Monday, 26th January 2009
ARROGANCE INSTITUTIONALISED
The ether is alive with the sound of, not music, but the protests of anyone with some brain.
A play has been banned, because the Board of Film & Theatre Censors (or whatever it’s called) has, in its infinite wisdom, decided that it should not be put on. The play is Stitching, of which I had heard nothing until recently and, after having heard a bit about it, it’s not one I would have thought I’d be desperate to watch.
Not to put too fine a point on it, it seems (and note the use of the word “seems”) to be an exercise in shocking for the sake of it. Depressing and dark and all that great stuff, with concentration camp victims as the object of solitary titillation and other fun exercises in message making. From what I gather, it’s not one of the most edifying theatrical experiences available.
But that is not the point.
The point is that a group of people has decided that I am not to have the choice of whether I watch this thing or not. It seems that these people, whoever they are, have some sort of superior brain function that lets them sit in judgment on what I, a mere mortal, can be permitted to glimpse with my own eyes and hear with my own ears.
Just who do these people think they are? Islamic Fundamentalist wannabes? Christian Fundamentalist wannabes, for that matter? What next, am I to be told I can’t read Anthony Burgess, lest my mind be corrupted for ever? Is it to be decreed from on high that I can’t write stuff that challenges the received wisdom about homosexual marriage or women priests or whatever?
Where is the line to be drawn? Which pig is more equal than others? Which number of legs is better than any other?
Clearly, there are limits. Exploitation of people unable to look out for themselves, obviously, is unacceptable, the imperative of protecting the vulnerable overturning the necessity of guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression, but precisely who was being exploited by this play? Precisely who was being protected by having it banned?
Precisely no-one, that’s who.
An “adults only” classification would have made it obvious that this was not a play for someone whose idea of theatrical entertainment comprises “The Sound of Music”. For that matter, it would have been easy to mandate that an explicit health warning should have been put out and warning the producers that if non-adults were found to have been admitted, they (the producers) would have been made liable at law.
But no, the only way to ensure that fine sensibilities were not affronted was to ban the thing. Freedom of expression be damned, the censors decided to shut the thing off at source, because they know best and there’s an end to it.
I recall, quite a few years ago, that a particularly fine production of “The Duchess of Malfi” met with some turbulence because someone had hoofed a crucifix across the stage. It was, to the prissy protestors, entirely irrelevant that within the context of the thing, kicking the crucifix was perfectly understandable. No, it was more important to the Philistines to pander to the lowest of the lowest of common denominators and demand that the production be messed around with.
Before we have some Lil’Elves writing in to make the point that this is what you get when the PN are in Government, incidentally, let me just remind them that mind-control and control-freakery were the watchwords of Socialist Government in the times of KMB and Mintoff, so let’s have none of your sanctimony, please.
Getting back to 2009, though, would the Board of Censors please resign? I’m not even sure they’re called that anymore, I thought their function was to classify things, not to decide what can and can’t be shown to adults.
Come on, pick up your papers and stuff, and leave. Now.
And the last one out please switch off the light.
RSS
Comments
In general children and even most adults do not have easy access to “BOMBS AND MACHINES OF WAR” and not just because the latter are very expensive. But practically everybody – short of those in a straight jacket or a special security prison – has free access to knives, forks, scissors, needles etc. in one’s own home.
@Pia Zammit
Please brush up on the subject if you honestly believe that children or depressed people are not more vulnerable to harmful suggestions.
I trust that you are old enough to recall why the Maltese media stopped reporting obvious cases of suicide a few years ago.
OH PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I DON'T QUITE SEE CHILDREN GOING TO BUY A TICKET FOR STITCHING OVER A DISNEY MOVIE!!! PLEASE!!!!!! IF THAT IS THE CASE, DO NOT LET THEM WATCH THE NEW CRAPPY KIDS TV....WITH BOMBS AND MACHINES OF WAR AND FIGHTING AND FLYING OFF TO PLACES....COS THAT MIGHT JUST INFLUENCE THEM!!!
ITS FUNNY HOW ALL OF THIS IS HAPPENING IN MALTA....AND IT NEVER HAPPENS ON THE WEST END....OR ON BROADWAY...WHY????
LOOK AT EQUUS ON THE WEST END...FULL FRONTAL NUDITY...THATS NOT OBSCENE NOOOOO....
IDEA TO ADRIAN BUCKLE...DUDE, GET DANIEL RADCLIFFE TO BE IN STITCHING ... THAT MIGHT STOP THE BAN
@ Marianna Galea Xuereb's tirade about children being influenced etc .... are you basically saying that if i suffer from occasional bouts of depression i shouldn't watch or read romeo and juliet, for example, in case i'm inclined to take my own life? nor hamlet? nor macbeth? listen to yourself. right, over and out. shutting up again now.
"As far as I am concerned a play such as this is only suitable for mature adults lucky enough to enjoy full mental and emotional health and a good measure of psychological knowledge." Yet by banning the play, these adults have been denied the choice of whether or not they'll go watch it, and maturely discuss issues tackled by the author - who moreover made his intentions clear in today's newspaper! And I'm sure that they are a considerable majority in comparison with those who struggle with such problems.
One reason the latter find it hard to curb their problematic conditions is because we still won't talk openly about it. And the more we don't deal with it, the more these people feel rejected and misunderstood. We surely pity them, but I'm not so sure whether we'd like to understand, and at least help them in their situation.
“And generally susceptible and/or depressed individuals avoid these kind of plays because they are fully aware of their condition...”
This is not always the case, unfortunately. One may be fully aware of a problematic condition but still does very little to curb it. Addicted smokers and drug addicts are examples. And have you not heard of cases where troubled school children get into the habit of cutting themselves after they get to know of a peer doing it? Copying peers – particularly in moments of weakness - is not restricted to the teenage phase only, unfortunately.
As far as I am concerned a play such as this is only suitable for mature adults lucky enough to enjoy full mental and emotional health and a good measure of psychological knowledge. I still think the censors were right about this case even though it may smack of a “nanny state” attitude.
Those speaking in favour of tolerance are asking to be given, at least, the freedom to choose to see what others freely chose not to see, whatever judgement the latter pass on a play just by reading an article. They are surely not forcing anyone at gunpoint to come and see.
@Ms Galea Xuereb
What if the playwright might have been inspired from the REALITY of young people practising self-cutting etc.? He must have chosen to include self-harm to give us one extreme of the manifestation of the emotional turmoil the couple in the play are going through. It does not necessarily follow that when this is FICTITIOUSLY performed onstage, one expects the actress to stop midway through the act and tell us, "Please go home and do this because it is so enjoyable."
And generally susceptible and/or depressed individuals avoid these kind of plays because they are fully aware of their condition...
Just stopping at the shocking actions without seeing what is actually going on behind their motive is a superficial analysis. If some people can't take in their ugliness, surely I won't force them to keep watching though...
To see ourselves as others see us."
If only some pundits who who dish out arguments in defence of tolerance and against arrogance were to look in the mirror and realise how intolerant they are towards those who disagree with them, and how arrogant they can be in expressing themselves.
The board of whatever is obsolete a sort of blast from the past ala Cinema Paradiso, but instead of the local priest we've got Maggie and Judy from Little Britain forming a little club.
BBC's Skins is easily available on the internet and its far more shocking & influential than a pretend abortion or a dildo fight. Watch it and you'll know what I mean.
Mr. Schembri said that in NY the play is/was being staged just a stone's throw away from the Jewish quarters, and no one there batted an eyelid.
Mr. Thake said he was of semitic origin, and that he finds this kind of censorship unacceptable, because it smells of 1930s Germany.
The point is that some people insist on being offended on behalf of others, even when these others have no objections to the thing in question.
with a clear sense of detachment from reality, but the Maltese don't seem to be really intrested in tackling subjects in a much more tackling way (keeping in mind that I'm generalising for lack of better choice of words).
I've witnessed actors whose talent onstage is a million times better onstage then on TV (saying this with all due respect to Mr. Basmadjian). And what's beyond me is, that apart from censoring freedom of expression, we're also restraining an actor's/actress's freedom in exploring new grounds for their talent., which for me is disrespectful to their talent. I'm not saying these actors/actresses don't act on TV, but if the public wants to see their talent showing even more beautifully, go watch a challenging, demanding play such as the previously mentioned ones, and hopefully the upcoming Unifaun production. Then start commenting and lambasting and shouting 'SHAME' if you feel like.
CONT...
or promoting abortion or sexual deviancy. So, here's the thing. I'm as certain as a pebble certainly knows that is being thrown, that Fritzl went to see Nielson's play and performed what was depicted onstage with his daughter, even though he locked his daughter up in the 1980s.
So all those saying that violence results out of such portrayals are not really on the right track.
So Masquerade's pre-pantomime production 'BLACKBIRD' promoted peadophilia say you, when then again it was a sort of case study in human emotion, even if it does not fit with the socially-accepted norms, and it's open-ending surely doesn't say embrace paedophilia, but leaves room for question. So does Ideas Alive's 'IPPERMETTILI NITLAQ', which I've been personally involved in, looks at both sides of the coin of saving a heavily disabled child.
So all those detractors, don't just read an article and judge blindly. Instead ASK and INFORM yourselves...Alas, if you're happy with watching a ridiculous production on TV such as KC, well I can't be bothered to tell you not to. Yet, the way that series tackles taboo subjects is majestically ignoble and stupid CONT...
But first of all, let me direct this next comment to Erin Stewart Tanti:
You mentioned Mintoff's 70s and KMB's 80s, and I mention also the 60s Interdiction. Let it be known to you, mate, it's not really the government, but the Maltese public mentality and attitude that has to change. And after all it's the people who elect governments, and the mentality is reflected there too (vide Tonio Borg).
Now, for all those condoning the censorship:
Dejjem Tieghek Becky was heavily with religious commentary and thoughts, and that's not really instruction, but a great marketing tactic to reach out an even greater demographic. And it was so not in touch with reality that it made it unbearable to watch for me.
And this is all actually about reality. Because we have all been informed about the disgusting, condemnable actions of a particular Austrian man through a public source of media, a thoroughly shocking FACT. Yet, when it's in FICTION, we cry out 'Foul', because for some it is promoting violence CONT...
What on Earth are you saying? Of course there should ALWAYS be an age classification on certain films because children can t distinguish between reality and fiction, and teenagers are still impressionable. But Adults arent. They have a mind of their own and can decide for themselves. I agree that there should be a minimum age limit for certain plays. I myself would not have walked on stage during Mercury Fur if i knew that there were underaged people in the audicance. What CANNOT and SHOULD NOT happen is this whole banning of the play and then never actually give a reason.
My connection to the play is that i support Mr buckle and all those involved in the play. Plus - i dont need a connection with the play to be horrified at what the censors are doing.
"Could you specify one, just one, "law" passed by the censorship board?".
That's my whole point. Censors are above the law. They may decide to ban anything even if it is not illegal.
__________________________________________
@ Charles J Buttigieg:
Normally, when devolution of power is made, the person on whom power is devolved is either constrained by what the law says (like all civil servants including top-level management), or else are elected democratically (like mayors).
Censors are dictators in the sense that they go over and above what the law requires, and are not democratically elected.
Devolution of power is about delegating authority and when we elect a government we must accept that as a basic principle; however the government is still responsible as responsibility can’t be delegated, if it were different it would become a despotic dictatorship.
Government agencies execute their legal terms of reference and are naturally responsible for their task however the final responsibility (political) rests with the government.
The standards of public morality are subjective and epical, bikinis were considered indecent now they are acceptable. I therefore do appreciate you approach in that censors are not given a hard and fast rule to work on and that you can’t compare their responsibilities with other agencies. My disagreement is on the suggestion that we shouldn’t accept their judgement. We may disagree and demonstrate our disapproval but in the end the final decision is theirs albeit subject to a judicial appeal.
Whether or not we should have a body to control our moral standards opens up a different debate.
>It s called ACTING! you dont ACTUALLY perform an abortion on stage! You dont ACTAULLY kill people.
I see.
So, being if the 'great liberal mindset' (above us low lifes) and a 'great defender of the arts' you think that, as Chris has suggested, "you would encourage, if you can help it, any of your young children, you’re grand children or your partner, to watch a hard core movie, naturally uncensored, and if you can’t control them, would you be pleased and feeling modern about it?"
I'd suggest you add in 'Psycho', "dawn of the dead", "zombie flesh eaters", a couple of "Chain saw masacres" , "Poltergeist" etc etc for fun and for "art's sake"...
Why not?
after its all 'acting'?
They're not physically having sex/chopping people up in your very living room are they?
Yep! To hell with ALL censorship.
BTW.... what exactly is your connection with the play....?
>are you so scared of being challenged?
You DON'T know me do you...???
:)
>what are you so afraid of?
I'm afraid of the few (who should know better!):
- thinking themselves above the law (order of the day it seems!),
- thinking themselves to be above others
- treating others like idiots
- not abiding by the laws. ducking and diving to get what they want
- that they have managed to anaesthetise the majority who can see what is happening but expect others to fix their problems for them!
I am afraid that theclear signs of bad times ahead are staring us in the face, yet instead of doing something about it,our 'boat' is drifting rudderless....
I am afraid that we are at risk of losing all that Maltese society stands for to:
consumerism,
egotism
and capitalism.
(I wouldn't mind so much if we benefitted but they seem to be crumbling faster than the artic icecap itself!!)
I am however optimistic that sooner or later, when we all have to stand together or sink, common sense (survival mode?) will prevail & kick in!
After all, they say that history repeats itself!
;)
The "LAW" I am referring to is the LAW that permits a govt to create a board to overlook such plays, to safeguard (not dictate to!) society and that gives the board the power to determine if something is fit for public viewing or not.
The law says that the board can determine such matters, the law is king. Don't like it? Change the law (not ask for resignations etc in order to bypass it!)
At least that is how IGM thinks!
So:
>they have picked on a swearword.
If that is the case the it is utterly ubsurd!
Howver I doubt they have the authority to stop a play on such terms.
I suspect there is much, much more to it than that...
>don't ever EVER take your freedom for granted.
I don't.
>...but Maltese law & morality.... "
> really? have you read the play? or more importantly .. have you READ it?
See above. I think my point is clear?
If there's one thing I hate, it is when I am misunderstood or misinterpretted.
You are doing neither!
But for accuracy's sake I wish to clarify a few points:
1) I too do not like it when someone dictates to me.
Who does?
But ultimately there must be clearly defined boundaries for EVERYBODY.
And I accept that even if in some instances I disagree!
2) In an ideal world everything I want is allowed.
I don't have to pay taxes (dont you HATE that law to???) , I don't have to work too hard
etc etc.
3) If one therefore starts simply breaking 'this' law because 'its antiqauted' then someone else has an EQUAL RIGHT to break the 'tax law' etc above... or indeed any law deemed 'antiquated'.
You can see therefore where being TOO liberal with laws one doesn't like can lead to,,,,
4) I'm sure we both want 'liberty' but (I think!) we agree that laws are fundamental to protect those liberties.
With that in mind I do not agree that laws should simply be BROKEN to 'accomodate' but that laws should e CHANGED if society deems it correct.
It s called ACTING! you dont ACTUALLY perform an abortion on stage! You dont ACTAULLY kill people. For crying out loud! Batman doesnt really exist, even though there are plenty of films about him.Romeo and Juliet don t really exist either,and the actors dont ACTUALLY die. You do know this right? The other day i watched a production of Titus Andronicus- Cant believe the UK government allowed cannibalism on stage! HAHAHAHA.
Could you specify one, just one, "law" passed by the censorship board?
"Are the Attorney General, the Police Commissioner, the Director of Inland Revenue and Gannina the traffic warden elected democratically?"
Ah, but there is a fundamental difference. The Attorney General, the Police Commissioner and the Director of Inland Revenue (and the Traffic Warden) enforce the laws that the elected representatives (parliamentarians) make. The Censor, on the otherhand, is given the absolute power to make the law himself. No censor, as far as I know, is elected democratically to make laws prohibiting adults from watching this or that.
“Kieku hadd ma ghandu d-dritt jisfidaha, kieku ghadna nemmnu li x-xemx iddur mad-dinja. Jien nahseb li fil-fatt, il-kontra huwa l-kaz. Hadd ma ghandu d-dritt jikkontrolla l-hsieb. Jekk wiehed ghandu ragun, ghandu jipperswadi u mhux jiccensura”
You don’t need to be an intellectual to know that Galileo Galilei wasn’t a law maker and that the Holy Inquisition was a dictatorship.
What was your stand in the 1960s when the church did not allow its faithful to read the Labour Party news papers, not to support Labour, not to marry in church if you were Labour, not to baptise your children if you were Labour, not to be given the last rights, and not to be buried in sacred grounds if you voted Labour?
they have picked on a swearword. one. one single measly utterance and have decided for YOU that you are not mature, intelligent or well read enough to handle it. can you handle the news? can you handle hearing about the murders, robberies and acts of racism that are going on all over the island? are you allowed to buy a newspaper and read about how other nations live? you are ...... FOR NOW.
don't ever EVER take your freedom for granted. be that freedom from oppression or freedom of speech. i certainly don't.
at the risk of sounding like an utter geek (which i am) the board have taken on the Dolores Umbridge role in the latest harry potter film (watch it while you're still allowed to he he ), and that offends me, oppresses me and DEpresses me. i for one will not stand for it. we fought for our freedom in the 80s, we fight for our freedom today. are these inciting words? then darn it - arrest me now. i'm thoroughly sick of this. good night.
what if this board of 'censors' (i prefer Board of Classification myself) next decide that all plays, films and books containing a mere mention of homosexuality are harmful to our youth and adults? what if they next decide that all mention of suicide or anything that may challenge what they deem to be a pure wholesome catholic living is harmful to us, the people?
cont .....
"What this play is challenging is not Catholocsim but Maltese law & morality.... "
really? have you read the play? or more importantly .. have you READ it? just as we know how difficult it is to convey our intended tonality when typing a message in text; it is just as difficult to judge a play on a reading rather than on a performance. this play has been judged on just its text. you write with convinction about the content of the play, again i ask - have you read it? have you WATCHED it? i've done both and i can assure you, and everyone here, that it doesn't challenge anything but maybe the way we are comfortable in some relationships and assume the stance of 'that will never happen to me'. as i said earlier in this blog or maybe in another (i've lost track there have been so many comments) the overriding feeling us actors are getting from it is 'there but for the grace of god or luck, go i'.
are you so scared of being challenged? what are you so afraid of?
cont ...
“Ghawnhekk qed nitkellmu fuq poter assolut impoggi f'idejn persuna wahda (jew bord ta ftit) li ma humiex eletti demokratikament, u li jiddeciedu huma ghal kullhadd. Jekk xi hadd ha jisfida lil xi hadd, ha jisfida lil min jippretendi li ghandu poter assolut li jiddetta adulti x'ghandhom jaraw jew jaqraw. F' pajjiz demokratiku, dan mhux accettabbli.”
Are the Attorney General, the Police Commissioner, the Director of Inland Revenue and Gannina the traffic warden elected democratically? Like the board of censors and classification they are delegated authority by a democratically elected government and yes that is Democracy in practice.
If we are against censorship we have to protest by legitimate means and if the majority proves that it doesn’t want censorship then the government must change the law and if it doesn’t then the government becomes undemocratic. Or else we can opt for Anarchy, celebrate Imnarja and organise civil disobedience.
Can you, then, tell us what your stand was in the famous Imnarja of I-don't-know-how-many-years-ago when then Leader of the Opposition Eddie Fenech Adami suggested that workers take the day off?
What stand did you hold in the civil disobedience at that time?
And what about upholding the law when the law is an ass, as in this case?
Hallina, mannnnnnnn!!!!!!!
"Imma la qeghda hemm (ic-censura) hadd m'ghandu dritt jisfidha".
Kieku hadd ma ghandu d-dritt jisfidaha, kieku ghadna nemmnu li x-xemx iddur mad-dinja. Jien nahseb li fil-fatt, il-kontra huwa l-kaz. Hadd ma ghandu d-dritt jikkontrolla l-hsieb. Jekk wiehed ghandu ragun, ghandu jipperswadi u mhux jiccensura.
"Iridu jmorru fid-dark ages dawk li jippretendu li kull min jidhirlu li ghandu ragun allura jisfida l-ligi".
Id-differenza hija wahda. Ghawnhekk ma ahniex nitkellmu fuq xi ligi li tipprojbixxi certu publikazzjonijiet jew xogholijiet teatrali. Ghawnhekk qed nitkellmu fuq poter assolut impoggi f'idejn persuna wahda (jew bord ta ftit) li ma humiex eletti demokratikament, u li jiddeciedu huma ghal kullhadd. Jekk xi hadd ha jisfida lil xi hadd, ha jisfida lil min jippretendi li ghandu poter assolut li jiddetta adulti x'ghandhom jaraw jew jaqraw. F' pajjiz demokratiku, dan mhux accettabbli.
U semmejt lil Galileo ghax semmejtu int, u xejn iktar, u tajt l-impressjoni li Galileo (u Mandela) ha dak li haqqu. Jekk mhux dak li ridt tghid, darba ohra spjega ruhek ahjar.
Nispera li ftehmna bil-Malti.
Jien m'inix xi intellettwali. Jien sempliciment adult li jistenna li jigi ttrattat ta' adult.
>I could take the present stance being taken by some And once we lose that we lose everything.
Others would suggest that once "everything's permissible for the sake of art and don't you DARE tell me what to do!!" then that's where we "lose it all".
Others more extreme would suggest that with or without this play, we have already started the steep hill of materialism, individualism & "Thank you" (for want of a better word!) Jack!!"
Others still tell you that RULES protect them rather than HINDER them.
Isn't life fun on this rock of ours...?
If its all 'for the sake of art' then no one should impose right? And then... why not take it into university, sixth form & junior schools to 'educate' our children about art & expressionism?
Why can one express himself by being graphically brutal with kids, Jews, Blacks etc etc??
Where do these suggestions stop...?
>This is the first step, down a very winding road which can lead to the government shutting >down newspapers who don't agree with them, or silencing people who don't share their >beliefs... 1984 and animal farm all over again.
Oh please!!
There are laws to PROTECT society and whether we like them we must adhere to them: that's all that's being asked.
Put it this way, let's say (for the 'sake of art'!):
- there are some in here (who should know better!) who are suggesting the law is 'antiquated' and its high time that it not be enforced.
- what if others took the same attitude with plenty of other equally ( and conveiently!) antiquaed laws....?
If you can break 'A' why can't i break 'B' will equal impunity?
>The issue is the subjects cover within the play are warned on the poster, and it is the >audience members choice to either purchase a ticket to watch it or not, it is not being >imposed but instead is being given as a CHOICE for an audience member to watch it.
It falls within the law, I agree. So why has the board banned it?
>Theatre is allowed to tell us these stories so we can learn and not go down these routes,
I agree. Same question above applies.
>Check your bedside table and you'll find out...In your bible
If you 'literally translate' the bible, it also states that I can stone anyone not going to church on the Sabath. Many use the Bible for their own interpretation. Very Few actually abide by its real meaning...
>But the censorship board believes we should stick to their ideals and their ideals only...
Utterly ridiculous! Do you have facts or is this the usual "1+1=2000" conclusion?
>Yes, plays should be clearly advertised for what they are, but we should never be told we cannot express our opinions.
Again, therefore not have full blown peadophilic porn (art!) etc?
2) Whether one approves or not it is illegal (criminally) in Malta to bare a female nipple on a beach!!!
So if, on ECG's advice "Being open minded is about accepting everyone. " and "for the sake of art" this play was to go ahead.... why stop there?
Why not include ("for the sake of art" of course!) the other illegal acts I mentioned?
Where would it actually stop and on whose terms?
Personally, I am sure that (as the board has not been harsh for many a year (60's ??) there must have been ample reason for their decision which no doubt would be backed legally. Otherwise, might I suggest il-bocca taking them to court since he is so offende that he asks for their resignation...?
>Next thing you know we'll have our Internet access censored and become like Communist >China, with sites being banned and censored!
Believe me, plenty in the US,UK,EU etc are actively seeking such things.
And in a legal and continual manner (monitoring in these countries presently happens illegally nevertheless!)
Not to 'impose their Catholic (sic!) beliefs', but to reduce the abundant fraud, protect our children from predators and other such disgusting activities....
Welcome to the fray! :)
> Religion is not an illegal act, the other things that you mentioned are
I think you misunderstand me. There are those using the feeble and usual excuse that Catholics should not impose their beliefs on others. As a Catholic, I object to this 'twisting'. What this play is challenging is not Catholocsim but Maltese law & morality....
My referal to illegal acts therefore is relevant in two ways:
1) If we are now referring to morality, what is immoral to one might not be immoral to another. Therefore to allow all to choose at liberty is very dangerous to society itself: the ultimate expression of this of course would be total anarchy.
Therefore society itself draws distinct lines (laws) to protect itself & its citizens.
>As much as films are given classifications.....
I enjoyed your article...but why oh why does it always have to be tainted with your insecurity re the lil elves thing? You always justify your articles prior to any comments made..might as well ask the editor to remove the commenting option.
But anyway...what the Censorship Board fails to understand is that a large percentage of households in Malta are connected to the internet and any perversions, immoralities, sins or whatever they are called can be easily googled.
Incredible! So do you still believe it was right to punish Galileo and Mandela? And was theirs just "Bravado"?
Some people would love living in the dark ages.
Actually thinking about it ... you could probably go to your local library and pick up a copy! So in theory the government will be sponsoring you to read these ideas
I am in no way calling for censorship on books, but i am calling for the same freedom of expression in theatre. Yes, plays should be clearly advertised for what they are, but we should never be told we cannot express our opinions.
This is the first step, down a very winding road which can lead to the government shutting down newspapers who don't agree with them, or silencing people who don't share their beliefs... 1984 and animal farm all over again.
And once we lose that we lose everything.
He does this and risks this because he wants to keep a guest of his safe... imagine this was depicted on stage.... A tale of such decadence, I am almost sure it would be banned, especially considering the daughter was probably about 14- 16 years old.
I am sure by putting a story like that which is much cruder and harsher then anything that could possibly be in STITCHING, would never see the light of day in Malta.... or could it?
Check your bedside table and you'll find out...In your bible. Genesis 19 - we see that a very similar story ( instead the father himself sleeps with his 2 Virgin daughters & are not killed by the crowd) exists which would be considered just as shocking today....
So somehow we can choose to read these things but not see them. And this is the tamest of examples - take American Psycho by Bret Ellis Easton - the most graphic, horrible, almost unimaginable depictions of sexual tortures, is readily available from your local bookshop.
The only difference is it doesn't have an 18 rating on it. Cont....
The issue is the subjects cover within the play are warned on the poster, and it is the audience members choice to either purchase a ticket to watch it or not, it is not being imposed but instead is being given as a CHOICE for an audience member to watch it.
Theatre is allowed to tell us these stories so we can learn and not go down these routes, ie learning through others ideas. It also allows us to see another side of life which we ourselves may not be exposed to.
But the censorship board believes we should stick to their ideals and their ideals only... so here is a play that is about prostitution and abortion and it is being banned, no matter how graphic it is. Imagine a play was put up that told a story of pur decadence, a whole society that was sexually driven, known for group orgies, where a father gives his virgin daughter up to a sex-mad crowd, who not only sleep with her, but then rip her to shreds. CONT
ABC, you should perhaps stick to our political soap - it is that much more entertaining, yet controversial, and let moral issues be discussed and debated by those who are better versed in moral issues.
Some of the comments below are a clear illustration of how moral apathy has steadily crept in, in the name of progress or openness of one's mind. I think it is more of a case of stifling one's conscience and falsely believing that anything goes.
Too much liberties are as bad as no liberties at all.
Whilst I may not agree with the contents of the play (I have not seen it and will not presume to comment), I find it extremely presumptious and arrogant for anyone to ban such productions.
Is anyone being harmed against their will? Are any children or other vunerable sections of society being exploited? Are any animals being harmed? Is it being held in a place where people can watch against their will?
If not ,by banning we are going down a very slippery slope.
Self imposed moral boundaries indeed. More like i'll impose my morality on everyone.
The board of film or whoever should be free to comment and recommend or otherwise,period.
I agree with you that having adults "having sex in the kitchen in front of their children" etc should not be permitted in movies (or in real life) - but I think so out of concern for the children, and not for any adults watching.
Regarding Hollywood "having the audacity to show Christ having sex with Mary the Magdalene and visiting brothels", I don't know about the brothels part (I did not watch the movie), but regarding Jesus and Mary Magdalene having a relationship, its a theory believed to be true (or possible) by a lot of people (albeit comparatively a minority). Should we ban the books that claim so as well?
Christians should keep in mind that not everyone believes that Christ is God. What's offensive to one can be not offensive at all to others. Thankfully, nobody is forced to watch any movie, but then again, no adult should be denied watching a movie that might offend others while being harmless in itself.
"Why not allow rapists to rape? Killers to kill? Thieves to steal? Peadophelia, abortion, kill the sick/disabled, traffic in people.. etc...And if you dare stop me, I'll simply point out that "Your freedom ends when it restricts other people's freedom.""
In the cases you mention here, it is a completely different matter. While we can claim with absolute certainty that rape, murder, theft, paedophilia etc unquestionably harm innocents, the same absolute certainty cannot be claimed for things like films and plays.
For one thing, films and plays affect people differently (for instance while some films and plays certainly harm minors, the same plays do not harm most adults, either directly or indirectly. As to the extent of the harm some movies or plays cause to some humans (perhaps a minority), this too is a matter of debate.
Not so in the case of the direct harm caused by murder, rape, etc.
Religion is not an illegal act, the other things that you mentioned are - they cannot be compared!
As much as films are given classifications to inform the audience as to the appropriate age that viewers should be, then the same should be done with risque plays. We live in a democracy where you can choose whether or not you want to go and watch something like this play. If you think that it offends your morals then don't go and watch it! Nobody is forcing you to buy a ticket and support the play, but it is most definitely NOT an illegal action (unlike the actions that you mentioned) and I don't see how/why a group of people who were somehow appointed to a board can be allowed to decide what adults are allowed to watch!!
Next thing you know we'll have our Internet access censored and become like Communist China, with sites being banned and censored!
Individuals have the right to see what they want, but within limits. If a censorship board decided that it is not fit to be viewed, they must have their own reasons. A liberal attitude is what is driving this country and others to the dogs. Everyone should be free to make their own decisions, but within limits.
"In such a society, you are allowed to practice any religion you like. "
Why stop at religion? Why can't one practice one's own morailty freely and totally?
Why not allow rapists to rape? Killers to kill? Thieves to steal? Peadophelia, abortion, kill the sick/disabled, traffic in people.. etc
And if you dare stop me, I'll simply point out that "Your freedom ends when it restricts other people's freedom." so you musn't stop me doing do if my morals find nothing wrong in this...
you'll simply have to accept it else move off Malta as "Being open minded is about accepting everyone."
This is not about religion.
This is about 2 things:
- a society must have self imposed rules and moral boundaries
- this maltese society has clear cut boundaries (as per its laws)
This play is not "showing disfunctional families" etc (plenty of other plays out there that can show this equally so why not chose them and get a win-win sitaution).
This play is about testing those boundaries.
The question is whether people want to shift their present boundaries to accept things (presently) unacceptable or not.
Religion is to easy an excuse.
Unfortunately Mother Nature does not always give us enough strength to restrain the animal within us and we need help and guidance to deliver us away from evil. Politics, Religion, democracy, liberalism, open mindedness and extremism have nothing to do with it; it’s only a matter that distinguishes us from our other brethrens, the animals in the jungle.
I remember days when the average female wouldn’t dare use five letter words even when drunk; those were the days when well behaved children and men would give their seat to a woman on the bus. Women in those days had bags of self respect and men respected and loved them for their good standards.
We now see mothers and fathers on television, taking off all their clothes, swearing and even having sex in the kitchen in front of their children. Hollywood had the audacity to show Christ having sex with Mary the Magdalene and visiting brothels. Call me an extremist if you want but I do not call that art, its vulgarity in its worst form and the product of the ‘fat cats’ to make blood money.
Of course I am also a militant in favour of freedom of expression but I also believe in limits and a guarded system of control on the main protagonists, the producers.
This time, I do not mind Dr. Borg Cardona putting me in the same ‘box’ with Dr. Francis Saliba and other right wingers that share the same opinion on this subject as I have no shame to support their argument.
No! He's just livid that anyone should disagree with "one's sacred point of view".....
Oh and by the way to have certain morality/standards in life is simply so.... "not on" and old fashioned!
:)
The Censors can practice their religion and their values as much as they like in their personal life. But that's where it ends. They have no business banning a play because they feel it is not moral enough. Yes, religion comes into it.
Please read what I am saying, you have no idea what you are talking about. Study on nuns? Get over it, i explained what i meant by that. I know nuns,believe it or not, who are very open minded but dont express their opinion because they know it might cause trouble. stop putting words in my mouth.
Surely, you are not suggesting that I am a Left/Right extremist, more so than anybody else including your esteemed self!
It is my considered opinion that ARROGANCE is exhibited much more forcefully by those who for the sake of their own entertainment would promote all sorts of stage obscenity under the pretext of "art" and "freedom of expression" and "modernity" and "everybody else is doing it" disregarding completely the dangers to the weak and the more vulnerable. It is no argument to insist that the weak and the vulnerable should stay away and leave the entertainment world to the progressive "wise" who do not have any inhibitions. It is already very difficult to find media entertainment in which senseless violence, sex aberrations and depravity are not gratuitously inserted for their own titillating sake and not for any valid contribution to the plot.
I mean, read what Mr Grech Mintoff has to say about this. Should it drive me to tears? It should, but it does not. And THAT, in itself, is the tragedy.
A tragedy which will never make its way to our theatres.
For, with what logic can anyone in his right senses equate our theatres with the Catholic churches? Can anyone, please, please, enlighten me?
Again, how can anyone in his right senses say 'Well done to any censorship board'? A board which is already very much past its' sell-by date!
It is not the financial crisis which is worrying me in Malta, at the moment.
It is this apparent 'revitalisation' of the so-called moral values in our country. Moral values, my foot!
I see a lot of hypocrisy - the best expression I can find is the Maltese 'oqbra mbajda' - around me.
Quid est veritas? Where is truth?
Where is honesty?
Where is sincerity?
We need people who stand up and show themselves for what they are.
Honest people - now THAT's the one, most important value that all should cherish!
I do.
And what I see is that there are men who want to lord it over others.
There are people who are out to stifle others, because they WANT - not WISH - them to live the way they do. These are people who are truly intollerant.
These are 'prepotenti', people who think that they have all the abilities to force their neighbours to live the way they want them to. And unfortunately, these people enter politics and they literally make their way, or rather, also sneak their way into Parliaments and there, they become all the more aggressive, arrogant and ... unfortunately, unstoppable.
These are the people who declare solemnly what is the norm, what is acceptable in society and what is not. They deem what is 'proper' and what is without taste.
How can we stand up to this?
What do you know of the strict discipline many cotholics have? -have you made some sort of study on us, please enlighten us.
Imposition of values of the church and not wanting anyone to be free of it -bit heavy no - our new Bishop? - maybe those were the 50's Gonzi's time you mean.
Open mindedness- realm of non religious only? convinced?
This story of censorship board- I do not believe the censorship board is chaired by the church. So what is the equation?
Imposition of no values is an imposition of values- have you ever thaught of it that way? If there is to be a society there is to be a form of values- now which values do we choose and how is the question.
Arrogance and fascist - I understand the censorship board- which is formed up by? any regulations, ethics on which it decides? Can we have someone check before going before the EU? If it is the case let us present it but with goodsense.
and Albert Leone Ganado - picture a kid leafing through his dad's copy of National Geographic and giggling at the boobies. would you crucify the kid for being a pornographic racist? no you'd be a victorian dingbat to do so. so kindly don't accuse the author of stitching of desecrating the memory of auschwitz.
perspective and proportion people. both have been blown off the charts.
this is a play i'd tell my grandmother to come and watch were she still alive.
it's relevant and vital and touching and sad and funny.
oh .... and banned! hehe
I don't see myself as 'square' and neither am I against the people involved.
But frankly the Manoel theatre is a public place of entertainment.if you get your kicks from women fighing with dildoes etc, then stick to late night internet viewing or the Valletta cinema mentioned here...
I have no shame in stating myself as Catholic and to put simply this is not what I call entertainment.
I can hear calls of "then don't go to see it".I'll reply that I have an equal right to our public places.
What will you be asking for next?
That these 'plays' allowed in churches/schools and if I don't like it then I should not attend these places??
Why not incluse peadophilic acts too-all in the name of art?
Rather than me (and others of the same mindset) not frequenting public places, I say why don't you put up these 'plays' (sic!) in their proper environment - the porno theatres in Valletta.
You could call it a "protest",
you could still enjoy it,
and we can in turn enjoy our public places in peace.
Win-win situation.
Well done censorship board!
It is an undeniable fact that the media, theatre not excluded, influence people and set standards, for that reason the citizens, especially the vulnerable, need to be protected. Until a few years ago smoking was commercially advertised, portrayed as elegant and sexy. Those days are now gone, that is also censorship and nobody complains about it except the tobacco industry. It’s the degree of censorship that should be debated.
The printed media, Radio and television are given a set of rules by the legislators and if they circumvent them they will expose themselves to legal actions. That is censorship under a pseudonym and accepted worldwide. Is that so bad?
If any person had to say those words outside the theatre he would probably end up being locked up for a number of years.
Perhaps those who defended this play read expurgated versions of the script for indeed in some theatres the producers was asked to exercise self censorship.
I also appreciate Dr Saliba's warnings and hope others will take heed that sex and violence form a dangerous combination of human degradation and we should not promote it just to extend the boundary of what is permissible and progressive in the theatre. Just look at the recent Kitcher girl sex games murder in Italy or more recently the result of extreme domestic violence in Malta.
Let's get the record straight. I only choose to stage a play if it has something worthwhile to say. If that is controversial, than I am a controversial producer. I have never indulged myself in promoting a play on a sensational issue. I always sell a play on its content. If that is sensational, than I am a sensational producer. Case in point, when I did Equus, I couldn't be bothered by advertising the nudity in the play. The play was about much more. But sometimes a journalist learns how to google and does his own thing. I have no control over that.
The fact that STITCHING has been sensationalised is not my fault. Actually, it is what I wanted to avoid. This play is about a relationship gone wrong. That is how I intended to market it before the classifiers played their game.
The Council of Europe states: Freedom of expression is applicable not only to “information”” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb.
Ok, it's me. I am the one producing this play. As some on this blog have guessed, I get a turn on by producing these plays, I am sick and I am hell-bent on corrupting Maltese society .
Well, not really! I am just a regular family guy, father of two, who believes in theatre above all else. I believe that Culture is the only revolution that will ever lead to justice . . . In my case, my cultural vehicle is theatre.
I am a great admirer of the current crop of British playwrights, the so called In-Yer-Face playwrights. I find their work direct, gripping and, most of all, able to communicate in today's language; it is their theatre that reflects life as it is today. On this blog, people who don't know me and who have never been to any of my plays have accused me of attempting to sensationalise and make quick money. I would suggest to these people to make some 'quick money' themselves. Usually, I am happy just to break even.
have you read this particular play? because if you have - read it again as you didn't understand it. the play is all TOO real and during rehearsals we find ourselves uttering 'there but for the good grace of luck and circumstance go i".
and as for 'quick money' (i believe you mean either 'easy money' or a 'quick buck' but i won't be petty) - you've obviously never produced a play have you? i can assure you that it's the least money-making scheme you can think of (at least on this island), next to actually burning a pile of euros.
Being open-minded is not about hating the church and it s values, it s about showing equal respect towards any group of people,including catholics, and allowing them to live as they like, provided they do no harm to others.
However, to keep my point relevant, The Church doesnt seem to want people to be free of It. The banning of this play , in my opinion, shows how bad the situation is. I for one, dont want to wait for the last straw to do something. I would like to be part of whatever movement there is to destroy this arrogance and what i think is fascist.
I would start up something myself but i m in the uk at the moment. I would like to see what the EU has to say about the way the church controls Malta.
"Because of course watching a theatre production featuring violence will inevitably incite actual violence... You're joking right?"
If we were exposed to more media promoting kindheartedness and good values, do you honestly believe the situation wouldn't be different?
Also, you can avoid the hassle of replying with the usual "Face reality; life isn't full of smiles and roses": The content of the play are far from reality and serve only to sensationalise and make quick money.
I really respect any artist who can manage to get his/her message across without going into the obscene, highly-unreal and sometimes outright unusual.
This play is on stage in New York, a stonethrow away from the Jewish quarters, it will be moving to the West Coast in the coming months.
the Jewish loby in the USA is as strong as one can imagine, yet so far not one person ever thought of taking such a drastic action as you to initiate a criminal case againt the playwright or the play.
When I was doing Mercury Fur, I was told that after the show we were going to have to have a psycologist come on stage and talk abou it. That really cracked me up! But this? This is the last straw. I think that this shows how easy our politicians are, and what babies they are too. I think that all they want to do is suck up to the vatican and be a good little boy. If i were to meet the people who banned this play i would tell them that i think they are pathetic at their job, they know nothing about theatre in all its forms, and they are not God. Or would I be banned from saying that too?
If the company puts on the play anway, do they all get arrested? and the Audiance too? That will go down REALLY well with the EU dont you think?
How can anyone deduce from 1 line in a newspaper that ‘assaulting’ translates as ‘fighting’ and base arguments on that? ‘The battle of the Dildos’. Maybe we should actually PUT IN such a scene!
This play explores such a multitude of emotions that it is sometimes hard to breathe. 2 people in love are looking for a way to cope with a terrifying loss – their grief unlocks dark corners deep inside – a scenario any couple could face tomorrow. It’s about choices and pain - not about Jews, Holocaust, abortion, dildos, stitches, PN, MLP! The humaneness of this play is overwhelming and it is MINDBOGGLING that the Classification board has not understood this - perhaps they should read the script again thoroughly.
ISSUE: Regardless of content, no institution has the right to stop me from watching should I decide to do so. Sad that instead of helping the local theatre scene, thus promoting individuality, democracy and freedom of expression, for many it’s still a ‘power’ struggle to reinforce their own insecurity.
Ever heard of classification? We are not asking you to let us corrupt our youth, we are asking you to give our people the right to choose. We do not need protected. No one has the godly right to do so. Dont play god Mr. Censors.
2) These books (plays) that people call immoral, merely present the world with its own shame - Oscar Wilde
Is a murderer still a murderer is he forgets his past? You can not eliminate the past by forgetting it, or censoring it.
3) I detest your opinion, but I will give my right for your right to say it - Voltaire
Without free speech we are a prisoned race. Didnt the seventies Mintoff era teach you anything?
I bid the censors to STITCH their mouths shut.
be that as it may – the point here is censorship. Even if this play were not what it is – it is unconstitutional to ban it. It is against my rights as a human for anyone to dictate what I may or may not see. And Mr leone Ganado – I’d LOVE to see you in court. Bring it on!
even if it DID 'desecrate the memory of auschwitz' and even if it did promote violence – it still should not be banned. But it does neither of these. Nor is it offensive in its mention of the moors murderers. These topics are referred to by one of the characters who is not mentally stable at the time. It is completely contextual. And there is no fighting with dildos for crying out loud! Stitching is essentially about love and although the couple are battling with strong emotions and go to dark places in their heads – the end result is very moral. It is excellently written and breaks my heart in places. I know that people are going to watch it and ask us what we cut from the script. We’re not cutting a single word – for the record.
And who chooses them? Again: we have political and other agendas, friends of friends, etc ....
Which therefore begs the question: WITH WHAT RIGHT DO YOU STOP ME FROM WATCHING THIS OR THAT?
I may add that it is was not only “arrogant behaviour” but much worse “infantile behaviour” by the Board of Censors or whatever they are nowadays called to ban “Stitches”!
The General Public deserves much better and this “infantile behaviour” is unacceptable in a modern and very intelligent society. The theatrical audiences respect much better. I can’t understand how a handful of persons can decide for all of us what to watch and not.
Bocca was very prudent in calling for these persons’ resignation! I wonder if Bocca will ever be a bit smarter and ask for the resignations of those who are doing ‘a disservice and so much harm’ to our dear country!
Because of course watching a theatre production featuring violence will inevitably incite actual violence... You're joking right?
Unless one is missing a cog - I think it's safe to assume that he/she will not leave the theatre and slay the first couple of passers by (with a dildo). With this reasoning we should have nothing but ponies and marshmallows on tv and that would make the world a gleaming gem of love, friendship and understanding with a beautiful dusting of icing sugar on top...
Let's ban this play because some people think it's too heavy. Then let's ban some other stuff because it's too banal. And then let's ban the people who think this play should be banned because they're too banal. And then let's ban me, because I'm being too heavy in suggesting we ban the people who want the play banned.
And then we'll all live happily ever after, unchallenged in our cocoon of self-satisfied warmth, content that we've saved the world.
Mr Pullicino tells us that he thinks "we've got our fair share of people shooting and knifing each other these past few weeks. The above content will only make the situation anything but better".
If only people fought with dildos instead of knives and guns...we'd have fewer casualties and deaths then.
Let us be serious, please.
However the play goes well beyond just perversions and desecrates the memory of Auschwitz and the holocaust and to add to the dose does the same for the Moors murder ,one of the most heinous and brutal children murder cases in Britain which murders again had a Nazi connotation.
For similar much milder expressions re the holocaust a French bishop has being rightly condemned and the Pope heavy criticised by Jews for supporting him.
If the play is performed I will be more than willing to initiate a criminal court case for the desecration of the memory of the Holocaust.
Playwright Anthony Nielson still a young man is always out to shock, but I totally agree with you, in this day and age the choice ought to be left to the people to what and what not to want tone want to go to the theatre for. As you put it, the Board of Censors are only there to guide but not to impose, very aptly put; and the last one please switch off the light,
I was lucky enough to be in London go to one of his plays `The Censor` (no pun intended) at the the Royal Court in 1997, shocking, but great, it leaves you with an inner feeling that one can not really put into words. Nielson is a young Scot, he is out to shock, by now theatre goers ought to know the man, the choice as to whether watch such a play or not should remain with them, as you say, not with such an obscure entity to decide for me.
I can be guided but, not deny me the right to go where I please.
I searched about it on other sources and I'll quote what was written in the Times today:
"The controversial play, by the Scottish writer Anthony Neilson, features characters assaulting each other with a dildo, and a woman mutilating and stitching up her private parts."
Banning the play is arrogant yet going out willy nilly encouraging people (because we all know that everyone that goes to the play is mature enough to distinguish between reality and fiction, don't we?) to fight using a dildo isn't?
I think we've got our fair share of people shooting and knifing each other these past few weeks. The above content will only make the situation anything but better.