I beg to move the Second Reading of the Censorship of Films (Amendment) Bill, 1930. The object of this Bill is to give powers to the Censor and the present Board of Censors of films to censor talkie films in the same fashion as ordinary films are censored. I think it is known to everybody in this House that this new type of film has become very common within the last couple of years. It has largely superseded the older type of film. As things stand at present the Censor and, an appeal from the Censor, the Board, have no real opportunity of censoring sound. A picture may appear perfectly all right as far as merely looking at it is concerned, but when it becomes associated with dialogue it may become very objectionable and in fact, it does become objectionable. This Bill enables the Censor and, on appeal from the Censor, enables the Censorship of Films Board, to decide as to whether the two things taken conjointly—that is, the picture and the sound—should or should not be exhibited. That is what the Bill enables the Censors to do. I would suggest to the House that this Bill is very necessary and I venture to think that the House will not have any objection to giving these extended powers.
Public Business. - Censorship of Films (Amendment) Bill, 1930—Second Stage.
I do not suppose that anybody would object to giving those extended powers in the matter of films. Within the last twenty years or so films have become of great importance educationally. There is another matter that might receive the attention of the Censors, and that is the general tone or the moral of the film. There have been some films recently exhibited, and though I have not seen them, for my visits to cinemas number about one per annum, I am told by friends that the general tone of the pictures was demoralising; that the tone was really supporting certain types of immorality but that at the same time there might not be a single scene or sentence to which you could take exception. Not only should the pictures and the sound be censored, but the general tone should be taken into consideration. That applies particularly in the case of pictures to which children are admitted, and children are admitted to all these pictures. These pictures appeal not only to the ears of the children and to their sight but to all their senses and some pictures have a very bad effect on children. The influence of some of these pictures might upset the whole teaching received in the schools, nationally and morally. This is a matter that the Censors should be instructed to consider very carefully —that is, the general tone of the picture. It might happen that there might not be any one scene or sentence in the picture to which objection could be taken, but nevertheless its general tone would have a demoralising influence.
I have been on the Censorship of Films Board for some time and I can assure the Deputy who has spoken that when a film comes up before them for final decision the Board certainly always takes into consideration the general tone of the picture. That is always so. We have films to which the Deputy has alluded, sound films. It is a fact that recently some sound films got out that I must admit would not get out if the Censor had been able to examine the dialogue and had powers to stop them on that account. Through the absence of such powers the Censorship Board has been handicapped during the last few months.
I think the Minister should understand that there are many Deputies in the House who are not at all satisfied that the provisions of the Censorship Act or the powers proposed to be given under this Bill are sufficient to deal with the matter. We think the subject deserves a great deal more consideration than is given to it in this Bill, and while we are prepared to facilitate the Minister, we would be more satisfied if we had been asked to consider a much more far-reaching measure. In particular, we think a strong case can be made out for a positive rather than a negative form of censorship. In other words, there is a very strong case to be made for the setting up of an authority which would act in a selective capacity and which would be empowered to reject not merely immoral and debasing pictures, but pictures that are entirely worthless. I think a case can be made for that. If the State has control of elementary education, if the State has the right of directing the way in which children should be prepared for adult life, if the State has the right to say what sort of elementary readers the child should read, it is altogether anomalous that in the matter of the only provision in regard to the much more powerful influence exerted by the films, the State has only the power to say that nothing immoral shall be shown. I do not want to take up the time of the House any further in the matter beyond again stating that there are very many Deputies who believe that the present Censorship and the present powers of Censorship are not by any means sufficient. Further, I want to say that we regret the long delay that has taken place in introducing this Bill. It would be impossible, in our opinion, to overtake the harm done in recent months by objectionable films being shown throughout the country. These films should have been consigned to the Liffey on their first appearance.
I would like to know from the Minister if he intends installing a sound apparatus and what the cost will be. There is another aspect to which attention should be called, and that is the national point of view. Some time ago a film was shown that was an insult to the Irish people. Apart from the moral aspect steps should be taken to see that no such films are allowed to be shown. Representations should also be made abroad, and where such films of an objectionable kind from the national point of view are shown, protests should be sent from this country to the country in which they are produced.
I would like to ask the Minister whether in reference to this Bill, which we all agree is so necessary, he could take action under the common law against people who have produced and exhibited films which are of an immoral or debasing kind? Can such people be proceeded against under the common law?
If there are any, yes.
There have been some.
No complaint has reached my Department to that effect.
It should be possible that where pictures have not been censored and where such films are of an objectionable kind and are produced in public that the producer could be prosecuted. In my opinion this amending Bill is inadequate, because under it you cannot deal with matters of gross vulgarity, apart from the question of morality. I refer also to pictures that offend in a national sense. I hope the Minister will consider later the bringing in of another Bill. In the meantime I want to facilitate the Censorship Board in getting this Bill through.
I have very little to say except to answer one question that was put. This matter was very carefully considered by the Committee which brought in the report, and I hope the House will allow me to say that it was a very competent Committee that brought in what appears to me to be a very able report. It is following this report that this Bill has been introduced. The Committee recommended a certain type of machine to be installed. That machine will enable the Censor and the Appeal Board to hear the particular film. The machine will reproduce the sound. It was necessary for the Committee to consider a great number of machines. They hit on one which they consider will be most suitable, and this machine is in course of installation. As far as Deputy Little's point is concerned, my answer is that, of course, if a film was grossly indecent those exhibiting it could be prosecuted under the common law.
Certainly that is my view, but I have not heard of any film being produced the wording of which was grossly indecent. Certainly no complaint has ever been sent in to my department to that effect, and vague rumours that go around do not carry much weight with me. Very often people may see a film and say, this is horrible and so on, but if you come to consider whether a prosecution lies or not that is a different matter. The sensitive mind may be revolted by certain things which it sees or hears, but it might be completely impossible to successfully prosecute in that case. Generally, however, I believe that this would give sufficient powers to the Board of Censors to keep films within reasonable limits. The discussion, if I may say so, has extended a little beyond the scope of this Bill and went into the kind of films which should be produced, as to whether films, for instance, of an anti-national tendency should or should not be banned by the Board of Censors. That is a very big question and I, personally, am very much of the opinion that the way to deal with things which we do not like because they offend our principles is simply to leave them alone. A man who believes in his own principles, a man who has a belief in his own country, if he sees a stupid attack on his own country does not get into a state of feverish excitement about it. He simply treats it with contempt. It is only the persons who are doubtful, the persons who, for instance, think that Irish nationality is a very doubtful thing and will have to keep shouting about it, who get annoyed when they read books, newspapers and articles, or see films attacking Irish nationality. The person who believes in it, who thinks it is a great rock which can throw off all those waves of attack which may be brought against it, who regards these attacks rather with contempt——
May I ask one question? Does the Minister think his remarks would apply to children who would see such pictures, for instance? That is what I have in my mind. Adults may be able to look after themselves generally, but what about children?
Does the Minister think that he is going further away from the scope of the Bill than anybody else?
He admits that that is so.
If I may point out these anti-national films contain dialogue insulting to the people of this country and, therefore, it comes within sound.
There is just one point on which I want information from the Minister. He said that certain objectionable films have been passed for publication in consequence of the fact that this Bill has not been in existence heretofore. What will be the position of these films after this Bill becomes an Act? Will they still be passed for distribution and presentation in the country?
I think I can answer that for the Minister. Those films have only been passed with regard to sight. On their licence that is expressly recorded. I think the Minister can order that they can be submitted again for sound.
Deputy Fahy has raised an important point in regard to the attendance of children at these pictures. I do not know whether the censor has availed himself of the powers that I think he has under the 1923 Act to specify that certain pictures shall only be available for exhibition under certain conditions. Certain pictures have been passed for exhibition here in Dublin. They have been on for three weeks in some of the picture houses and I think there is legitimate ground for complaint, that these pictures are not suitable for exhibition for growing people. There may be an argument—I think it is a very weak argument—that these pictures are not subversive of public morality and are not undesirable for grown-ups. I entirely fail to see how anyone can argue that they are suitable for children and as far as I know I would be very glad if the Minister would point out if I am under a misapprehension. There seems to be no restrictions whatever with regard to letting children into pictures. I think there should be a definite ruling with regard to modern society dramas, shooting scenes, night club life, and bedroom scenes. If the Minister and his censor think that those pictures are suitable for public exhibition I think they are not and that the Act should be interpreted more strictly. We should not have the disgraceful state of affairs that children are brought into these pictures which are simply a mass of corruption from beginning to end.
How far these pictures do harm to children, of course, it is very difficult for me to state, because Deputy Fahy when he goes to a picture once a year——
On an average.
Deputy Fahy's average beats mine absolutely. I think I have heard and seen one talkie in my life only and therefore Deputy Fahy beats me and I cannot speak myself as an expert at all. Complete powers are given to the Censor to deal with pictures, and if he thinks that a picture is of a type that it can be exhibited to one class of the community and not to another he can make such restrictions in giving his licence. The power exists under the Censorship of Films Act, 1923.
Might I ask the Minister if that power has ever been exercised—for instance, that people under 18 should not be admitted to certain pictures?
I cannot answer the Deputy that because that is wandering very much beyond the scope of the present Bill. I do not think that any objection was taken until these talkies, as they are called, came in, to the way in which the censorship powers were being exercised, and when this Bill becomes law I think that everything will go rightly and smoothly. These pictures came in with a sudden rush. They were unexpected and there was no means of dealing with them. It was necessary for us to consider how they should be dealt with and a committee was set up for that purpose. As soon as the committee considered its report we brought in this Bill. There has been a short interval in which, I think, a few films have passed in which there were objectionable things. I venture to think when this Bill becomes law that everything will be smooth. I do not think it would ever be possible for a censor only to allow what you might call educative films to be produced. It would be impossible for him to say: "This film will not help the intellectual or moral development of the persons who look at it and, therefore, I will condemn it." It would be impossible for him to put up a standard of that kind. A great deal must, of course, rest on the good taste of the audience. If there is an objectionable film, it plays to an empty house. If there is a good film, it plays to a full house. It is the audience which ultimately and finally really decides what type of film it wants and therefore, what type of film it will get.
The people have no opportunity for saying what kind of films they will have. A certain type of film is produced in London and they never get an opportunity of seeing it in this country. Apart altogether from the question of whether certain tendencies in these films would pass the censorship or not, the fact is that a certain type of American picture is being dumped on this country and we are not getting an opportunity to get any other kind of film.
With regard to the censorship, I do not know very much about it but I think it would be a good idea if the film censor took the members of the Dáil to some of these exhibitions and let them express their opinions on these questions. We have read of theatres in Dublin exhibiting pictures and flattering themselves because certain people have written "I find this picture unobjectionable" when that picture is considered not objectionable. I think the members of the Dáil if a theatre is available for these pictures should be given an opportunity to pass comment on them. I think the attitude of the film censorship office is, so far as I can understand it, that because they succeed in cutting out a very reprehensible part of the film and are able to say "The film is not what we would like to have it, but if it had been passed in the way in which it was presented to us it would be desperate. We have at least made an improvement and it is at least tolerable." I think that standpoint is not sufficient. The attitude should be that there is a certain type of film coming into this country and that that type of film ought definitely to be banned if necessary and that the censor should not be satisfied with cutting out certain pieces of it, bits of a lady's leg here and there.
Free films for Deputies may be a very popular cry, but I would like to point out to Deputy Derrig that the present accommodation may not be sufficient to hold the number of Deputies who might like to have free access to pictures. Of course, I know that if there was a picture which was in any way objectionable no Deputy would go to see it.
I take it the Minister is satisfied that this Bill will make it safe for the two of us to go to pictures occasionally.
Mr. O'Connell
You mean together?