Censorship In Theatre
In the spring of 2019, I
started taking my second Playwriting class of my college career. Not only did
we focus on developing our playwrighting skills, but we also took time to further
our knowledge about playwrights and the controversies that arise in the field. During
one class we even held a mock debate discussing topics like “Who has the final
say when it comes to the production of a play?”. My class in that matter discussed
the playwright vs. director but this kind of thing also goes into the matter of
Theatre censorship.
Theatre censorship has
been around for centuries, often in the case that theatre has challenged the status
quo. Censored to the point that actors and directors have been arrested right
of the stage. Just like in the case of a play called God of Vengeance. The
play toured Europe and eventually came to America on Broadway in 1932, where
they were consequently arrested and tried on the grounds of obscenity. A 2019 article written by Catherine Huber and Noelle McCabe talks about the scandal surrounding
the God of Vengeance and how playwright Paula Vogel’s play Indecent “follows the trajectory of the play God of Vengeance”. In Indecent,
Vogel address issues of censorship and leads the notion to fight to have
confrontational art. Which brings us back to consider “Who has the right to
limit what we watch or produce on the stage?” and “What role does the playwright
play in this?”.
From that same
playwriting class, we were introduced to the Samuel Beckett Estate and the many
cases taken under some penalty from the author during his time alive. One case
in particular involved director JoAnne Akalaitis and Beckett’s play Endgame.
Beckett thought that the choice’s Akalaitis made to enhance Endgame, was
a violation of Beckett’s original view for the play. It was not taken to court
and was allowed to be performed but with a not in the program that Beckett did
not approve. Although Beckett believed the choices disregarded the meaning of
the story, Akalaitis was not in violation of the choices made. In fact, it
actually enhance the play and it’s underlying messages for the audience. I believe
the relationship between playwrights and directors/producers is a tricky one to
take hold of and disagreements will be present. While I don’t agree with the
views Beckett has on his plays I do think the works of a playwright should be
respected. Works can be reinvented, but it should not override the given text,
instead it should reveal something new to the audience with the provided text.
Being a Theatre minor I’ve learned many definitions
of “what theatre is and what it can do?”, but a common thread that I’ve come to
know is that Theatre provokes the idea of change. It shouldn’t be censored in
it’s content because of a hot button issue. Instead theatre should be encouraged
as a resource for thought. Something that makes you question and consider what
meaning they were trying to get you to think about.
Hi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting topic and I love how you brought in your personal experience discussing it in class. It's actually something I've thought about as a writer, especially in something like screenwriting, where the writer can essentially sell their work and once it leaves their hands, they don't really have any say in its production after this point. The thought of my own work in someone else's hands entirely can be a scary concept, and I'm sure many playwrights feel the same!
Seeing changes between what the playwrights writes and what the director creates have often been different though. Once a piece of work is in another person's hands, they often are allowed to use their "creative license" on it and interpret it or portray it the way they want. I understand that would be horrible to see your own work portrayed or used in a way you did not intend, but there doesn't seem to be anything in place to discourage it. I am rather shocked to hear of actors getting arrested on stage though. I agree that the theater is a good place to provoke ideas of change and do not believe that actors should have to stop in the middle of their act to be arrested. That sounds baffling. I can understand how some plays may be radical, but I see no need to stop it or have people arrested over it. People should be able to express what they want to express and if a person does not like it then they could politely leave the play or close the book or quit watching it. Respecting other people's freedom of speech does not always mean listening to what they have to say.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of reaching reinterpretations of completed works, I think the intent of a work's creator can occasionally be ignored without "censoring" their voice (although I wouldn't say that reinterpretations should be created just for the sake of modernizing something). If a work is old enough to have entered the public domain or the artists behind its creation explicitly approve of its reinterpretation, then I see no issue with unfaithful adaptations of a piece (aside from the decreased cohesion that their divergence is likely to result in).
ReplyDeleteHowever, art can have a real influence on people; it can lead them to harm themselves and others. I can see a solid argument for censorious action arising from the desire to prevent real harm; still, I don't think artists can be held accountable for the actions of people who enjoyed their works.
Despite these legal and constitutional rights that artists in America enjoy, it seems as if playwrights don’t always have it so easy, in terms of being able to write something socially or politically relevant for large audiences to see. This isn’t so much our government that is responsible. Rather, it is the producers and executives who decide what shows do and don’t make it to the stage, in the first place. It qualifies as a form of self-censorship on the part of the theatre industry, which I think sets a precedent that is dangerous to the theatre community, if not the larger society.
ReplyDelete