3
5. Another alternative (suggested by DBs) is to ban trailers of
Category III films from being screened with features of other categories. (This would mean that these films cannot advertise on TV either.) It would be unfair for Category III films of artistic merit, and the move would probably meet with the opposition from the film industry.
5.
:
Criticism of advertisements have been made in DEs. If we consider the fact 35% of the people in the INRA survey were not fil-goers (21% drarely, 15% not at all), they might have got the impression that we were too lax from misleading/erotic advertisements, newspaper comments, and the excitement over "hair films" a few years ago. Apparently, there is nothing we can do about irresponsible comments in the press. But what about the policy/standards towards film
advertisements?
7. The circular letter to the industry concerning film advertising
issued by Department on 14th Dec., 1976 reads: "It is assumed by this Department that compliance with the law rests with the person or organisation to whom the censorship cards for the film concomed were issued." Sowever, film distributors (those who do not own cinema chains) and cinema managements sometimes put the blame on each other or on the lack of co-ordination between the two. Disapproved graphics or lines for newspaper ads have appeared in magazines. Perhaps the new legislation can cover advertising responsibility and make prosecution easier.
8. Besides surprise checks at cinemas showing Category III films, the
inspectorate (ideally) should undertake duties of checking hoardings, stills and, occasionally, trailers an: films show in cinemas.
Prosecutions are liable to occur. During the proceedings, the vires of the censors might be challenged. If an amendment is rade to correct this basic flaw, it will probably be unnoticeable amidst the other changes in legislation.
10. September 1302.
+