158 replies to this topic

[papeetepatrick]

Nanarina, on Oct 17 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

  Mashinka  If you had known what this production contained would you have still gone to see it? And was there any warning of it's content beforehand.   If it had been looked at by Ther Board of Censors, you may have been spared the experience and a spoilt evenings entertainment.  I think that cenorship is valid, it provides information in the sense of Codes and suitability, which allow people to make their own choices. Watch if you want or decline.

Censorship does not 'provide information', it censors things--which means prohibits certain ones, at least on the planet I live on.  'Watch if you want or decline' is what most of the rest of us are saying--a review can tell you that, or you can talk to people and find out.   Censorship is something else.  Some of dearest friends, including both of my sisters, would have totally freaked out if they'd seen this, but that's their problem, I tell them about these things so they can keep on with their sense of 'Southern-belle spotless women' that they are so into.   I don't know why anybody would choose such a narrow view, but that is their business.   Forget it for me, though, for example, and they think that is just fine that way.

[Nanarina]

papeetepatrick, on Oct 17 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

Nanarina, on Oct 17 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

Mashinka If you had known what this production contained would you have still gone to see it? And was there any warning of it's content beforehand. If it had been looked at by Ther Board of Censors, you may have been spared the experience and a spoilt evenings entertainment. I think that cenorship is valid, it provides information in the sense of Codes and suitability, which allow people to make their own choices. Watch if you want or decline.

Censorship does not 'provide information', it censors things--which means prohibits certain ones, at least on the planet I live on. 'Watch if you want or decline' is what most of the rest of us are saying--a review can tell you that, or you can talk to people and find out. Censorship is something else. Some of dearest friends, including both of my sisters, would have totally freaked out if they'd seen this, but that's their problem, I tell them about these things so they can keep on with their sense of 'Southern-belle spotless women' that they are so into. I don't know why anybody would choose such a narrow view, but that is their business. Forget it for me, though, for example, and they think that is just fine that way.

Why are you so against people being protected from seeing something that is possibly obscene, when it can be omitted? there are degrees of all things. So why cannot they be moderated in advance? I do not have a narrow view on life, I have seen many charges over the years, some for the better and some for the worse. In fact I am quite open minded. I was not suggesting Censorship was providing information, what I meant was it is good to know that I at least am pleased to feel protected in what I am expected to witness either on the stage or off.

[Simon G]

Papeet,

The production came with a warning on all printed and online material AND I was told at the box office when I bought my ticket that the De Frutos could cause offence. It was also printed that discretion was advised and the production was NOT suitable for kids.

How much more is necessary? The venue acted responsibly, an adult was given ample warning to make an informed choice - to go any further into debate over this is moot. What nanarina is arguing is a suppression of ideas.

Any day a kid can log on unsupervised and have access to a world of filth on the internet, DVDs of the nastiest sort are freely exchanged and handled, indeed log on and with a free to download torrent finder program a kid can log on to a torrent download site and download any and all video nasties and sex films. Why on earth would a piece at the end of an evening be more damaging to kids and social fabric than the web? Especially as kids are restrained by financial circumstances and pocket money, a ticket to De Frutos cost £40 and a planet worth of smut is free.

What poses a greater threat to propriety and the moral imperitive to safeguard children? This isn't a debate it's simply a no brainer.

[papeetepatrick]

Simon G, on Oct 17 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

The production came with a warning on all printed and online material AND I was told at the box office when I bought my ticket that the De Frutos could cause offence. It was also printed that discretion was advised and the production was NOT suitable for kids.

Well, that says it all to me.  That was more than sufficient as I see it.

Quote

What poses a greater threat to propriety and the moral imperitive to safeguard children? This isn't a debate it's simply a no brainer.

Totally agree, and now that you mentioned the warnings (I'm not sure you or Mashinka told us about those earlier), I don't even see what there is to talk about except the piece itself as an artwork. Incidentally, remember as far back as the mid-90s, I believe, things about TV and internet devices to keep children off porn sites, but I'm sure the kids are smarter than the adults about tech things by now, and so that the net itself has, for all intents and purposes, rendered the very concept of censorship obsolete.

[papeetepatrick]

Nanarina, on Oct 17 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

Why are you so against people being protected from seeing something that is pooibly horrific, when it can be omitted?  there are degrees of all things. So why cannot they be moderated in advance?   I do not have a narrow view on life, I have seen many charges over the years, some for the better and some for the worse.  In fact I am quite open minded. I was not suggesting Censorship[ was providing information, what I meant was it is good to know that I at least am pleased to feel protected in what I am expected to witness either on the stage or off.

Well, yeah, this thread has amply protected you from the new Frutos piece.  

As for 'omitting horrific ballets', I'm afraid I have to take a break without further ado.  I have heard that 'PAMTGG' is horrific, but I didn't see that either.  I KNOW that I thought Robbins's 'Glass Pieces' was 'horrific', but not because it didn't have any sex in it.

[Nanarina]

Nanarina, on Oct 17 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

Simon G, on Oct 17 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

Papeet,

The production came with a warning on all printed and online material AND I was told at the box office when I bought my ticket that the De Frutos could cause offence. It was also printed that discretion was advised and the production was NOT suitable for kids.

How much more is necessary? The venue acted responsibly, an adult was given ample warning to make an informed choice - to go any further into debate over this is moot. What nanarina is arguing is a suppression of ideas.

Any day a kid can log on unsupervised and have access to a world of filth on the internet, DVDs of the nastiest sort are freely exchanged and handled, indeed log on and with a free to download torrent finder program a kid can log on to a torrent download site and download any and all video nasties and sex films. Why on earth would a piece at the end of an evening be more damaging to kids and social fabric than the web? Especially as kids are restrained by financial circumstances and pocket money, a ticket to De Frutos cost £40 and a planet worth of smut is free.

What poses a greater threat to propriety and the moral imperitive to safeguard children? This isn't a debate it's simply a no brainer.

I am not suggesting auppression of idea's, Creativety is a major part of my life. However, what you say about Kids today, I totally agree with, and kind of proves my point!!!

[Simon G]

Nanarina, on Oct 17 2009, 06:39 PM, said:

I am not suggesting auppression of idea's, Creativety is a major part of my life. However, what you say about Kids today, I totally agree with, and kind of proves my point!!!

Nanarina,

There's a huge difference between readily available free porn on the internet and a show with a warning that the content is adult in a theatre by a serious and excellent choreographer. What more could Sadlers Wells have done? Wrapped the theatre in brown paper? And really one always has the option to just get up and leave, god knows I've done that enough in the course of my theatre going lifetime.

Moreover, the internet has only made it easier to access stuff, when I was a kid in the 80s my first exposure to video nasties came when I was 10 and a friend's older brother had videos of I Spit On Your Grave & The Exorcist; they scared me silly but haven't really done any lasting damage. (I've left myself wide open here, so everyone do your worst.)

The whole evening was rather ill advised "The Spirit of Diaghilev", what the hell is that anyway? And indeed until De Frutos came on it was a deeply pretentious boring evening. McGregor who in the press criticised the output of the Ballets Russes as largely awful decided the spirit should be commemorated by something which truly raised the bar for sheer awful - Cherkaoui decided to reimagine the Faun, not giving much attention to either the Nijinsky or Robbins and came away with egg on his face and Maliphant just phoned in his work and banked his commission money and good for him, at least it wasn't pretentious.

Only De Frutos actually gave real consideration to "The Spirit of Diaghilev" and what that actually meant; fearlessness, the audience be damned, court controversy and be in your face. On reflection De Frutos must have known what he was doing he's far too intelligent and talented and that was what was so wonderful, the whole concept of the evening was vapid and facile and his work was the little boy in The Emperor's New Clothes. In one fell swoop De Frutos pointed out the evening was pretty much of nothing and embarrassed the proceedings and the audience was rather naked polemic. It was great - for all the right reasons, because the evening was just wrong.

[dirac]

Quote

What more could Sadlers Wells have done? Wrapped the theatre in brown paper?

Thank you for that mental image, Simon.

[papeetepatrick]

Simon G, on Oct 17 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

Moreover, the internet has only made it easier to access stuff, when I was a kid in the 80s my first exposure to video nasties came when I was 10 and a friend's older brother had videos of I Spit On Your Grave & The Exorcist; they scared me silly but haven't really done any lasting damage. (I've left myself wide open here, so everyone do your worst.)

We agree, Simon, that you were not damaged.  Your energy is exemplary and inspiring.

[Nanarina]

:

dirac, on Oct 17 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

Quote

What more could Sadlers Wells have done? Wrapped the theatre in brown paper?

Thank you for that mental image, Simon.

It would take quite a few rolls.

[Nanarina]

Mashinka, on Oct 16 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

Jane Simpson, on Oct 16 2009, 02:40 PM, said:

Apparently the BBC is filming this programme for airing in December (as one of a series of 3 Diaghilev-inspired programmes) so we shall all (all of us in the UK, that is) get a chance to see it.

The problem of putting something like this on the box is that the impact diminishes when viewed next to the horrors shown on the news on a daily basis, but whatever the intentions behind its creation, for most people this work will leave a bad taste.

Hopefully the viwers will comsider making a complaint if they so wish.

[Nanarina]

kfw, on Oct 15 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Patrick, I can't imagine how a kid could be enriched by any work of art dealing with paedophilia or a lot of other vile adult behaviour, or not be hurt by it. I'm all for movie ratings for the same reason I'm all for parenting. I remember as an 11-year old hearing a recording of the pop singer Melanie -- remember her, I know you're old enough?   -- in which she practically yelled out an accusation in raw pain. It disturbed me.

I wrote a preview piece for a film festival today and in it referred to John Waters' "Pink Flamingos" as

Quote

variously decried and celebrated for its outré behavior and graphic perversity.

That pretty much illustrates my philosophy. Let people know what they're in for, and don't let the PC crowd scare you away from "moral judgment." What would they say about a snuff film?

Thank you KFW. My sentiments exactly "Let people know what they are in for".

[Nanarina]

papeetepatrick, on Oct 17 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

Nanarina, on Oct 17 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

Why are you so against people being protected from seeing something that is pooibly horrific, when it can be omitted?  there are degrees of all things. So why cannot they be moderated in advance?   I do not have a narrow view on life, I have seen many charges over the years, some for the better and some for the worse.  In fact I am quite open minded. I was not suggesting Censorship[ was providing information, what I meant was it is good to know that I at least am pleased to feel protected in what I am expected to witness either on the stage or off.

Well, yeah, this thread has amply protected you from the new Frutos piece.  

As for 'omitting horrific ballets', I'm afraid I have to take a break without further ado.  I have heard that 'PAMTGG' is horrific, but I didn't see that either.  I KNOW that I thought Robbins's 'Glass Pieces' was 'horrific', but not because it didn't have any sex in it.

I have changed my post to read OBSCENE, which decribes the point I was trying to make much better.
Sadly I am unable to check a dictionary or thesaurus. when I cannot think of the right word to use.  as I am partially sighted and cannot see them .By the way I am not against free artistic expression I use it every day in my own work.

[Simon G]

Nanarina,

You're right for the most part there is no protection from the truly obscene: all one has to do is log on. However, their is the conscious decision to search for it, even if it's just typing something in google.

My story about my very first nasty video does have a serious message, it used to be that if you were hankering to be disgusted you had to actively search for it, that included (if you were under age) knowing people, doing groundwork, swapping material etc but you know at the same time it is all part of growing up.

The one area where I truly believe more and more that censorship is damaging and indeed moot is in the performing arts - art used to be confrontational, disturbing, challenging and so little of it is, so little on display excites, sensationalises or provokes and what's more what could be a greater form of censorship than making an active decision to actually go and watch something live, having to travel to a venue, pay a large amount for a ticket, programme, meal, interval drink etc and wait and watch the show? In fact in that respect the De Frutos was quaintly old fashioned - you had to actively seek out being outraged and disgusted - and they stated the potential for offence AND they stated the piece wasn't acceptable for children AND they put the work on after 10 pm. They acted like responsible adults.

Again, parents need worry far more about a torrent finder programme online, which totally circumvents all the online child safeguards, than a half hour piece about the Catholic Church.

David Dougill in the times said he thought Diaghilev would have been outraged by De Frutos; actually I disagree I think Diaghilev would have been outraged by the boring insipid fayre on before it, I also think he'd be outraged by McGregor's damning inditement of the Ballets Russes as largely awful and McGregor's truly awful take on ballet and dance. De Frutos, I think he'd have been rather amused by the his attention grabbing tactics and if he saw De Frutos' real work I think he'd have been enchanted.

The thing is this isn't just a one off, this has been going back years : Lady Chatterly's Lover, The Pillow Book, Torture Garden, Diary of a Chambermaid, Nana, In the Realm of The Senses, Marquis De Sade, Jiri Kylian, Marina Abramovic,  Frank Moore, Les Amants, Salo etc etc etc

Acts of obscenity and art have always been intertwined, I cannot for one second condone censorship on art, it defeats the very nature and purpose of its existence.

The De Frutos work was obscene sure, an obscene take on a religion whose very existence has been intertwined with some of the very worst atrocities and obscenities.

I don't know what more one can say on this topic, no one needs protecting from De Frutos, but we all need protecting from a State that passes mandatory censorship on speech and expression.

[papeetepatrick]

Agree with everything Simon said, and anyway, obscenity is protected as free speech, at least in the U.S.  That's as it should be, or just try to change it.  Even if you got it changed for live performance, that's the LEAST of it.  Obscenity is here to stay, you just have to know how to handle it and avoid it if you want.

Quote

Acts of obscenity and art have always been intertwined, I cannot for one second condone censorship on art, it defeats the very nature and purpose of its existence.

The De Frutos work was obscene sure, an obscene take on a religion whose very existence has been intertwined with some of the very worst atrocities and obscenities.

Oh yes, is this ever right on the money.  I'd just add, of course, that with the net as you've pointed out, obscenity is also not just instantly available, it really renders issues of censorship a moot point, becauee the lively arts would never be more than a millionth-percent of all of it.  If you're worried about too much obscenity, then no need to focus on rarefied forms like the occasional ballet, but rather where it's omnipresent.