The debate rages on. Yesterday’s lunchtime discussion veered onto the issue of censorship and the recent Stitching decision. After the break two persons, who I shall call Caius and Titus not to deviate from the subject, resumed the discussion with an exchange of emails. I found the discussion very interesting (and only intervened once between a meeting and another) and would like to share it with the J’accuse readers. You should note that the email exchange kicked off with a reference to a blog post by lawyer Kevin Aquilina that was heavily critical of the play. You can read the post by clicking here before returning to this discussion.
CAIUS: Artikolu tajjeb dwar id-dramm Stitching mill-aspett legali (provides link).
TITUS: L-artiklu (Kevin Aquilina ex chairman tal-awtorità tax-xandir), qrajtu (mhux fid-dettall). Ma impressjonani xejn anzi pjuttost kellu l-effett kuntrarju fuqi. Huwa jsostni li ġej:
1. Uncivilized Use of Language: Rude and vulgar, obscene and blasphemous language is used throughout the play.
2. Glorification of perversion: The play glorifies perversion, depicting it as being the acceptable norm in a civilised society rather than the exception (stitching a woman’s vagina as an act of sexual pleasure; bestiality – having sex with animals; a woman eating another woman’s shit; seeking pleasure in (a) child rape; (b) child murder; (c) having sex with the mothers of the raped and killed children, etc.
3. Disparaging the Right to Life: … the ‘discussion’ in the play on abortion is so valueless and baseless that there can be said to be no recognition of human dignity of the person including the unborn child, bearing also in mind that abortion in Malta is a criminal offence.
4. Sensationalising Perversity and Inhumanity: Both characters (Stu and Abby) are perverse and inhumane: they do not show a single shred of remorse on the killing of Daniel (their first child); they do not appear to be willing to carry out their parental responsibilities as part of their right for respect of family life in order to save the second child from abortion… burning children alive and then killing them and seeing the mothers of the murdered children seduced, fucked, fingered in their arseholes and putting the whole films portraying these heinous criminal acts on the web …
6. Advocating Degradation, Mutilation and Humiliation of Humanity: Abby is continuously degraded and humiliated by Stu in so far as his sexual demands go and in the way how he speaks to her and treats her (he repeatedly calls her a ‘whore’, he requests her to submit her person to various perverse and degrading sexual acts from her and addresses her with no sense of respect or décor);
7. Uncivilized Behaviour: uncivilized behaviour is considered to be normal and acceptable… Some of these conducts constitute criminal offences not only under the Laws of Malta but in other Council of Europe Member States, in Council of Europe Conventions and international criminal law ????????????????????
Re il-vittmi tal-olokawst, is-soltu vera nkun kontra ideat bħal meta bniedem jinnega l-olokawst eċċ, iżda sempliċement il-fatt li l-karattru jammetti li kien iġerrieh għan-nisa sejrin jinqatlu ma hijiex espressjoni ta’ opinjoni. Huwa sempliċement mezz (forsi “in bad taste”) biex juri l-perversità tal-bniedem.
Kollox ma kollox naħseb qrajt u ġejt espost għal dan kollu !!!!
CAIUS: Għaldaqstant huwa ċar li d-dramm juri l-bniedem fl-agħar tiegħu u għalhekk fih hemm kull forma ta’ aġir immorali u illegali, liema aġir huwa kkundannati f’ħafna soċjetajiet. Fil-fehma tiegħu l-arti għandha teżalta u mhux tbaxxi lill-bniedem u turi l-agħar perversitajiet tiegħu.
J’ACCUSE: Quote “Fil-fehma tiegħu l-arti għandha teżalta u mhux tbaxxi lill-bniedem u turi l-agħar perversitajiet tiegħu” Unquote i.e. fil-fehma tieghu l-arti ghandha tigdeb. Nahseb kien imur tajjeb ma mussolini u shabu.
CAIUS: Le mhux tigdeb imma turi l-verita’ fuq il-valur tal-bniedem. Dan il-valur ma jinsabx fl-istinti annimaleski li jbaxxuh.
TITUS: Li tiekol il-ħara għal gost sesswali ma huwiex istint annimalesk. Ma nafx b’annimal li jagħmel hekk … Dak huwa l-bniedem fil-kumplessità tiegħu …
CAIUS: Fil-fatt forsi huwa agħar minn annimalesk, huwa anki kontra n-natura. Għalhekk dak li jiddeskrivi d-dramm ma fihx valur pożittiv.
TITUS: Ok… Mela allura min jimxi kontra n-natura għandu jiġi ċċensurat … L-istess bħal ma niċċensuraw il-perverżjonijiet tagħna … Ninsewhom u ngħixu l-illużjoni li l-bniedem huwa safi minn kull dnub.
Mela r-ritratt tat-tifla taħrab għarwiena minn bomba tan-napalm fil-Vjetnam għandu jiġi ċċensurat għax huwa att agħar minn annimalesk kontra n-natura … (Premju pulitzer 1972).
Glorification of perversion
Disparaging the Right to Life:
Advocating Degradation, Mutilation and Humiliation of Humanity:
Uncivilized Behaviour
Iżda xorta jibqa’ l-fatt li għandu valur, mhux biss bħala dokument storiku iżda wkoll minħabba proprju dawn l-affarijiet hawn fuq imsemmija li skont Kevin Aquilina (u int) għandhom iservu bħala bażi għal ċensura …
CAIUS: Fil-fatt hemm liġijiet kontra tali atti.
TITUS: Iva hemm u tajjeb li hemm… imma ma jfissirx li ma tistax tagħmel rappreżentanzi tagħhom jew turi xbihat tagħhom lil pubbliku adult …
***
I end this post with a quote from an essay by Umberto Eco (more next Sunday in the Indy) called “Hands off My Son”. It is about people who “were unable to distinguish between the Christ of the Gospels and the one of the film (ed. Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ)”:
“To see a representation as the Thing Itself is one of the modern forms of idolatry.” – Eco.
WARNING: The following video clip contains scenes of extreme violence, perversion and inhumanity that may be considered disturbing by certain audiences (the movie did qualify for viewing in Maltese cinemas though so I guess it’s ok).
19 replies on “Stitching (An Illustrated Conversation)”
You call that an interesting discussion? I’d expect it to take place in some sixth form classroom perhaps, but between two adults, lawyers no less, in the ECJ canteen (I’m assuming), the mind boggles. Kevin Aquilina’s article reveals a literal minded childish approach to art, with no concept of the vast range of life’s poetry, while the “Caius” you quote above, although correct that art should elevate the human spirit, fails to see that the portrayal of perversity (I have not read or seen Stitching by the way so I use the word “perversity” simply to be understood) can do just that: elevate. It all depends on context, resolution of the piece (and by that I don’t mean a happy or moralistic ending), etc. With such literal minded people going around claiming to be adults, perhaps the censorship board was correct in its judgement, and likewise the University rector when he had Ir-Realta Issue 8 suppressed.
Thank you Alex. Your very reaction to the discussion proves that it is interesting. I think you are confusing the point of whether you agree with the level or depth of the discussion with the point of whether the discussion between two different points of view (opinions) can throw some light onto the kinds of reactions the issue can provoke. Given your very judgemental statement at the end of your comment (to which you are more than entitled) I feel the exercise is working quite well. Bring on more comments.
P.S. I too am very diametrically opposed to Caius’ ideas on the subject but this semi-journalistic endeavour is simply putting those ideas out on a platform and exposing them to a wider audience (than the email exchange) for discussion. Just because you disagree with the idea does not mean it has no right to be aired, no?
I didn’t say it shouldn’t be aired :)
It wasn’t a very long and enlightening email exchange though, was it? My reaction is not related to the quality or the interest quotient of the discussion, but simply because of my personal experience in having my head banged against the Great Maltese Wall of unsubtle minds such as those of Caius and Kevin Aquilina.
No more no less.
Well no it wasn’t but I don’t think we are assessing length and enlightenment here. As you discovered to your own detriment we cannot go on assuming that everyone in Malta is inevitably going to “move along with times” and accept new challenges and provocations. Caius here is an illustration that there are people with very strong opinions that people like you might find revolting or surprising. I find the discussion interesting BECAUSE it reflects a typical exchange in Malta today. Both Caius and Titus are well educated persons and both, I am sure, feel they can substantiate their positions with what they see as valid arguments. I disagreed with your statement about “interesting”. The editorial choice of J’accuse was to bring the discussion to a wider audience in order to provoke more discussion – I would have hoped that contributions such as your own would extend both the interest and the level of the discussion and frankly I wish I could have put Kevin Aquilina in an anonymous context too simply to avoid our (Maltese) perversion to do a Van Bommel – i.e. play the man not the ball.
I have nothing personal against Kevin Aquilina. I used his name simply to be clear as to what opinion I am referring to.
“I would have hoped that contributions such as your own would extend both the interest and the level of the discussion”
Well yes, that’s true. But in all honesty, I am tired of defending my corner, or explaining what I percieve as the obvious, to people who don’t, especially not on the Internet. Perhaps, in a face to face debate it could get interesting, because in my view, facial expressions, the presence of the person opposite you vehemently disagreeing with you, etc. are all very important aspects of the debate.
coming up on j’accuse. the face-to-face video interview of controversial author Alex Vella Gera :)
Post PS. Don’t assume. The whole point of the anonimity was to avoid personal judgements and to see the discussion itself. And no. The context is not the ECJ canteen but a Bagel shop in downtown Luxembourg (it’s sunny here, we tend to go outside for our breaks – by bus even) :)
Still no decent eateries in Kirchberg? :p
Trust me. As a coeliac I find the number dwindling daily. Today I return to the basic of basics – an Italian eatery for the tagliata di manzo, rucola e parmigiano. One plate they cannot get wrong.
“With such literal minded people going around claiming to be adults, perhaps the censorship board was correct in its judgement, and likewise the University rector when he had Ir-Realta Issue 8 suppressed.”
There is much that is true in this statement. The duty of the judge applying the law is to put himself in the shoes of the average reasonable man. My fear is that by applying the strict norms and principles of interpretation we will reach the conclusion (having looked into the mirror of society) that what is considered to be the average reasonable person in Malta DOES need to be protected from exposure to plays such as Stitching. Because he just won’t get it. Idolatry? More than that I fear that the verdict is “stupid nation”. Go ahead. Call me wankellectual.
However, the dumbing down of society should not be the job of the judiciary. That’s for the mass media to take care of. On the contrary, the judiciary should protect the minority from the majority (not sure if the dumb ones are the majority – timesofmalta.com comments can be very misleading), while ensuring that no vulnerable members of society are directly harmed by an artist as he carries out his work. In the case of Stitching, the fact that it was a performance for a paying, knowledgeable audience makes the judgement inexcusable. In no way does it protect anyone from anyone or anything. It simply is a defence mechanism against ideas or a mentality hostile to what is percieved to be the norm in Malta (percieved is the key word here).
I agree. What I expressed is a fear that the judge travels down a different route – a trip we have already begun with the latest judgement.
Looks like it. Let’s keep in mind that Maltese society has not been properly exposed to no holds barred art. I’m not even referring to Stiching or my story here. For instance, how many local documentaries can you count that approach something like Harlan County USA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdV9-EmRaFs&feature=PlayList&p=3C67F02CDC867ADE&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1) where an artist takes a good long hard look at her country. And many others. I mentioned Harlan County because it’s so brilliant.
Maltese society is not used to such self-reflexive art. Even the best Maltese novels which attempt such a thing, such as Leli ta’ Haz-Zghir, Il-Gagga, L-Ibleh always stop short. Ulied in-Nannu perhaps gets closest, but that’s too long ago to hurt contemporary Malta (although still relevant in parts).
What I’m trying to say is that Maltese society has not yet matured. There is no serious attempt to look into the soul of the nation, except sporadically, certain individuals going out on a limb.
L-idea li l-arti għandha tirrapreżenta u tiglorifika is-sbuħija ilha li ġiet abbandunata snin. U minn meta l’hawn l-arti trid trirrapreżenta biss dak li hu legali? ma jidhirlix li hu legali taqta l-irjus tan-nies, mela issa x’nghamlu? naharqu il caravaggio?
dwar il perverżjonijiet u perversitajiet umani ma nimlewx rasna li huma kontra in-natura. allura li raġel imur ma kelb mhix naturali imma li kelb jirkeb sieq raġel hi? Atti ta zoophilia huma komunissimi fl-arti. Possibli qatt ma rajtu xi pittura ta Zeus isir cinju u jiehu wahda tajba ma Leda u jitwieldu Helen u Polydeuces etc…..u Pan…u Pasiphea li kornit lil Minos billi marret ma barri?u twieled il minotawr?
U ma nibdewx dwar l-ikel tal-ħara, fin natura hu att komuni….u nistgħu nibqgħu sejrin hekk. In natura mimlija atti li aħna nikkunsidraw perversi. Li s-socjeta ma taccettax dawn l-atti hi kwistjoni differenti.
Il-punt dwar Stitching jibqa wiehed. F’socjeta moderna ghadu accettabli li xi ħadd jiddeciedi għalija x’nara u ma narax? U min ħa jiddeciedi? Jeżistu xi grupp ta illuminat li huma ta stoffa morali aħjar minn tiegħi? min huma?
Jien bhala artist, x’nista jew ma nistax noħlok? Raġel bil pesisa barra nista inpittru basta ma tkunx qamitlu? Nista inpitter ragel iħanxar għonq tarbija? Nista ngħamlu jidher jieħu gost u ecitat għax qed jaqdi dmiru? le? u jekk ngħid li hu Abrham kuntent jobdi lil Alla, jinbidel xi ħaġa?
Ghal socjeta li dejjem glorifikajna it-tbatija u l-moħqrija bhala l-mezz ta salvazzjoni, narana ftit ipokriti.
Mhux ghal xi haga, imma hawn donnkom qed tghidu li ghandu jkun hemm ligi ghandha tapplika mod ghall-artisti u mod ghal bqija.
kif wasalt ghal din il konkluzjoni Fausto?
Precizament minhabba l-fatt li diskussjoni dwar il-liberta tal-espressjoni mill-ewwel taqleb ghal fuq l-arti. Partikolarment din:
Re il-vittmi tal-olokawst, is-soltu vera nkun kontra ideat bħal meta bniedem jinnega l-olokawst eċċ, iżda sempliċement il-fatt li l-karattru jammetti li kien iġerrieh għan-nisa sejrin jinqatlu ma hijiex espressjoni ta’ opinjoni. Huwa sempliċement mezz (forsi “in bad taste”) biex juri l-perversità tal-bniedem.
(Incidentalment, din l-“eccezzjoni” hija identika ghad-“difiza” ta’ Bondi ghall-istedina tieghu ‘l Norman Lowell fuq Bondiplus, li xorta ma gabitlux is-simpatija, fost l-ohrajn, tal-Front Kontra c-Censura).
Nahseb hemm distinzjoni cara bejn persuna li jikkommetti att kriminali, ghal karattru fittizju jew storiku fi play jew film jew impitter fuq tila jikkommetti l-istess att. le? ma nahsibx li ghandhom jigu regolarizzati mill-istess ligi. filfatt diga m’humiex.
Le, ma nahsibx li hemm distinzjoni cara bejn xi hadd li, per ez., (a) jincita ghal mibeghda billi juza kliem u xi hadd li (b) jincita ghal mibeghda billi juza kliem f’karattru fittizju li holoq.