Film censorship in the Netherlands
It was 1913 when English teacher and drama critic Simon B. Stokvis published the pamphlet Het Amsterdamsche schoolkind en de bioscoop (‘The Amsterdam schoolchild and the cinema’). Stokvis, who at the time was the secretary of the Committee Against the Cinema Evil in the period May-June 1913 attended 23 Amsterdam cinemas to monitor the programs, the audience and, in particular, to take note of the number of schoolchildren. The pamphlet is a very comprehensive report: Stokvis describes and reviews the films, while paying special attention to the reactions of the young audience. Finally, he states: “As a result of this research, we are afraid that cinema is not a good form of children’s entertainment, if it is offered to them without any control: it could ruin them.” In conclusion, Stokvis advocates the introduction of film censorship.
Stokvis backed his claims with facts. Some children, he wrote, stole money from their parents to go to the movies. Some watched films till late at night, and they couldn’t focus in school the next morning. Cinemas were unfriendly, seedy places filled with smokers, some of whom were children, and they were always overcrowded. Stokvis described groups of children piling up in the same chair. But cinemas were just a part of the problem: the parents, especially the less well off, used the theatre as a surrogate babysitter. They sent unattended kids to evening shows or whenever they needed some rest. And parents in the audience also gave a terrible example. Stokvis wrote of a four year old asking: “Father, what’s happening now?” And the father replying: “Well, that little lightning just fucked the old man.” And the child, surprised: “Ooooh!”
In 1914, one year after Stokvis’ study was published, the film directors from Amsterdam responded to it with a pamphlet entitled Een protest. Antwoord op de Brochure 'Het Amsterdamsche schoolkind en de bioscoop' (‘A protest. An answer to the brochure The Amsterdam schoolchild and the cinema’).This portrayed Stokvis as an enemy of cinema and accused him of deliberately putting film in a bad light. Somehow they had misinterpreted Stokvis’ purpose: he criticized how cinema business worked but he acknowledged the crucial role film could play in society. Cinema could elevate people. He believed in the old socialist ideal that art could make man better, and happier. This task, originally assigned to theatre – now too far removed from common people in Stokvis’ opinion – had to be fulfilled by cinema. It was with these ideals that Stokvis pleaded for censorship: not based on moral grounds, but rather on the prohibition of “unaesthetic emotions”.
Stokvis had an ambivalent attitude towards censorship. He advocated the institution of a cinema committee, but not one run by the government. Because, in that case, the police would control it, and the police had no valid opinion on artistic matters. Stokvis called for an independent committee composed of writers, artists, musicians and other people who could recognize artistic qualities. Unsurprisingly, the Dutch judges of the Association of Municipal and Private Cinema Committees in the Netherlands found Stokvis’ views and proposals far too liberal, if not a threat to good taste. Stokvis ignited a heated debate with his description of a scene with the actress Asta Nielsen. He praised her for “letting us enjoy her lovely curves.” Surely, not the words you would expect from a venerable film censor. The Association dissociated themselves from Stokvis.
Nevertheless, Stokvis eventually convinced the city of Amsterdam to support his views and a cinema committee was created. Stokvis was the secretary and the central figure who ensured that the inspecting process ran smoothly. Soon, though, Stokvis came into conflict with the other censors. He overruled their judgments and created controversy with his policy. He was very meticulous and, for example, he banned movies because of misspelling or incorrect punctuation in the intertitles. It is no surprise that Stokvis was put under fire by both the directors and by the other members of the committee. After a reorganization, he was given a new role: he was appointed cinema inspector and verified that cinemas complied with the committee’s provisions, while Van Thiel was elected as the new chairman of the committee. Progressively, Stokvis was isolated. He was judged incapable of cooperating with other people and definitely not fit for a management position.
