Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 15 May 1925

Vol. 11 No. 15

CENSORSHIP OF FILMS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1925—FOURTH STAGE.

Professor MAGENNIS

I beg to move:—

In the Title, line 6, to insert the word "pictorial" before the word "advertisements."

I feel that I should apologise to the Dáil for bringing on this list of amendments to the Bill at such an advanced stage of its progress. That it is an admirable Bill is evidenced by the fact that it has reached this stage without a single comment unfavourable to it being made by any member of the Dáil. I should have supported with pleasure the Second Reading had I been here, and I had intended on the Committee Stage to indicate the views, so far as they could be gathered, of the Appeal Board of Film Censorship with respect to these proposals. The Bill, as I have said, is positively, so far as it goes, excellent. But in the opinion which I take the liberty of expressing it might have gone further, and it is to draw attention to one limitation of its scope that I move this apparently verbal amendment, to introduce the word "pictorial" before "advertisements" in the Title, so as to read: "An Act to provide for the control of pictorial advertisements of cinematograph pictures." I fully recognise that to propose a censorship of reading matter would be very bold and would, doubtless, create a great amount of discussion, would produce perhaps endless controversy, and I do not believe that the country is ripe, or, it is possible, would ever be ripe, for a drastic proposition of this kind to meet with general approval. But I draw a distinction, which is a very obvious line of distinction, between censoring books and pamphlets and censoring written matter in the form of the advertising stuff that is provided sometimes to the film exhibitor by the renter.

If you will allow me I will show to the House examples of what I have before my mind, because the object lesson in education, it is notorious, is of more value than mere verbal lecturing. It is the practice to serve out, along with the film picture that is to be displayed in the cinematograph theatre, a lot of what is called, in the American language, "Teaser Paragraphs." These are to stimulate interest, to excite discussion about the picture and in that way draw a larger audience. For this "teaser" campaign of the film "Tess of the D'Urbervilles," sometimes more accurately, if facetiously described as "Tess of the Dirty Fields," you have these suggestions:

"Copy is furnished here in advance for your regular exploitation campaign. This copy is suitable for either posters, snipe bills, tack cards, throwaways or newspaper display ads." Here is one of the "teaser" paragraphs:—"Tess of the D'Urbervilles avenged her betrayed love. Do you blame her?"—subject for debating societies, Dorcas meetings, Church Society functions, and afternoon tea parties. "Tess of the D'Urbervilles told her husband the truth about her past, and lost him. Was she wise?""Tess of the D'Urbervilles trapped her betrayer and made him pay the penalty. Was she justified? Do you condemn her?""Tess of the D'Urbervilles punished one whom the law failed to convict. Was she justified?"

Major COOPER

Can the Deputy tell us the author of these remarkable "teasers"?

Professor MAGENNIS

It is furnished by the same firm as is the producer, and we have a vast amount of ability to draw upon.

Major COOPER

Was it Thomas Hardy?

Professor MAGENNIS

I am afraid, from the internal evidence, that the style points to another writer.

Mr. JOHNSON

Modern commerce!

Professor MAGENNIS

Take again some of these advertising pictures which contain a large amount of Press matter:—"Like a frightened bird she struggled in his arms. The heart of humanity is thrilled with the story of Tess. It has come to symbolise a pure woman caught in the toils of relentless fate." I need not inflict more of these catch lines and teaser pars. upon your notice, but it is well to know that in England these very advertisements that I am reading to you provoked the attention of a society of exhibitors and were discussed, and the English agent of the firm in question apologised. His apology, I think, is of value as indicating the danger that I am trying to impress upon the Minister as a danger. I am quite willing to concede that our papers, in Dublin especially, are exceedingly careful with regard to the type of advertising matter that they allow to appear in their pages, but what has happened in England might happen here, and through the very same cause. Mr. Howe is the advertising manager of the firm that issued this official exploitation statement, and he wrote in the following terms:—

"We are sorry that we should have been instrumental in the construction of such a detestable advertisement"— that was the advertisement, including what I have read out—" As you know, we have at all times fought against anything that would reflect discreditably upon the industry. In this instance the phraseology referred to was taken from an American publication and inadvertently allowed to go through." Considering that these sheets are supplied along with the film, it is hard to understand how the inadvertence comes in—"We like to assist exhibitors with forceful selling matter." They have a very appropriate name for the forceful selling matter, namely, "punch pars." He goes on:—"You will admit that this case has been aggravated by the way in which the text is displayed; but it has served its purpose, because we shall in future, more than ever, guard against the few undesirable exhibitors who foolishly cajole themselves into the belief that this class of announcement is profitable, without regard for the welfare of the trade."

When the Chairman of the Irish Censorship Board put up this point to the representatives of the exhibitors of Great Britain the rejoinder was:"It is the exhibitor's own fault if he uses this material. True, we provide it to him, but he need not use it; he is under no necessity to use it." When it is used, here is one of the consequences, and it is because of these consequences that I am dwelling upon the matter. The House is probably aware that many of the firms that receive our Censor's licence have received it after the film picture has been considerably cut, that is, after the objectionable scenes have been eliminated, or after the objectionable part of what are generally known as the sub-titles—the reading matter— have been expunged. On several occasions, to my own knowledge, the whole spirit, the tenor of the story has been altered by the omission or cuts demanded by the Censor, but the advertising matter that was supplied to the newspapers enabled the reader of it to enter the cinema and behold, for all purposes of the impression made upon his mind, the original picture. You see, there is what is called "The ready to use Press picture."

Here is an example of ready to use advertising matter in connection with a picture called "The Slave of Desire." This is provided, and all the exhibitor has to do is to tear the sheet where it is arranged like postage stamps, fill in the blanks, and the criticism appears then as if expressive of local opinion upon the film exhibited. I say nothing about the false character of the criticism in so far as it professes to be a local criticism. Here is what happens. A very objectionable story is made unobjectionable by cuts, receives the Censor's certificate, and is exhibited in a Dublin cinema, but the programme or the advertising puff in the Dublin papers gives an account of the story as it was before it was thus edited. The result is that everyone can catch the sequence of certain remaining scenes which, without the cue supplied in those puffing paragraphs, would be quite harmless, particularly to youthful spectators. Hardened and seasoned adults, with a wide and full experience of life, would be able to detect the inner and evil significance of the situation without that assistance, but fully ninety per cent. of the audience, without this reading matter, would never suspect even that the story had the original character it had. I quite realise the difficulty. It is that the Minister cannot very well or at once frame a section which would authorise the Censor to deal with the printed matter that is provided to the exhibitor.

All through the Bill in so far as it deals with advertisements, it is with pictorial advertisements. Consequently, in describing the reference, or scope, of the Bill, as to pictorial advertisements, we are really giving the more accurate description, but to be quite candid I put down the amendment to give an opportunity of ventilating this shortcoming of the censorship provision. No one can exaggerate, even if he tried to exaggerate, the extent and depth of influence on the growing generation that is being exercised by the cinema. It is the popular high school. It is the university of the people, and most of what they are going to learn about life and conduct they will learn by the visible, actual example shown to them on the screen. Therefore, anyone who fully realises that fact will understand that we cannot be too critical or too exact, without going to the length of being puritanical and grandmotherly, in our legislation in safeguarding the young from the deleterious and dangerous influences we know are there. The Minister may, at a later stage, introduce a further amending Bill. If so, I should rejoice to know that he would attempt to deal with this, which is, I admit, a very difficult problem in some fashion.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I accept the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

I oppose the amendment. I take it amendment one is in question. It deals with the Title, which usually comes last. I take it that the purpose of the Deputy, as his words explain, is to put in the word "pictorial," but all his arguments went to show that it was not merely pictorial advertisements that had to be controlled. It does not seem to me wise to insert the word "pictorial" and then to have to limit certain later sections of the Bill. It seems to me, judging by the extracts from the advertisement which Deputy Magennis has read, and by our observations, that however unwilling we may be, as a general practice, to use a censorship with regard to printed matter, we have to recognise that the exploitation of the new science and art of pictorial presentation by means of moving pictures is in the hands of people, at least on the commercial side, who have not any long-established tradition of decency, while we may realise in the ordinary publishing world it is doubtfully wise, probably decidedly unwise, to establish a formal censorship. That is largely because of the fact that the publishing world has had a long tradition, and it is only the meaner and degraded people, the few that there may be in that trade, that are likely to take advantage of their opportunity to spread degradation. I am afraid there is within the world of films, on the exploitation side—that is, on the publication side—a large number of people who are prepared to use their opportunities to excite curiosity of an unpleasant-kind and that the facts are, whatever we might like in the matter, that that must be restrained and that the censorship, such as has been established, is necessary. I think that the censorship will be bound to apply to advertisements which are not merely pictorial.

I do not quite appreciate the point of the Minister in accepting the amendment, because I think it would necessitate some alteration in the form of the Bill which he has presented, and I rose with the object of finding out what his real views are in this matter.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I accepted the amendment, because, in my opinion, the Title, so amended, would constitute a more exact description of the scope of the Bill than the Title as it now stands. We had not contemplated, and we would have considerable difficulty in contemplating, the extension of the censorship to printed matter. It is something that would want to be very fully considered, if it was to be taken on at all, just where it would begin and where it would end, whether it would extend to advertisements in the Press or comments in the Press, and so on, with regard to the pictures. I think it is a reasonable enough stand to take that the censorship shall concern itself with the pictures and with pictorial advertisements of such pictures. To be led further along the path, into the attempted censorship of printed matter, would be doubtful wisdom and very difficult administratively. In any case, it is something that would need greater consideration than we have been able to give it. My sole reason for accepting the Deputy's amendment is, that I believe his suggested title would constitute a more exact description of the scope of the Bill than the Title as it stands.

Mr. JOHNSON

The examples quoted by the Deputy suggest that, associated with the picture, there is a letterpress. It is the combination which creates the objectionable material. Now according to this proposal, it is only the picture that matters. If the picture passes, you have no authority over the written matter which explains the picture, and it is written matter, in conjunction with the picture, that might raise the objection. That is the difficulty I see.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Professor MAGENNIS

I move:—

Amendment No. 2:—"In page 2, Section I, to delete lines 23-27."

This amendment has no meaning except in conjunction with amendment 4. It is preparatory to it. The words in the lines indicated are: "The expression ‘exploitation sheet' means the document commonly known by that name amongst persons engaged in the trade of exhibiting pictures by means of a cinematograph or other similar apparatus, or the making, distribution, or renting of such pictures." Now the later amendment, as will be seen in due course, proposes to deal with a great deal more than the "exploitation sheet," and it is to clear the way for that larger provision that I propose to leave out of the definition clause all the words relating to the "exploitation sheet." Some of the firms call this the "exploitation supplement." Others call it the "exhibitors' advertising campaign," and the usual term in the trade journals is the "publicity sheet." As we are all familiar with the boast of the lawyers that they could drive a coach-and-four through an Act of Parliament, we are equally familiar with what it is that provides the gateway for their feat—namely, that things are named which do not exhaust all that was meant. One producer issues an "exploitation sheet," another an "advertising campaign," and another a "publicity sheet." It might, very well, be argued in a court that the sheet I have in my hand is not an "exploitation sheet." It is, as its name declares, an "exhibitor's advertising campaign," or in the case of that other sheet which I exhibited a few moments ago, a "ready-to-use press book." So really the generic name would be "publicity sheet." I am not making any argument upon that point, because what I really want to do, as I have explained, is to get this out of the way in the interests of Amendment No. 4.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I agree with the Deputy that amendments 2 and 4 rather hang together. Amendment No. 2 would delete the definition of "exploitation sheet" and, having done that, amendment No. 4 would substitute "the actual photographic or other reproduction or pictorial representation, intended to be sold or otherwise to be provided as advertising matter to the exhibitor of the film picture in relation to which the application is made."

As drafted, this Bill provides that the document known in the trade as the "exploitation sheet," which contains all the posters prepared by the manufactures of the film, shall be forwarded to the Censor, together with the film. The posters are in miniature. The Deputy's amendment, if I understand it correctly, aims at securing that the full-size posters will be before the Censor, in addition, of course, to the film itself, and the "exploitation sheet," containing the posters in miniature. The Censor can examine the small picture and, if he has any doubt as to whether the full-size poster would be objectionable, while, possibly, the miniature is not, he can, before passing the "exploitation sheet," require to be furnished with a full-size poster. Presumably, in the event of a refusal, he can hold up the picture and hold up the "exploitation sheet." If that is a fair presentation of the matter, I think that the Bill, as drafted, is sufficiently strong, and that it is unnecessary to accept the amendments. If it is a fact that this "exploitation sheet" contains, in miniature, all the posters and all the advertising pictures to be used in relation to a particular film, and, if the Censor, as is the case, can hold up that or can move on and call for, if he thinks it necessary, a full-size poster, under pain of holding up the entire picture in the event of refusal, I think that constitutes an adequate safeguard.

Professor MAGENNIS

Would you permit me, A Leas Chinn Comhairle, to deal with amendment No. 4, because as the Minister has said, the two amendments hang together?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We are on the Report Stage now and second speeches cannot be allowed.

Professor MAGENNIS

What I am asking is not to make a second speech in connection with amendment No. 2 but to be allowed now to deal with amendment No. 4, inasmuch as amendment No. 2 is unintelligible unless the two amendments are taken together. For fear of trespassing against the rules of order, I did not deal with amendment No. 4. The Minister has practically dealt with amendment No. 4. Therefore, to save the time of the Dáil, I ask that amendments 2 and 4 be taken together.

Mr. JOHNSON

May I suggest, if agreeable to the Dáil, that the House should go into Committee on this matter? It is quite obvious that this is purely Committee work. I move this so as to save the time of the House.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Is it the wish of the Dáil that we go into Committee on these amendments?

Agreed.