Date: Fri, 6 Dec 96 14:39:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Buster <jmaroon1-AT-mail.airmail.net>
Subject: Re:Politically Correct Puppet Theater


At 12:15 PM 12/6/96 -0500, IcarusPup-AT-aol.com wrote:
>Not to beat a dead horse, but I would like to explore a different side of
>this censorship issue.    
>
>It has been mentioned that the christian puppeteers feel they are censored.
> I don't doubt this.  In California there is also a great problem *from* that
>direction.  It sometimes feels like a careful balancing act.  Whatever you
>do, you will be criticized by one side of the political fence or the other.

I agree.  I didn't mean to pick on the religious right.  The religious left
can be (and often is) just as bad or worse.  It is a matter of people of
whatever persuasion trying to dictate what is acceptable.

>
>Those on the left do not want any shows which have any villains whatsoever.
> A puppeteer in our community was screamed at by a woman -- during her
>performance -- because the villain in her play was a wolf.  She went on and
>on about how wolves are beautiful creatures, misunderstood, etc., etc.  Now,
>keep in mind, this puppeteer *has* a show with a "positive" wolf in it, but
>she happened to be performing another story at this time.

I haven't had them say anything during the show, but they have come to me
and complained afterwards.  Apparently they don't get the subtext.  And when
I see these shows where they are trying to make the wolf into this poor
misunderstood creature without a mean bone in its body, they make me wanna
barf. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it is usually pretty silly
unless done with a specific purpose in mind.

>We have also been told by this faction that our shows are too violent, (when
>they are extremely tame), that we don't show enough "people of color" in our
>productions (when they are mostly animals -- figure *that* one out), and a
>few other things.

I have tamed my Punch show to the point where there are just two innocent
little smacks of the slapstick, and still I have people walk out on it in a
huff.  It is getting pretty silly.  There have actually been studies that
show that the less realistic the violence, the less effect it has on children.  

>So, now let me get all this straight.  Can't have villains.  Can't show
>negative images of anyone.  Must be balanced in all presentations.  Can't use
>any magic, witchcraft, or anything mystical.  What's left?????

Not much, which is my complaint.  Artists of all sorts should oppose
censorship.  I had a teacher come up to me 10 minutes before a magic show
once who asked me not to use the word "magic."  I cracked up until I saw she
was serious.  I tried it just for the hell of it, and just to make a point.
I got 20 minutes into a thirty minute show, came to a point where it was
impossible to say anything BUT magic, looked at the teacher and shrugged.  I
must have said it 20 times in that last 10 minutes.  Man, that was fun!

Well, that's what they are doing when we let them succeed.  They are taking
out the magic.  The more we exclude, the more watered down our shows become
to the point where they are just so much mush.

>On a separate thought.  Is it censorship if someone declines to book you
>because they don't agree with the content of your show?  I would tend to
>think no.  Don't we all do this every day?  I don't go see a movie if the
>subject offends me, that's isn't censorship -- it's the marketplace.  When we
>get into a dangerous area is when people tell us we shouldn't be showing that
>material -- then my anger begins to rise.

When a librarian purchases a book for a library, the standard is to buy it
based on the need to portray balanced viewpoints and for community wants.
When you have them making moralistic choices for their readers, they are
censoring.  They are excluding viewpoints of some in the community based on
the objections of a few.  It is the same thing with shools.  As I said
earlier, they are supposed to be politically neutral.  When they cave to
various political groups and silence voices those groups don't approve of,
they are in fact censoring. 

Now, if an individual parent wants to have their child excluded from a
program, or if they want to resist attending a program of which they don't
approve, that is not censorship.  But when they try to dictate what other
people have an access to, that is censorship, and when schools and libraries
cave in to them, that is censorship.  In your examples, people were not
wrong to avoid Hansel and Grettel because there was a witch in it, but they
were wrong when they tried to stop others from seeing it.

>
>Just another thought in this arena.
>
>Regards,
>Rosemary
>Icarus Puppet Company
>
>
>  --- Personal replies to: IcarusPup-AT-aol.com
>  --- List replies to:     puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>  --- Admin commands to:   majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>
>

--Jim Maroon
The Storytelling Home Page    http://members.aol.com/storypage



  --- Personal replies to: Buster <jmaroon1-AT-mail.airmail.net>
  --- List replies to:     puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  --- Admin commands to:   majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu