Simon G

Nanarina, For someone who blanches at the mere mention or notion of anything remotely salacious or outre, you seem to have a rather specific knowledge, of times, channels, programming and ease of access. Oh, another thing, BBC4 is lucky if its viewing figures cracks double digits. Perhaps a succes de scandale is just what they need.

The ballet which is a Royal Ballet production is broadcast on BBC2 (the terrestrial channel) as part of the main line up of programmes for the festive season. It's suitable for all ages and advertised as such. The De Frutos was always intended for BBC4, there was never a question of clashing or it taking away from other slots for dance. Indeed BBC4 has so few programmes it repeats it's output several times a week. The reason that there is so little dance on is due to the views of the BBC and the hard facts that it garners such a small audience. The Jonathan Ross affair can in no way shape or form be used as a comparable incident in this argument. For our US chums Jonathan Ross is a popular chat show and radio host in the UK. Last year in a radio progamme which he co-hosted with Russell Brand (another popular UK comedian and broadcaster) the two men for some reason decided to make a phone call to the actor Jonathan Sachs (he who played Manuel in Fawlty Towers). Sachs was not at home so they proceeded to leave joke messages on his ansaphone. Brand had slept with Sach's granddaughter, and Ross thought it would be funny to shout out "He f**** your granddaughter". The two men then proceeded to make several more phone calls leaving abuse and stupid messages on the ansaphone. The show was pre-recorded and a producer actually rang Sachs and asked if they could broadcast the pre-recorded Radio (not television) show. Sachs asked that it not be broadcast and the producer went ahead and said it could be broadcast anyway. There was huge public outcry, not least because at the time Ross was on a salary of £6million a year. Heads rolled, and unfortunately because of the actions of three very silly, infantile men (including the producer) draconian measures of what could and could not be broadcast were introduced across the entire spectrum of BBC ouput. The stupidity of this could be seen most clearly in the radio broadcast of a new version of Oliver Twist, when legal counsel had to be sought and an inquiry lauched internally about the fittingness of broadcasting content with significant child abuse issues. Yes, children do indeed have access to cable. However, at any time cable channels include X rated, adult rated, porn channels, nudity channels, channels where the news is read nakedd, sex advice channels, bizarre channels, violent blood sport channels, violent movie channels, channels specialising in every kind of excess and sexual more imaginable. Do you really think that an underage viewer with a hankering to watch some forbidden fruit and their grubby little hands on the remote, is really going to sit through two hours of turgid contemporary dance on BBC4, when a whole cornucopia of filth is readily and immediatly available?

But isn't that the point, exactly. Offensive to you. And I absolutely understand that and respect that. For me, it's an offensive image which I don't find offensive in the context of what I viewed - a theatre piece. Because ulitmately that's what this is, it isn't a dance work, certainly not ballet - it's dance-based theatre. I also do accept, understand and agree with the decision to not screen it as it is pre watershed. I also think that the producers commissioned this for broadcast without actually realising what they'd bought; I can't image anyone would view the De Frutos and think it fine for pre watershed and I think that's why this story is a storm in a tea cup - a lack of research on the part of the producers and schedulers. I also totally accept the fact that one doesn't need to view a piece of work to know that one won't like it, to not want to go and see it and to object to the content. BUT and this is a big BUT, I totally believe that one can never have the right to fully condemn anything if one doesn't take the time to see it, to make a fully informed decision based on direct knowledge. I go and see loads of things I hate, and which I have a feeling I'm going to hate/be repulsed/bored/offended by for any variety of reasons. Quite often I come away with my views completely unchanged, but sometimes I do a complete 180 and everything becomes clearer, more apparent when I see first hand what the artist/creator intended. I suppose this is why I've gotten so irked and a bit snide by this whole thread and in my responses, because no one saw the De Frutos except Mashinka and I can't argue Mashinka's review of the piece. I thought it silly, banal and facile and a real betrayal by a choreographer of his very great talents. Though I'm sure De Frutos would disagree with me and feel that he was honouring his talents. And that's why censorship based on knee jerk moral outrage is so very, very dangerous - it stops any discourse, discussion or debate.

Hi Patrick, One thing I really want people to understand is that the piece was intended for BBC4. BBC4 is not a mainstream BBC channel - it's a specialist pay to view/cable channel that specifically shows high art and niche arts subjects. It is an alternative space for broadcast performance. It's the equivalent of an art gallery, niche arts performance space, the content shown is more specialised than other cable channels such as the Performance Channel. There was never any intention of showing the De Frutos sandwiched between Blue Peter and Eastenders and never any real potential for a five year old to switch on the television and be confronted with images of a Pope punching a pregnant nun. To get BBC4 you actually have to have the cable technology and actively want to scroll through the menu to find it and select it. BBC4 is as off-the-beaten-track, non mass audience, niche market as it's possible to get.

kfw, The sticking point for me and which continues to irritate is that apart from Mashinka and myself no one here has actually seen the piece, yet are quite happy to condemn it, its intentions and profess moral outrage. Also, the piece wasn't intended for broadcast on the main BBC channels, but on BBC4 which is a pay per view cable channel of specialist arts programming, deemed marginal interest and intended for specific audiences. I don't question the BBC's right to choose what they show and when, however the sticking point does seem that they decided to show the whole Spirit of Diaghilev programme under the mistaken belief it was ballet in a pre watershed slot and didn't realise a) the programme was contemporary dance; b) it wasn't ballet despite the Diaghilev portmanteau, or perhaps because of & c) the content of the De Frutos piece meant a pre watershed viewing wasn't appropriate. I have no problem with the BBC deciding that the De Frutos had to be taken from an early evening showing. What i do have a problem with is the umbrage taken about morals, censorship, guarding the nation's children and also the Christmas angle. De Frutos was a man brought up in deep Catholic faith, his work is a reaction to this and views which could be classed as counter propaganda are equally as valid despite the time of year, perhaps more so. Look to the current shenanigans in Ireland and the State and Church apologies to the victims of Priest sexual abuse - abuse which for years was covered up and denied by the Vatican. It's specious to suggest that at Christmas such horror should be forgotten or brushed aside - De Frutos' nightmare vision of the evil man perpetuates under the name of God & Church is perhaps more poignant and relevant now at Christmas than at any other time. The concept of protecting children from what they view is of course a valid one: which is why I do agree with a post watershed viewing, but the piece is theatre and abstract not obscene nor graphic and as I've said a child can log on and view a world of depravity on the internet, do you truly think they'd sit through 45 minutes of dance/theatre to get to the few moments where acts are depicted in a theatrical/stylised manner? When all's said and done the De Frutos was actually quite boring.

What rights might they be? The right to make informed decisions, to turn off and on a television set and the right to make one's own mind up about what constitutes content, obscenity. This is the same BBC which produces dramas such as The Men's Room, Tinsel Town, The Line of Beauty, Care etc dramas which graphically depict sex acts heterosexual, homosexual, paedophilia. The same UK non cable television channels which also produces Queer As Folk, No Child of Mine, Apparitions, This Life, Skins, Shameless where every single gamut of foul language, sexual behaviour, scatalogical portrayl is also fair game for the viewing public. Come on, this is just a facile argument that people need policing - and the De Frutos piece was going to be shown on BBC4 which is cable and after 9pm. Nanarina, I have an inkling that you don't even know what the dramas I mentioned are or even about or that they were all broadcast on BBC1, BBC2, ITV or Channel 4. That's not an attack, but just goes to show that if something is going to offend you, be of no interest to you then it's highly likely you'll either avoid it altogether or not even know that it's going on or being broadcast. Obviously obscene? How do you know, you never saw the piece, and obscenity is as individual as the individual watching it, I didn't think it was obscene, I thought it silly and that's why censorship of this form is so banal, it's one person's morals speaking for millions. But you wouldn't be faced with it, obscene or not, all you have to do is switch off, or not even tune in. In much the same way that you're assuming the position of the moral majority and dictating what the minority and by that I take it a depraved minority should or shouldn't see? Free choice also dictates that everything should be free and accessible in the public domain, that no content as long as it's not illegal should be taboo or not readily available, that people should have the ability and right to police themselves, to decide for themselves what art they should be allowed to see and their reactions to it. Is it? If it's only you then it's a minority and the majority shouldn't be influenced by what you think. Though of course, you claim membership of the majority. KFW, yes, loads of kids stay up late, so perhaps then we should have mandatory bedtime of 8pm for all children under the age of 16 so that there's no danger of them being exposed to anything which might corrupt the moral fibre of the UK, USA etc Though of course those children will be comfy, middle class with parents who enforce strict moral guidelines. And of course children in the developed world, children not crippled by poverty, indifferent parents, children suffering abuse sexual or physical, children who work in sweat shops, children who go out and have sex, take drugs, get drunk, get pregnant, the list is endless. What makes the BBC volte face so moronic is the misguided notion that Pandora's Box was never opened and that the content of the De Frutos work will corrupt our precious Utopia. Mashinka is absolutely right and has pretty much said it bang on. And what does continue to irritate me is that people haven't seen the piece it's really not that bad, it's a trifle banal, it's certainly ridiculous, but if it is shown after 9pm nothing is going to happen. If anything it's giving it far more weight and power than it actually deserves by banning it from public viewing.

The bit that makes me gag somewhat, as it always does is the remit of "attract younger audiences" - it's the Holy Grail of fatuous arts admin speak. You can just see it bullet pointed at the top of a job spec. The answer how to do this is actually incredibly simple. Make a ticket for the ballet no more expensive than a ticket to the cinema - of course that works contrary to the other top goal of decreasing the deficit. Doesn't anyone on the NYCB board question the viability implicit in the double think of making an incredibly expensive product financially viable while at the same time promoting it to a low income demographic? And another thing, what exactly is the age range of "younger" - if you had a audience predominantly made up of 80-90 year olds then an audience of 60-70 year olds would be practically spring chickens in comparison.

The question of who will perform the work and how is one of the reasons why I've been wondering if perhaps this two-year blow out, followed by a winding down isn't the best course of action. The problem with Cunningham technique is how ferociously difficult it is to learn and develop and how misunderstood it can be in the hands and technique of ballet dancers; who assimilate and approximate into a balletic lexicon. The most obvious example of this for me was the 1988 filming of ABT dancing Duets, originally made by Cunningham for his company in 1980. In the hands of the ballet dancers the rhythmic subtleties and nuances had been abstracted down to counts of 2,4 etc balletic counts, the use of the back was totally absent, the way Cunningham plays with extensions, setting them against curves and turns of the spine was substituted for developpes and arabesques, the men seemed content to be playing the Cavaliers in the Rose adagio, glissading prettily, supporting the women, bringing none of the wit and weight of a modern dancer schooled in Cunningham. Which is the problem, if the technique isn't taught, who will dance the work? And a ballet dancer isn't a contemporary dancer, let alone a Cunningham dancer - though Cunningham's modern work is appealing to ballet dancers because the technique with its onus on extension, beats and balance does at first glance seem balletic. If no one is left to work closely with the ballet companies and school them properly in the technique - an impossiblity given financial & time constraints, how will ballet companies ever give performances of Cunningham works? The other problem is of course the music or lack of it. Cunningham dances are dances of counts and rhythms taught and learnt independently of music, the rhythm is in the steps. Ballet of course is in its most basic sense inextricably linked to the music. Moreover, the sound used for Cunningham is alien, abrupt, sometimes abusive and aggressive - the very great Cunningham works provoke intense and hostile emotions on a pure level of sound. The antithesis of what ballet audiences are used to or expect. The works which have passed into ballet companies are palatable in terms of music: Duets, Pond Way, Points in Space none of them have the coruscating soundscapes of Canfield, Rainforest, Winterbranch. And this is an issue Cunningham's choreographic legacy is marvelous, troubling and provocative - if all that will be allowed onto a ballet stage are polite and unobtrusive soundbites performed as ballet exercises, what is the point?

So, Dirac, I take it you won't be going to the sequel? Funny thing is I completely see where you're coming from regarding the film and I think my way of enjoying it was to not see her as universal womanhood, but an insane woman and the effects of longterm psychosis, and he as being attracted to her as a lifelong pet project. Of course the "supernatural" element may throw a spanner in the works, is it in fact a horror, a ghost story, is she a universal representation of woman hood etc I think I enjoyed it because I left those questions open for myself. I do agree sometimes the symbolism gets a bit teeth cloying "he" "she" "eden" etc I did really enjoy the portrayal of nature as terrifying and anti-God, I have to say I've always had a problem with the great outdoors, and the line "nature is Satan's church" I did identify with very strongly. But yes, I agree Von Trier isn't the happiest bunny in the rabbit hutch and no mistake.

This season has ranged mostly from good to meh, but last night made up for a lot, I agree. As I see it, Weiner had to accomplish at least two things: 1) Get rid of the Brits and 2) Bring back Joan. Did you really think Suzanne was a sociopath, Simon??? Sorry, I meant neurotic. How I mixed them up, I don't quite know.

Miliosr, I read that article too, and do you know what I've had a bit of a volte face about the Cunningham company and my views about its future. I'll post a bit later.

Mad Men isn't the only programme to have a covert balletomane with a hankering after the golden age of NYCB. In Dexter the series villain played by John Lithgow is Trinity a highly prolific serial killer whose alter ego is one, Arthur Mitchell. Mass murdering psychopaths and sociopathic mistresses are tributes of sorts, I suppose.

Ostrich, Peter Cazalet worked with the RB set designer, Barry Kay, several times in the 50s and 60s, also he designed the staging of Ashton's Two Pigeons for CAPAB so there's a good direction to go in for research.

Ostrich, I did a quick search around and sadly the only autograph that carries any real weight or significance outside of balletomanes is unsurprisingly Fonteyn's, a Fonteyn autograph on a good photo seems to fetch in the region of £150-£250. An auction house is selling her autograph on one of her handkerchiefs for £799, but that figure is so high due to the unnusual nature of the autograph. Also the value of the book of course depends on how good a quality the book is actually in, in terms of the book's value and whether it has its original jacket etc

Though I have to say that this piece by Mark Monahan, dance critic of The Telegraph, is far closer to how I felt about the piece:

And I found this in The Guardian by their dance critic, Judith Mackrell:

J, If I may be so bold, any one of those four topics could be a massive essay in itself, instead of doing four major topics sketchily trying to fit them to the title of the essay, why not choose ONE of those topics, perhaps the one that most interests you - decide the aspect of that topic that you think your essay should go down and then take the title from the topic? Then it'll be far easier to point you in the right direction in terms of research and suggestions, at the moment it's a massive undertaking the essay you're proposing.

There is a certain ambivalence about von Trier's view of misogyny - over and over in his movies women are mistreated in various ways, and one wonders if on some level von Trier gets off on the mistreatment; it repels but also attracts. I think that's the real problem with Von Trier's work, the ambivalence in his depictions of mysogyny. There's no doubt that the women in his films, the central heroines are morally right, the suffer horrendous trials and tortures but essentially they do so for a greater good, which is invisible to everyone else - and actually that's the interesting thing about Antichrist, I think for the first time the central heroine/anti heroine is ambivalent. The things she does are unforgivable, especially when the "reveal" comes at the end and you find out the extent of her actions. It's not like mysogyny isn't rife in cinema, go to any muliplex and on several different screens playing six shows a day women will be slashed, tortured, pursued, scantily clad, taken, be sexualised the fact that all this happens within the framework of a Hollywood blockbuster inures us to it. And in Von Triers' films women undergo similar ignomies, however at all moments we're made aware of what we're watching and I think that's why I like him so much he really makes you take accountability. In the quote above you pasted Dirac it mentioned the heavenly bells at the end of Breaking the Waves to announce Bess's ascension to heaven and for me that was the real killing joke of the film because until that moment you kind of thought Bess was just a bit insane and simple and only in her mind was God talking to her and insisting she torture herself to death, but the bells announce that she wasn't and it was indeed what God wanted of her and that's the most depressing thing that it's the will of God that we suffer. Again that isn't so unnusual it's the Book of Job, and Von Trier is a very biblical director, it's just the way Von Trier can devastate you with a moment like that that makes me love his work so much.

I saw Antichrist three times, yes three. The first time I was just so stunned by the end that I wasn't taking that much in, the second to get a more sober take on it and the third because I did find the film deeply troubling, thought provoking and very very beautiful. On one level there's Von Trier's hatred of modern civilisation's eradicating of everything mystic and spiritual from the world, his distaste for modern psychotherapy and counselling is pretty evident in the Dafoe character and the jibes Von Trier pokes at the need to explain and quantify everything to render deep thought and feeling into a blank, blunt utilitarian theory, I found very funny. The performances are incredible from both leads, though Gainsbourg is just phenomenal, it's one of those performances were the actor is so credibly and totally the character they're playing whether or not you like Von Trier it's worth seeing for her alone. The central disturbing theory and thrust of the film, the hatred of women, the historical identifying of women with original sin, evil and the fall of man and the way Von Trier plays this through Gainsbourg - is she truly a vessel for something Satanic/spiritual which works evil through her or is she merely insane, is going to be contentious for anyone watching. The mutilation scenes are harrowing (and ties nicely with the other thread on censorship) the thing is I can't say whether or not it's gratuitous, I don't feel it was, the film is obscene and profane in the best ways, it uniquely challenges and provokes on both a visceral and intellectual level. Torture, hatred and violence towards women in the name of church, state and fear is an integral part of human history and at least Von Trier is confronting this directly and powerfully. I do feel very strongly that to discuss this film you have to see it; taking articles out of context of having seen the film, of course it's going to appear licentious and gratuitous, I don't believe it is, though friends of mine who've seen it do. But what is most wonderful about Antichrist for me, is that it's a film that dares to provoke, to ask the audience to question and it's a film that really does leave you shaken. It's a film of a powerful auteur and thinker; it's a modern allegory, frustrating and disturbing and very very beautiful. Do see it, maybe it won't change your views on Von Trier but in order to really make an informed decision it's well worth the money.

Nanarina, I'm actually more than just a bit annoyed by your attacking me, I was not condemning you at all and I think you're taking this far too personally. I was merely using the repellent/silly example to illustrate how personal classifications and moral censure and censorship is - I wasn't attacking you at all. And yes, of course you don't have to see a piece based on the description of the content, but you can't judge or condemn it if you haven't seen it on anything more than heresay and personal moral code. And the problem with detailed synopsis is how unworkable it would be, should De Frutos have written a graphic breakdown of the drama in the piece? Yes, there were depictions of appalling acts, and taken out of context they are untenable, De Frutos would then have had to have written a contextualised essay of why those acts were depicted - indeed must one then do that for everything? Scenes of an adult nature is sufficient and if you or any other audience member wants to know more, all you have to do is ring up the venue and ask. Or just google something before making a choice as to whether or not you see it. You use of film classification and censorship in the UK is again a very fluid and inaccurate example as film classification and censorship is one of the most inexact example of moral censorship there is, changing depending on country and culture which the same film is shown. And indeed in the case of the UK there have been huge changes in what can and cannot be shown. The most famous example is perhaps the case of Pasolini's Salo or The Hundred and Twenty Days of Sodom and Oshima's In The Realm of the Senses both released in the mid 70s. At that time the UK had some of the strictest classification in the world with the criteria for banning a film being in the words of the British Board of Film Censors "'anything which an ordinary decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting and revolting', or, which 'offended against recognised standards of propriety'" Both films have the most graphic and in the case of Realm, non simulated scenes of sex, sexual depravity and torture, and no way could they be anything but banned at that time. But both films aren't pornography and neither are they gratuitous, they're vastly important films. Realising this one of the head censors of the BBFC at that time, James Ferman, felt that these were films which had to be seen, and he exploited a loophole in British censorship law, whereby private cinema clubs could show non-classified films. At that time in the early 70s the only private film clubs with large enough auditoriums to make a screening financially valid and guaranteed to reach a big enough audience were Soho sex cinemas - so feeling that the message of these films was so vitally important that it merited the risk, that's what Ferman covertly helped promote. Yes, the films are obscene, but obscenity and art are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and obsene acts have been the basis of all art forms for centuries. The draconian UK film censorship laws have indeed been abolished. Indeed even at the time Ferman realised how constraining they were and how censorship his very job was stifling the right of people to make informed choices to view material which while challenging, obscene and deeply disturbing had an emotional, intellectual and artistic validity and importance. Now every film from Lars Von Triers Antichrist, Vergenie Despentes, Baise Moi, Salo, In the Realm of the Senses, the entire film works of Catherine Breillat etc can all be seen at cinemas, and they all carry the 18 certificate. Films that until the early 90s were illegal in the UK, or would have been under the old censorship laws. Because the BBFC has decided that we as a nation are grown up enough to police ourselves and decide what we are capable of viewing.

Nanarina, This actually proves the case against censorship. Especially in light of my misnomer - for Mashinka it was repellent, for me it was silly and that's the crux of the problem who's to say which is right? Does Mashinka have a more discerning sense of morality/sensibility or is she over-reacting, am I superficial, perverse, emotionally immature? What is the moral benchmark and does this mean that Mashinka and I could never be equally irritated, repelled, shocked, delighted? I don't think so, we both love Javier De Frutos when he's on form. Our unique sensibilities, our ability to decide for ourselves what constitutes our moral "boiling point" is our right as human beings and short of illegal acts of depravity is our absolute right. This is why calling for offical censorship whereby an appointed body are deemed able to lay down ethical guidelines of morality by which the whole population must adhere to or face prosecution is extremely dangerous. It denies us our basic human right of expression; I would rather a thousand bad performances and no masterpieces, if the caveat for great art is that nothing deemed "unfitting" may ever be presented. The problem is you didn't see the De Frutos, which is fine you don't like the sound of it and there's no reason why you should, especially as you feel it would have upset and repelled you. Fine, but by that same token you have no right to demand that it not be presented, Mashinka hated the piece but I'm sure she wouldn't demand it shouldn't have been put on. We all have the power and right to leave.

Nanarina, Funnily enough that statement is pretty much the credo of the modern dancer pioneers and the effect which caused Duncan, Graham, Wigman, Holm, Cunningham and on.... And actually we could also see that being the reason for Fokine, Nijinska, Balanchine etc revolting againt the classicism of Petipa. It was certainly MacMillan's reason for creating The Invitation and The Burrow. I do agree with you strongly nanarina about the need to protect kids from the deluge available on the internet and I'm sure you're not a prude, I suppose the thing is one has to operate one's right and ability to walk out or not go to something. Ultimately censoring what can be seen is actually censoring thought and ideas. There are many artists I have a really hard time with especially conceptual artists such as Marina Abramovic, I just find her art repellent - ditto this Italian guy in London called Franko B, whose exhibition actually made me throw up, I shan't go into details. But again even though I hate the art or content I defend utterly their right to do what they want. I agree with Mashinka, the De Frutos was rather silly, it didn't offend me, I thought it was too childish, but at the same time it fit the evening for me as the whole thing was rather ill advised. Patrick, I don't know if De Frutos will come to the US. He needs a large company with a fairly large budget to perform his works, whether or not anyone will put up the dosh in the US remains to be seen.

Patrick, One thing I can't stress enough, really highly enough is how absolutely beautiful Javier De Frutos's work can be and how if you do have the chance to see his fine works, go. Of those works I'd include: Blue Roses - his take on The Glass Menagerie Milagros - his version of Rite of Spring, done to the two piano version and originally staged on New Zealand ballet. Nopalitos - A dance based on the Mexican Day of the Dead Paseillo - one of the few pieces I've seen to Mozart where Mozart didn't trounce the choreography. Los Picadoros - to Stravinsky's Les Noces, nothing to do with a wedding but just defies description Cabaret - choreography for the Kander Erb musical which won him an Olivier. Just sexy, not Fosse style or derivative and wonderful. He is just marvelous when he's on form and he's more often on form than not. Just a choreographer of beautiful, humane, passionate dance. Don't let one report on one dance detract from that, if you have a chance to see his work go.

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.

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.