See https://www.thejc.com/comment/opinion/c ... t-1.522173Theatre exists in part to convey argument. And yet this theatre is apparently in the grip of those who punish anyone who does not conform to their opinion. If artists are banned from entering its doors because of their taste in comedians, are there now plays and playwrights which The Old Vic consider unstageable because of what they say and who says them? If so, may we know who and which works are on the list? Or like the people who live in some Orwellian state such as now exists in Hong Kong, must we self-censor for fear of transgressing rules which nobody has defined, a deliberate tactic that works brilliantly in China.
Last year I was asked to add my name to complaints made to Bridge Theatre for engaging Maxine Peake in one of Alan Bennett’s Talking Heads plays. This was after the actor said Israel was somehow culpable in the murder of George Floyd. She withdrew the comments after Amnesty International denied her assertion that they had identified “neck kneeling” as an Israeli technique taught to police. It is hard to imagine a more obvious promotion of the antisemitic trope that Jews on one side of the world are responsible for bad things on the other.
But you have to refuse to take away a person’s living for saying the wrong thing because, well, it’s just inhumane. And The Old Vic should stand up for the humane.
Nathan disagrees with sentiments Gilliam has expressed in the past that were frankly pretty offensive. He notes, however, that The Old Vic offered no explanation of its cancelation. The problem with this is that it leaves everyone in the dark regarding why Gilliam was canceled. There is enough out there for it to have been one of several things, but we just don't know. So there is this chilling effect created by such ambiguity, and it must feel pretty intoxicating for those staff members to gave gotten Gilliam canceled. If this were not such a high-profile situation, I think it would be fine to let the disgruntled staff have their way no questions asked. In this situation, however, I think there is an obligation to the public to explain what is a decision with a public impact. Tell the world that you did not approve and cannot tolerate Gilliam saying X, Y, and Z.
As it is now, one gets the creeping feeling of the approach of another Cultural Revolution in which one day you are a teacher in the classroom, and the next day you are a thought criminal being dragged by your students to the town square and spat upon, ultimately to end your life in a labor camp somewhere being reeducated to believe truly in your heart that the latest assertion of the left (or right) is the unquestionable truth of reality.
Doubtless this is many years away--knock on wood--but both of the far ends of the ideological spectrum increasingly act like they would enjoy nothing more than to be empowered to go on a cleansing spree to rid the world of people who have resisted gentle efforts to persuade them, such gentle efforts as getting them fired, canceling their show, and publicly humiliating them. Why, we have seen it right here on MDB. I have seen Mormon apologists call the administrators and employers of perceived critics in order to rat them out. I have seen critics rat on apologists who dared to disagree with them.
So I'm supposed to think there is no problem, and that we should just look at all of this as just deserts that is not protected by the Constitution. I find that self-satisfied passivity in the face of a real problem almost as scary as the problem itself. "Hey, man, the Constitution doesn't protect you from mob justice of that kind, so just chill."
