had decided views on the subjec: cf film censorship, which, however, received no encouragement from the presiding magistrate. They seemed to consider that the action of the management in rebooking this film for three days extra was done entirely to sp'te the Dublin public, not realising perhaps that these protests may have evoked a desire in cther pecple to see and judge for themselves. A correspondent to the Evening Herald probably gets nearest the truth when he points out that the scene ‘s intended to be symbolical rather than realistic, and merely suggests the sacrifice made by the girl for the sake of the man she loves. Original from AVE THEMLSBEAUTY. ” g