§ VISCOUNT MERSEY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider instituting some form of control over the historical accuracy of films produced or shown in this country; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I put this Question down because I thought it was deserving of some consideration by your Lordships, but I do not in any way wish to appear immoderate in putting it forward. Your Lordships know what the position is at present. Films are controlled by a censor who is appointed by the film industry. The censor is a noble Lord, a member of this House, and I need hardly state that anything that I am going to say to-day is not to be construed as criticising Lord Tyrrell in any way. We are all conscious of his very great abilities and his very great experience. Still he is appointed and paid by the film industry and any advisers he may have are appointed by him.
§ It seems to me that the present position of films in this country is not stationary. Films are developing more and more, and we can look forward to a time when they will be a very considerable element in the education of the country. In certain directions the greatest care is taken about the preparation of films. A film on botany, or on 700 agriculture, or on natural history, or on sociology is regulated in the most careful way, and when we see films of that nature probably everything that we are shown is correct, or as near correct as it can be made. But when you come to the question of history and anything dealing with our own past in this country, a very different case arises. The film then is apparently put together in the most casual way. I am not suggesting that there should be any meticulous accuracy over the control of films, but I think that the main outline, the main features presented, of our own history ought to be substantially correct. I do not want to make use of this place to make an attack upon any particular film—that would be, I think, an unfair thing to do—and also, naturally, one does not want to say anything that might in any way militate against the success of films which are produced in this country; but I must give one or two instances. I will give two instances, one of opinion and one of fact. They both deal with the Tudor period of history, so that I am not coining too near to the present day.
§ In a film shown some little time ago describing the life of King Henry VIII, the general attitude in which he was shown through the film was that of a comic buffoon. Well, whatever King Henry VIII was, I am sure your Lordships will agree he was not a comic buffoon. There was another film more recent, giving the life of Mary Queen of Scots. This instance is one of a matter of fact. On the night before her execution at Fotheringay Castle, Queen Elizabeth was made to go into Mary's cell and have an altercation with her. It is common knowledge to those of your Lordships who are interested in the history of Queen Elizabeth and Mary Queen of Scots that they never met in their lives. Those are two small instances. I know that it is not an easy thing to control the accuracy of history when shown in the theatre or on the screen, and history is not necessarily bad because it is a little romanticised. I learnt a good deal of the French history that I know from the romances of Alexandre Dumas.
§ [...] dare say it may be alleged in reply that Shakespeare and even Homer were not strictly accurate in the history they handed down the ages. 701 But the modern compiler or composer—I think that is the right word, not producer—of films is not as a rule a Shakespeare or a Homer. I do not think he is in that category. I doubt if anybody in this present Government, which is so often supposed to rival that of the late Lord Grenville, could give straight off the names of even two prominent film composers. All I would advocate is that if some form of control is to be set up, that would be an opportunity of attaching to the proposed board some official, say from the Board of Education, who would be able to advice the Board when a film manifestly traversed the degree of accuracy that ought to be observed. Supposing one carried the case a little further, what sort of inaccuracies are permissible? For instance, if there was a film of the Napoleonic Wars, would a film showing George IV riding about the field of Waterloo—which I believe he always said he did—with the Duke of Wellington be passed? Or, to come a little further down in history suppose we had a film of the Boer War, would it be permissible to depict an interview between President Kruger and Queen Victoria? I presume there would be a limit somewhere. Though what I have suggested may represent a reductio ad absurdum, there is I think a great chance of young people, whom we want to interest in the history of this country and who should have a proper understanding of that history, not being taught the truth.
§ The noble Marquess who is going to reply has got I think a rather difficult task before him. I do not expect him to do the impossible. I am not expecting that a plan should spring from his head fully armed like a modern Minerva. But I wish to ask him three questions, and if he will answer them affirmatively I shall be quite satisfied for the present. I would first ask him if he agrees that the film is at present, and is likely to be in the future, an increasing educative medium. The second question is whether he agrees that the Board of Education is to a certain extent responsible for the education of the young in this country. The third question is whether he agrees that comparatively true history is better than garbled history. I see on the other side of the House my noble friend Lord Moyne, whose Report I have read with the greatest interest. He, of course, has 702 dealt with the film question chiefly from the commercial point of view, but in his recommendations he does advocate the formation of a board. I think that if the Government consider adopting any of his recommendations, which I hope they will do, that would be a very appropriate moment to consider also the suggestion I am putting before your Lordships to-day. I can quite understand that the theatre would necessarily have to be considered to a certain extent, and I tried to induce my noble friend the Lord Chamberlain to come here this afternoon, but he had other and more pressing occupations. That is all I wish to say. I do not press for any action. I merely want to put the question forward so that it may be considered. I beg to move.
§ LORD MOYNEMy Lords, it is quite true that for some months past I have been listening to evidence about the position of the British film industry, and the Departmental Committee was, of course, very much concerned with the interests of the public—much more concerned with the interests of the consumer than of the producer of films. But although we had brought to our notice criticisms which are. familiar to us all about bad history in films, we did not feel it possible to make a recommendation on that matter. Judging by the very great output of historical works it must be a very general complaint which is being voiced by the noble Viscount, that the public suffer from very misleading suggestions in the films, and I fear also on the stage. That, I think, has always been the trouble. If we had had a censorship it is possible that, we should not have had some of Shakespeare's plays. I am told that many aspects of history portrayed in Julius Caesar, King John, Richard III and Henry VI find a great deal of criticism among learned historians. I think it would be an extremely difficult matter to exercise a censorship which would be generally acceptable. After all, history is not an exact science. It is largely a matter of presentment and opinion, and who is to distinguish between genuine opinion and deliberate romantic invention? I say this not because of lack of sympathy with the noble Viscount's object, but because I really do see enormous practical difficulty in exercising anything in the way of historical censorship.
703 The Departmental Committee to which the noble Viscount referred has not made any recommendation about censorship. That is a matter concerning not only the Board of Trade by whom the Committee was set up but other Departments and the Committee left it an open question. I want to make it quite clear that in our recommendation for a board we did not suggest any general censorship of films. We only recommended a quality test to prevent fraud on the quota system. We had overwhelming evidence that the quota system has been turned into an absurdity and a reproach to British films by the production of a large output for the convenience of foreign producers, enabling them to comply with their quota requirements by offering through the renters films with no sort of expectation of ever being thrown on the screen. It was suggested to us that this fraud could be checked by a cost test. That would be very convenient to foreign producers for reasons which I need not go into but which are obvious with the interlocking arrangements of to-day, which would not have put the large producers to any expense or inconvenience or have compelled them to make any change in their present system. We have found also that any cost test would inevitably need to be supplemented by some sort of quality test as well, because you have good films that are very cheap and bad films which are extravagantly produced. So you would have to have some kind of quality appeal to include the former and exclude the latter. We felt that, having faced the necessity of a quality test under certain conditions, the best way for us would be to ensure that all films ranking for quota should be certified as up to a reasonable standard of quality.
This does not mean that all British films are going to be tested, because if they are not offered for the renter's quota they need not come before this quality tribunal. Nor does it mean that all foreign films are going to be looked at—and of course there is just as much and perhaps more bad history from overseas than is ever produced in this country! I felt bound to say this, because I do not think there is an easy way out by means of a board. I do not want for one moment to suggest that the matter is not of grave importance to the film-going public or that if a solution can be found, 704 even if it is only a partial solution, the Government ought not certainly to adopt it. Perhaps something could be done by submitting scenarios beforehand and giving some encouragement to those producers who adopt suitable methods to avoid historical blunders and imaginative invention. But I do not think there is any easy way out, and I am quite certain that it is not practicable, without enormous public controversy, to put the task of historical censorship upon any board or body of people, who would necessarily disagree among themselves.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, the last words of the noble Lord who has just spoken will, I think, be re-echoed on this side of the House—that is, with regard to the great difficulty and complexity of this subject. I just want to make our own position clear. We do not want a Government censorship of films, and that feeling is, I hope, also supported by your Lordships in all parts of the House. At the same time we feel that there is a good deal in what the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion, Lord Mersey, has said, because of the great educational value that such films should have. It is quite the pleasantest way, I suppose, of learning history, and it does seem a pity that it should produce garbled history.
The people who produce these films have of course only one object in view, naturally, for they are business men; they want to make money, and they therefore want to find what will suit the public taste. Would it not be possible to encourage some voluntary form of control within the industry in this country? The very knowledge and the very fact that such a control existed would surely cause great accuracy to be exercised in the preparation of scenarios. That is the suggestion that I would venture to make, and we will certainly listen with very great interest to what the noble Marquess has to say, as I hope this matter has really engaged the attention of His Majesty's Government. Might I also for a moment address myself to the Secretary of State for India? I know that the matter of films exercises the India Office—not this particular matter perhaps—and surely films shown in India, which are supposed to represent great epochs in British history and which probably represent the first that 90 per 705 cent. of the audience have heard of those episodes, might at least be presented with accuracy.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDMy Lords, I just want to say how very glad I am that the noble. Viscount opposite should have raised this matter. I somehow feel that at the present stage he will not get very much satisfaction from any pronouncement of the Treasury Bench. That, however, doss not make the subject any less important; its importance is really incalculable, and I think it is of growing importance as well. If one contrasts the recklessness of film presentation with the scrupulous care that is shown in broadcasting in this country, one must be conscious that somehow or other it ought to be possible to regulate and to control the films. That is possible in broadcasting to a lesser degree, but at any rate to some degree, and it ought to be possible in films. The film is potentially a more powerful agent than broadcasting. Segnius irritant, etc.; and for that reason alone it is incumbent upon the Government to do what they can to preserve and protect public opinion, public education and public sentiment against a very great danger. I will merely conclude by repeating that, in spite of what my noble friend beside me said, I think there was in Lord Moyne's statement a very acute consciousness of a danger which for other reasons it was not within the province of his Committee to investigate.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVAMy Lords, I think we are all agreed that the noble Viscount who has raised this matter has made a very interesting speech and one which has dealt with some of the most fundamental questions relating to art, to truth and to history. He will therefore forgive me if I in my turn am a little fundamental in replying to him. He has asked me three questions, and I think it would probably be best if I answered those questions and in so doing covered the whole ground. He asked me first of all whether I think, and the Government think, that films are likely to influence people's views of history. To that question there can only be one answer, and that is, Yes. It is perfectly obvious that the films which a child sees are going to colour the whole 706 of his subsequent view of history as taught to him in the classroom. But, as has already been pointed out, that is no new development. The child of fifty years ago, or even of twenty years ago, had his view of history equally coloured by Walter Scott, by Dumas, by any number of authors who, brilliantly and delightfully as they wrote, undoubtedly did not make accuracy their chief stock-in-trade. That was not what they sold. Therefore, my Lords, one can exaggerate a little the danger of what I might call a romantic presentation of history through films, because every child has always had history romantically presented to him through the novel.
The second question that the noble Viscount asked me was whether the Government was interested in the education of the country. To that I say again that there can only be one answer, Yes. The Government, moreover, is fully conscious that the film is an instrument of education the potentialities of which are still almost unexplored. At the same time, however, even the purely educational films are now developing very fast, and local authorities are devoting more and more attention to the possibility of using these purely educational films in the classroom itself. The noble Viscount remarked that the educational film per se was perfectly accurate. He said that immense care was taken over the production of such films; but of course, as he is perfectly well aware, those films are accurate not from any censorship coming down from above and saying that one cannot produce a film representing as a lupin what is obviously a primrose; they are accurate for the simple and commercial reason that the producers are out to make money and the films will not sell unless they are accurate. The competent authorities who choose them will not buy them. That is the simple reason why the educational film is accurate. I am going to hinge that on to something which I am going to say later, and I say that the most effective censorship is educated public opinion. I think we can draw a conclusive lesson from these very educational films as to the sort of censorship at which we ought to aim if possible.
Finally—and this brings me to the largest question that has been put to me —I am asked whether I believe that true history is better than false. Again I reply Yes. But what is true history? 707 Ideas of history vary with the individual. The noble Viscount may well have been brought up on "Little Arthur's History of England"; I relied chiefly on Green. When you find such varying views of history, who is going to state what really is true history? I will say this to the noble Viscount, that in my view it is not of great importance whether romantic mythical incidents appear as related to the people of this country. Everybody's view of history really is a confused mixture of pictures of incidents which probably never occurred. The picture of Raleigh casting his cloak before Queen Elizabeth or of William Tell shooting the apple off his son's head—all sorts of incidents of that kind may be perfectly untrue, but I cannot admit that these romantic episodes, whether true or not, are doing any great harm. What matters is not so much whether or not certain mythical incidents have taken place but—and this is where I believe that they may play a disastrous part—whether the public get a wrong perspective of past events. That is why the examples mentioned by the noble Viscount, of Queen Elizabeth meeting Mary Queen of Scots before the latter's execution, and the film of Henry VIII, may be so important.
It is totally impossible to understand the Reformation if you think that Henry VIII was nothing but a gluttonous fool. That would seem to be obvious. From that very example I think the noble Viscount will see the extreme difficulty of the course which he wants the Government to adopt. Whether you agree or disagree with the history taught by the film of Henry VIII, where is the censor going to step in? Where does he say: "You have chosen to select certain traits in a past monarch's character which in my opinion you have greatly exaggerated, and have cast the whole of your history out of perspective"? Who is really going to take the responsibility of taking that course? After all, if a film of a history written by Gibbon were made, a great many noble Lords who are good Churchmen would profoundly disagree with its accuracy, and probably rightly so. If a film were made of a history by Macaulay a number of good Tories would profoundly disagree with almost every word. Where, really, is the censor going to feel himself strong enough to step in?
708 I profoundly sympathise with the object of this Motion, but I do feel that there are grave, practical objections which make it extremely difficult to devise any plan which will enable either a Government, or any statutory board or body, to prevent people from taking artistic licence to modify the events of history to suit their own purposes. Therefore, my Lords, I would repeat that much the best censorship you can have is public opinion itself. Any other form of censorship can only be of a negative character. It cannot create good films, but only prevent what offends public taste. It is necessary that you should have some form of censorship to prevent that happening, but I do ask your Lordships not to assent to any proposition which would suggest that it is possible to answer Pilate's question by a Commission.
VISCOUNT MERSEYMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Marquess for what he has said. With a great deal of it I agree, and the dialectical part of it I admire. I am satisfied with his answer at present. I would only like to clear myself by saying that I am not a bureaucrat, I am not a dogmatist, and I hope in this case I am not a visionary. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.