Documentary News Letter (1947-1949)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

DOCIMKMARY FILM NEWS 6.1 i hi. British Board of Censors has in the past months been in the news. As long as all goes well, nobody but the producers and the exhibitors are really aware of its existence. Then along comes a No Orchids for Miss Blandish and both national and trade Press burst out into exaltations or condemnations of its workings. And maybe the most surprising outcome of these occasional outbursts is the realization that the average cinema-goer — on whose behalf all the work of the Board is done — knows less than nothing about its history, composition or procedure. All he knows is that, before every film he sees in a cinema, he looks at a Censor's Certificate which grades the film about to be shown as A, U or H. Why? Film-making in this country was in its infancy early in this century. The public had not really got into the habit of going to the pictures, but people had already begun to realize that the film could become a dangerous weapon — that public morality must be safeguarded. The Good Old Days of Victorian prudery were not so very far away and it came about that those who make films with a hand-cranked camera and a lot of hope were mostly those goahead young men who had so far grown away from the manners of their nineteenth century papas as to be all too ready to flout convention. The general public then had no idea (neither had the film-makers of those days) of the farreaching effects of moving pictures in the future. They did not realize that what they regarded as a novel form of entertainment would come to be the most powerful teaching medium in the world — a medium which could reach all races, all ages, all creeds and could influence thousands of people for good or for ill. They did realize that here was something new and, therefore, suspect and over which there ought to be some way of exercising a control. And so, in 1913, at the request of the cinema trade in general, the British Board of Film Censors was set up. and both exhibitors and producers felt happier because they could now go to the public and say, as it were, 'Here is a film for you to see. It has been passed by the Censor and it has a certificate showing that it will do no moral damage to you'. The Board was in effect their baby — maybe thirty-five years later the child is a trifle tiresome and often gets obstreperous, but the fact remains that producers and distributors held hands over the font at the christening in 1913. How? The Board, as now constituted, consists of President, Secretary, four examiners and two readers. The names of President (S. W. Harris) and Secretary (J. Brooke Wilkinson) are known to all, but the remaining six members preserve their anonymity with the most incredible care. A whole month of inquiry on the part of DFN editorial staff has failed to discover their names or (and this is much more important) their qualifications for the serious job with which they are entrusted. We are told that they are 'retired public servants and all highly educated' and that there is one woman. The Board is a voluntary organization; it is non-profitmaking, its running expenses coming from a charge on footage of film viewed and paid by the producer of the film. There is a sliding scale for different types of film and here the docu CARLISLE HOUSE. SOHO. w.i. Circa 1670Wren> Secretary: J. Brooke Wilkinson. ^Jhis is to Certify that has been Fassed for Public Exhibition to Adult Audiences Examiner President O^0 how? mentary and instructional short come off better than the feature film. Producers are also invited to submit scripts before shooting starts and these are read and commented upon by the readers. Every film is viewed by two of the four examiners and, in the event of their not agreeing on any particular point, the decision of the president is final. An interesting point to be noted here is that there is no law on the statute book which compels the producer to submit either his script or his film to the Board for its recommendations and amendments. On the other hand, every individual cinema has to have a licence from its local authority, and one of the causes in any such licence is that no film shall be shown in that cinema unless it has received the certificate of the Board of Censors. Therefore, unless the producer obtains his certificate, he will be unable to show his film to the general public. Sometimes the local authorities will go still farther and refuse to allow the exhibition of a film even after it has been passed by the Board. The Board grades films into three wide <.aiegories 'b" films may be seen by everyone: children under the age of 16 may not attend an 'A' film unless taken to it by their parents or guardians: and nobody under the ago of I << ma) view any film which has ail 'H' rating The Board itself admits that these categories are by no means ideal but claims that they are the only divisions which will safeguard the youth of the country while at the same time not imposing a too heavy restriction on the liberty of the citizen. Such, in brief, is the evolution and construction of the British Board of Film Censors. It sounds excellent it sounds as though it should work. And so it does, most of the time. But there are some peculiar lapses — a shot of an operation essential to the theme of some documentary may be deleted for no particular r<.v son while a feature will get awa) with some good old rip-snorting sadism. On tins month's cover we show a picture from a document. ir> which did not get by — the Board ordered lete shot o{ black bo> showing se\'' The still on the opposite page was passed! We wonder how these two conclusions were reached, and what actuated the anonymous viewers in then decisions. We would suggest that there may be more danger in the attitude of Rita Hayworth than in the actual audit) of a small black boy. What is the answei ' Some i BODtTOl is obviously necessar) and certainl) desirable We do not want to be bound b> the rigid and tabulated Hays < ode type ol censorship what then can be suggested as an alternative '