Needing Stitches
While I’m passionate towards music and literature, I try to appreciate different types of art, including drama even if not so passionate about it. Thus, hadn’t there been this hype about the ‘shocking’ play ‘Stitches’ I’d maybe have been interested in watching it, maybe not.
However now I feel I need to watch it, or at least read the script, preferably both. I want to know what the fuss is about, not only for the sake of curiosity but in order to have a basis to form an opinion about the censorship of the play. With the information I have from newspapers, articles, TV programmes etc, I can say censoring it is just ridiculous. However, I can’t give the benefit of the doubt to those opposing it since it is them that are not allowing me, an adult to watch it.
I’m not absolutely against censorship, but the things I’d like to censor are of a completely different quality and for a completely different.
One of the reasons I find something eligible for censoring is promoting discrimination and racial hatred. A book published from the church’s press demonising homosexuals, which Dr Patrick Attard is opposing, would without a single doubt fall into this category.
Back to Stitches a reference to promoting racial hatred could be the mentioned fact that a particular character masturbates while watching women entering gas chambers. The issue here is not how shocking it is or not. That’s up to us adults to decide that. The issue is: is this condoned? Does Stitching promote Jewish people being sent to death as good fodder for sexual fantasies? If that was the case, I would regard it as inciting racial hatred. However I don’t think it is.
I don’t want to pester the producers but since the conservatives denied me the right to watch or read it I have to go to them to give me the answers.
One of the reasons I believe that racial hatred or promotion of criminal offences is not an issue is the fact that when one wants to pass such a message, it is not presented in a shocking way.
Human rights activists have opposed series programs such as Prison Break, Lost and 24 because they promote torture albeit in a subtle way. Since it is the ‘good ones’ using it, for the beneficial service of getting rid of crime, the subtle message is ‘TORTURE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES’ I definitely would not tolerate that.
On the other hand, the passion of Christ, from films, to statues, to paegants and books is a whole episode of blatant torture. Yet I don’t fight it slightly offensive. Torture is condemned, Christ is the hero not those torturing him.
Those condemning the play just quoted parts of the play in isolation, not context. It makes all the difference. Do they know that in the Bible there are these words written ‘There is no God’. Don’t they believe me? Go and check for yourself. What they will find is these exact words ‘There is not God’, however these are followed by the words ‘said the fool’. Makes a little difference doesn’t it?
23 February, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I am very confused in my opinion towards the censor of this play. This is because I hate when someone else decides for me what I should watch, here and read. High level you can call it dictatorship. On the other hand I tend to agree with censorship as if there will be no watchdogs who control what is being passed on to the public we might have major miss interpretations of very sensitive issues. This particular script is available to read – you can buy the script from a bookshop. The visual has been censored. Some people might ask but what is the difference? I say yes whoever is going to read, he or she requires some knowledge to understand. The visual is much easier to follow and it is more explicit.
I also agree with you that when you say or quote something, you have to do it in full context. Even the tonality or omitting punctuation could change the sense
In my opinion what should happen is that this play will not be show at the st James but it should be recorded on DVDs and sold to whoever want to see it. St James there is management who decide what content should be shown.
24 February, 2009 at 8:49 pm
My attention was drawn to this blog and I feel I must comment on some arguments.
Let’s start with this Auschwitz line. It is a line, not a scene. In it the character is horrified at what his girlfriend is making him do and recounts, IN A VERY SORRY VOICE, that the first time he came (as a child) he was looking at some naked women being heralded into a gas chamber at Auschwitz. He remembers (and is sorry to do so) that he could not understand the horrific situation and that this for him, at the time, was merely a scene with naked women. Which is totally understandable because children do not understand mortality. The character has no pride in this moment. And one must also consider that this play has been performed in New York and England and had no problems of anti-semitism. The New York edition also had a Jewish girl playing the main role.
All the other ’shocking statements’ were taken out of context like the Auschwitz line.
On another note, this play cannot be recorded because I am only licensed to perform it on stage.
24 February, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Thanks Adrian for your comment. I think it’s clear enough for for me to confirm what I believed – there are absolutely no reasonable grounds for this play to be censored.
Actually things that are harmful indeed are the hardest to censor. I’ve seen emails circling with what I knew was lies, such as alledging things towards the Muslim community which I knew for sure they were not true. AD also suffered a rumour spread through email that it is pro-abortion – a blatant lie. However, unlike the organisors of this play, these people were not only exempt from cencorshop, but no one could file libel suit towards their lies since they could not be identified (I can invent an email account with a fictitious name and spread a rumour in 5 minutes if I was evil enough to do it)
May one also know, that censorship (at least nowadays) isn’t a tool for regulating morality, but for maintaining power. China is the prime example. I met personally people from Sub-Saharan countries who had too flee because they voiced their opinion. Though they tried to put their message as subtle as possible, their message was pro-democracy. Needless to say, dictators don’t like such things
10 March, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Adrian,
Is it possible to keep us informed if this play is going to be performed and where ?
I think I want to see it and make a better judgment myself on the censorship in Malta.
Thanks
Manuel