Censorship

Mauritius Times – 70 Years

Are we sure that all those who have been appointed to sit on the Board of Censors here to censor Indian films possess the necessary qualifications?

By Bhisma Dev

When judging a film, three main questions are to be considered: Is It likely to sap the moral standards of the audience by extenuating vice or crime or by depreciating social value? Is the story, incident or dialogue likely to offend any reasonably minded section of the public? Finally, what will be the effect of the story, incident or dialogue on children under sixteen?

Few people do not like censorship; but had there been no censorship of any sort, it would have allowed the degeneration of the arts to show to the public, indiscriminately, licentiousness and blasphemy, unrestrained vice and perversion, sadism and the cruelties of the jungle.

Most people tend to think that the film censors are government officials: they are not. In Mauritius they are officials of the film industry itself and distinguished members of the public. Forty years ago, the films, especially those dealing with comedies and farces, were going so low in tone that the British film producers conceived it was high time for them to set matters right themselves before someone else from outside did it.

So, the Kinematograph Manufacturers’ Association, the main film producers’ organization, set up the British Board of Film Censors in 1912. Its first president was G.A. Redford. He was succeeded by T.P. O’Connor in 1916. The President now is Sir Sydney Harris. The Kinematograph Association appoints the President of the British Board of Film Censors. The President is free to choose his own small staff of censors who are responsible for viewing every film, long or short, shown on the public screens, except the newsreels which are not required to be censored.

The censor may label a film as ‘X’, ‘A’ or ‘U’, but the certificate is advisory only. Any Local Authority can alter the visa for its own locality; thus, the class ‘A’ certificate awarded to Wait Disney’s ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’ was altered to a ‘U’ by a good many authorities.

The attitude of the British censorship is expressed in an article written by ATL Wackins, Secretary of the Board of Film Censors: “The Board has no written Code, no neatly docketed list of things which are allowed and things which are not. It has been suggested that such a Code would help producers. The Board thinks it would have a reverse effect. The absence of a Code enables it to treat each picture, each incident, each line of dialogue on its merits. No two pictures are alike; everything depends on the treatment and the context. If the Board worked on a Code, it would have to stick to the Code. Films would be dealt on the basis of hard and fast rules; no discretion would be exercised — and producers and public alike would be the losers. But if the Board has no Code, there are certain broad principles on which it works.”

In America the chief form of censorship is once again that of the industry itself, administered by the Motion Picture Association of America. A Production Code administration is the force under the administration of Joseph J. Breen, a Roman Catholic. The Code lists every kind of offence conceivable which could be committed in a film against the moral susceptibilities of society.

The chief implications to be derived from the regulations which are comprised in the Code are examined very fully by Ruth Inglis in her book ‘Freedom of the Movies’. Here is a brief reference to the clauses:
“The technique of murder and methods of theft must never be shown in detail, the illegal drug traffic and the use of drugs must be kept in the background so that curiosity may not be stimulated, and the use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot or for proper characterization, will not be shown.

“The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Adultery and illicit sex, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated, or justified, or presented attractively. Scenes of lust and passion must be restrained; seduction and rape should never be more than suggested.”

Among the direct prohibitions are references to or representations of sex perversion, white slavery and miscegenation. Obscenity and profanity are forbidden, and a list of indecent words is appended which must not be used; these include ‘damn’ and ‘hell’ used as expletives. Nudity (except where it is natural in natives), indecent exposure, and indecent dances are prohibited, and undressing scenes should be avoided, and never used save where essential to the plot; ‘the treatment of bedrooms must be governed by good taste and decency.’

Religious ceremonies, ministers’ religion, the national feelings of other countries and the appearance of American flag must all be treated with respect.

Finally, certain “repellent subjects” must be “treated within the limits of good taste'”; these are actual hangings, electrocutions, third degree methods, brutality, branding of people and animals, apparent cruelty to children or animals, the sale of women, women selling their virtue, and surgical operations.

It is wondered to what extent do American film producers take the contents of the Code into consideration.

The censorship of Indian films in Mauritius should be entrusted to those who know Hindustani and who have also a knowledge of Indian culture. Are we sure that all those who have been appointed to sit on the Board of Censors here to censor Indian films possess the necessary qualifications?

7th Year – No 299
Friday 20th May, 1960

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 28 March 2025