Censorship and the Arts

So I hear you cry. Here we go again, Logos banging on his old drum again about censorship. I make no apologies for this. Given recent events I think it is one of the more important issues facing us in the 21st Century. I was involved in an interesting discussion with Mr Prosser about swearing on this site which we agreed to drop and I do not intend to reawaken but just as it was leading me into an discussion about censorship in general the site began having problems and I sort of let it rest. But.... Stinger was talking about the company producing the Errol Flynn play, self censoring the swearing from it because the "audiences wouldn't like it." This opens a can of worms for me. A big can. Now in this case Stinger knows Rob George and has spoken to him and apparently he has no problem with the bowdlerisation of his script he is just interested in the phenomenon. I have to say however that although I generally use profanity sparingly in my scripts I would deeply resent it being censored and would possibly even withdraw permission because the swearing in the script is intentionally and carefully placed to make points and reflects the way my characters would naturally speak. I personally would say, if you want to do a script do it as written or not at all. Don't censor it to fit what may be an imaginary concern for the attitudes of your audience. Do we respect the writer for his intentions? To what extent is it fair dealing to change a script. The actual legal answer is that you cannot change one single word of a script legally without the permission of the owner of the copyright. That's right folks not one single word, it makes no difference if you are a school or an amateur theatre company, you must obtain the right to perform and you must ask permission to change any of the script. Most writers will not unreasonably with hold permission but don't try and change Becket. Now that little diatribe is over lets talk about other types of censorship. During the last Fringe I put on a play. I had a school book seats to come and see it and I had the following conversation with the school: School: Is there any nudity in your play? Me: No SChool: Is there any swearing in your play? Me: No, but I feel you ought to know that there is considerable simulated torture using a simulated cattle prod. School: Oh That doesn't matter. These were year 10 and 11 students. I took their money but was puzzled by the attitude, as I always have been. I guess that it's not a new phenomenon that violence is more acceptable than nudity despite the fact that it probably does more harm. Now that leads me to the events of the last few weeks involving Bill Hansen's photo's. I haven't seen all the pictures only what was put on the box and on the net, but I in no way found what I have seen titillating or erotic. I guess I have to be careful what I say as I am a fifty plus year old man and therefore apparently automatically a paedophile if I look at pictures like these. I heard on the ABC National lunchtime show an interview with someone who had seen the entire exhibition unlike Mr Rudd. He stated that the exhibition was about moments frozen in time. There were a number of landscapes and architectural photos and among them these works photographing the young girl and boy. Freezing them in time. We are now being censored by Mrs Grundy again. Now to Mr Rudd, I have no objection to him holding any opinion he likes about any work of art. (I am sure he would be glad to hear that.) If I disagree I can call him a philistine and move on. However he expressed an opinion very publicly on an issue that was under investigation by the police re the possible commission of a crime. An opinion which supported the attitude that it was a crime. As a person of some (though apparently diminishing) credibility and high public profile should he not have reserved public comment until legal decisions were made? As we now know of course no crime has been committed (I bet some people will loudly disagree with me on that as well.) For a crime of the nature of which the public, Mr Rudd, the Media and now Mr Nelson have accused Mr Hansen of to have taken place, then intent to commit that crime must be proven. He was pilloried and self serving politicians with 19th Century attitudes jumped on the band wagon. More censorship. The work is in total harmony with a long and distinguished career as one of Australia's most highly respected photographic artists. Now to the anti sedition laws again. We all know what happened to Dr Haniff. Did you know that if ASIO had arrested him we might never have found out. It is apparently illegal even to tell someone you have been arrested by ASIO after you have been released. Well that's all for now. Talk to you soon.