• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

More censorship

Kiless said:
...snip...

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?


...snip..
Click to expand...

In this instance (as far as I can tell from the report and for some reason I suspect it may not be giving us the whole picture) the "edits" are stupid in a play that is already bloody inaccessible to a modern audience!
 
Kiless said:
[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]
Click to expand...

Moot point - the fact remains that he was incarcerated as he was believed to be mentally ill, a condition the Elizabethans could find funny.
 
Kiless said:
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?
Click to expand...
My reading of it was that it wasn't so much his Jewishness that was the key note of the character, but his miserliness (admittedly, a Jewish stereotype of the time), his mercilessness, and his intransigent adherence to the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law (by which principle he was finally brought down). Pharasitical, certainly; but not specific to Jews, even in the stereotypes of the time.

As an artist myself, I see a very fine line between faithfulness to the original author's words, and reinterpreting them through one's own vision.

I don't see this as censorship, since it's 1) not forced by a government agency and 2) only applies to this one adaptation and is not an attempt at repressing the work itself. But I also don't see this as personal interpretation either, since in the words of the director himself, that is not what the issue is. The issue is simply dumbing it down to avoid offending a particular segment of the communtiy. Bullsh1t political correctness. It's not a horrible travesty of justice, or a "great offense to a master"; it's just bad art that doesn't deserve the attention it's gotten. Its accessibility, or lack thereof, is really irrelevant.
 
Agree, not censorship.

If this were not pandering pcness, I would trust that he takes similar liberties with other masterworks to not give offence to anyone. Somehow I doubt that.
 
Ed said:
...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?
Click to expand...
I am aware if at least two regional productions of Big River -- The Advertures of Huckleberry Finn where the original Broadway book's use of "******" was altered to "negro" for just that reason.
 
Just thought of another: Professional and amateur productions of Showboat over the decades have found other substitutions for the N word, which appears in Oscar Hammerstein III's lyrics for "Ol' Man River", if not throughout the play, if memory serves.
 
And Agatha Christie's 'Ten Little Indians' was originally called 'Ten Little N*ggers'. Would anyone condemn this change?
 
Darat said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

As an airbrush artist and a writer, I agree with you 100%. It should always be up to the artist how or why his work can be changed. I've been a political/religious surrealist for years and I'll have to admit that the market for my style is particularly small, but I could always add brighter colors and happy little trees for mass appeal if sales were all that interested me.

I've also written articles locally that agitated all the good Christians here to the point that law enforcement, the Postal Service and the FBI were involved. My entire family was stalked by fundies as a result. I'll always support anyone (not just artists) using their freedom of speech and expression to make their point, but it often comes at a price.

I would never willingly allow anything I've done (whether controversial for religious or political reasons) be the catalyst in violence against ANYONE. If it were a visual piece, I would rather it not be hung in a controversial exhibit that might attract terrorist actions (not likely in the States) or give them impetus to harm others. If it were drama, I would rather the director take (some) liberties with the script than endanger the audience. A playwright or scriptwriter can never gauge the predominate tensions in the time frame or regions where his play may be produced.

Of course, these are my personal feelings. I have met other prima donna artists and writers who would DEMAND their work remain intact. They find out quickly, however, that sometimes "finding your niche" narrows your appeal.

When I'm ready, I'll use the fundies to provide the outrage and the free publicity.
 
Ed said:
Kids movie, I can see that. I wonder if he will do the same with the drug references in potergiest if it is ever director's cutted.
Click to expand...
It was a kids movie the first time too, with the guns. What changed between the original release and the altered edition? Did kids change? If anything, they may be exposed to more violence now. I would argue that this is less "editing for an audience" and more "editing for craven pc reasons", to use your terminology.
 
If it hadn't been for censorship in the first place, of course, it would not have been the Qu'ran being burnt.
 
Wouldn't Disney be a big offender?

Also, Grimm fairy tales seem quite edited for modern audiences. I remember reading in my youth the original works, and being quite entertained by all the violence. I can't really recall many details, except for one of the sisters of Cinderella having her toes cut off so her big feet will fit in the slippers. :)
 
Last edited:
And inthe end, so what? Shakespeare adapted old stories for his time. The Bible is chock full of "tweaked" episodes that appear elsewhere. Disney, like Shakespeare (Forgive me, O Will, for the juxtaposition), knows its market and aims to please becasue that's where the profits are. In both cases the art is in the execution, not the material.
 
When I spray paint slogans on the sides of buses and trains I never allow my own political views or worries about offending anyone influence the works. They stand alone as expressions of basic truth untainted by cheap party politics...... As do the huge mexican moustaches and the fangs on the photo posters of smiling, yet basically unstable, politicians .
 
Gurdur said:
Very true. Disney would have to be the all-time Bowdlerizeration biggest offender, if people really want to complain about "censorship" in the arts.
Click to expand...
Ugh.

Don't even get my started on Disney and their wholesale butchering of classic literature. Their execs really need to be hauled out into the streets and shot as an example to others. Not to mention their abuse of copyright legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom