The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (May-Jun 1923)

8 THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. UNCENSOR May 19, 1923. ED FILMS. Exhibition No Offence Unless Indecent. .CASE AGAINST KINEMA SHOWING “MORALITY” DISMISSED. HE Stoke-on-Trent Magistrates on Thursday of last week disinissed a summcns ugainst the Kozy Picture Palace Co., Ltd., Trent Vale, and secre tary of the company, John Slater, for showing an uncensored film called ** Morality ’’ without giving due notice to the Licensing Authority. Mr. J. G. Mahaffy, solicitor, Manchester, appeared for defendant, who pleaded *‘ Not Guilty.”’ The Chief Constable (Mr. R. J. Carter) prosecuting, said the summons was taken out under conditions passed by the Stoke-on-Trent Council for the regulation and conduct of kinematograph theatres. If it was desired to show a. film that had not been passed by the censor, three clear days’ notice must be sent to the Licensing Authority. The film in question in this case was one entitled ‘* Morality,’’ and he did not purpose to enter into the merits or demerits of the film. It had not been censored and the Licensing Authority did not receive three days’ notice prior to the showing of the film. THE BOARD OF CENSORS. Mr. Brooke Wilkinson, secretary to the British Board of Film -Censors, Wardour Street, London, said ** Morality ’’ had never been passed by his Board. Cross examined, the witness said the Board had no definite ru'es or regulations with regard to the class of films they passed. Every picture was examined on its merits. They would see any film submitted to them and either pass or reject it, and it wus not a fact that the Board would not examine anything in the nature of propaganda. The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr. R. A. Llewellyn): How is your Board constituted ? Witness: It is a voluntary censorship brought into existence with the co-operation of the Home Office. We have no statutory powers, except indirectly, through the Licensing Authority. The British Board of Film Censors, of which Mr. T. P. O'Connor, M.P., was the president, he added, was the only recognised Board in the country. Mr. Mahaffy: It is » Board appointed by the trade? Witness: That is so. Mr. Mahaffy: Officially you have no status from 1 Government point of view ?—The Government ¢o-operaie with us in every way and suggest to the Licensing Authorities that they should include a clause in the kinematograph licences as this Watch Committee has donc. The Licensing Authority at Stoke have made a stipu‘ation that only films which have been passed by the Board or which have been specially passed by themselves. should be shown. Your Board is appointed by the trade?—It is an impartial voluntary censorship and has nothing to do with the trade. Re-examined, the witness said undoubtedly it was an absolutely independent censorship, kept by fees received sh fron: the trade, but the trade had no influence on the censorship. THE DEFENCE. Mr. John Slater, of Trent Vale, secretary and managing director at the Kozy Picture House, said he had been _in the kinematograph business only a few months, and understood that the condition in his licence with referince to censorship simply meant that the pictures must he passed by the censor. He wus not aware that the British Board of Film Censors was the only recognised body. The Chief Constab!e: Your advertisements of the film contained the words, ‘* For adults only.’’ You know perfectly well in the trade that any film for ** Adults only *’ is not passed by the British Board for general, universal, exhibition?—‘* For adults only" was just showmanship. It was as clean a film as anybody could wish to see. There was nothing indecent about it, and everybody who caine to see it said the picture ought to be shown more. THE ‘‘ MORALITY ” FILM. Mr. Sani Harris, Manchester, managing director of Capitol Productions, Ltd., the owners and renters of ** Morality,’’ said the film had been exhibited at about 300 picture houses, comprising about 100 cities and towns in this country, and there had never been any complaint about it. It had, in fact, been endorsed by many Watch Committees and Chief Constables, who had viewed the film at their own request, and had always been immediately passed for public exhibition. There had never been the least complaint that it was of an objectionable character. * This film has been passed by the American Censors,”’ he said, ** but from experience we know that the British Board of Film Censors will not give a certificate for a film of any propaganda nature, such as a film supporting politics, medical matters or science. The British Board of Film Censors will not even pass a film such as ** The Life of Christ.’’ It is a standing rule with them, though there is nothing in writing to that effect. Because of that we did not submit our film to the Board, knowing that in 99 cases out of 100 it would be rejected. THE CENSOR AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES. He added that the Chief Constable of Manchester attached absolutely no importance to the British Board of Film Censors. ‘‘ In fact, films passed by the British Board,’’ he said, ‘‘ are rejected by the Manchester Watch Committee, whilst films rejected by the Board have heen approved by the Watch Committee.”’ This has happened recently in the cases of the films known as ‘‘ Foolish Wives,’ which, after being passed by the Board, was banned by the Manchester Watch (Continued at foot of next page)