A question of cultural management
What are your views about the banning of the play Stitching?
I want to begin by stating two points that are relevant as background for understanding the issue about the banning, which I think deserves discussion but has not received it; namely whether St James Centre for Creativity should be so closely associated with sectarian presentations.
The first premise is simply that I am against all censorship of theatre productions, at least in our context. I do not intend to argue the case here. I will only say that I hold this position for both practical and theoretical reasons. Of course I do not believe that freedom of expression should be absolute, but I do not see why in our present day cultural context the theatre should be treated differently from newspapers or books.
If the editor of a newspaper or the author of a book transgresses one of the acknowledged limitations on freedom of expression by libelling somebody or by offending religious sentiment, criminal action is rightly taken against the offender. It has been recognised to be both impractical and even undesirable in principle for censorship (by which I mean prior examination of the matter to be printed to prevent the commission of crime) to be applied in the case of printed material. In these days of the easiest access possible to any material whatsoever on internet or TV, the same reasoning should apply to the theatre.
What is your second preliminary point?
I have read Stitching and I do not think that I am totally unable to imagine how I would experience it in performance. In fact, a first reason why I have a poor opinion of the play is that it relies almost exclusively on verbal exchange for its effect. It has nothing of the theatrically innovatory language that there was as a kind of redeeming feature in the otherwise more objectionable play Blasted that escaped the censors' ban.
It does not seem to me even to raise the basic question that Aristotle asked about tragedy: "How come human beings can enjoy the representation of painful acts on stage?" His answer was that ordinary people emerged with their commitment to life enhanced through the poetic way in which even the worst aspects of existence were shown.
The terms in which this play has been praised by some do not persuade me in the least that even they found it enjoyable. For instance, they admired it for its capacity to shock. That it has that capacity is itself dubious, but in any case it is very different from the enjoyment, essentially pacifying, that Aristotle had in mind. It may be that some may consider it to be liberating because of taboo-breaking, although I think it is today only a futile smashing-down of open doors, but I do not myself agree that shocking is an identifying mark of creative art.
Can you state more fully the question about the appropriateness of the play being staged at St James?
A first issue that arises is that the manager of St James Centre for Creativity is also the director of the play, who has in fact been its most outspoken defender.
Let me say at once that I was 50 per cent of the selection board that appointed the manager and that I still feel that a better choice could hardly have been made.
I was also keen that his involvement in the managerial side of the centre should not deprive us of his talents as a director or in other artistic functions.
But shadows of conflict of interest begin to arise if the manager allows himself to become intimately associated with a particular and very slanted type of production.
In fact, Unifaun's various presentations all appear to share just one characteristic - shock treatment in whatever way.
One production was a talk-show showing St Paul as not really believing in the resurrection of Christ that the Apostle verbally presents as the sole basis of the Christian faith that he preaches. The chief, if not the only, merit of this play plainly was its offensiveness to the Maltese image of St Paul as their father in faith.
I do not wish in the least to prevent anyone from acting on this aesthetic principle, but I am not enthralled if it appears to be officially adopted by our country's highest centre of creative art.
The responsibility for policy lies squarely with the governing board of the centre.
It is good that the government that appoints the board should not interfere with the board's implementation of the aims of the centre.
But it is unfortunate that the board does not have an officially published national cultural policy for guidance. In any case, however, the board cannot shrug off its responsibility for what the centre presents to the public.
I personally applaud a board that is ready to take risks in order to give space for innovatory talent, especially of local origin, at the necessary expense of occasional mistakes.
But it should not be at the cost of either abandoning any standard of judgment or of favouring any one trend or sectarian aesthetic approach that seeks to attract an audience by scandal-mongering.
Fr Peter Serracino Inglott was talking to Alessandra Fiott.
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Adrian Buckle
Feb 25th 2009, 17:14
@ Paul Xuereb.
I had vowed to myself not to blog on the subject again, but Dr Paul Xuereb is a man I respect immensely and I feel that I have to correct some of his assertions regarding my theatre work. It is true I believe greatly in In-Yer-Face Theatre. I find it fresh, captivating and able to communicate with younger audiences, something which theatre seemed to have become unable to do. However, when one checks my productions, he finds that this kind of theatre is still a minority of what I have produced. Here is a list of my productions since 2005: The Good Doctor, The Pillowman, Two, Some Explicit Polaroids, Paul, Equus, Minn Wara Z-Zipp (twice), Mercury Fur, Blasted and The Alchemist. My next two productions, unless Stitching gets a speedy go ahead will be Devil's Advocate (a political play) and Is-Surmast. So, only 4 plays out of 12 are In-Yer-Face. The truth is that I experiment with all kinds of theatre as long as I like the script. So why tell me not to put on any more theatre that I like and believe in?
Paul Xuereb
Feb 25th 2009, 09:10
Chris Gatt is right to insist that "in-yer-face" plays have not been as common at St James as I stated, and he was right to draw readers' attention to the splendid work St James has been doing in the field of theatre for children. I still think, however, that he and his managerial colleagues should channel Unifaun's great energy and talents in more directions than they seem to be doing. Moreover, once they and Chris are dissatisfied with the present situation regarding stage classification and censorship, they should refrain from attacking the Board and instead ask Government to consider changing the law regulating this area.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 25th 2009, 01:08
I live in London and have done for near to half a century. I am not much of a theatre buff as I
get my 'requirements' from other cheaper sources. I love the arts nevertheless. I did away with moralising shackles eons ago. That means I have moved away from the kind of provincialism (Malta? provincial?) that demands to be entertained. Francisco Goya etched his horrors of war and other works. He was depicting the horrors of war, injustice, the pitiable state of the mentally deranged, decrepit old age, etc. No doubt he shocked people. He was also a practising Catholic. With no shackles as I imagine. Spain's gruesome Holy Week statuary (like Malta's) is no accident.
Likewis, the classical Greek plays. Sure they were entertainment in a collective sense. But the works were thought-provoking and discussed, and debated. So much so, that they are texts for study even today, two thousand five hundred years later. Imagine, works written half a millenium before Christ. And still vibrant and, in many ways, shocking even today. See Strauss' Electra and shudder. And that is a mere few decades' take on an old classic. But like Holy Week, don't take the kids.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 25th 2009, 00:35
The Board at St James, if they produce Stitching on their premises would indicate a freedom from shackles indeed. Such a decision would not automatically embrace (or reject) theism. What the Board's belief system is irrelevant and of no import to anybody. If they produce the play because they believe in freedom of expression, that is good enough for me. People who see the play - if they so choose seeing the work has had so much exposure one can reach a decision from one's kitchen table - can take the content on board or not. Having said that, I think it foolhardy for anyone to believe that just a one-off exposure to enlightenment would prove to be a road to damascus revelation. Enlightenment is a continuum. People can 'see' it and be shocked. Or not. The could see it as mere tijatrin with a bit of edge. They will come away with just that, ie nothing. Those who delve deeper could be onto an incredible undertaking. What this is is an individual matter. Depending on their stamina, their baggage, their commitment to themselves, their self-esteem and so on. It is open ended. Anything better than being stuck in mud.
Frans Sammut
Feb 24th 2009, 19:28
@ Mikhail Basmadjian
May I repeat what I said way down below: "As usual, hardly anything could be added to improve on what Fr Peter opined regarding the St James Cavalier controversy." Perhaps the most important part of PSI's critique was the following: "The terms in which this play has been praised by some do not persuade me in the least that even they found it enjoyable. For instance, they admired it for its capacity to shock. That it has that capacity is itself dubious, but in any case it is very different from the enjoyment, essentially pacifying, that Aristotle had in mind. It may be that some may consider it to be liberating because of taboo-breaking, although I think it is today only a futile smashing-down of open doors, but I do not myself agree that shocking is an identifying mark of creative art."
I have never known PSI's literary criticism to be anything but breathtakingly profound and 100% reliable. I am referring to circa 40 years of past experience.
Incidentally I am also familiar with Ms Friggieri's outstanding expertise in drama and the theatre.
Sorry, Mr Basmadjian, that is all I can conscientiously add on the subject.
mikhail basmadjian
Feb 24th 2009, 17:20
@Frans Sammut
''What I dislike in this "Stitching" case that it is being touted as "art" when it is only an exercise in shock treatment.''
Firstly, it is not a 'case' - it is a PLAY about life, love, loss, pain, despair, doubt, insanity & redemption, which has been MADE into a 'case' by a dying breed of insecure power hungry authorities. However I understand and appreciate what you ultimately meant to say.
Secondly, please explain how you can state the above with 100% conviction when you have not watched the play, and consequently do not have the full visual picture that would allow you to make a well informed, decision. Art has never been black or white! The emotions you would experience while watching the play are far greater than any script reading will allow you to. PAUSES inbetween lines cannot materialize during a reading, and yet in this particular play the silences say as much, if not more than the text. Being emotional, inconsistent and vulnerable information-processing animals, perhaps we should be at least 0.1% self critical vis-a-vis our own rooted convictions, and find the answers for ourselves via participation, and not based on what others have said.
Frans Sammut
Feb 24th 2009, 15:02
@C Gatt
Excuse me for not replying earlier; I was out and did not read the comment board. Well, yes, I did read Nabokov (which is not exactly "paedophilic" as "Stitching" is reputed to be). However, I must add that though Nabokov is a much superior writer, I still remember his novel with some distaste. The connotation carried even in the title "Stitching" does not evoke Nabokov but De Sade, by this I mean certainly not "lyrical" but downright revolting. Nabokov never, throughout his long novel, ever thinks of stitching anyone's vagina! The very thought is not only revolting but downright pathological. And that is why the Marquis was held in Charenton - a mental asylum. Now I wouldn't expect you to consider ME a prude. In case you do, just read some stories from my "Hrejjef Zminijietna". In one of them I defied some taboos but I so painstakingly strove to do it according to the ars artem caelare est requisite that even critic Paul Xuereb failed to see what it was all about. What I dislike in this "Stitching" case that it is being touted as "art" when it is only an exercise in shock treatment.
C Gatt
Feb 23rd 2009, 20:45
@Paul Xuereb. Thank you for the compliments but i must take umbrage at your comment that St James has presented an unremitting diet of ('in yer face') stuff. This was the line up for 2007 and 2008: Disney Tunes Again, Audacity, Paul, L-Imfietah, It-Tifla li Waqghiet Gol-Ktieb (children's Theatre), Once upon a toy (children's Theatre), Three Beckett Plays, Gasping, Tattoo, A Tribute to Francis Ebejer, Wara L-Hajt tas-Sejjiegh (children's ecology theatre) , Equus, Doubt, Lucrizja Borga, Teddy Bear Concerts. In 2008 : Laughing Wild, Simone De Beauvoir Mor, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Seascape, God's Official, The Pardon Beggars, Indian Dance and Music Festival, Opening Doors Disabled Theatre Festival, Ipermettili Nitlaq, Blasted, Blackbird, Kneeplays Youth Theatre.
Of those i would seriously only consider Blasted as being of the in yer face type.If we are now going to consider any challenging play such as 'Paul' Or Doubt' as being in yer face, we are on a very slippery slope indeed.
I understand your position..But i know that if you saw a rehearsal you would wonder what the fuss was about. Those who have seen it have been sincerely moved to tears. Trust me on this one
C Gatt
Feb 23rd 2009, 20:29
@ Frans Sammut
Please note that there is NO paedophilia in Stitching. However i am intrigued at your claim that representing paedophelia, whether in print or on stage is simply not on'. So why have you not asked the censors to ban the Oscar-winning film, The Reader. I screen a separate medium. And how can you them claim to have read Nabukov. Or is that not paedophilia.
@everybody.
Let me get this clear once and for all: this is NOT a shocking play. Unless you consider Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf a shocking play. If you don't believe me ask those who saw the rehearsal. This is a love story. A sometimes warped one, but one which touches the heart and mind. It concerns a psychologically depressed woman. But i challenge anyone to tell me what the story is about. because i know for sure none of these critics have read the play properly.
Joseph A Borg
Feb 23rd 2009, 17:47
From Unifaun's website: their mission statement states "Unifaun theatre questions the status quo, enlightens the mind and entertains the soul. Seracino Inglott has every right to label this as "shock treatment in whatever way" but it betrays a slight whiff of hypocrisy and condescending authoritarianism from Malta's own living oracle.
Paul Xuereb
Feb 23rd 2009, 12:05
Like Peter Serracino Inglott I am an admirer of much of the work Chris Gatt has been doing as a manager and as the artistic director of St James Cavalier, but like him I am slightly troubled by the way in which he has allowed his theatre to become above all a showpiece for the in-rer-face kind of theatre of which Adrian Buckle and Unifaun seem to be so much enamoured. I cannot imagine that Chris Gatt is unaware of all the wealth of drama that has been produced in the past ten or twenty years, a good proportion of which is intelligent, thought-provoking drama but does not try to be sensationalist in its methods like, for istance, Sarah Kane or Anthony Neilson. I hasten to add that our audiences need an occasional dose of in-yer-face drama; what they do not require is an unremitting diet of such stuff, something that Unifaun should surely keep in mind when drawing up their programme for the season (let's have more plays like The Alchemist, please) and the management of St James Cavalier should urge the need for this on that drama group.
Joseph A Borg
Feb 23rd 2009, 10:24
Becoming the local oracle requires a very fine degree of sophistry. As usual Fr Peter is spinning a long yarn to appease both sides of the argument. The play 'Paul' offered an opinion shared by many local citizens, don't they have a right to explore their beliefs? The church wants to censor what people think. Well many think there are no tooth fairies and father christmas is fictitious. I am sure Fr Peter wouldn't oppose a play that explores the dangers of scientology or jehova witness or makes fun of Thor or Zeus. As far as I know we're living in a secular state that should be defending equal rights for minorities and shouldn't be showing any preference to any religion or cult.
Jessica DeBattista
Feb 22nd 2009, 23:56
@ Joe Xuereb: “Peter Serracino, if you were an atheist you would have a clearer vision. The board at St. James' do not have your shackles.” Do I understand correctly or should the above be more clearly worded? Is the Board at St. James’ atheist? I am sure that is not so. But if it is, then perhaps I can understand the emphasis on producing something like ‘Stitching’ - that shocks. What next? As you say “some people may get enjoyment out of being shocked’, so this controversy about ‘Stitching’ has done some people a favour. It has identified a plateful of delicacies they might have missed. “The production's aim is to teach”, you say. What lesson are we (or should I say they?) going to learn from this production I wonder? Following the staging of the production, it would be interesting to read some genuine comments from members of the audience (those who like to be shocked/ those who go out of curiosity) and how they have come away enlightened from the experience. Jessica DeBattista
Joe Xuereb
Feb 22nd 2009, 12:19
Peter Serracino, if you were an atheist you would have a clearer vision. The board at St. James' do not have your shackles. The old mindset whereby theatre is for entertainment is long gone. Tijatrin is no more. This is 2009. People are asking questions and they want answers. They get them through 'artistic creativity' (they are only words) that uses the stage as a pulpit to answer questions, to prod people into deeper thinking, to empower them. To decry creativity for its scabrous content is missing the point altogether. Some people may get enjoyment out of being shocked of course. Each to his own. The production's aim is to teach. It is after the homework that one enjoys the fruit of enlightenment, the validation of life if you must. I would say that telling lies from a stage, a pulpit, a soap-box is blasphemous and needs censorship. But of course you would not understand this. Your vested interests are too ingrained. What Paul said (or did not), whether by passed via Malta (or did not) is totally irrelevant. To this one at least. It is all about clarity. And vision. And not a bit of damask in sight.
Frans Sammut
Feb 22nd 2009, 10:36
As usual, hardly anything could be added to improve on what Fr Peter opined regarding the St James Cavalier controversy. Personally I cannot easily think of anything that could shock me. I read D.H. Lawrence when I was still in my early teens, Nabokov a couple of years later and De Sade in my early 20's. I would expect people of my age to have gone through the same kind of 'shock treatment'. Yet those of us who retained their sanity (to various degrees, of course) concur that representing paedophelia, whether in print or on stage is simply not on. Now whether those who intend to do so are stopped in their track prior to the execution of their intent (as happened with "Stitching") or punished for it afterwards is of little consequence. I dislike people treating 'art' as if it were a commodity that has to be sold by any method available, including blatant provocation, or as Fr Peter put it, "shock treatment". As Benedetto Croce (not the most orthodox of Christians) would say, "dove c'e` polemica non c'e` arte."