Chapter four of Low's book History of British Film examines the issue of censorship and focuses on films such as The Seashell and the Clergyman, M, Poil de Carotte, La Maternelle, Freaks, The Island of Dr. Moreau, and Der Ammenkoenig.  Low explains the various reasons that films were censored in Britain including sensitive subject matter such as child suicides, child murderers, and vaguer explanations such as the film containing “revolting monstrosities” and, the most infamous of all reasons which was applied to The Seashell and the Clergyman: being “So cryptic as to be almost meaningless.  If there is a meaning it is doubtless objectionable” (Low 70).  She goes on to explain the indifference with which the censorship board examined films intended for entertainment and those intended to be art, applying the same scrutiny of acceptability to both.
    This chapter may at first appear to have little to do with the thesis of this project, however it lends much to an analysis of Artaud's philosophy and film theory.  The indiscretion employed by the censorship board typifies the normative view of the homogeneity in purpose behind films which Artaud vehemently opposed.  Furthermore, the response of the board to The Seashell and the Clergyman begins to illustrate the involvement of the audience in art that Artaud advocated, though it falls short of the participation that he desired.  This response indicates that the viewers were unable to draw logical conclusions about the content of the film (which Artaud had intended) yet their review fell short of attempting to participate in the experience.  The manner of its censorship also highlights Artaud's ideal of the artistic goals to which films should aspire: as with the other films listed above, the board no doubt evaluated The Seashell and the Clergyman as a standard entertainment film, declining to consider it as Artaud and Dulac would have desired.  Finally, the inability of the board to derive any meaning from the film exhibits the effects of Surrealism that Artaud intended his works to have, displacing the viewer from a normative reality and severing any identification with characters.

Low, Rachael. History of British Film. Vol. 7. New York: Routledge, 1997. 54-73.