Theatre Traffic on censorship

Last week's Theatre Traffic session at the Manoel Theatre Coffee Shop involved its audience in a lively discussion on censorship in Malta. Speakers included Immanuel Mifsud, artistic director of Teatru Marta Kwitt; Edward Mercieca, who heads FM Theatre Productions; journalist Karl Schembri and Vicki Ann Cremona, who also chaired.

The audience was provided with a number of legislative facts: the rules of censorship fall under the police laws and may be subject to criminal proceedings. The board for the classification of film and stage classification consists of five to 15 members, appointed annually by the Minister of Home Affairs. Some censors have been on the board for many years. The board should draw up its guidelines for classification, however these have never been rendered public.

The first criterion for classification is specified as "the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults". But how is one to define "reasonable adults"? Are some to be deemed more "reasonable" than others before the law? Are 15 people chosen by one person to decide what forms the morality of the general public?

An audience survey held at a local theatre, that raised the question about criticism of political and religious issues in the theatre, revealed the public's unease vis-a-vis the subject as many contradicted their written replies in personal interviews. Many artists present stated that they hope to alter the status quo, although everyone admitted this is an upward struggle.

Mr Mercieca spoke about the importance of classification but stated that it is also where the censors' work should stop. Censors should not be allowed to exercise the right to "remove even a single full stop from the text". They have certainly tried to do so in various cases: Different companies spoke of words or scenes being cut out. "Our public is not yet ready for this type of theatre", is the statement that the company Theatreworx was faced with when it first presented the performance Closer to the censors.

Considering that certain criteria, viewed as immoral according to censors' standards, are vastly shown on videos, television and even newspaper adverts, it results that censorship comes down much more harshly on theatre than on any other form of entertainment. Dr Cremona ascribed this to the fact that the direct, unmediated simultaneous communication in the theatre, between actor and audience, makes anything presented on stage much more poignant.

Mr Schembri argued that censorship is ridiculous and potentially dangerous. If, currently, work is not being censored could it be that it is not provocative enough? This could mean that we are happily dancing to the tune of censorship's repressive currents and actually auto-censoring ourselves.

Mr Schembri said it seems strange that in our democratic society, at 18 one is considered mature enough to vote for the country's government yet not to choose what to hear and see. "There's no alternative other than to cheat censorship and ridicule it," he said.

Several actors seemed determined not to tolerate censors' interference in their performances, claiming: "If they stop us, we'll do it anyway".

Mr Mifsud reminded the audience that for every production, censors have two reserved seats among the audience and have the right to stop a performance after its first night. The censors, therefore, are aware of the contents of a production not only through the written text, which has to be submitted to them in advance, but also by watching the production itself. Mercifully, there are no signs that this right is currently being exercised.

Mr Mifsud also expressed his belief that censorship is mostly based on the values of Catholic morality to the exclusion of any other form of evaluation or judgment. However, it is not necessarily the Church which determines this value system but its influence which we have inherited. It is hardly possible that such an influence would be easily eradicated.

The public present, which also included actors and other artists, claimed that today there remains no space for the blocking of artistic expression. If a performance seems immoral to the individual, s/he has the freedom of choice to miss it or to walk out whilst those who think otherwise should not be prevented from sharing the artist's freedom of expression.

Ms Bugeja is a third year student reading for a BA Hons degree in Theatre Studies.