Bill Delayed

On 29th May, the date that the Private Member's Bill, the Cinematograph Films Amendment Bill, was set down for a second reading in Parliament, Mr Jonathan Hunt asked that the bill be postponed and placed at the bottom of the order paper. In seeking the house's agreement on this move, Mr Hunt said; "I understand that the Minister (of Internal Affairs) later on this session will be introducing a consolidating bill to the Cinematograph Films Act 1961. He's given me an assurance that the Private Member's Bill that I introduced will be referred to a select committee along with this consolidating act."

The present film censor, Mr Doug McIntosh, has returned from his world trip during which, at the Minister of Internal Affairs behest, he has been investigating the various types of censorship in a number of countries. He will report to the Minister on the changes that have taken place and make his recommendations for the consolidating bill.

It is now up to members to watch for the introduction of the Government bill, compare it with the Private bill, and write to the Minister of Interna1 Affairs, praising what is good in both. No doubt, between the two bills, an effective whole should emerge, providing the best of both is adopted.

Also on censorship in this issue:

CENSORSHIP AND "THE EXORCIST"

In an NZBC broadcast, critic Peter Harcourt had this to say: "I suppose The Exorcist will be seen by more people than The Godfather, Love Story and The Sound Of Music put together. It will certainly make more money than those three - and could well exceed their combined gross takings. I think there is possibly a case to be made against such calculated exploitation of religion and our atavistic dread of the supernatural; but at the moment I'm more concerned with The Exorcist as an example of our peculiar censorship standards.

As you know, the film has been passed for exhibition to audiences not less than 18 years old. Judging from the evidence of my own eyes, it will be seen by many people below the age limit who feel it their bounden duty to evade the censor's restriction simply (as Ed Hillary put it) because it is there. But having granted the film adult status (that is, by implication, a film not likely to offend anyone with reasonably mature intelligence) the censor has seen fit to remove from it what he considers to be offensive material. Part of the screenplay's dramatic effect depends on a scene, for instance, when the doctor enters the bedroom of the possessed child. It is abundantly clear from the context that the child is not herself: the devil within her has assumed her whole physical shape and personality. Therefore, what she says to the doctor comes not from her but from the demon. So when she invites the doctor tio have sexual intercourse, and demands it in a brutally frank way, the effect would be both disgusting and shocking. Never mind that the producers of the film are deliberately exploiting shock effects here. What matters is that the censor, in removing a repeated four-letter word, has left its meaning quite clear - and consequently has changed the sequence from drama into farce. When I saw the film the audience laughed at the clumsiness of the editing, and the substitution of an electronic beep for a word highly significant in context. It is this sort of prudish care for our susceptibilities that has brought the present censorship law into disrepute. Either the film can be seen intact by mature audiences, or it can be banned completely, but I do not accept that it should be altered as well as restricted - especially when the alteration makes a noticeable difference to the overall effect."

Recently the film's director, William Friedkin, revealed some of the secrets of the effects created in the film. The rocking bedroom was caused by resting the room on a bowling ball and having studio hands rock and shake the set. The sudden gashes on the girl's arms were produced by make-up on her arms and hidden by foam rubber. The foam was attached to wires off the set and were whipped away. For the vomiting and urinating, pipes were taped to the girl and attached to a box carried on her body. When Friedkin wanted the girl to be sick or urinate, he simply pressed a button and by remote control liquid spurted out of the pipes. Friedkin had previously refused to reveal the special effects in case it spoilt the film for future audiences!

- reprinted from Sequence, July 1974.