<p>Welcome to the new thread "Censorship in Theatre".</p>
<p>The main objective to this thread is to discuss, educate, and share feelings about what is happening today in the theatre world through censorship. Posters on this thread take into consideration that there is more than one opinion and we agree to disagree. Respect, tolerance, and diversity are welcome. Let the conversation begin....we have much to learn and share!!</p>
<p>SUE</p>
<p>There are many of you out there that have experienced censorship in theatre and other artistic outlets...please post them. Freedom of expression is a topic that I know we all hold dear to our hearts. If I weren't at work right now I would post my observations (my husband is the boss...LOL...I can get away with it) :) I'll do so at a later date.</p>
<p>SUE</p>
<p>What are your feelings regarding a rating system on theatre works? I discovered this 1998 article in PLAYBILL archives for your reference:</p>
<p>I have mixed feelings. Although I am not personally sensitive to foul language and other things, I am fully aware that others are. Would applying a PG-13, R, etc. rating affect theatre patronage? Perhaps stifle a playwrights freedom of voice?</p>
<p>SUE</p>
<p>I don't think that theatre should need a rating system. There are general advisories posted about certain plays which are readily available to those who are interested in purchasing tickets. Very few, actually get audience advisories. My thoughts are that when purchasing a ticket to a play, one has a certain responsibility (not to mention it's just common sense when you're paying what a ticket costs! ;)) to investigate what a play is about. It's not difficult to get this information. I don't have much sympathy for patrons who go into a show, or even a movie, and then complain when they don't like what they see onstage or onscreen.</p>
<p>Gee whiz, another long one from mtmommy: On the "profanity" thread, Newmtmom said: "What no one has brought up, however, in discussing roles, profanity, etc, is the play. I think the overall ideas that a playwright is concerned with, would affect how I would feel about a particular role."
What a pertinent comment, and one I was stupidly assuming when I posted on that thread. The context of the cussing, nudity, controversial issue, or whatever is what makes the play worthwhile and (maybe?) what makes it art--and not just merely an appeal to the baser side of life. I guess that means that the question this all begs is "what is art"? Isn't that what happens whenever a piece of art is the site of controversy? One contingent declares the piece is not art and, therefore, the nasties within are not allowed. Another contingent declares it is art and anything is allowable to support the art. Robert Mapplethorpe is one of the most famous examples of this sort of controversy. But is there a standard that identifies art and, therefore, what profanities an audience is willing to accept to that end? Is pornography art? Are cute kittens and babies with angel wings art?</p>
<p>Using my earlier literature example, the use of racist characters and the "n" word in <em>Huckleberry Finn</em> (a book frequently the target of book banners for those reasons) are set within an anti-racism context, whereas the racist book taught at my children's school was written from a racist and imperialistic context. Twain's book (HF) is art AND the context is acceptable. What if the context was not generally considered acceptable? If the book were supporting white supremacy, for example? Would the book be considered art? Let me think of an example that is a musical--in <em>Ragtime</em> Coalhouse is subjected to hideous racism. The audience witnesses actors acting racist. But the racism is set within the context of a play that argues against racism, bigotry, and for a kind of sentimental view of America as a glorious melting pot. What if the musical had a different goal, perhaps one that advocated one race obliterating the other, but had the same music and characterizations? Would it still be as valid? </p>
<p>And heres another one: what if the context is valid, but the piece is not art? Do we sometimes pretend it is art because we like the message or because the songs and dancing are first rate or because it makes us happy? This isnt censorship, but almost the oppositepromoting a piece into art because it fits with ones values. I almost hate to bring this up here of all places . . . but plenty of academics dont think musicals are art. They teach straight plays with a passion, but look down on musicals as the comic books of the stage. Im considered to be downright heretical by plenty of my peers for teaching musicals as literature. I have to admit its a lot of fun to examine <em>Fiddler on the Roof</em> side-by-side with the Tevye stories by Sholom Aleichem. But its just as educational as studying Shakespeare. When I study musicals from this intellectual perspective, Im blown away by the genius of so many of them. So, what the heck (dont want to get carried away with my language) IS art?</p>
<p>mtmommy - You mention Huck Finn. One of my son's favorite roles was playing Huckleberry at our local Children's Theatre in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. They stayed true to the book - it was not censored. It was a great experience learning about Mark Twain. That play was, in my opinion, one of the best that theatre has done, but it created a bit of controversy with teachers who brought their students to see the show. I never really understood what upset them about it. I thought many schools actually study Mark Twain.</p>