Free speech and the theatre - help me work it out

[Lovelyview]

Manchester Royal Exchange has just cancelled a run of A Midsummer Nights Dream. Part of the reason seems to be that the director inserted a song which included the words 'Free Palastine' and words which 'supported transgender rights'. The director and cast apparently refused to remove the song.

I am uncomfortable that a director tried to shoehorn some political points into a Shakespeare play but I also believe that people should be free to state their political beliefs.

A play performed in a theatre space which is presumably funded by taxpayers and sponsors is different from expressing your opinion on Twitter.

The play was meant to reflect modern Manchester so it's possible that the director saw these political statements as part of modern Manchester. It is possible that part of the reason it was cancelled is because it was seen as antagonistic to Manchester's large Jewish community.

I don't want to make this a thread about Israel/Palastine. If you want to make points about this conflict please jog on over to the many other threads on this subject. I suppose I want to know what people think about artistic free speech in the context of a publicly-funded space. Was the Royal Exchange right to cancel?

www.thestage.co.uk/news/exclusive-royal-exchange-cancels-entire-run-of-a-midsummer-nights-dream

IMO it was right to cancel. I want to see Shakespeares words spoken.

If I want to see a political play I will book one.

My first ever play was Midsummer Nights Dream at the Royal Exchange in the late 80s. It sparked a lifelong love of theatre and drama.

Also the political message is irrelevant. Any colour of political message would be unwelcome.

I'm not sure what the director was thinking. People can get very intense and invested in the play as the rehearsal process can make you very close. I imagine that's why they've decided this is a hill to die on.

I tend to agree with the comments above. It does seem extreme to refuse to change something like this in a commercial production. I also wonder if all the cast really agreed or if some people didn't feel they could say anything. I didn't feel like this about Benedict Cumberbatch reciting a poem about refugees after his performance of Hamlet in 2015 but maybe I should have.

I have a soft spot for A Midsummer Night's Dream. The Bridge Theatre one which is available to stream on NT Home was amazing.

"Freedom of speech" is usually a phrase meaning freedom from state intervention with regards to speech.

This anecdote you've given is nothing to do with state intervention. It's just a theatre deciding, imo sensibly, that it would be commercially unwise to put on a play that only few people would enjoy.

It's supported by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Arts Council England so it will be a combination of state and commercial funding. They are paying their cast and crew in full so the decision doesn't seem commercial as such. Presumably they thought there would be such terrible publicity that it would damage their reputation for future productions.

Apparently the song in question involved audience participation which sounds excruciating. I can see that people who don't share these political views could very much object to being asked to participate in this.

The director and crew are free to "state their political beliefs". They are not free to insert them into productions whenever they want.

In the same way as you are free to state your political beliefs, but are in most jobs not free to continually express them to your co-workers or to clients.

Shakespeare plays are political.

Most plays are.

It's usual for them to be a bit more subtle than this though.

I presume the theatre were worried about violence and protests, from both sides.

It's one thing using art to make a political point, it's another thing when it would inflame things and potentially provoke riots. Nobody needs that.

I think the thing is with both of those statements are that they’re coded. “Free Palestine” is meant to intimidate Jews - that’s why it’s sprayed on Holocaust Memorials and Jewish buildings and the statues of Amy Winehouse and Anne Frank and shouted at Jewish students on campuses by people wearing masks.

Equally support for transgender rights is in activist spaces often accompanied by violence towards women whether implicit or explicit (as in the case of the woman who was beaten up by a TRA at Speakers corner a number of years ago) or an attempt to silence women.

That of course doesn’t answer your question about free speech. But equally maybe the theater didn’t want to put on a play containing threatening statements to Jews and women and I suppose as a commercial body that’s its right.

That's a really good point. I was horrified to hear about this incident where comedian Paul Currie hounded out an audience member who refused to applaud a Palestinian flag. It looks like the Royal Exchange realised what would happen if this went ahead. www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68280092

I don't think we'll ever know what unfolded. Presumably there are many factors behind the Royal Exchange's decision to take the hit financially and not put on the production. I think the Palestine/TRA content is a McGuffin.

I'm going to guess the management weren't happy with the standard of the output - because if the extent of your creativity is 'Free Palestine' grafitti and Trans Rights songs (like it's 2015), I'm going to guess the quality of the production is not going to be very high.

All of Shakespeare is out of copyright and there have been a fuckton of adaptations over the years, many of them political. So I don't think there's anything wrong with the play in itself.

The public funding might be a problem though. Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Arts Council England both have responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty -

The three aims of the general duty are to make sure that public authorities have due regard to the need to:

• put an end to unlawful behaviour that is banned by the Equality Act 2010, including discrimination, harassment and victimisation
• advance equal opportunities between people who have a protected characteristic and those who do not
• foster good relations between people who have a protected characteristic and those who do not

The theatre will have agreed not to do anything that runs counter to this in order to receive the funding. They may feel that the overtly political messages, on two very contentious issues, combined with expected audience participation, are not compatible with fostering good relations.

I don't think the theatre has made a statement yet though, so I'm guessing.

It's not the messages themselves, which are valid opinions, it's that it sounds like there's no exploration of issues around them, which are complex and divisive. Just shoehorning the phrases in uncritically is simplistic, and in no way representative of modern Manchester, where a whole spectrum of views are obviously going to be held. It's indicative of a pretty poor piece of theatre where there's little thinking or reflection going on.

The Royal Exchange is prestigious, this is the sort of crap production values you might accept at your local theatre-above-a-pub. I'm not surprised they've cancelled.

The Royal Exchange is prestigious, this is the sort of crap production values you might accept at your local theatre-above-a-pub

Exactly, it's not even 6th form level.

I'm being cautious here, but to the best of my knowledge, the U.K. does not have anything enshrined like the First Amendment in America - and in any case, that bans government interference only.

I don't think this is a free speech issue. I think this is a dramatic license issue. Personally, I'm getting fed up with all the current efforts to force contemporary "enlightenment" into historical stories. In this case, it's worse, as the insertions seem totally irrelevant.

The director, of course, is free to express his political opinions. He can write his own play - or an article, or a song. But preferably not inserting it into someone else's work. I don't think public funding is even a factor.