|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
Two Views on the Censorship QuestionDateline: 5th November, 2006By that odd sort of coincidence which happens from time to time, there have been two stories in newspapers this week dealing with the vexed question of special interest (usually religious) groups trying to censor the arts but which seem to be expressing totally opposite views. In The Stage we hear of a one-day conference to be held at the National Theatre organised by Equity and sponsored by The Stager at which numerous speakers, including David Edgar, Nick Hytner and and Behzti director Janet Steel will attempt to unite theatre professionals against "the threat to freedom of artistic expression posed by fundamentalist religious groups and the attempted censorship of plays such as Jerry Springer - the Opera." Acording to The Stage, Jean Rogers, Equity vice-president and chair of its censorship working party said that performers and writers could no longer take for granted freedom of artistic expression and that it was important that the industry established a common standpoint. “It will be good for the industry as a whole to be seen to be standing up for this…What would be good is for everybody to know that everybody feels the same, so that when an incident happens again, we can pounce on it.” Rogers added that it was crucial that, following the event, government “took a very clear lead” on the issue. Meanwhile in The Scotsman we are told that Hollywood's attempts to sell films on the back of reigious controversy are failing. According to the newspaper, Mark Urman, of independent production company ThinkFilm, says the outrage he expected over The Aristocrats last year never materialised, scotching his plans to use it to sell tickets. "I'm finding that a lot less of this is working," he says. "The last film that was successfully sold with controversy at the root of its campaign was Passion of the Christ, a film accused of anti-Semitism and then sold to a very large Christian population as 'this film Jews don't want you to see'. " "America's conservative and religious audiences - who once could be relied on to protest, picket and draw international attention to movies like Priest - the 1994 tale of homosexuality and Catholicism - have learned to resist the bait... 'They see you coming,' Urman says. 'Conservatives don't want to be used. And liberals are no more motivated to see something because conservatives are against it.' However the situation in the UK is different. No one has tried to sell any of the productions about which there have been protests - Jerry Springer, for example, or Behzti - on those kinds of grounds: rather the worry has been that some managements have caved in to the protests, which just further encourages the protesters. So there is no doubt that the conference at the National is needed, if only to strengthen the resolve of managements and producers to stand up to the protests and to show government that we in theatre are as concerned about our right to freedom of expression as religious people are about their sensibilities. No one has the right to be protected by law against being offended: if such a right existed, then no one would be able to say anything with which someone else might disagree. Religions could not seek converts or preach their beliefs for it might offend those of a different faith - or of none. Politicians could not attack their opponents' policies. Football fans could not chant their support of their teams. It may be argued that if people are offended, they may respond with violence. So be it: if they do so, they must be stopped. We have no qualms about stopping rival football fans from fighting each other; we should be equally willing to deal similarly with those who resort to violence in defence of their religious or political feelings.
|
|
|
|