Guest post by Adrian Buckle, on the end of theatre classification and censorship

Adrian Buckle, who wrote this guest post

I hate making this sound like a case about the play Stitching, but it was the banning of that play that kicked off this small but significant revolution.

Theatre censorship is detrimental to the theatre scene in Malta; almost everybody acknowledges that. It suffocates expression and creativity and does not allow the art to evolve.

Stitching is a play about psychological suffering and love, but the state censors were unable to read beyond the shocking scenes. The play comes from a genre that paints suffering on stage for what it is. It shocks its audience into understanding. And this is what the censors failed to see.

Anyway, it was banned. And we know the rest. Perhaps we are even tired of the story.

The performance of Stitching was banned because a small group of censors did not like what they read. One of them, Dione Mifsud, admitted in court that his theatre experience was limited to his daughters’ school concerts and the occasional pantomime.

Another, Joe Camilleri, under cross examination, was unable to tell the court how the story ended, even though he admitted that he had re-read it a week before to refresh his memory.

And yet these people have had the power and authority to decide what plays the rest of us are allowed to perform in and watch.

The idea that someone can decide for others on matters such as this is already prepostrous. But when they are incompetent to do so, the situation is more aggravating still.

Teresa Friggieri, another state censor, and the lawyer from the Attorney-General’s office, argued in court that all our witnesses were professionals with university degrees, and so they did not reflect the ordinary man’s mentality.

Everyone who is over 18 and a citizen of this country is allowed to vote here. So what are we saying – that people can vote on who leads them for five years, but not watch a play that others think might be bad for them?

I come to the bill Dr De Marco, as Minister of Culture, has put forward. Here are the most important changes.

1. The Censorship Board will be disbanded.

2. Theatre producers will now classify their own productions.

3. A guidance board made up of competent people will assist the producer only if he or she asks for help, and their views cannot be imposed.

4. If the public protest that a play has been given the wrong classification, the guidance board will ask to watch the play (rather than read it, as happens now) and offer advice on what they think the proper classification should be. The producer is NOT obliged to change the classification but is obliged to let the public know what the guidance board think.

These changes acknowledge the fact that we are all grown-ups, except for those who are children. Some argue that this is an electoral gimmick. But my reaction is: does it matter? We got what we wanted. Theatre is now free of censorship.

True, the bill is not perfect. I, for one, fail to see the need of the guidance board. If a member of the public does not like what he sees he can always get up and leave and never return. No need for the nanny.

Producers who classify their plays wrongly will soon gain notoriety for doing so, and this will affect their audiences. The market is a form of censorship itself, one more effective than state censorship. If a producer acts irresponsibly, the market will act against him.

It is also true that there is still much to do. Censorship of Literature, for example, also needs to be reviewed. But I consider this a very positive first step taken by Minister De Marco and, again, I thank him for it. And this is coming from someone who is known for being a Labour sympathiser.

I was very happy to see Labour MP Owen Bonnici’s comments about the Labour Party’s agreement with this move. What pains me is the mentality I’ve seen in other quarters which won’t accept this bill because it is a Nationalist government initiative, or because it is a move made before an election.

WE GOT WHAT WE WANTED. Now let us move on to win other battles. Why should this be a partisan issue?

People are saying how much they fought against censorship and how they feel they are being taken for a ride. With all due respect, I am the one who fought this particular thing, or rather, me and my friends Chris Gatt, Pia Zammit and Mikhail Basmadjian, with the help of our legal adviser Michael Zammit Maempel.

We were the ones to put in our time, effort, money and passion. I’m not complaining, because it was my choice, but please stop whining because we got what we fought for on the eve of an election. If, of course, it actually is the eve of an election in the first place.