Horror Comics (via Jim Trombetta)

French Revolutions and Censorship

Quick quiz: in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, during the various upheavals that revolve around the French Revolution, was censorship by the state more common before or after the declaration in 1791 against censorship?

The clue's probably in the question. After 1791, banning of plays was more common. Under the absolute monarchy, there was a complicated process of censorship, that could involve a nervous police referring to the state or the church. By the time of Napoleon, the Emperor himself was programming plays so that theatre reflected well on his regime. 

My ill-defined understanding of The French Revolution features the defeat of France's absolute monarchy by a popular uprising - led and determined by the influence of the enlightenment intellects - which rapidly degenerated into a murderous free-for-all and concluded in the arrival of Napoleon, who became emperor and turned the revolution into an expansive imperialism. Theatre was not included in my secondary school-level study, although the writing of Voltaire and Diderot implied that performance was a vital public forum for the promotion of new ideas.

In this simplistic version, the ancient regime was totalitarian. Yet its control of theatre was less immediate than the activities of the revolutionary governments. Discuss.

The best part of the ancient regime, as far as theatre goes, was the pit. This was the cheap seats, although it had no seats, just a standing audience that had a habit of shouting at the performers. Apparently, they'd whistle if the acting was bad. They also made applications: applauding, or booing, or launching a zinger at lines that could reflect on current political issues.

This was not about recognising an allusion in the script: it was the audience interpreting. It could even embarrass a writer: when Colle was given props for an application of his Partie de chasse de Henri IV, he ran off at the finale, worried that the state might think he had deliberately alluded to the recent sacking of a popular director-general of finances. 

The pit kept its actions up during the early stages of the revolution. Even the royalists would make applications, giving it laldy during Pompignan's Didon. Voltaire's Brutus was appreciated by republicans and royalists (set in Rome, it had regicides and aristocrats in the dramatis personae). The pit was ideal for anonymous shouting about politics, either subverting or supporting the current state.

By the time Napoleon was acting the big man, the pit had to simmer down. In 1810, Brittanicus was performed. The plot included Nero's treatment of his first wife - just as Napoleon was marrying his second. The relevant scenes provoked only an uncomfortable silence. 

Source: Hemmings, Theatre and State in France, 1760 - 1905

Freedom of Speech in the USSR

In the afterword to the excellent Soviet era science fiction novel Hard To Be A God, co-author Boris Strugatsky reflects on the political turmoil during the years of the book's production. Boris and his brother were planning a swash-buckling adventure when the leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev threw a strop in an art gallery. 

The 'thaw' in Soviet attitudes towards art - which was a response to the years of Stalinist censorship - looked as if it was freezing over, and even the science fiction and adventure section of the Moscow Writers' Organisation got shirty with the bros Strugatsky. 

After some drinking and negotiation, Hard To Be A God was published and was even held up as an example of politically correct writing by the authorities. The good guys won out, the world got a novel that can stand with the greats due to a resonance that goes beyond its time. It provides a critique of deterministic ideas about historical progress while retaining dynamic story-telling that pays respect to the inspiration of The Three Musketeers. 

Strugatsky's brief summary of the situation, however, is a reminder of how regimes are rather keen on controlling their artists. Khrushchev's eggy tantrum, while hilarious (he stomped about shouting at the paintings), reveals how easily repression can start, and illustrates the dangers of allowing the state to define the value of art. Once politicians are accepted as having any say in the function of, say, science fiction, it can easily become a tool of oppression, ensuring that only safe ideas are expressed. 

On the other hand, Hard To Be A Good is an example of how talented writers can get around the problems. 

What is Theatre?

The 'cancellation' of Exhibit B has had at least one positive side-effect: I've been introduced to the eloquent writing of Lemm Sissay. It has also forced me to think about why I (instinctively) oppose censorship.

Sissay believes that the campaign to block Exhibit B began with Sara Myer's 'gut reaction' to images of the performance, and fails to recognise the complexity of both the event and the possible reactions. He also worries about the willingness of community leaders to speak on behalf of their communities, as if they are a monolithic unit of thought.

Despite Akala's equal eloquence, I'm with Sissay. Akala makes strong claims about the inherent racism of liberals (I agree with that), but his own work, in The Hip Hop Shakespeare Company, is a fine example of how the past can be appropriated for contemporary expression. I find the idea of hip-hop Shakespeare tedious - as a Public Enemy fan, I fear it treads the line of trying to make street art legitimate through association with high art, rather than acknowledging its intrinsic worth: but reading it as a subversion of Shakespeare transforms it into a post-colonial resistance to the presumed neutrality of canonical texts.

(In other words, it reveals the hidden assumption that Shakespeare is 'better' than rap, and challenges the morality behind the Bard's poetry, which is, by historical accident, a bit racist.)

However, my cry that 'freedom of speech is freedom or death' turns out not just to be a crib from Chuck D, but a consequence of my understanding of what theatre can be. I know I am in that argument with Plato, and this is subject to change, but it is time for a big statement....


Theatre - like all art - encourages an encounter between the audient and itself. Good comparisons include 'a mirror' or 'a meditation session' in which the audience, through engagement with the Text (script, choreography, production, painting, whatever) can experience the reflection of their identity, and, in a safe space, rehearse responses to situations. 

Vibrating Criticism

Exhibit B