Censorship in Australia - The Branding of the Movie Posters

David

Edit: This has been moved from the Dating the Pinocchio Daybill thread and its own thread started, that way it can continually be added to and stay on topic rather than be lost in other threads.

Timeline to help understand censorship (branding) on posters (also illuminates the reasoning for triangle and circle censorship shape).

A Commonwealth Film Censorship Board was first established under the provisions of the Customs Act in 1917. In 1949 Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania signed agreements with the Commonwealth to delegate their film censorship powers and functions to the Commonwealth. The other States eventually followed suit.

A board of censors was appointed in Feb 1917

An article published in 1933:

"After some delay the Stale Executive Council has promulgated regulations to implement the amendments to the Films Act passed by Parliament last year. This set of regulations is to take the place of the former "between six and sixteen" embargo placed on certain films, which, however desirable they may have been considered from an abstract standpoint, were almost impossible adequately to administer. The responsibility is placed where it rightly belongs, on the parents of the community.

The new system of censorship provides that films shall be classified as "for general exhibition" or "unsuitable for general exhibition." The new regulations provide even for parents suffering from impaired vision. The indication of the class of film to' be exhibited must be advertised on posters In the same type as that of the rest of the matter contained, in the case of general exhibition pictures in a triangle approximately one-twelfth the size of the poster,and in the case of those considered unsuitable for the young in a circle of similar dimensions.

In newspaper advertisements, where the use of these geometrical devices is found impracticable the descriptive words must appear In bold type. The amended regulations will come into force next month, after which social reformers may cease to worry Ministers and newspaper editors, and devote their energies to the intensive education of parents.

HONDO

David do you have the exact date for the article that was published in 1933 , or even better where I can access the original article? I hope to raise film classification , or in some cases lack of film classification, regarding Australian daybills in the 1930s in the near future.

Hondo.

[Deleted User]

Sounds interesting

David

@Hondo

24 March 1933 - The Mecury and also The Argus

Also a good background article in The Argus, Monday 16 April 1934 page 8

theartofmovieposters

Oh found some stuff on censorship in Australia ages ago...I wonder where all that paperwork went.

I'll dig through the mountain of paper in my study and see if I can find it as I doubt I would have tossed it.

HONDO

The Australian Chief Commonewealth  film censor  Walter Cresswell O'Reilly  introduced in 1930 the classification system that graded films , it appears for the first time, as ''For General Exhibition" and ' Not Suitable For Children". I have found a few daybill posters released between 1930 and 1932 with the following appearing  on the daybills in the top blank section with the following wording and print.

GENERAL EXHIBITION

CHILDREN NOT ADMITTED   by order of the Commonwealth Film Censor

SUITABLE ONLY FOR ADULTS

In  1933 amendment regulations were introduced so general exhibition pictures would appear in a triangle and in the case of those films considered unsuitable for the young to be in a circle. I couldn't find any mention of Suitable Only For adults rated films but it seems that bold SUITABLE ONLY FOR ADULTS printing as on the 1935 Mark Of The Vampire film  was the instruction.

It appears the regulations to show censorship ratings wasn't strictly enforced as the majority of film daybills and one sheets from 1930 well into the later part of the 1930s are without censorship ratings appearing on them with Paramount being the main offender. One I suppose could argue the posters without ratings were printed for New Zealand and other territories but I believe that the large number involved excludes probably the majority of being the case.

Any comments would be appreciated.

Hondo.

  

Matt

Nice work Hondo!

David

Ultimately without posters it might be hard to show whether the film was classified (on the poster) or not; as you would know most of the adverts for that period are simple text ads and these are placed by the local theatres rather than the distributor. The earliest reference to Suitable Only For Adults I found easily was for Frail Woman in October 1932.

There was talk of a standardised level of censorship in 1928: "...but the censors were of the opinion that it would be better, once a classification of adult and children's films was made and sufficiently announced, a procedure which they strongly endorsed; that the responsibility of allowing their children to see film's marked as unsuitable for them, should be thrown upon the parents...."

I guess you can only say it is a NZ poster if posters without rating were never found/seen in Australia

And of course it is possible NFSA would have posters with these censor marks on it.

  

HONDO

Thanks David for the extra information. You said the earliest reference to Suitable Only For Adults you found was for Frail Woman in October 1932. The Frankenstein ( 1931 ) daybill that appears  on John Reid's Moviemem site has Suitable For Adults Only on the top of the poster. The film was released in the first half of 1932 pre dating Frail Woman. 

Hondo.

HONDO

Just looked up on IMDB and noticed Frail Woman is actually titled Frail Women.

Hondo.

David

Sorry I meant the earliest I could find a mention of the rating 'Adults Only' (in the news).

David

HONDO said:

Just looked up on IMDB and noticed Frail Woman is actually titled Frail Women.

Just report 'em how I see 'em! IMDB is full of errors, specially for Australian release dates, the title I can't answer, presuming the same movie then no idea who is right!

This from November 1932 - (for Disney fans, note the film at the bottom )

David

As a follow up here's three adverts from 1932 for Frankenstein, the first is from Tasmania dated 15 April, the second is also Tasmanian a week later and the last is Newcastle date 21 May. Look at each of the censorship notes.

 

HONDO

Thanks David for those imteresting newspaper advertisements I particularly like the mention of a trained nurse being in attendance. 

Hondo.

David

HONDO said:

I particularly like the mention of a trained nurse being in attendance. 

That was definitely the Adults Only session  

I also see there was an insurance policy which would pay out ₤1,000 (about two year's wages) to the family of the first person to die watching the picture...can just see a few people wheeling Granddad into the cinema...

[Deleted User]

Yeah I was looking for the asterisk leading to the fine print but then again surely 1931 was far less litigious than today (even in a colony full of excons)