HAVE my doubts as to whe-

ther the struggle against sex

is being waged really tho-
roughly. Is it enough to protest
against naked scenes in films
solely by means of laboriously
“penned anonymous letters? Will
it fulfil our purpose if some
competent or incompetent au-
thority cuts out the offending
piece of celluloid? Decidedly
not, brothers and sisters in pur-
ity! On the contrary, the mis-
sing scene will inflame the ima-
gination of immoral cinemago-
ers (and who, I ask you is not
immoral these days?!) far more
than if it had been allowed to
remain in the film, for nothing
can be hushed up in this world
of ours. And then they. will im-
agine they’re seeing cut-out
things even in places where
nothing is missing.

Where, then, does the solu-
tion lie? Only in systematic and
decisive measures, to be taken
all at once and not successively.
Experience teaches us that if we
wish to do something that will
not be popular with everybody
—and, let’s face it, sex still has
a few supporters among irres-
ponsible individuals, yes, even
couples — it is better to do it all
at once and then, by means of
gradual concessions, to gain the
popularity necessary for a fur-'

city

Let's wage war
against sex
more thoroughly!

ther systematic clamping down.

It will not do merely to forbid
individual scenes, individual
films, or even individual branch-
es of art. The cinema was an

‘enemy to morality long before

it came into existence; for it is
the offspring of such _long-
established infringers of morals
as literature, the theatre, mu-
sic, and the fine arts. Erotic pro-
vocation sounded already in the
melodies played on the sheph-
erd’s fuyara, while the Vesto-
nice Venus is so hyper-sexual
that it ought to be out of bounds
for all young people regardless
of age.

Any moralist worth his salt
will show you that if it had not
been for art, that by-product of
lust, that illegitimate offspring
of the demon of sex, people
would long ago have abandoned
those “comic motions,” to use
the apt phrase coined by the
well-known English lord who
was one of the most consistent
opponents of sex, and we should
have calmly and without undue
fuss resorted to vegetative re-
production.

Allow me, however, to use the
cinema as an example to de-
monstrate that no half-measures
can be expected to succeed.

If we prohibit nakedness, aud-

looks

at itself

There’s an exhibition on in
Toronto now that every Toron-
tonian should see. And there
ought to be a similar one organ-
ized in every other community
in Canada.

It’s called “This City Now”
and it’s on display at the Art
Gallery of Ontario until Mar. 26.

Its purpose, according to its
creators is “to heighten our
awareness of the city that sur-
rounds us.” And it certainly
does that. By means of huge and
striking photos, graphs, models,
movies and slides it presents the
status and problems of four
facets of the city’s environment:
movement, recreation, habitat
and pollution. The net result is
informative, entertaining and
thought-provoking.

It’s one thing, for example, to
contemplate (or curse) the city’s
traffic problem from behind the
wheel of your car as you drive
bumper-to-bumper on the ex-
nresswav. It’s auite another to
have it laid out before you on a
city-wide basis, see its impact
on the city. 2s a whole, a pro-
jection of its likely development
and how tthe traffic experts pro-
pose to cope with it in the
future.

One of the most striking as-
pects of the exhibition is its
treatment of Toronto’s housing
problem, particularly the extent
of its slum areas and their de-

grading impact on the people
living in them and what can be
done to properly house them.

Similarly with recreation. The
exhibition shows how leisure
and entertainment is dependent
on wealth-status, how far too
many children are still forced to
play on the streets, how real
estate is eating into the city’s
already limited park facilities.

A frightening picture is the
expose in pictures and models
of what pollution is doing to the
city and the health of its inha-
bitants: the noise, the soot,
smoke and gasoline fumes, the
dirty water in our rivers and on
our beaches.

Yet the exhibition is by no
means a presentation of only
the negative aspects of Toron-
to’s life. The artists, architects,
planning engineers and sociolo-
gists who conceived and pre-
pared it to show also what has
been done and, even more im-
portant, what can be done. One
goes away from the show with
the thought: “If only this were
a different society so that one
could more easily get rid of all
these evils. What a_ beautiful
and exciting city Toronto could
be!”

If more such exhibits were
held and more people attended
them, the demand for such a
basic change would be much
greater. (J.B.)

GABRIEL LAUB, a Czech journalist,
offers his solution for what appears

to be a world

A
:

.

-wide problem.

fences will thrill to the sight of
dressed actresses, the undula-
tion of their hips, a stockinged
ankle. Nineteenth-century histo-
ry has made these facts general-
Jy known.

It is equally well-known that
in countries where women are
obliged to cover themselves up
completely, the glint of their
eyes through the mesh of a thick
veil is sufficient to entice men.
You may prevent kissing from
being shown on the screen—as
they do in India—but you can-
not prevent the spectator from
imagining it happening behind
every closed door. And further-
more, in spite of this India, no
doubt thanks to the cinema, is
a country with one of the high-
est birth-rates in the world.

If we are to be consistent,
then, we must completely pro-
hibit the showing of human be-
ings (and of course animals as
well) on the screen. Yet, two
objections spring to mind. First-
ly, once upon a time Moses pro-
hibited the same thing to the
Israelites, the Jews respected
the ban for 2.000 years, but it
cannot be said that they have
exactly lost their positive ap-
proach to sex. And secondly,
what are films to be about if we
do that? Scenes of plant life are
definitely out—there are far too
many erotic symbols in the veg-
etable kingdom, one only needs
to recall the apple which led to
woman’s first fall in the Garden
of Eden. The same applies to
the world of material objects, all
those umbrellas, water taps, and
curved armchairs. :

If it is to achieve morality,
the cinema must without fail be-
come an absolutely abstract art
—which is in itself decadent
and immoral, a statement that,
I hope, needs no proof where
decent people are concerned,
since no such proof exists.

The only way out of this
dilemma is to prohibit films as
such. And also the theatre, lite-
rature, music, ballet, and the
fine arts. Experience has taught
us that not even the substitu-
tion of dots for four-letter
words in books, supervision of
dancers, dressing of statues or
painting clothes on nudes in

pictures bring the desired re-
sults.

It is to be feared that so dar-
ing a measure cannot, regret-
tably, be introduced overnight.
It is therefore vital that we start
by adopting a strict and bind-
ing moral code for the arts. The
following is an attempt to out-
line the principles behind such
a code for the film industry:

(1) Films may show nothing
that is in any way suggestive of
differences in sex. Thus films for
men may not include shots of
women or girls, nor of any ob-
ject of feminine gender, and
vice versa. As regards objects
of neuter gender (insofar as it
exists in the Janguage in ques-
tion), their admissibility may be
discussed at a scientific confer-
ence; however, from a_ purely
moralistic viewpoint they are
undesirable, as they may give
cinema goers perverted sexual
Ideas.

(2) No film may include any
object connected with the bed-
room, with sleep, lying down, ete.
This is to be understood as ap-
plying to all such objects, irres-

Bethune radio pla
a big hit in GDR

A three-part radio play about
Dr. Norman Bethune, written
by Canadian writer Sydney Gor-
don, has proved to be a big hit
in the German Democratic Re-
public.

Titled, ‘Artz auf Drei Konti-
nenten” (Doctor on Three Con-
tinents), the 3!4-hour trilogy
was first broadcast throughout
the GDR during the period be-
tween Jan. 26 and Feb. 9. So
popular was it with the listeners
that it was re-broadcast from
Feb. 26 to March 10 and is
scheduled to be repeated four
or five times during this year,
for a total of some 21 weeks.

The trilogy tells the story of
Dr. Bethune from his childhood
until his death in China in 1939.
The original play was written

ective of gender.
2 (3) The sets must on
count suggest any possidf
lated space, artificial ot ™
where lovers might com
be lurking. For the same”
it is forbidden to depict
Jess steppe or prairie, 7
other similar expanse 3
shots prove indispens4 is
director will place 8! f
people of identical se
propriate distances, SU if
to be odd in number #
iaining at least three
each. :
(4) All objects depict
screen must be smoot
geometrical shape, to #
symbolism. Curves, !?
Jat, are not permissible
(5) No darkness of #6
is to be permitted, on Of aad
screen, including the aU
(6) No motion may
forth be depicted in films:
with a little imagine ail”
movement may appeal i
someone, rousing Wh
associations. ; thal)
(7) None of the thing?
prohibited in the form?
may of course be Suge
means of sound. Ol
It is hardly necessary )
the Film Code in detail ”
above extract ought hi
A solution such a§ i
inevitably lead to a ¥
ary change. Some two.
years after the code’s
tion it will doubtless .
sible to abolish films 44
lessly, with unanimous vs
Until this happens; al
pects could be made ,
new films, which WOU
cure them of all non"
inclinations, Personally ©
ly advocate trying this
soon as possible one
ardent moralists, bec#
mental impotence 15
it has not yet been P
clusively that it is
ditary.
(Translated by Geors®

no

entirely by Sydney Gord
ed on the book, fa
The Sword, which net ;
ed with Ted Allen,
materials researched bY
—since the publicatl
book—in Canada a 2
Commenting on Be l
of his radio play in Ber pis
he has lived for thé
years, Gordon said:
“The production © «di
on such a grand scale id
to what extent the life there
of Bethune have SeiZ& 4 Fy
lic imagination her he
mark of the humanist’ iqlé
dication to peace a" 4
tionalism with whi¢

a th
socialist society 1
is being built.” gon
A TV version of Gor t

logy is in preparatio™

a
March 23, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE=