International Review of Educational Cinematography (Jan-Dec 1932)

161 In an open letter to the president of the French Syndical Chamber of Cinematography, the Kodak Pathe Company declares that research woik accomplished at great expense in its factories have not get given the desired results with regard to non-flam. This letter pleads for an adjournment for technical reasons (poor wearing quality of nonflam base) of the ministerial decree relative to the general adoption of non-flam film. (La ClNEMATOGRAPHIE FRANCAISE, Paris, 32-1-1932). A police regulation dated Jan. 23th 32, forbids in Prussia the use of sub-standard film in cinema shows, unless such film is uninflammable, or ignited with difficulty. The Prussian Minister of the Interior published the same day a circular relative to the application of this rule. Most other restrictions previously applied to sub-standard film are revoked. Conditions relative to the uninflammability of film will be published by the " Chemischlechnische Reichsanstalt " of Beilin. (Film KuRIER, Berlin, 26-1-1932). Film control. The censorship fees taken by the censure office of the city of Albany (U. S. A.) amount to more than one million dollars from 1930-31. During 1930-31 (first of July to end of June) the office ordered 3,031 cuts, and banned 14 films. Among the motives for censure, the most common are : acts of cruelty, scenes likely to lead into crime, immorality, irreligiosity. (New-York TlMES, 17XII-31). The Christian Century of New York (N'J 34 , 1931) publishes an article of great interest on film control. The programme of the Federal Council of American Cinematography — the only body, according to this article, concerned with film questions independent of industrial organizations — is given in resume. On the whole, the Federal Council tends, in its activity, to obtain the adoption of legislative principles controlling cinematographic production. According to the author of this article the American public demands an energetic intervention of federal powers with the aim of obtaining a cinematographic production in which art, intellect, and national sentiment will not be sacrificed to industrial necessities The first reactions against the low moral level of films date from 1915. In 1919 during a Congress of the Protestant Episcopal church a resolution de manding a strict control of films was voted ; at the same time other Catholic and lay organizations voted similar resolutions. In 1922, at the General Assembly of the Presbysterian church, a temperance and moral progress committee was charged with the task of coordinating all feelings favorable to the amelioration and discipline of film production. To this end the said committee organized three conferences, held in 1922, 1924, 1925 and it is as a result of these conferences that the Federal Council of Cinematography has been founded. According to the statutes, any person or organization having at heart the amelioration of films can take place in the Council. The activity of the Council has recently been made manifest by the presentation before the Senate of a series of law projects for the adoption on the part of all States of a Federal Central Cinematographic control. According to a judgment given in a penal action against the directors of Exceisior Film, shows of forbidden films to members of the press are not punishable. (Film KuRIER, Berlin, 11-1-1932). In the Free State of Ireland a Catholic association has undertaken a campaign to obtain the creation of special legislative measures and enforcement commissions in order to tighten up film censure ; this association whishes, besides, that during the Euchanstic Congress at Dublin, and for a period following, all film publicity should be suspended . In certain industrial circles where censure is already found to be too strict, this campaign is naturally judged outrageous. (Daily Film Renter, London, 5-1-1932). Df.R Ffilm of Berlin, asked the members of several film censorship boards and personalities of the international cinema world to state their opinions of the reasons for and the effects of the censorship system actually in use. Amongst the replies thus published seveial merit particular attention. That of Mr. E. Seeger, Councillor to the Reich Ministry of the Interior and Director of the High Office of Film Control ; that of Dr. Voegler, Director of the Superior Committee of Film Control of the Central Institute of Education and Instruction in Berlin ; that of Dr. Giulio Cosmelli of the Italian Ministry of the Interior ; that of M. A. Nicolasen director of the Danish Board of Film Censors ; that of Dr Gunnar Bjurman, head of Cinematographic Censure in Sweden and that of Dr. Engelmann, of Stambul, may be mentioned. (Der Film, Berlin, 24-XII-1931).