International Review of Educational Cinematography (Jan-Dec 1931)

45 be re-censored at least once every three years (i). " China is a changing country — explains the Ministry of the Interior — and it is quite possible that something which was in accord with the present political and social conditions might be out of date and subversive within three years, so we must insist that all films be returned, within that time, for re-censorship." But there was a harder blow than recensorship. The committee decreed that the provisions of the mandate applied to all film distributed from Shanghai, regardless of the time of its importation. The censorship became operative only on January ist, 1930, but the committee decided that its principles must be applied to all foreign film now in China. The distributors who have been bringing in film for ten years or more and have immense supplies on hand are worried. If they comply with the order, the censor board will have to see 10,000 feet of film a day for the next year "in addition to all the newly imported film, before they can come abreast of the distributors (2). (1) In the March number of the Review, an editorial note on a time-limit to film censorship certificates showed that only very few countries had established any such limit. China can new be added to the list. Without repeating the arguments previously advanced in favour of this restriction, it may once again be pointed out that the limit of time is usually in direct proportion to the technical and social value of the film. Both are essentially contingent. Limitation means improvement, it means that a film will always be fresh and alive, up to the technical and moral standard which its creators intended when they first launched it upon the world. (2) This argument of the distributors, logical enough in itself, is countered by a de hue and de facto situation of transparent simplicity. It is a fact that for years the local market in China has been dominated by ; number of films, which to a large extent hinder the entry of new films perhaps technically and morally superior. They are largely survivals of the past. Re-censorship is therefore only fair, the more so since we are concerned with more than a simple question of Three Million Feet of Film. "It is a physical impossibility to show the film now on hand in Shanghai to the censorship committee, declared Luther Jee, director of Peacock Motion Picture Corporation, largest distributor in China. We have in our vaults, right here in the Capitol theatre, more than 2,500 reels of film. We have on hand for distribution in China at least 200 features, more than 200 magazine one-reelers, at least 100 tworeel committees, and more than a hundred miscellaneous short subjects. That is largely Pathe and First National product, and I know that the other distributors are in the. same position. It would be conservative to state that there are 3.000,000 feet of film in Shanghai to-day, imported before January 1st. The first thing which we are up against — he remarked — is the actual limited size of the market. That sounds foolish, I know, and many of the folks back home can't quite understand it. Here is China, with 400,000,000 people, dozens of very large cities, and an immense area. It ought to be, they say, a perfect film market for years to come, and expansion should take place at a phenomenal rate. What they do not realise is the fact that of these 400.000.000 the number of even potential theatre-goers is very small indeed." The above is the latest information emanating from public sources on the film censorship system in China. private law. Government intervention, through its authorised agents, and the right of censorship for reasons affecting the State and its political and social institutions create a bona fide rule of public law which imposes upon the Government (or its authorised agents) a duty of supervision that cannot be limited to the moment, when the danger of an infringement of the sacred laws of society already exists, but must also cover the future.