International Review of Educational Cinematography (Jan-Dec 1930)

— 222 against the decisions of the Censor. In one case the Censor's view was reversed, and in the other case it was upheld. 585 of the said films were British Empire films. Feature films (over 4000 feet in length) totalled 268,628, while the remaining 1705 films comprised topicals, scenics, serials, comedies, cartoons, industrials, etc., seldom exceeding 2000 feet each. Of the feature films; thirty five were produced in the British Empire, 580 in the United States, and thirteen originated in Germany, France, Italy and Sweden. During the last of the three years under consideration, 1671 films were censored, of a total length of 4,373,200 feet. Thirty one of these were rejected in the first instance, 147 were passed without excisions, and sixty five were passed with recommendations for adult audiences only. One decision against the Censor's decision was lodged in December 1928, but up to the end of March 1929 the appellant had taken no forther steps in the matter. The total number of British Empire films examined was 474. Feature films totalled 448, while the remaining 1223 films comprised topicals, scenics, comedies, industrials, etc. Of the feature films sixty-four were produced in the British Empire, 361 in the United States, nineteen in Germany, two in France, and two in Italy. The Cinematograph Films Act of 1928 aimed at securing a 7 '/2 per-cent renters' quota of British Films for 1929. The quota films registered between the is January and the 31st March, 1929, number 205 and of this number forty-one are British and 164 are foreign. The remaining 582 films are registered as non-quota films for the purposes of the Act. The registration of quota films for the first three months of 1929 equal 80 per cent of foreign films and 20 per cent of British films. The British feature films submitted during the year were considered to compare very favourably with the films originating elsewhere. « Daw » was the only Btitish film rejected; and this was an exceptional case. It will be seen that in New Zealand as elsewhere the Censor's scissors have not been very hard on the film trade, while the Dominion has exercised proper care as to the character of the films accepted in the public interest. ITEMS O F INTEREST. A survey of the different systems of cinematographic control obtaining in the several countries reveals the existence of two separate and distinct points of view. The one regards the intervention of the State as necessary to enforce legally the decisions of the censorship and is based on the concept that the control of morals and public behaviour generally are matters appertaining to the State, which ought therefore to be controlled, regulated, and sanctioned by the public authorities. The other considers that it is inexpedient to hamper the cinema beyond what is strictly necessary, and that the regulation of morals and customs is best left to public opinion and to organs of a private character, which at the same time represent and have an interest in the nations commerce. There are convinced and bona fide advocates of both these views. One side holds that it is impossible to be judge and party at the same time. A manufacturer or his representative is at an obvious disadvantage in judging whether a film produced by a rival in the trade is or is not undesirable for public exhibition. Nor can he overlook the consideration that if at any time he shows himself severe in judging the work of a competitor, he may in his turn be the object of a judgment no less severe. It is also maintained that the public cannot be a good judge, or at any rate the final judge of the moral principles that are at the basis of social life. Only a minority of those viewing it is really interested in a film. The mass of the public watch the show with indifference and