The danger I am trying to obviate is that, under the guise of advertising matter in aid of a film-picture, the degradation of public morals and general debasement may be secured, in spite of the Censor of Films. The House probably is not aware that when the Censor refuses a certificate for a proposed film, the renter is entitled, on payment of a fee of £5—which may be returned to him in the event of his succeeding in his appeal—to have the judgment of an appeal board. The appeal board consists of unpaid members. Most of them—in fact, all of them—at the present time, are very busy men and women. The task that is put upon the Censor and upon that board of appeal, in turn, is to deal with what comes in. Look at the extent of this sheet, which I hold in my hand. It is for a film entitled "Wine," and it is the "exhibitor's advertising campaign." That is only one sheet in connection with one film. The Censor has to decide whether or not that illustration is indecent or suggestive of something that would be regarded as indecency, or whether its general effect is subversive of public morality. In the interval of waiting for this debate during the week, I have shown sheets like this to some of our colleagues in the House. It has taken some of them quite a considerable time to make up their minds as to whether that little block, enlarged to the dimensions to which it would be exhibited outside a country cinema, would be the right kind of exhibit for our country people. Suppose it were enlarged. The Censor and, after the Censor, the members of the Board of Appeal, have not alone to deal with that, but to deal with all these that I have in my hand. There is quite a number of them. Some of them are shown here as three inches by two inches, but in certain cases, as in that case, they would be enlarged to the size of huge posters. It is very hard to make up one's mind as to what the impression of that picture would be upon growing youth in a country place. Neither the Censor nor any member of the Board of Appeal is entitled to say, "I like that well enough; that would do me no harm." He is in a very difficult position and, at times, almost in the impossible position psychologically, of having to put his own personality out of the matter, and imagine himself what he is not. He must try to decide what effect upon the soul of that other person he imagines himself for the time being to be, is likely to be.
In addition to "exploitation sheets" and "throw-aways" and all the rest of it, you have presentation matter, which is handed out as a souvenir. I invite the attention of the House to this booklet—"Southern Love." That might be presented without ever coming before the Censor or the Board of Appeal. That publication has a harmless cover; we take then the beautifully produced illustrations in the body of it; and now we come to the centre of it. Supposing that is exhibited in Cahirciveen or Ballinasloe, what will be thought about it by mothers or fathers? Could the Censor pass the entire advertising unit, knowing full well it contains that? The obvious answer is that he must reject the total thing. But that need not come before him at all. Furthermore, what the Minister, with all respect, has overlooked, in his reply to me, is that the local exhibitor may produce his own advertising matter. That is not covered. Consequently, in amendment No. 4—which, if passed, would render any reference to the "exploitation sheet" unnecessary—I add the words: "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 a rule, the renter who sends along his films and, subsequently, gives a trade show, so as to receive orders from exhibitors, would not dream of providing all this stuff by way of illustration. Very often it is too expensive. It would be quite easy for the renter to make up his mind beforehand which of these illustrations he intends to provide to an Irish exhibitor and let him submit those along with his film-picture. The work imposed upon the Censor and later, possibly, upon the Appeal Board, would be very much reduced in consequence. It is hard enough to decide with regard to the film, without being called upon to decide also upon all sorts and varieties of illustrations that may, in practice, never come into the country at all. It is a needless expenditure of energy.
I have an illustration here which appears to be what Deputy Johnson said a few moments ago. Personally, I should hold that that picture by itself is harmless and unobjectionable. But taken with the printed matter that accompanies it, which shows that that is the initial stage of an indecent assault, that that is an attempt upon the virtue of this girl, it then becomes objectionable. The Censor may pass the block and afterwards find clergymen in a district denouncing him for negligence and disregard of his duty, when he has been most careful. His hands are tied.
This whole matter of advertising— especially pictorial advertising—in connection with the films, creates a far greater difficulty, I submit, than the censoring of the films themselves. Anything that can minimise the difficulty or make the position easier or facilitate matters, and make the censorship less opne to unfavourable criticism subsequently, would be a great advantage, not merely to the Censor's office, but to the public at large. Therefore, I do not think it is too much to ask the firm to provide the actual illustration. Remember, we are dealing with firms that expend huge sums of money on production. Yesterday afternoon I had to see a film which, the producer informed me, cost £150,000 to produce. Surely, to provide the Censor with a copy of a 17s. or 11s. or 9s. poster, in addition to exhibiting the film, is not imposing prohibitive expenditure upon these firms with colossal capital.
I submit, with all respect, that the actual portraiture—the actual picture— is what ought to come first under the criticism of the Censor, and not something that is remotely or proximately at the best indicative of its character. The colouring makes an enormous difference to some of these posters, especially where semi-nude figures are in question, and what is harmless enough and might be passed by anyone not too prudish, could not be permitted and could not be tolerated in colour for promiscuous and general exhibition on the posters in a town. Inside a picture gallery, where these things are for the entertainment of people of culture, or where they are for the higher education of those aspiring to culture, these things are absolutely right, and I would contend defensible, but as a stimulus to pruriency, as sensational items and as things intended to appeal to the lower instincts, they should not be tolerated to deface the hoardings of our towns or villages.
I do not want to speak any more upon the matter, but I would urge this on the House, that I am putting before you the experience of some eighteen months of the working of the last Act. That was a most excellent Act, and this, I suggest, will make it still more excellent. I am seeking to introduce this slight alteration, not at all in any spirit of opposition to the proposition of the Minister, but quite in the spirit of support for all the great work that he has done for the nation in this regard. It is only after two or three generations that the Irish public will be able to appreciate the great benefits that have accrued to the nation from the fact that the Minister introduced that measure, and made it the stringent measure it is.
The Minister will perhaps be gratified to know that the statements made by the Censor Board through the Chairman some time ago to representatives of the trade have gone around the whole world. There is scarcely a single newspaper in the whole civilised world that has not dwelt upon this and that has not held up the Irish Free State as an example. There were articles in Italian newspapers as well as in Australian and New Zealand papers. There was a proposition from some of the American cities to introduce a State censorship on the Irish model. Therefore, I would assure the Minister that in resisting his suggestion that the present Bill is ample enough in regard to illustrations, I am acting, not in opposition, but as one who appreciates very much all that he has done and all that he is seeking to do in regard to film censorship.
