The First Amendment and Censorship in Britain

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Growing up in America, the idea of "freedom of speech" has been ingrained in me since I was a child. For both good and bad I knew that because of the first amendment anyone in the United States could say and express what they pleased (now, of course there were times when censorship did exist by the people but rarely, if ever, was it government instigated). That meant that the KKK could have "white power" protests and that civil rights activists could march in Washington. More recently it means that gay activists can march for equality and that anti-national health care fanatics can obnoxiously protest in Town Hall meetings through the country.

It also means that artists of all kinds can produce their work for an audience without government regulation.

One of my classes at UCL is called "Moderns II." It focuses on modern literature post WWII. The topic of this lecture was on theatrical censorship in Britain. As an American I was surprised to hear that censorship of plays did not stop in Britain until 1968. And, even more incredible, this censorship committee, The Lord Chamberlain's Office, began in the 1500s. That's four hundred years ago. And if any of you know your Shakespeare - it's the SAME Lord Chamberlain's Office that existed during Shakespeare's time (its function has morphed over time).

So what did this censorship entail? It meant that every play that wanted to be produced HAD to be given to the Lord Chamberlain's Office for approval. What did they censor? Anything too political, anything talking about foreign enemies, anything concerning homosexuality, immoral behavior, and sexuality in general (I may note that what I am saying is a gross generalization - there are books and documents that I am too lazy to find). When A Streetcar Named Desire was produced in London for the first time various clergymen and officials were outraged at its "immoral" message - essentially a sympathetic prostitute who depended on the "kindness of strangers." You could not have plays simulate sex or other bodily functions on stage and language was censored heavily as well. And people from the Lord Chamberlain's Office would visit shows and take extremely detailed notes (now found in The British Library) documenting shows.

(And as a side note, even though censorship was abolished in 1968, when Margaret Thatcher was in office censorship began again.)

Obviously, there were ways to get around this. If a theatre was also listed as a "club" they could simulate sex and more controversial behavior (profanity was still not that heavily used). The biggest beacon of anti-censorship was The Royal Court Theatre. They produced and still continue to produce new and slightly controversial plays such as Look Back in Anger, The Rocky Horror Show, and more recently That Face and Enron. Even though censorship is abolished, The Royal Court still is a beacon for new and daring works.

So what does this mean? For me, it's a reminder of how much the first amendment is so ingrained in my head and how I believed that any western country was similar. Yes, while censorship did and still does exist on different levels in the States ("banned" book lists, local people shutting down shows, etc.) we haven't necessarily had anything government regulated. This is a VERY foreign idea for me. And on an artistic level, it makes me appreciate British theatre in a much different way. Britain is known for its controversial and daring plays. If Enron transfers to Broadway you will understand what I mean. America HAS a legacy of political and social playwrights (Edward Albee, Arthur Miller, Tony Kushner, the list goes on...) but we don't have the legacy of censorship that Britain does. With censorship, I believe, comes a great need to boldly express opinions. Theatre and the freedom of expression, therefore, have a much deeper value. Because with censorship comes an appreciation for the freedom to express without any boundaries.

Unlike other countries who've encountered censorship, as Americans I believe that we at times forget to appreciate how lucky we are that freedom of expression (for good or for evil) has existed since the creation of the United States of America.

4th University in the World

On another great note: the Times (London) comes out with a "higher education" ranking every year. UCL has always been at the top but this year did extremely well - fourth in the world and beating Oxford!

I share the table for you all to marvel at:

The Times Higher Education Table

Columbia didn't do so bad either...

Musical Theatre and Swine Flu

The two are not necessarily related. Well, in the London production of Avenue Q they joked that "Swine flu is only for now."

And so it seems I MIGHT have swine flu. The lovely doctors and nurses were all too worried that me being asthmatic and sick right now results in swine flu. The trouble is, swine flu has normal flu like symptoms. So who knows. But I'm on the infamous "Tamiflu" that is quite unpleasant. And I am essentially quarantined for a few days. Oh precautions...

On another much more positive note, I had the lovely opportunity to be a part of the UCL musical theatre society's "24-hour Fresher Musical". Yep, 24 hours. The show was essentially Les Miserables and I had the fortunate opportunity to play Cosette. It was great fun and truly a beautiful testament to how much teamwork and passion really fuel a production. I was so happy and touched to see people building a set, working lights, really working hard to learn their lines, get their costumes right, etc. in JUST the course of 24 hours. And the support - now that was great too.

Piggy backing on that - I auditioned for the main stage production of Into the Woods at The Bloomsbury Theatre. Despite massive doubts about my work - a realization that I am changing as a person and therefore an actor, I feel so pleased (and in some ways shocked but really really really happy) to be playing Cinderella. I am so excited to tackle her and the complexity of Sondheim and really USE all that I learned at Adler in this character!

As for lectures and seminars - they're good - not too much to say so far! Interesting people - much more individualized. But I am more focused on the fact that I need to get better before anything truly gets rolling!

All's Well That End's Well at the National (a bit of a mini essay)

The National Theatre truly is a wonderful place. They have recently started a program where they broadcast live performances to theatres across the UK and around the world. Tonight, I was in the audience of Shakespeare's All's Well That End's Well (and my friend Josh SAW me on tv!)

As many of you know, I am a Shakespeare fanatic. It seems to be the true "thing" that links my love for academics and my love for acting - it feeds my intellectual and emotional/artistic sides. Seeing great Shakespeare PERFORMED is truly a treat. I loved this performance for a variety of reasons. I did one of Helena's (the protagonist) speeches when I was just starting to really delve into attempting to act Shakespeare. And therefore knew this play very well and seeing it live opened up my eyes to aspects of the play I had never thought of before.

One of the reasons why I love Shakespeare is because he writes fantastic women. His women are notoriously intelligent, calculating, ambitious, emotional, and full of heart (some would beg to differ considering Lady Macbeth but that conversation can be played out later). BUT my one critique of Shakespeare's women is that they consistently fall for the most unappreciative, banal, and superficial men. I have found it hard to reason why an intelligent woman like Helena in All's Well or Viola in Twelfth Night would actively pursue with all of her energy a man like Bertram (All's Well) or Orsino (Twelfth Night). While this production did not resolve my question, it did, however, reveal an element of humanity in Bertram that truly led me to believe that he, despite his violent attempts to dispose of his wife (going to war and proclaiming she was dead), grew to respect and honor his wife Helena. It seemed that on the brink of his imprisonment he began to see how much Helena loved him.

Now. One of the other new things I found while seeing this play was the way in which narcissism propels the play's actions. For example, Helena cures the King and is thus allowed to choose her husband. She chooses Bertram who then refuses and the King is outraged. Yes, Bertram is a superficial boy who wants to choose his own love and cannot obey the wishes of his family. BUT the King's outrage is so monumental because Bertram DISOBEYS his orders. What starts as an insult against Helena (Bertram refusing to marry her) turns into a King's rage against Bertram because Bertram's disobedience defies the King's rule. In addition, at the end of the play, while Bertram reveals a sense of humanity that justifies him willingly staying with Helena, his shift, I would argue, comes from the recognition of how much Helena loves HIM. Not necessarily because Helena is clever - if he recognized this he would have willingly married her in the first act.

This narcissism in the play contrasts DIRECTLY with Helena's selflessness. She is a slave to her love for Bertram and sacrifices herself to ultimately win him back (literally - by following statements in a letter). Before this production I used to see her speeches proclaiming her guilt about Bertram's fate as a weakness on her part. For example, when Bertram leaves to go to war Helena blames herself - not Bertram's idiocy. What I see now is Shakespeare's attempt to both contrast Helena's blind selflessness with the King and Bertram's blind selfishness. But in addition to the literary contrast, what I saw now in this Helena was a woman who while intelligent, was truly a victim of love.

Shakespeare writes about humanity. All's Well That End's Well is a testament to how love propels and affects all aspects of every single human being. And while I still find it hard to believe that such an intelligent woman would fall for such a doofus as Bertram, I find contentment in Shakespeare's extreme portrayal of blind love in this play. How else could he truly portray selfless love without contrasting Helena's selflessness to Bertram's selfishness? The paradox allows us to see the core of this play - all consuming love.

Lastly, this play emphasized the fairy tale quality of the play. The set used the symbolism of a red riding hood, sparkly slippers, a scary forest, etc., to portray a fantasy world. The play itself debunks what we read in stories as children. The stepmother isn't evil and the prince doesn't automatically fall for you. While this is a story about the humanity of love it is also a play about the reality of life. It proposes a new sort of "happy ending" to the fairy tales. A woman can love and "get" her prince... if she's a smart cookie and has the ambition to do it.

So... there's my novel to you. Perhaps this will turn into a paper in the near future...

British "isms" continued

"Hiya" - common greeting
"Are you okay?" - seems odd but it's used a lot when people see you in stores, are looking lost, etc.
"Full Stop" - synonym to a "period" in a sentence
"Faff" - courtesy of Josh Seymour it is akin to "putzing" (think Yiddish)
"Fag" - cigarette
"trolly" - shopping cart
"carriage" - train car

I have attended the famous "Fresher's Fayre" which is essentially booths of the university's student societies and clubs. It's a MADHOUSE. I got loads of free stuff including a BAG of stuff from the Jewish Society.

Today also marks the FIRST of my many trips to the National Theatre to see All's Well that End's Well. This show will actually be BROADCAST which is pretty cool.

Classes start Monday. I have never had a break this long - it's October. I believe I should start on some reading...