International Review of Educational Cinematography (Jan-Dec 1931)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

— iii4 — of them, was perhaps justified at the beginning of film production but not now-a-days; such a censure is assumed to be completely unjustified by the actual evolution of the cinema. These opponents pretend that censure is wrongly used to oppress some philosophical, artistic or political opinions. They demand the suppression of censure in the name of intellectual freedom and in the interest of personality. Justifications of Censure. On the other hand the supporters of cinematographic censure — and the author of this reports is of the number — assume that the suppression of such a censure would open the door to all kinds of abuses. The undeniable, artistic development of cinematographic production and the improvement of its quality, is a consequence of censure, which exerts a vast influence, not only by means of banning films, but also by its mere existence. It is the fear of an official ban (which makes the considerable amount of capital invested in producing a dead loss) which compels the producers to edit films which will presumably not hurt anybody's susceptibility. Number of Banned Films. This is the reason why the number forbidden by the censor is decreasing in some countries. For instance, of 1774 films which were examinated in Germany in 1924 by the Cinematographic Control Service, 1102, that is to say 62 % were granted universal certificates; 37 % were forbidden for young people and only 1,1 % were absolutely banned. In 1926, 2768 films were examined of which 2098 (76 %) were admitted; 24 % were forbidden for young people and only 0,5 % were absolutely forbidden. In 1928: 3438 films were examined; 2804 admitted (81 %); 19 % were forbidden for young people and 0,3 % absolutely banned. In 1929 (in which year the number of films admitted and examined slightly decreased) 3327 films were controlled; 2622 (79 %) were admitted; 21 % were forbidden for young people and 0,3 % were absolutely banned. Only such statistics can reveal the extraordinary effects of censure. Neverthless the ratio of bans remained the same in some other countries. Very often objections to film censure are made on consideration of the case of the sound-film, asserting that such a film is almost in the same class as the theatre. It is not seldom that the proposition is made to exempt from censure this new form of cinematographic production, which promises to become so important in the future. But now in all countries where it exists, the censure is also applied to the sound-film.