FilmIndia (1939)

" Filmindia's " Agitation Against Anti Indian Pictures Vindicated in the House of Commons Sir Samuel Hoare Thinks "Siege of Lucknow " Undesirable HE SAYS: "AT THIS TIME WE DO NOT WANT FILMS WHICH MEAN HUMILIATION EITHER INDIANS OR BRITISHERS". TO BUT DIRECTOR ELVEY KICKS AT THE BAN ! The intensive agitation launched >y "filmindia" against "The Drum", i notoriously anti-Indian film proluced by Alexander Korda and >ther pictures like "The Siege of jucknow". "The Black Hole of Cal;utta". "The Rains Came", "The figer of Eschnapur" and "Gunga )in" has had its sequel in the louse of Commons, when the film 'Siege of Lucknow" was the subect of an important statement by he Home Secretary when replying -o a motion by Mr. Mander "greaty deploring the action by the Govirnment tending to set up any orm of political censorship. Sir Samuel Hoare said, "When ,he Secretary of State for India was shown a certain film three rears ago and his opinion there)n asked, he requested the pronoters not to proceed feeling ihat the film would create the vorst kind of feeling between [ndians and ourselves." "Remembering this advice, when ie heard that another Indian film was to be produced he very naturally asked for information and iiscussed the question with ;he Chairman of the Board )f Film Censore. He made t quite clear that the responsibili;y was entirely on the Chairman )f the Board. If they decided to Droceed with the film there was lothing he could say or do. He lid make it plain, and I think rightly, that to produce a film on [ndian mutiny at a time when we ire embarking on a new chapter !n the constitutional development in India, and want to get rid of the difficulties that came between us in the past, would be undesirable. Sir Samuel Hoare continued "Thereafter the Chairman of the Board of Film Censors discussed the matter with the promoters of the film who took the same view. They had no grievance whatever. I am glad to say that the film is not produced and not exhibited." The Labour Member Mr. Shinwell asked, "Ought we to destroy every reference to the Mutiny?" Sir Samuel Hoare replied: "No. If Mr. Shinwell sees the details of this film he will come to the same conclusion. At this moment we do not want a film of that kind recounting in detail mutiny incidents that may mean humiliation and defeat of one side or the other. Anyhow there is no difference on the subject. The Chairman of the Censors took the same view. The producers, I understand, have no cause to complain." What "filmindia" now wants to know is when the Home Secretary would ban the other pictures which threaten to scandalise India? In the meanwhile let us congratulate the British Government for their timely action in banning "The Siege of Lucknow". This time atleast the British were not "too late". 700 THROWN OUT OF WORK! As a result of the ban imposed on the "Siege of Lucknow" 700 studio workers are reported to have been thrown out of employment. The Butcher-Rembrandt productions were on the point of shooting the picture with Edna Best and Wilfred Lawson in the lead when the decision of the British Board of Film Censors dropped as a bombshell in the midst of all their plans. The Censor announcement reads as follows : — "The most careful consideration has been given to the question of a film dealing with the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58. The Board have been advised by all authorities responsible for the Government of India, both Civil and Military, that In their considered opinion, such a film would revive memories of the days of conflict which it has been the honest endeavour of both countries to obliterate, with the view to promoting co-operation between the two peoples. In these circumstances the Board thought it right to intimate to the producers that guided in its decision by such direct expression, of opinion, and because of consequences, 4t could hold out no hope of a film based on this period being certified." The company however, does not seem to lose much as the contracts of the stars and technicians and others become automatically void in a week "owing to an act of public authority" which is always a provision, in such contracts. THE DIRECTOR KICKS AT THE BAN Maurice Elvey who was to direct the said film does not seem to have liked this ban very much. Instead of taking this action of political (Continued on page 48) 13