The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (Mar-Apr 1923)

6 THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. March 10, 1923. INNER HISTORY OF THE KITCHENER FILM. Mr. Arthur Freeman Explains his Position. [We have from time to time commented upon the extraordinary attitude of Mr. Freeman in resisting authority by the showing of the Kitchener film. Mr. Freeman feels that our attitude has been unjust, and in the following story purports to give what he claims to be the true history of his dealings with the various public authorities, local and imperial. We throw the entire onus for the statements contained upon the writer, and while we believe in fair play, we do not associate ourselves with any statement made in the foliowing article. We consider the fact that he has now printed the film upon a non-flam base does not in any way affect our previous comments.—Editor, ‘‘ F.R.’’} FEEL sure that I can rely on your fairness to give publicity to a few-facts in reply to the paragraph headed ‘‘ Lord Kitchener Again ’’ (which appeared recently in your journal), as inadvertently you have shown me less than justice. My position is quite clear and, I hope, patriotic as well. Many thousands of pounds were spent in the production of the picture, ‘‘ The Kitchener Film,’”’ and it was only natural that anyone laying out this amount of capital should expect to see some return for it. Before the picture had been released to the public, however, or even before it had been seen at a trade show, the imperial authorities, without seeing it, conceived an extraordinary dislike for the film, for reasons which I shall presently suggest. Powerful as these authorities were, Rowers hes themselves possessed no legal means of stopping the film, and they could only let their wishes be known to other bodies. Without seeing it, the London County Council banned. it, t.e., refused permission for it to be shown in kinemas holding their licences, and likewise without seeing it the purely non-official body, the British Board of Film Censors, issued the following letter throughout the length and breadth of the country : ‘‘ British Board of Film Censors, ‘* 167-169, Wardour Street, London, ‘* November 24, 1921. ‘* Sir,—I have to inform you that the film issued under the title of ‘ The Betrayal of Lord Kitchener’ has not been passed by my Board. [Note : The film was never called by this title, and at this date it could not have been passed by the Board, for the good reason that it had then not been submitted.] ‘‘In the special circumstances permission has been given to say that the attitude of the Board with regard to this film has the full approval of the War Office and the Home Office. —Yours faithfully, 7, PB, O'Connor, President.’’ This letter showed clearly that the authorities had actually inspired other bodies, with some locus, to do what they could not do themselves, i.e., endeavour to prevent the screening of the film. It is this unfairness and totally un-British-like conduct which I bitterly resent. For the picture had not been seen by any of them. I was condemned without a4 hearing. After this, however, I immediately adopted the most reasonable possible attitude of which I could think, I said (and I want to emphasise this very strongly): ‘‘ Here is @ decent and patriotic picture which you say you don’t like. Alter it as you wish, and I shall be satisfied.”’ With this.on my lips, I then showed it for the first time to the L.C.C. and the Middlesex County Council, the Trade Censor, and almost every important official in Whitehall. I made, at considerable expense, in response to certain minor criticisms, many immaterial alterations, and although everyone who saw it eventually became satisfied with the film, the official edict went forth, ‘‘ Thou shalt not pass,’’ without any reason being given. I know it was the official fiat, for the Trade Censors told me that they were waiting to hear from Whitehall, and I hold a letter from a high permanent oficia! in which he says: ‘As I ae say you know, the Board [i.e., the Trade Censor] deals with the Home Office.” What Britisher will say I was fairly treated, and what Britisher will blame me in trying to show the picture? After much patience, however, I succeeded in getting, at an almost prohibitive cost, the Kitchener film shown at the Leicester Square Cinema, but with all the powers in the land against me I was shut down in a few days. Can I therefore be condemned, seeing the large amount of money at stake, for printing the film on non-flam stock and showing it at the Kensington Park Hall (Horbury Rooms), Ladbroke Road, Notting Hill Gate, where, despite the visits of inspectors and detectives, it is still running, to the glory of Lord Kitchener and at no profit to myself. No single member of the greathearted British public has yet expressed a hostile verdict to the film, but everyone is amazed at the attitude of the authorities. Now, I promised to give the reason for the extraordinary official attitude. In my opinion it is this—the film is ‘too truthful. It is based on authentic and historical papers in my possession—carefully locked away in a safe deposit—and these show officialdom in a very curious light. Tens of thousands of pounds have been spent of the ratepayers’ money in rewarding persons for their work in regard to the tank, but Lord Kitchener and Captain Bentley’s joint efforts—months before any others—have never been recognised except in the film. There is the story of the unswept channel— of the betrayal of the secret of Lord Kitchener’s journey— vouched for by the official biographer, in the film. There is the story of the blunder of some who, through lack of co-ordinated effort, could not save hundreds of souls from the Hampshire, and so on and so on. Ex-Ministers may, without hindrance, violate the inmost secrets of the Cabinet, and highly-placed soldiers may prove each other incompetent, and even treacherous, but I, a patriotic, though lowly-stationed citizen, am persecuted in declaring the truth in a film.