The law’s the thing...

There is a palpable sense of dismay and disillusion among Malta’s artistic community following the Civil Court’s decision last Monday to uphold a ban on Andrew Nielson’s play, Stitching.

Alan Montanaro, veteran actor and principal of the Helen O’ Grady Academy (Malta), vents his frustration in bitter tones: “I’m deeply disappointed and, yes, offended by the court ruling. My dad, a pioneer of Freedom of Expression in Malta, must be rolling in his grave. I appreciate that the law of the land has to be respected, but I also believe it needs to be reviewed, dusted and updated...”

Montanaro himself is no stranger to censorship. In 2008, the Malta Amateur Dramatic Company (MADC) was forced to make cuts from an award-winning play called ‘Laughing Wild’ by Christopher Durang. Maltese audiences watched a doctored version of the original – as in fact they have done with a number of other plays in recent years. The most memorable incident remains that of Cheek By Jowl’s 1997 performance of Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi - when a pivotal ‘crucifix kicking’ scene was removed from subsequent performances after complaints by unidentified members of the audience. Since then, the Reduced Shakespeare Company’s Abridged Bible - The Complete Word of God was banned altogether, while there have been several other examples of excessive interference by a board supposedly there only to ‘classify’ theatrical productions.

Sometimes, these interventions have bordered on the ridiculous. In Peter Nichols’A Day in the Death of Joe Egg, performed by In Company Theatre earlier late last year, a single line was excised on the insistence of Malta’s head censor, Therese Friggieri, because its “ambiguous portrayal” of God may have “caused confusion” among 16-year-olds. So instead, the actor concerned simply turned to the audience and said: “Sorry! Can’t say that line in Malta...”

These and other instances have contributed to a marked sensation that the local Film and Stage Classification Board has arrogated unto itself more powers than ever before – prompting the Council of Europe to report that “censorship of theatrical performances in Malta” was “not consistent with the beliefs of the Council of Europe and those of the European Union”, because it represented control over creative expression.

Undaunted, the censors struck again last year, this time by imposing a blanket ban on on Andrew Nielson’s Stitching in January 2009: performed to high critical acclaim all over the world. On Monday, the ban was upheld by the Civil Court, which reasoned that the play ‘ridicules the family’, ‘undermines the right to life’, contains ‘blasphemy’, and presents values somehow ‘incompatible with Maltese civilisation’ [sic].

Alan Montanaro is unimpressed, arguing that the theatre is treated using a different yardstick from other areas of social life. “I can’t comment about Stitching in particular because I didn’t read the play, and someone deemed that I am not allowed to see it,” he said. “And THAT is what really gets my goat. I’m in my mid 40s, and someone’s taken my freedom to choose away from me...”

Montanaro further claims that it is “impossible not to label the judgment as hypocritical”. “In order to justify this ruling, we must expect to see a ban on most films where swearing is rampant, because it is, like it or not, a form of colloquial expression,” he adds. “Many books and magazines too must be removed from our shelves. Television must be censored too... I also expect arrests to be made at any village festa of your choice, or any world cup game where swearing is rampant, senseless and in-your-face, whether you like it or not... and all for free!”

The sentiment appears to be widely shared among theatre aficionados. In a statement issued on Friday, the newly formed Association of Performing Arts Practitioners deplored the ruling as one that “will not only seriously stifle creativity in this country, but will discourage foreign artists from working with their Maltese counterparts in Malta... Artists will not be allowed to examine the darkest corners of the human existence, for fear of censorship,” APAP noted. “This judgment also immediately disenfranchises Maltese artists and audiences for a lot of contemporary European culture.”

Former University rector and theatre studies lecturer Rev. Prof. Peter Serracino Inglott seems to be of the same overall opinion. “I am not surprised by the ruling, given the existing law,” he said when asked for a reaction to the judgement. “But I am completely against censorship. I can’t see why, in the case of cinema and theatre, works are subjected to scrutiny before they are shown. This is not done with art exhibitions, for instance.”

Fr Peter argues that, although technically labelled a ‘classification’ board, the body responsible for the ban on Stitching is very much a board of censors. “The board still has the power to ban a play – a right I think should be abolished. Then, of course, if laws are broken in the course of a performance, action should be taken afterwards... as is after all the case with libel in press articles.”

Fr Peter also echoes Montanaro’s call for existing obscenity laws to be overhauled. “Separately I think there should be a review – and in fact a parliamentary committee was set up to do this – of what counts as public morality. I haven’t read the ruling yet, but what I saw quoted in the media is cause for concern. According to press reports, the judge ruled that because swearing in public is against the law, it should be banned from the stage. But this is absurd. What happens on stage is at the level of fiction. To give an example: just because there is a law against being nude in the street, it doesn’t follow that you can’t have nudity in paintings. The same goes for the stage.”

A similar view is shared by Arts Council CEO Davinia Galea, who made it clear she was expressing her private opinion in her comments to this newspaper. “The issue was raised at a meeting of the Council yesterday (Wednesday). The way I see it, the problem is with the law as it stands today. Personally I don’t agree with censorship, but at the same time the law can’t simply be broken. This is why we are pushing for the necessary amendments to be made as a matter of urgency. We cannot go on with these outdated laws in the 21st century...”

Galea added that this does not mean there should be no laws governing theatre at all. “There have to be regulations to protect the vulnerable, and people also have to take responsibility for what they are doing. If you are putting on a play which contains adult material, it must be mandatory to state as much.”

In Galea’s own view, the amendments should entail limiting the responsibilities of the Film and Classification Board to issuing classification ratings for cinema only. Theatre, she argues, should be self-regulating. “This is how it works in other countries. Theatre producers are encouraged to take the responsibility to rate their own productions – naturally according to set of established criteria. If there is nudity, bad language, vulgarity, etc. the play would have to be restricted to a mature audience. But I don’t agree with a board of five or so people who simply decide on behalf of everyone else.”

On his part, Alan Montanaro emphatically agrees: “By all means, rate the play, slap warnings with bells on them on the poster... But leave it to the discretion of the artist, producer, or theatre-goer to make his choice.”

Likewise, Simone Spiteri – actress, director and founder of local drama group Dù Theatre – argues that censorship in general is tantamount to a lack of faith in the public’s capabilities. “As theatre-goer myself, I am incensed at the fact that another adult like me has the authority to decide what I can see or not, hence assuming that I am incapable of such an exercise myself,” she points out. “It is also quite sad to see that there are some very serious issues that are being confused in reaction to this particular case by the general public.”

Echoing Serracino Inglott, Simone Spiteri also expresses concern at what appears to be an inability to distinguish between ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’ when it comes to theatre. “The idea, as some have propagated, that a mature, intelligent and adult spectator might confuse or fail to make a distinction between what he sees on stage and what happens in reality is quite worrisome and obtuse. More so in an age when the cinematic arts are far more realistic than theatre on every possible level and more widely popular with the general public, yet you see young adolescents walking into cinema theatres watching violent films with a low classification and no one bats an eyelid.”

Elsewhere, Giuseppe Schembri Bonaci – formerly an ambassador, director of the Vakhtangov Theatre in Moscow, and lecturer in theatre studies – argues for an end to censorship in all its forms. “I know that this lands me in a labyrinth of contradictions – i.e. allowing Nazi hate speech, etc. etc. However, choosing the best of two negatives I would strongly support a total ban on censorship.”

Schembri Bonaci argues that society has its own self-censoring methods, including family, school, media and others. “To add to all this by having a political-legal structure enforcing censorship is quite frankly dangerous,” he adds. “Let us remember days not long gone, when working class intellegentia were imprisoned for reading George Bernard Shaw (whilst this eminent writer was a privileged guest of the British Governor in Malta!) Everybody recalls the massive censorship against the Labour activities in the 50s and 60s, and the bizarre violent TV censorship during the 80s against the Nationalist Party. Malta has never had an open, liberal, modern attitude to this question.”

The former ambassador identifies Monday’s ruling as evidence that the situation is steadily getting worse. “The recent events made me really sad. A fundamentalist wave is unfortunately gaining momentum. The real pity is that this fundamentalist wave has no reason to exist, because Malta had never had an open society against which such fundamentalist wave could have been rationally explained. So what we are envisaging is just a higher level of fundamentalism.”