Stage | theguardian.com: Jonathan Mill's announcement that he would be excluding independence-themed productions from the 2014 festival has inevitably attracted attention, and not just in Scotland. The recently knighted outgoing international festival director says his plans for the 2014 festival programme haven't been influenced by the upcoming referendum, and instead he will be concentrating on the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the first world war.
5 comments:
To be honest going into this article I was unaware that politics played such a role in theater. Reading this taught me that theatre is based on politics, not always the plot or story of the play but how the play is put together and run has a large political influence. In the section of the article coughing it up it talks about a man with cystic fibrosis and he performs what he does to stay alive each and every day. This is spectacular to me that a person can take his misfortune and turn it into a show. This incorporates something Randy Pausch says, " it's not about the cards you are dealt but how you play the hand" this man takes the poor hand he was dealt and uses it to put on a unique and interesting performance.
I am curious to know the real reasoning behind Mill's decision to exclude independence-themed productions. It seems bizarre that the director of a well-known theatre festival would do something like this which amounts to blatant censorship. It seems that independence-themed productions, as something incredibly politically and culturally relevant at the moment, would actually be desirable for this festival. Why would he choose this? Was he afraid of controversy? (if so, he should probably be in a different business)Is he simply so against the independence cause that he does not want any plays at all? Doesn't it go against everything that this festival should stand for to allow personal feelings to silence others voices? It seems bizarre that one man would be allowed to make such a drastic, autocratic decision.
I find this article particularly interesting, Jonathan Mill's statement that, "we would not wish our festival to be anything other than it has always been, which is a politically neutral space for artists. It is important that it remains that." Everything in theatre can be interpreted as bias or political to someone, and that goes for about basically everything in life. Andy Field then comments to Mill's statement saying, "..the world's first food-less restaurant." He's basically saying that restaurants can't exist without food, and theatre can't exist without politics . I personally believe that people need to get over their beliefs and enjoy the beauty of the art rather than the politics behind it.
While i dont think that an arts festival or any other entertainment should be politicized, unless of course it is meant to make a political point, i also think that anyone should be able to make their own point. And the exclusion of the independence based acts and players demonstrates a preference for the other side, even if it was meant to be an ambivalent measure.
I think this act of censorship is pretty cowardly. Is he trying to avoid controversy? Conflicts in Liability? But I think the observer who compared agenda-free theatre to a restaurant without food hit the nail right on the head. No matter how benign or neutral or irrelevant a show must seem, there is always a purpose for doing it. Was there an event or a threat to the festival's mission that prompted this decision? Maybe it's time for a shuffle in leadership.
Post a Comment