For: Ridgecrest is a conservative town, and we would lose audience members if we included this language. It is important to note that the audience we would lose come to every show, become members every year, and otherwise support CLOTA.
Against: This practice infringes copyright law, and is the first step of censorship. It is disrespectful to the playwright and the art form. CLOTA is losing a new audience, and a large part of its talent pool by catering to only the conservative side of the Community.
Whichever side you agree with, please leave a (polite and respectful) comment here so the board can read it.
Thank you.
I am against this practice 100% It is not only wrong and dissrecpectful to the playwrite but it is dissrespectful to the actors who take acting very seriously. I was involved in Cahoots and we had this same problem. In the end I did what I had to do to keep my self respect and am prepared to do the same for Proof. I have not been involved with CLOTA productions between Cahoots and now because of this.
ReplyDeleteThis has been a source of contention for as long as I've been involved with CLOTA. I believe that whatever language the playwright uses, there is a reason behind it. If the language is extremely offensive, issue a warning on all advertisements stating that the play contains offensive language and let the patrons decide for themselves. I don't believe it is fair to ask actors to compromise their values in order to do something they truly enjoy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the two previous comments on this subject. Just like a poet chooses their words with purpose, so does a playwright. Altering a playwright's words is not the way to go about appeasing a conservative audience, in my opinion. Perhaps CLOTA should pick plays without offending language, then. Howabout alternating between "conservative" plays and those that aren't considered "conservative" to give options to both sides? Either way you look at it, it's against copywright law to alter a script. To me, that should be argument enough. I feel we should embrace the emotion that the field of theatre brings out in people. There are very few occupations in the world that allow such freedom of expression and passion; we are blessed to have the opportunity to encorporate such an art form into our lives. I hope that we can do honor and justice to any playwright who felt the need to incorporate "offensive" language in their scripts and express their passion for their art in such a way. We should be thanking them for what they have written and doing our best to honor their vision.
ReplyDeleteI think that CLOTA has the right to censor plays. I understand treading the line between art and audience pleasing. There are may ways to approach this age old problem, however, CLOTA has chosen a route I cannot support. It is unethical to change an author's words. An author may express themselves in any manner they wish, and it is not up to CLOTA to choose for them. If CLOTA wishes to censor, they need to contact the author for permission or if they are so offended by the play's content not preform it.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, my name is Daniel Stallings and I have been working in theatre for the past six years. I am a playwright myself and I can say from first-hand experience that we choose every word we write very carefully. I focus on the audience with each play I write and yes, my plays contain strong language. It's how I garner reactions from an audience, to make them understand the powerful emotions my characters experience. I don't use it casually. I use it emphatically. That said, if a theatre company edits this language out, they remove impact, substance, and heart from the story. It's just the way it is. I understand that this town is rather conservative (maybe not as conservative as you think) and we don't want to alienate audiences, but think about it, you alienate more if you censor the piece. You lose another type of audience. You lose actors. ou lose contirbutors. You lose playwrights. I think that should hit my feelings home for everyone. You lose the chance to perform works, because once people discover what's going on, it will all come crashing down. Think of Orwell's novel, 1984. Is that not how it all started? Censorship. I know it's an extreme, but it illustrates a point. If the language or content is deemed offensive you have two options: 1) Don't do the play. 2) Add a disclaimer to all advertisements. More people would thank you for being honest and upright, then going out of your way (and stepping all over morals) to please them. I love this business. This is a part of my home. And no man wants his home defiled...
ReplyDeleteI don't see why if there is a problem of language with a script why that script is even chosen? Is the point that the director wants to push the issue and possibly get CLOTA to change? Is it a more "conservative" person that is actually more of a closet liberal? Why choose a play that has such content if the content is censored? I just don't get it.
ReplyDeleteI do think that some of the "old guard" so-to-say should get a little update and actually look at what the year is. I do not believe that a playwrights words should be changed . After all that is how the person that actually wrote it wanted it to be. If you have a problem with the content it is as easy as not picking that play, but I guess it is just politics as usual.
And of course this is just my humble opinion.
I wouldn't want to see an edited play- personally, I see changing the words of the playwright as censorship. As other responders have noted, each word/phrase in a play is carefully articulated to create a specific environment. However, I also understand why you would want to consider the effects of language on the attendance in such a conservative community. Would it be possible to have the actors learn the play in its original format and in the edited format (I would hope there aren't so many changes made that this is an impossibility) and schedule separate performances? The audience turn out at edited and unedited performances would be good indicators of whether the editing is really necessary or not.
ReplyDeleteI am against the this issue 100% as well. If CLOTA does choose to take "offensive" material out of they plays, who is the one to decide if it is offensive? Because personally I am offended by the fact that these words are being taken out. If these words are continuing to be taken out it is continuing to break the law. If so much offense is taken from these plays with "offensive" language, then why are they being chosen in the first place? If a disclaimer is put on these shows then those that do not want to see these shows do not have to do so.
ReplyDeleteI have wanted to direct plays at CLOTA and have gone as far as being an assistant director. However, the censorship has greatly discouraged me from doing so. It has also greatly discouraged me from auditioning for roles in the shows as well. The censorship that has been going on at CLOTA is part of the reason the Ridgecrest Community Theatre Troupe was formed. If that isn't a cry for diversity I don't know what is.
I believe there is only one choice for the people in charge of choosing plays for CLOTA. Either don't choose plays that will need censoring, or choose plays with that content and perform it as it was meant to be performed.
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of a certain play from the short plays festival at the USO building not too long ago..."The Script Cleaner 5000!"
Audiences understand the type of performance they are going to see due to the fact most of the productions are remakes. CLOTA is no longer embracing artist freedom and allowing the cast to play the role as it was orginially written. I believe that if an audience can not handle how the show was written, then do not perform it. Each time you edit or change the performance, it takes away from the parts that made it a HIT!
ReplyDeleteTo be perfectly honest, I don’t enjoy watching a movie/TV/play with excessive profanity. However, when a writer uses an expletive to emphasize a point in a story, I believe he/she had a reason for it and not I, nor anyone else, have the right to change this expression. If the Board doesn’t believe a certain play embraces the values it wants to portray for CLOTA, it should simply not choose to produce it. There is nothing wrong with continuing to choose plays which fit with the value system that’s been chosen. However, to change the copyrighted works of an author to fit this established value system is morally and legally wrong. If you will allow a “soap box” moment, our forefathers fought for our rights to express ourselves the way we see fit. If others find this offensive, they should simply not listen – not change the expression to fit their set of values.
ReplyDeleteAside from legal issues regarding the changing of a copyrighted work, the CLOTA Board, in its efforts not to “alienate” it’s “core audience” will inevitably drive away potential newcomers and will eventually be unable to put on performances due to a lack of participants. As a performer, I choose which plays in which to participate based on story and characterization. It is deeply disappointing to find that once you are cast, you have to change the verbiage and thus the feel of the character you were asked to portray. How anticlimactic would Gone With The Wind have been if Rhett Butler had been forced to say “Frankly, my dear, I just don’t care.” The Board needs to realize that their audience is not their entire constituency and should consider the wishes of all members and not just cater to a few.
OK, I am going to go ahead say it as a playwright my plays are like my children. I would be beyond devastated if someone went censored one of plays without my consent, and believe any playwright who seriously cared about his work would also feel that way. Imagine if I took your children and changed them without your say, for the money of the popular audience. Now you wouldn't like that would you? What is so wrong with strong language, the worst that could happen is that they dislike this season's choice, but that doesn't mean they will stop coming.
ReplyDeleteNot only is censoring without the playwrights consent legally wrong, is it also very heartless thing to do. I would not allow anyone to use my play only to change it to suit their whims. By whims, I mean way to get money. I mean is that CLOTA is about, making money?? I thought the power of the message of the plays that are put on was enough, but am I wrong? Does CLOTA exist solely on the purpose of a PROFIT? I thought it was to ENTERTAIN.
Here is a little fact: there is more than one kind of audience!!! There's the Old Generation, the Middle Generation, and New Generation, but that's not all! There's audiences that want to see the world as they want to see it, and the audiences that do not mind seeing it the way it is. There are people who go see plays because that what rich upper class people do, and those who go see it for the play. Why cater to people who only care about you if do as they want.
So why do it? It will the cost of some people who do not really care about the show, but the appearance? Not the people who live and breathe for the Art? I hope my argument is not sallow enough to be completely disregarded.
I have something to add. I think there is something else here everyone is missing, from both sides. Do we all understand what a great disservice censoring/editing these plays does to the current "core audience” or any audience really? These people trust that this is how the plays are written. Lets say I see Proof in its edited form. I like it so much I just have to tell my friend how good a play it is. I tell my friend “I just saw Proof and it was amazing!” My friend, having seen it before unedited says “Oh! That was such a horrible play. The language! I can’t believe you condone such an offensive play.” Imagine how embarrassed I would be about being so ignorant to what I was trying to get people to see. Then think of my outrage towards the people whom I trusted to bring me decent wholesome content only to be lied to, mislead and ultimately having my reputation tarnished because of it. I hope everyone grasps the idea I’m trying to bring forth here. I’m not trying to destroy an institution or slam CLOTA, I believe the people in charge of making sure the plays drop all “bad” language are not doing so for fun or gain but because they truly believe it is the right thing to do. All I am trying to do is tell them its not.
ReplyDeleteThere are many examples of "organizations" censoring because they thought it was the right thing to do- the Taliban, the Nazis, "McCarthyists"-I think you get the point. I'm not saying CLOTA is the same as these, I'm just saying that they haev tread down a "slippery slope" and there is nothing good at the other end.
ReplyDeleteI am a writer, I write poetry. My poems have been read at Funerals, Birthdays, Weddings, Anniversaies and many other places. Speaking as a writer i think it isnt fair to the audience either way. When you censor something out of an authors piece it loses part of the meaning behind that piece, thus leaving the audience lacking. I am not surprised however living in this town for most of my life I have witnessed this act many times. I grew up thinking my Dad was conservative, boy was I wrong. I do not think we are giving this town the benefit of the doubt. You would be surprised by this town as I have been on many occasions, do not remove a playwrites words. Your audience may surprise you and actually be more active in your organization.
ReplyDeleteFor hundreds, if not thousands of years, art has been in existence and it has even in some ways driven cultures. Art has depicted government, life, religion, sex, and so on. The list could go on for pages…but that isn’t the main point. The point that I believe someone has already brought up is WHY CHOSE TO PUT ON A PLAY THAT YOU HAVE TO CHANGE, WHY NOT JUST CHOSE A PLAY THAT DOESN’T REQUIRE YOUR COMPANY TO CHANGE IT?
ReplyDeleteI have to say that if I were a part of the community, which I am not, I would be appealed. I am Chad Terry’s close friend and to hear frustrations, and even the need for a blog where people have to cry out support just to have art depicted in the original form it was created…to me IS CRAP!!! If you are going to choose a play that has offensive language, sexual content, crude displays, and etc; only to then change it, my best advice would be to not choose it.
If you are going to make it policy to change plays, then I would say that you are in a business that shuns that. How would you as an organization….crap as artists, feel if you put out a play and the next person to put on said play were to change everything about it? YOU WOULD BE HORRIFIED and offended. So why would you want to make the creative minds behind the work that you are depicting feel offended and horrified by your actions???
Warn people about the content; tell people that they may be offended by language…shoot put a rating on it…but DON’T CHANGE IT!!!! You wouldn’t change a rated “R” movie just because you’re worried that soccer mom’s won’t like it…so why change something more precious than film??? You put a disclosure on the movie poster and you give the audience the choice to either see the movie with full disclosure of what is in it; or with that same disclosure the choice not to come is still present.
I think that it is a shame that I am even sitting in Washington having to type this up so that my friend and the passion of his life, theater, can be upheld to what it was originally intended for. For those who have the guts to get up and are talented enough to make watching live acting meaningful and enjoyable; and every so often so INCREADIABLE that it moves up and changes a little part of our souls…but to change a play and present the possibility that we, the audience, could lose those feeling; and actors like Chad Terry and the rest of the cast has to fight just to act as the original play writer intended…well it is DISPICABLE to me…and I can say that I won’t be coming from Washington to see a COLTA play anytime soon now that I know what your practices are.
Megan Palmer
Bremerton, WA
As a person that deeply appreciates theatre arts and for what it's worth, I'd like to cast my vote for staying true to the playwrite's intent including vocabulary or anything else that will bring viewers a performance respectful to both playwrite and actors involved. I know I am most likely to attend if this practice is maintained.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is unethical and untrue to the artform to change a playwright's words. It should not be a production company's right to change the author's words. Choose a different play if need be, but don't change someone's artistic expression, especially without the artist's consent. I live in Ridgecrest and would see a play that was true to its original content and not one that was censored.
ReplyDeleteFor the blogger that wrote about the Ridgecrest Community Theatre Troupe, thank you! I did not know about this organization and will look into it.
I agree that CLOTA should stop editing the plays. As the people before me have said, it is disresepctful to the playwright and patronizing to the actors and the audience.
ReplyDeleteIf you are worried about loosing patrons because of offensive material, don't produce offensive plays.
That being said, I feel that the community of Ridgcrest could benefit from exposure to alternative material's and that CLOTA could benefit from a change of direction.
If CLOTA decides to change their policy on editing plays, they do risk loosing patrons. However, I believe that by broadening their horizens they would benefit from new talent and a wider demographic audience.