Editorial

Emanuel Cilia Debono

Jul 5th 2010, 09:48

Whilst I agree with much of the reasoning of the learned judge, in my opinion an assessment of the play should be based on the overall impression and not on the mere presence of offensive language . Secondly one has to take into account the type of audience for whom the play was intended and any hidden message which the writer wants to convey ( provided it is sufficiently intelligible to that audience). Going back to the eighties, would our censors who had then banned Webster's 'The Duchess of Malfi' be any wiser now following the recent Court judgment . Furthermore. what if the playwright had inserted an epilogue ( Bernard Shaw's style) or some other note to guide the intelligent reader as to the message he/she wants to deliver?

Joe Xuereb

Jul 4th 2010, 19:16

Thanks Gravina.
Just recently, I can't recall how many times I've drawn attention to a whole operatic list that, using the judge's measuring-stick, should all be banned. In particular, the biblical Salome. All evil, and madness as root of evil, is there. And it's not even fictional. Nobody, from any camp, has picked this up. Is it because they decided that right is might?
Of course, the old geezers who happen to see a Salome production (Covent Gardens, London where the sylph-like child-princess/soprano/dancer - YouTube> MARIA EWING >SALOME>YouTube - ends up in the buff. I was saying: the old conservatives leave the theatre mouthing 'x'gharukaza!'(disgusting) while inwardly admitting they enjoyed every shedding of diaphanous veils. Hypocrites.
The upholders of moral rectitude speak so easily of '........sexual perversions leading to....' I love the word perversion, a double-edged word. It is used to damn me, a fan of Pasolini. And it empowers me. You see, in my book, any sexual act that has not procreation as its final aim is a perversion. Fine, I may be shooting myself in the foot. But if you're going to pull me down, I'll make sure I drag you down with me. Punto e bast.

Joe Xuereb

Jul 4th 2010, 16:48

continued
I just feel sad that it was a route she chose because it's a dead-end one.

2) These films, not unlike Cavalleria Rusticana half a century earlier, were verismo all'italiana (the genre known as Italian realism, in opera particularly. See also Bicycle Thieves and hundreds of others - all in Catholic Italy half a century ago and more) . Would be interesting to know if they made it to Maltese screens in the 50s. American cinema dealth with the subject matter in a sanitized form and not for 20 years later. (as in The postman always always rings twice with an unlikely glamourised Turner and a later version with Lange). Audiences today find unacceptable sugary American romantic drama. Pretty Woman (1990) was still very sanitized.
I can take any of this and more without blinking. But then, as my mother used to say 'il-hazin tajjeb tkun tafu, hazin meta toprah'. Thanks ma! It's fine to recognise evil. It's only evil when it is acted out. And plenty of that around from the least expected quarters, nudge! nudge!
So WHAT, exactly, is the problem?

Joe Xuereb

Jul 4th 2010, 16:40

1) Using the same criteria, the judge should ban the biblical Salome, the opera. Tosca, La Boheme, Madam Butterfly, Cavalleria Rusticana, Carmen. The female leads all congressing with their men while still spinsters. Salome must go, absolutely.
Stitching is about an imagined reality. But it is fiction. Where's the problem? Until fairly recently, Hollywood churned out thousands of sugary films that appealed to the masses. Interestingly, Italy was producing films of the calibre of
Ossessione http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035160/ by Visconti.
Also, Fellini's Le Notti di Cabiria http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050783/
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nights_of_Cabiria
In this Wikipedia it states that Fellini used the talents of Pier Paolo Pasolini who knew about prostitution. Interesting, because I know all there is to know about prositutes even though I've never used one, male and certainly not a female. I like my pleasure au naturel, not commercialised. I don't condemn a prostitute - what am I, a priest? a god? - I just feel sad that it was a route she chose because it's a dead-end one.

continued

Joe Zammit

Jul 4th 2010, 11:14

In the sentence, the First Hall Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction said:

"Illi jekk wiehed japplika dawn il-principji ghal kaz odjern ghandu jirrizulta palezement li l-iscript tad-dramm ‘Stitching’ mhux biss fih kliem oxxen u f’partijiet ukoll kliem li joffendi s-sentiment religjuz, izda fih kontenut dekadenti u depravat ta’ perverzjonijiet moqzieza ta’ natura sesswali u sadomasokista u ghal waqtiet anke pedofilijaci, b’referenza wkoll gratwita ghall-imsejkna vittmi tal-kamp ta’ koncentrament ta’ Auschwitz, li minghajr tlaqliq u minghajr habi ta’ xejn jaqbez sew mhux biss il-limitu tad-decenza pubblika izda jbaxxi sahansitra d-dinjita’ tal-bniedem.

Illi in vista ta’ dan l-esponenti jissottomettu li tassew jezistu ragunijiet validi skond id-dettami tar-regolament 64 tar-Regolamenti dwar il-Pellikoli u l-Palk sabiex dina r-rapprezentazzjoni tejatrali tigi pprojbita milli tittella’ quddiem il-pubbliku u dan minghajr ma tkun saret l-ebda lezjoni ta’ l-Artikolu 41 tal-Kostituzzjoni u ta’ l-Artikolu 10 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea Ghad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Bniedem kif qed jippretendu r-rikorrenti.

The judgment can be downloaded on:

http://docs.justice.gov.mt/SENTENZI2000_PDF/MALTA/CIVILI%20PRIM%20AWLA%20(SEDE%20KOSTITUZZJONALI) /2010/2010-06-28_12-2009_62166.PDF

victor rodenas

Jul 4th 2010, 10:26

`History repeats itself`, goes the saying. Anything that was forbidden in 1950 was accepted in 1960......forbidden in 1960 accepted 1970......forbidden in 1980 accepted in 1990....forbidden in 1990 accepted in2000.....forbidden in 2000 accepted 2010 ....etc. By 2020 Stiching will be available to see for those who wish to see it..........one might say.....`over my dead body`.......yes that is exactly the point.