To censor or not to censor? That is the question.
And it's one that rears its head periodically in Malta, where the argument rages for or against.
Let's be clear at the outset. When we refer to censorship in this article, we are writing about theatre censorship - the need to submit the script of every play intended for public performance to a government-appointed board of censors.
The Maltese-born playwright and movie director Mario Philip Azzopardi brought the censorship issue to the forefront of our consciousness again recently, when he was eventually given the go-ahead to direct his once-banned comedy Sulari Fuq Strada Stretta, at The Manoel Theatre.
While he was here Mr Azzopardi gave a number of interviews to almost all of the print media outlets, as well as appearing on countless television programmes. On most of these occasions he took the opportunity to condemn the whole business of theatre censorship in Malta. One of the many adjectives that he used to describe the practice was 'obscene.'
He feels - and Showtime tends to agree with him - that to maintain the practice of censorship in any so-called developed nation in this day and age, is both archaic and... yes obscene.
But let's get one thing clear: We are in no way attacking the board of censors here. They have been given a job to do and are doing it to the best of their ability. In fact, the chairperson of the censorship board happens to be a highly intelligent, erudite and liberal-minded individual who has, in most cases, exercised both restraint and far sightedness in the execution of her duties. But what we - and most other intelligent and informed people - are saying is: She, and the rest of the board shouldn't be there at all.
And there's a strange unevenness in all of this. Recently two plays were staged locally that once more highlighted the perversity of our system of theatre censorship. One, Unifaun's Mercury Fur at the MITP theatre in Valletta: The other, the MADC's Laughing Wild at the theatre-in-the-round at St James.
In The case of Mercury Fur, nothing at all was censored... even though the play's subject matter dealt with the abhorrent practice of snuff movies (The killing of a young boy and videoing the act). However, where Laughing Wild was concerned, the censor demanded that a scene of religious symbolism be cut.
Now here's the paradox. It seems that we may be allowed to see a play that puts extreme violence on stage, but not one that may offend religious moralists.
For the record; both plays were well staged and performed and - since the director of Laughing Wild resisted the censor's demands - largely unsullied by the blue pencil. Which is just as well, since any cuts would have ruined both plays. As most people know, Malta is the very last outpost in the civilised and developed world where theatre productions are still subject to censorship. This fact alone should be sufficient to demand the immediate abolition of the practice. Add to this the increased sophistication of audiences and you come away with the feeling that a theatre free from these archaic constraints is long overdue.
However we're not suggesting that an ejja ħ'amorru attitude should prevail. Young children do need to be protected from some of the excesses of the modern theatre. So we are proposing a classification system similar to that used in the cinemas. Keep it simple, thus: The first category would be:
Category A: Theatre performances able to be viewed by people of any age.
Category B: Theatre performances able to be viewed by people over 16 years.
Category C: Theatre performances able to be viewed by people over 18 years.
We've come a long way in the ten or so years since two prudish members of a Manoel Theatre audience were able to demand and get a scene cut from a performance by one of the UK's top theatre companies of the Jacobean dramatist John Webster's play The Duchess of Malfi.
It's time to grow up chaps and to say to the board of theatre censors: "Thanks for all your hard work, the exit is that way."
And it's one that rears its head periodically in Malta, where the argument rages for or against.
Let's be clear at the outset. When we refer to censorship in this article, we are writing about theatre censorship - the need to submit the script of every play intended for public performance to a government-appointed board of censors.
The Maltese-born playwright and movie director Mario Philip Azzopardi brought the censorship issue to the forefront of our consciousness again recently, when he was eventually given the go-ahead to direct his once-banned comedy Sulari Fuq Strada Stretta, at The Manoel Theatre.
While he was here Mr Azzopardi gave a number of interviews to almost all of the print media outlets, as well as appearing on countless television programmes. On most of these occasions he took the opportunity to condemn the whole business of theatre censorship in Malta. One of the many adjectives that he used to describe the practice was 'obscene.'
He feels - and Showtime tends to agree with him - that to maintain the practice of censorship in any so-called developed nation in this day and age, is both archaic and... yes obscene.
But let's get one thing clear: We are in no way attacking the board of censors here. They have been given a job to do and are doing it to the best of their ability. In fact, the chairperson of the censorship board happens to be a highly intelligent, erudite and liberal-minded individual who has, in most cases, exercised both restraint and far sightedness in the execution of her duties. But what we - and most other intelligent and informed people - are saying is: She, and the rest of the board shouldn't be there at all.
And there's a strange unevenness in all of this. Recently two plays were staged locally that once more highlighted the perversity of our system of theatre censorship. One, Unifaun's Mercury Fur at the MITP theatre in Valletta: The other, the MADC's Laughing Wild at the theatre-in-the-round at St James.
In The case of Mercury Fur, nothing at all was censored... even though the play's subject matter dealt with the abhorrent practice of snuff movies (The killing of a young boy and videoing the act). However, where Laughing Wild was concerned, the censor demanded that a scene of religious symbolism be cut.
Now here's the paradox. It seems that we may be allowed to see a play that puts extreme violence on stage, but not one that may offend religious moralists.
For the record; both plays were well staged and performed and - since the director of Laughing Wild resisted the censor's demands - largely unsullied by the blue pencil. Which is just as well, since any cuts would have ruined both plays. As most people know, Malta is the very last outpost in the civilised and developed world where theatre productions are still subject to censorship. This fact alone should be sufficient to demand the immediate abolition of the practice. Add to this the increased sophistication of audiences and you come away with the feeling that a theatre free from these archaic constraints is long overdue.
However we're not suggesting that an ejja ħ'amorru attitude should prevail. Young children do need to be protected from some of the excesses of the modern theatre. So we are proposing a classification system similar to that used in the cinemas. Keep it simple, thus: The first category would be:
Category A: Theatre performances able to be viewed by people of any age.
Category B: Theatre performances able to be viewed by people over 16 years.
Category C: Theatre performances able to be viewed by people over 18 years.
We've come a long way in the ten or so years since two prudish members of a Manoel Theatre audience were able to demand and get a scene cut from a performance by one of the UK's top theatre companies of the Jacobean dramatist John Webster's play The Duchess of Malfi.
It's time to grow up chaps and to say to the board of theatre censors: "Thanks for all your hard work, the exit is that way."