A serious warning to the film industry regarding ÒsexÓ films, which, it is stated, are becoming more and more daring, is contained in the report for 1931 of the British Board of Film Censors, signed by Mr. Edward Shortt, K.C., the president., and Mr. J. Brooke Wilkinson, the secretary, which was issued yesterday.
ÒThere has unquestionably been a tendency of late,Ó the report declares, Òfor films to become more and more daring, the result probably of the large number of stage plays which are now presented on the screen, and of the licence which is to-day allowed in current fiction.
ÒSubjects coming under the category of what has been termed ÔsexÕ films, others containing various phases of immorality and incidents which tend to bring the institution of marriage into contempt, show a marked increase in number. Even when the story is not in itself wholly immoral, there appears to be a desire to stress the unpleasant aspect which is best described as Ôsex appealÕ with a wealth of detail which is altogether prohibitive for public exhibition.
ÒThe Board has always taken exception to stories in which the main theme is either lust or the development of erotic passions, but the president has come to the definite conclusion that more drastic action will have to be taken with regard to such films in the future.
The ÒSpicy FlavourÓ  
ÒThere are certainly some producers who delight to show the Ôfemale form divineÕ in a state of attractive undress, and during the year their number has appeared to increase. There has been also a move in a similar direction so far as men are concerned. The objectionable aspect is the tendency on every conceivable occasion to drag in scenes of undressing, bathroom scenes, and the exhibition of feminine underclothing which are quite unnecessary from the point of view of telling the story.
ÒThey are solely introduced for the purpose of giving the film what is termed in the trade Ôa spicy flavour.Õ The cumulative effect of a repetition of such scenes as can be described as ÔsuggestiveÕ is very harmful, and properly evokes adverse criticism, although isolated instances may do no harm and call for no comment.Ó
34 FILMS REJECTED
No fewer than thirty-four films have been totally rejected, the reasons being:Ñ 
The materialised figure of the Saviour.
Blasphemy and comic treatment of religious subjects.
Travesty of religious rites.
The institution of marriage treated with contempt.
Death treated with vulgar flippancy.
Gross and brutal travesty of prison life.
Hospital scenes treated with vulgar levity.
Physiological enormities.
Suggestive themes acted throughout by children.
Unrelieved sordid themes.
Prolonged and gross brutality and bloodshed.
Scenes in and connected with houses of ill-repute.
Lives of thoroughly immoral men and women.
Collusive divorce.
Stories in which the criminal element is predominant.
Equivocal and objectionable bedroom scenes.
Habitual youthful depravity.
Habitual immorality.
Offensive political propaganda.
Gross and objectionable dialogue.

In addition to these thirty-four films, amounting to 146,183ft., there are a further eight films which are still outstanding. In some instances drastic alterations will be necessary before any of these films can receive the BoardÕs certificate.
Exception was taken by the examiners to 284 films, which are grouped under various headings. Reasons in the ÒpoliticalÓ group include ÒReferences to the Prince of WalesÓ and ÒPresentation of living personages.Ó Other groups are headed ÒMedical,Ó ÒSocial,Ó ÒSex,Ó and ÒCrime and Cruelty.Ó
Both the number of films to which exception was taken and of those definitely rejected show a marked increase.