More censorship

[Ed]

Poor Chris Marlowe

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1887902,00.html

IT WAS the surprise hit of the autumn season, selling out for its entire run and inspiring rave reviews. But now the producers of Tamburlaine the Great have come under fire for censoring Christopher Marlowe’s 1580s masterpiece to avoid upsetting Muslims.
Audiences at the Barbican in London did not see the Koran being burnt, as Marlowe intended, because David Farr, who directed and adapted the classic play, feared that it would inflame passions in the light of the London bombings.

 

[Darat]

It isn't censorship, a writer has adapted a play to his wishes. That's called artistic freedom.

One of the quotes in the article says "I don’t believe you should interfere with any classic for reasons of religious or political correctness." That is artistic tyranny - that is telling an artist/writer etc. that she cannot do whatever she wants.

 

[Ed]

There is something called integrity. He is not doing this to expand on his "vision" of Marlowe, he is doing it to avoid giving "offence". I have never heard, at least nothing pops into my mind, of an artist modifing anything, their own or someone else's work to "avoid giving offence". Have you?

Are you suggesting that "lack of offence" is now something worthwhile in reinterpeting the masters?

 

[Ian Osborne]

There is something called integrity. He is not doing this to expand on his "vision" of Marlowe, he is doing it to avoid giving "offence". I have never heard, at least nothing pops into my mind, of an artist modifing anything, their own or someone else's work to "avoid giving offence". Have you?

Still his call.

Are you suggesting that "lack of offence" is now something worthwhile in reinterpeting the masters?

Yes. Malvolio in Shakespere's Twelfth Night is far more sympathetically portrayed in modern-day performances than he was in Elizabethan times, when laughing at the mentally ill was part of the comedy.

 

[Darat]

There is something called integrity. He is not doing this to expand on his "vision" of Marlowe, he is doing it to avoid giving "offence". I have never heard, at least nothing pops into my mind, of an artist modifying anything, their own or someone else's work to "avoid giving offence". Have you?

Yes many, many times, especially artists working in a mass-market or attempting to break into the mass-market. Many artists do consider the audience they are aiming at and therefore will modify their work to suit that audience. Artists will also do the opposite as well to break into the mass-market, I (on a personal level) have known artists who will also modify their own work to add "offensive" , normally in an attempt to garner publicity in order to increase sales or prices.

Are you suggesting that "lack of offence" is now something worthwhile in reinterpreting the masters?

I believe artists should be free to do whatever they want using whatever material they want at all times. (Within the law of course)

Artists should be free to do whatever they want without this mock outrage but hey it's free publicity.

 

[CFLarsen]

There is something called integrity. He is not doing this to expand on his "vision" of Marlowe, he is doing it to avoid giving "offence". I have never heard, at least nothing pops into my mind, of an artist modifing anything, their own or someone else's work to "avoid giving offence". Have you?

Steven Spielberg. Removed the guns from "E.T."

 

[Jocko]

It isn't censorship, a writer has adapted a play to his wishes. That's called artistic freedom.

Funny, it doesn't seem he adapted anything ELSE in the play to his "wishes," so that sounds like PC bullsh*t to me, Darat. That's called "hijacking a classic and twisting it to your political agenda."

One of the quotes in the article says "I don’t believe you should interfere with any classic for reasons of religious or political correctness." That is artistic tyranny - that is telling an artist/writer etc. that she cannot do whatever she wants.

Yeah, and another says:

Audiences at the Barbican in London did not see the Koran being burnt, as Marlowe intended, because David Farr, who directed and adapted the classic play, feared that it would inflame passions in the light of the London bombings.

See, Darat, it's the "because" that puts the lie to that theory. Sure, they make mealy-mouthed excuses about bringing it into the 21st century, but why change the ideas if you're not going to change the Elizabethan English its written in? That's a far bigger obstacle to accessibility than some dramatic but politically unpopular scene.

So, do you think the same "artistic integrity" would demand Shylock be made a Presbyterian so as to not inflame the Jews? How about a Hispanic Othello so as to not to offend blacks? I know! Make Juliet a man so as to not offend the gays. That's got integrity, huh?

Sheesh. The saddest thing of all is the way so many will jump to defend this kind of limp-wristed intellectual surrender.

 

[Darat]

Funny, it doesn't seem he adapted anything ELSE in the play to his "wishes," so that sounds like PC bullsh*t to me, Darat. That's called "hijacking a classic and twisting it to your political agenda."

I don't seek to control what an artist decides to do, your posts reads as if you believe that artists should be controlled (outside the normal legal framework). Personally I prefer to allow artists to do whatever they want.

Yeah, and another says:



See, Darat, it's the "because" that puts the lie to that theory. Sure, they make mealy-mouthed excuses about bringing it into the 21st century, but why change the ideas if you're not going to change the Elizabethan English its written in? That's a far bigger obstacle to accessibility than some dramatic but politically unpopular scene.

So, do you think the same "artistic integrity" would demand Shylock be made a Presbyterian so as to not inflame the Jews? How about a Hispanic Othello so as to not to offend blacks? I know! Make Juliet a man so as to not offend the gays. That's got integrity, huh?

Sheesh. The saddest thing of all is the way so many will jump to defend this kind of limp-wristed intellectual surrender.

Ah the wonderful "artistic integrity", what a load of bunk. That's as big a crook of Ofili'a work as "political correctness". It's just another way of trying to impose your censorship on an artist.

As I said I am quite happy for any artist to do whatever she wants using whatever material she wants. I suspect many artist are always going to "disappoint" you if you insist that they must only produce artwork that complies with your "artistic integrity".

 

[Roboramma]

I agree with Darat. There's a big difference between what you should do and what you should be allowed to do.

You might think the adaptation is bs, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Darat]

I agree with Darat. There's a big difference between what you should do and what you should be allowed to do.

You might think the adaptation is bs, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed.

It does seem to be that if you support free expression those that don't support free expression tend to tar you with the "expression" you think others should be free to make no matter what your own views may be about it.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

Self-censorship is of course the best form of censorship, from the tyrant's point of view. Theo van Gogh's murderer made a tremendous sacrifice for his cause: now people think twice before offending religious fuundamentalists.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes. Malvolio in Shakespere's Twelfth Night is far more sympathetically portrayed in modern-day performances than he was in Elizabethan times, when laughing at the mentally ill was part of the comedy.

You mean we can't laugh at the mentally ill anymore?

When did this start? I didn't get the memo.

 

[CFLarsen]

Self-censorship is of course the best form of censorship, from the tyrant's point of view. Theo van Gogh's murderer made a tremendous sacrifice for his cause: now people think twice before offending religious fuundamentalists.

Not in Denmark. The script writer behind his movie has gotten very favorable response on her next movie from Danish movie makers.

 

[Darat]

Self-censorship is of course the best form of censorship, from the tyrant's point of view.

That we consider other people's feelings and views is one of the costs of living in a society. But it a difference in kind to not being allowed to decide for yourself whether to be considers other's views and opinions or not.

Theo van Gogh's murderer made a tremendous sacrifice for his cause: now people think twice before offending religious fuundamentalists.

And there was Salmon Rushdie before that and many other before and since who have been harmed or even killed when expressing their views, but that doesn't make it censorship.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

That we consider other people's feelings and views is one of the costs of living in a society. But it a difference in kind to not being allowed to decide for yourself whether to be considers other's views and opinions or not.

And there was Salmon Rushdie before that and many other before and since who have been harmed or even killed when expressing their views, but that doesn't make it censorship.

It is a difference in form, but not in kind. Whether you have the backing of the law, or that of a bunch of thugs, the effect is the same: preventing the free exchange of information and ideas. The very definition of censorship.

 

[Ian Osborne]

You mean we can't laugh at the mentally ill anymore?

When did this start? I didn't get the memo.

If this is meant to be funny, I didn't get the joke

 

[Darat]

It is a difference in form, but not in kind. Whether you have the backing of the law, or that of a bunch of thugs, the effect is the same: preventing the free exchange of information and ideas. The very definition of censorship.

We'll have to agree to disagree, although I agree that both can result in suppression. To me the difference in kind is that one removes my ability to make my own choice, the other does not.

 

[Kiless]

Yes. Malvolio in Shakespere's Twelfth Night is far more sympathetically portrayed in modern-day performances than he was in Elizabethan times, when laughing at the mentally ill was part of the comedy.

[pendant] Malvolio wasn't mentally ill when he jumped around cross-gartered - he was tricked into doing so. Olivia innocently interpreted him as having gone mad, which was the comedy, along with the fact that a stuck-up social-climbing letch was having his come-uppance at the hands of those he regularly insulted.[/pedant]

 

[Kiless]

In a production of 'Billy Liar', we discussed whether the lines regarding Billy's grandmother refusing to see her local GP because he was a black man was relevant and deserved to be kept in the play (it was raised by the woman playing the grandmother). We chose to let the lines stay as they were, since it made sense in the context of the time and we felt that it reflected upon the character that she chose such a nonsensical reason for not getting medical help. We scorned 'political correctness'.

In this case... I ponder how I might react if I was the director. Perhaps I may do an interview with the media about how I was staying true to it and what was Marlow's intentions at the time and that they don't reflect modern times at all and our growing sensitivity towards such issues... but then, is it truly showing sensitivity of modern attitudes by producing such a play? Are we again, too politically correct to the detriment of literature?

Then again - isn't the Merchant of Venice seen as 'insensitive' too? But then, don't some of the best actors in the business leap at the chance to play Shylock and that reflects more about the wealth of the character rather than any intended prejudice on their part?

Conflicted. I'd have to be the director to make a choice... is the play a 'modernised' version? That would probably influence me to omit the detail in the scene, if I was pressured enough. If it is set in the era, I'd probably keep it, as a nod to context of the time.

I've seen plenty of versions of 'Taming of the Shrew' that included a pointed essay in the program about feminist interpretations of Shakespeare... perhaps a note about the director's reasoning behind the performance of Katherina's final speech in Act V... such a thing should be considered, IMHO.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If this is meant to be funny, I didn't get the joke

That's unfortunate, because it was a good one!