Spectator's Notebook
T HAVE waited until now before commenting on 'the BBC's decision to ban Peter Watkins's film The War Game because I wanted to see it for myself first. I dislike censorship, but I dislike equally those who condemn all forms of censorship out of hand. It is a curious thing that those who demand total freedom of expression in the arts are always the first to demand the curtailment of freedom in most other spheres— notably of course, the economic.
But to return to Peter Watkins's mock docu- mentary of a nuclear attack on Britain, which Sir Hugh Greene has decided is 'too horrifying for an indiscriminate medium like television.' As a guest of the BBC, I was able to see it at a private showing on Tuesday. Of course it is horrifying. Nuclear war is horrifying. There is no element of fantasy in the physical and mental suffering shown on the screen. There is no need for fantasy. Within permissible limits (and leav- ing aside the rather strange, sequence of events that are supposed to have led up to the nuclear attack) this is a realistic and, incidentally, brilliant film.
As such it should be available to be seen by every adult who wishes to see it. If Sir Hugh feels that 'nervous and sensitive' people might watch it in spite of warnings about its nature, then why not show it well after normal pro- grammes have ended for the day—perhaps in the small hours of the morning as the last heavy- weight boxing championship (for different rea- sons) was shown? Sir Hugh Greene is right that the audience should be selected rather than `indiscriminate.' But it should be allowed to select itself, rather than be chosen by Auntie BBC.
Previous page
