Impact (Mar 1972)

would leave sheltered Torontonians shaking their heads in disbelief, pictures that not only couldn’t escape wholesale cuts, but couldn’t pass here at all. The distributors know it so they don’t even bother to try for fear of somehow arousing the Board’s Is the procedure used today satisfactory? nes [No [| If not, how should it be altered: In the following categories, is censorship now too permissive or too conservative? 1. Language — conservative [_] permissive [_] 2. Violence conservative [] permissive []| Wrath. 3. Nudity conservative [_] permissive [] Even the films of this type that do 4. Sex conservative [] permissive []| 8 through are generally pre-cen sored before the Board ever sees them. Many of them are released in so-called Hot and Cool versions, terms which are self explanatory. And in Ontario it’s definitely the Cool version that’s submitted for examination. But so what? What we’re talking about here aren’t respectable, reputable films, they’ re skin flicks, sexploitation pictures, movies without the slightest shred of esthetic merit or Name any particular films that have offended you recently In what areas should censorship be exercized? (Check as many as you wish) 1. The film itself CI} artistic justification. Are these the 2. The advertising CJ! kind of films we want on public exhi3. Outside the theatre on signs LJ) bition in the province of Ontario? Who should be responsible for censorship? Well that’s not the point. The point 1. A government board O is how do they relate to our contem2. The police [| porary public morality, the Board’s 3. The Film companies a supposed censorial guideline? Do 4. The theatre owners a they depress it or simply reflect it? And how does one account for the iniquities of standards? Are the people of Buffalo so much more mature and stable that they can assimilate scenes of sexual activity in their films that we cannot? Is the Board truly aware of what’s happening morally and socially today or is it still acting upon outdated precedents? The questions keep coming and the answers are nowhere in sight. Because a basically irrational, arbitrary (there’s that word again) process like censorship allows for no rational, objective solutions. Whether the Board is really doing its job or not depends entirely on one’s point of view. There are those who would like to see the Board, all Boards, disposed of completely, to see censorship per se replaced by a rigidly enforced rating system which would permit, in effect, anyone over the age of eighteen to see anything he wants. As society is presently constructed The Censorship Board: Should it report to the public via the media? Yes |] No |) If yes, how often? Regularly [] Often [] Seldom [] How should its members obtain office? Elected [-] Appointed [] Other (indicate): Who should be on the board? (Indicate your ideal board by vocation, for example politicians, clergy, artists . . .) solution. The removal of the Board would not result in the removal of however this is hardly a practical. censorship. It would simply shift . 8 as it has in the U.S., into the hands of the police, not at all a satisfactory arrangement. . No, given the fact of censorship, the Board system should work fairly well, but only if the various individual Boards across the country are willing to submit themselves to constant re-evaluations of standards to try and arrive at a more realistic relationship with a public morality that is constantly fluctuating and evolving around them. Right now there is a gap between what society will bear and what most Boards will allow. Certainly in Ontario this is the case. And this gap has to be closed or at least reduced. A system now in use in British Columbia may offer a partial solution to the problem. There the Board has been able to liberalize its standards considerably over the past year or so by adopting a regulation that forces distributors and theatre chains to publicly state in all ads, billboards, and theatre marquees just what the contents of each picture are and what the areas of possible offense might be. In this way, each patron is made aware of exactly what he’s going to see before he sees it and the risk of provocation is made almost minimal. It seems to be working out quite well in B.C. though its chances of im| portation to this province remain slim at the moment in the light of Mr. Silverthorn’s expressed personal dislike of it. However that too could change. We’ve come a long way in the area of film censorship in the last couple of years. Before one gets too critical — of the Board it’s best to remember that. : But it needs remembering too that we still have a long way to go. Meanwhile, ‘Buffalo’s not all that far.