West Yorkshire Playhouse has unintentionally found itself in the local news over the last couple of days because of a controversy that has blown up over the poster image for their forthcoming production of John Ford’s 1633 tragedy Tis Pity She’s a Whore. The problem is that the poster uses this photograph as its dominant image:
The beige background is stretched in different directions depending on the shape /size of the poster, and the play’s title – in large white print – is superimposed across this background colour, as are the other relevant show details (in smaller print). Apparently, the controversy has blown up because members of the local Roman Catholic community have chosen to read a literal connection between the play’s title and the icon statue of Mary and Jesus – and thus to conclude that the poster is implying that the Virgin Mary is a whore.
Now, this image has been in Playhouse season brochures for months, and has prompted only one or two complaints from members of the public. But now a large, screened version of the poster has been plastered across the wall of the Playhouse facing toward the main road and the rest of the city (as always happens with immediately forthcoming productions), as a result of which all hell seems to have broken loose. WYP has been asked to remove this poster (and presumably, by extension, all the other versions of it) by the Catholic Bishop of Leeds, Arthur Roche. The Playhouse has been fielding regular complaints from members of the public – some of whom are insisting that the poster has been put up specifically to offend the faithful in Holy Week (i.e. next week – although the show doesn’t open until May 7th). And then last night representatives from West Yorkshire Police appeared at the theatre’s reception desk to announce that the theatre may be in breach of public order statutes – if the continued presence of the poster causes disorder or affray.
At this point, it seems to me, we have entered Alice in Looking Glass territory. This poster is only offensive if one looks to find offence in it – by connecting the words on the poster with one component in its image. But since when did theatre posters operate to literally illustrate their titles? Should the recent poster for the WYP production of Rattigan’s The Deep Blue Sea have featured Maxine Peake swimming around in the ocean instead of standing at the bottom of some stairs? Should last year’s Death of a Salesman have featured Philip Jackson lying prone in a coffin instead of looking earnestly into the camera? Right next to the offending Tis Pity poster, right now, is another for the musical The Wiz, featuring a pair of female feet in silver dancing shoes. Should this, instead, be an image of a man in a black pointy hat, eating a cheez wiz, having a wee?
It is not at all difficult to find the rationale for the image as it stands, which has nothing to do with trying to cause offence. The image of Mary weeping over the body of Jesus is, first and foremost, an image of grief and mourning. The play is a tragedy, after all. Juxtaposed with the statue is a photo on the wall featuring two small children holding hands – a brother and a sister. Since the play deals with an incestuous affair between a brother and a sister, the image might best be read as one alluding to mourning for lost innocence. Of course, the icon statue is also obviously of Roman Catholic provenance, but this is appropriate since Tis Pity is set in a corrupt Italian state, dominated by a corrupt Catholic clergy (the first two names on the dramatis personae list are Bonaventura, a friar, and the Cardinal, a nuncio to the Pope). Nobody, however, is suggesting that all Catholic clergy are corrupt, and since this play is nearly 400 years old and doesn’t normally cause public outrage, there was no reason to think this image would do more than any other poster image is supposed to – i.e. engage public interest in the production.
Some in the blogosphere (see for instance http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/04/tis-pity-shes-whore-virgin-mary.html) have concluded that the poster is an attempt at cheap publicity through controversy — on the cynical basis that “all publicity is good publicity”. In that case, those stirring up the controversy are actually doing the Playhouse a favour – and perhaps, indeed, ticket sales will rise because more people are aware of the production’s existence than was the case before this week. But my sources (which are pretty good) assure me that nobody at the Playhouse was seeking offend anyone, and that nobody saw this coming. Should they then remove the posters, at considerable cost to themselves (I’d estimate in the region of several thousand pounds), because some people are unexpectedly offended? If this principle was followed, how many other things that unintentionally give offence to different sections of the public would have to be removed or apologised for? What if I declared myself offended by the Catholic church’s publicly-advertised positions on contraception or homosexuality, for example? Would West Yorkshire Police be visiting Bishop Roche asking him to take them down? And what, indeed, are West Yorkshire Police up to, in colluding with what is in effect a call for religious censorship? Didn’t the link between state authority and the Catholic church end some time before this play was even written?
Prof David WorrallI’ve written a book (Theatric Revolution: Drama, Censorship and Romantic Period Subcultures, OUP 2006, p/b2008).
As far as censorship of the drama text is concerned, it’s been in the public domain for centuries. As far as its suitability for performance in the UK, it’s been performed many times. Historically, the Lord Chamberlain’s Examiner of Plays, in the 18th century and early 19th century at least, tended always to focus on what they found to be ‘objectionable’ words. They did this rather more frequently and vehemently than objectionable ideas/theories/political ideologies. Plays were (occasionally) completely banned but, more often, were censored with individual phrases or words redacted (the blue pen, literally).
However, a contract now exists that this particular play is always suitable for performance to any age group since I doubt very much whether an age restriction etc for past performances could be located as a precedent.
As far as the prosecution of images is concerned, this would (I expect) be a blasphemy law but, again, famous British caricaturists such as James Gillray were never prosecuted or brought to court.
I would just ignore it. Anyone has the capacity to be offended over anything. They offend me and I am sure I offend them. Who cares?April 14, 2011 – 11:31 am
Richard AndrewsIt looks as if the Catholic fraternity (sic!) are adopting the fatwah mentality as proposed and deployed by fundamentalist Muslims. Jumping on a kind of bandwagon, which proclaims that no offence to any religious sensibility, however elaborately one has to explore in order to find it, can be tolerated.
Both Catholics and Muslims are entitled to their personal sensibilities. But so am I, and I get offended all the time by sexism in advertising, the overt promotion of greed, and a hundred other crass manifestations in public posters. I don’t call in the police to enforce my prejudices, and the law should not allow me to do so.April 14, 2011 – 11:34 am
Archbishop CranmerYour passing mention of His Grace’s blog refers only to the possibility of strategically-offensive publicity. Why do you omit his clearly-stated objections to the bowdlerised prodiuction of Tamburlaine and the abandoned production of Behzti? It is certainly not that all Christians – Roman Catholic or otherwise – favour censorship of the arts.April 14, 2011 – 11:50 am
Professor Stephen ColemanAt a time when the arts are being assaulted by financially-minded philistines, it is particularly important for the academy to stand up and be counted in defence of free theatrical expression. My sense is that the authoritarian complainers will fail in any attempt to censor this production; that the local police should have known better than to get involved in this crazy complaint; and the WYP needs all the friends available to help it defend its independence.April 14, 2011 – 11:54 am
Professor Martin ButlerThis play focuses on the clash between private sexuality and orthodoxy in church and family. Its central collision is between Giovanni – who is in love with his sister – and the Friar, who tries to persuade him that it’s a road to disaster. The play doesn’t really endorse any of its voices. The Friar can’t convince Giovanni, while his superior, the Cardinal, is manifestly corrupt, so the church comes off quite badly (and it has to be specifically the *Catholic* church, since in Ford’s time censorship would not permit such a critique against Protestantism). But equally Giovanni is selfish. He destroys his entire family, and ends up insane, so Ford is hardly suggesting that the church is wrong to condemn incest. Rather, he focuses on the loss of intellectual and moral coherence in the society that he depicts. So the poster does point to the play’s key elements: church and family. And what the provocative title particularly flags up is that the character who gets all the blame is Giovanni’s sister, whose alternative to incest is a loveless marriage. By labelling her ‘whore’ and dumping the blame on her, the men sidestep the way that she is the ultimate victim of their violent desires. Perhaps if she had had a mother, or a supportive female community, her life-choices would have been different. I read the poster not as an insult to faith but an expression of what the play’s world lacks. The image of the Virgin expressing tender love to her suffering child points tragically to the blind-spots and failures of love which make this community what it is.April 14, 2011 – 12:10 pm
Trish ReidThe sculpture of the Virgin holding the body of her dead son is traditionally know as a Pieta,in sculpture. Pieta is the Italian word for ‘pity’. The idea that ‘pity’ should be foregrounded as a concern or theme in a production of Ford’s great tragedy is neither surprising nor controversial. It seems to me that the over reaction by the Catholic community to this image is produced by paranoia, which is itself a response to the controversies surrounding sexual abuse, misconduct and cover-up which have engulfed the Church in recent years. They need to back off. Otherwise they are in danger of recasting themselves in the role of ‘crazies’ which is precisely playing into the hands of their most vociferous critics.April 14, 2011 – 12:22 pm
Steve BottomsIn relation to Archbishop Cranmer’s point (and the theatre-maker in me appreciates this online reanimation of a long-dead cleric), I should clarify that I was referring to the string of comments that follow on from His Grace’s initial blog posting – which is indeed quite even-handed.April 14, 2011 – 12:23 pm
Eleanor OKellI have seen – and enjoyed – Ford’s play in the past, am a theatre director who has designed show posters and was brought up Roman Catholic although I’m no longer practicing. As such I understand the need to foreground the play’s Catholic historical/moral framework for audiences that do not know it, which resulted in the choice of image – which blends the setting of a church (Pieta with candles) with the domestic/famlial (photograph of brother and sister). What we are discussing, however, is the censorship of an image, not of the play itself or the production and the question is, can that image be legitimately understood as offensive?
I found the poster offensive because rather than interpreting it as emphasising pity as a necessary dimension of the viewing experience (many thanks Trish for that sophisticated reading, which I had not seen myself) I had taken it as another example of what seems increasingly to be “acceptable” “Catholic bashing” in theatre/film/recent best-selling novels/popular consciousness – but not one about which I would complain (although I’m getting a little tired of turning the other cheek…). Nevertheless, I think that displaying this image at high levels of visibility in the lead up to Easter – the crucification and resurrection – the most important Christian religious festival and at a time when many Christians’ sense of their relationship with their religion is heightened is insensitive.
I would respectfully point out that there are other suitable images which would convey Catholicism and the need for pity that could have been used, e.g. candles before a statue of either Mary or, preferrably – to avoid the play’s title being connected with her – Jesus in “sacred heart” mode: but maybe the poster designers didn’t want such a nod to the play’s actual content? Choosing this one with its Easter reference for display at this time of year was misguided. An apology (for unintentionally causing distress) together with an interpretation of the image along the lines suggested by Trish would do much to rectify the situation.April 14, 2011 – 1:09 pm
Paul TaylorI’m not sure the knee-jerk tone of some of the above postings is particularly appropriate when simultaneously accusing others of jumping on a bandwagon/adopting a Fatwah mentality.
How many semiotically-disingenuous academics does it take to defend the bone-headedly insensitive juxtaposition of a depiction of the Virgin Mary and the word “Whore”?
I guess we’re in the process of finding out …April 14, 2011 – 1:58 pm
Regine MayAcademics should distinguish more clearly in their comments between the play and the poster. It is the poster, not the play, that is causing offence, with its association of the Virgin Mary and a whore. That is what distinguishes this debate from those over Tamburlaine or Behzti mentioned in Archbishop’s Cranmer’s blog, where the plays themselves had been censored. The association on the poster is gratuitous and insensitive, especially in the run up to Easter, and importantly not necessitated by the content of the play itself. Calling for more sensitivity here is not the same as asking for censorship, and defending a poster which is offensive to some members of the community who are not likely to go after the designers is not akin to heroically not caving in to imaginary threats of a fatwa. What is more, it is actually quite disconcerting that the Playhouse designers apparently did not think this poster might offend any viewers, as the blogger states. Surely they cannot have been that naive?April 14, 2011 – 2:48 pm
engsjbJust in response to Regine May. Yes, Richard Andrews’ mention of fatwa is a red herring. And yes, there is a distinction to be made between poster and play, and between requests for censorship and for sensitivity. But the Bishop of Leeds has asked that the poster be taken down, and I find it hard not to see that as a call for censorship. The police have apparently been adding pressure to that call. So this is somewhat different from, say, Eleanor O’Kell’s constructive suggestion that the WYP might issue a statement apologising for any unintentional distress caused – while presumably standing by its poster campaign. Because the poster was designed not out of insensitivity but out of a clear, creative sensitivity to the content of the play – as I think Martin Butler’s comment beautifully illustrates. If you are the designer of a poster like this (and I stress that I don’t know the designer), you have a brief to respond to the material you are advertising – and this will have been the focus of the creative process. It’s easy for Paul Taylor to suggest, after the fact, that it was “bone-headed” not to see that the juxtaposition of word and image might cause offence. But if your task is to find an image to advertise a well-known, regularly performed play, you’re not necessarily going to have the causing of religious offence prominent on your radar.April 14, 2011 – 3:06 pm
Regine MayIn response to engsjb — so we are agreed that it is not the play that anyone is objecting to, but the poster, and that no one is calling for the play (which is indeed well known, often performed and not in need, perhaps, of such a provocative advertisement) to be taken down. May I suggest you contact the Playhouse designers via your good sources for a statement on their rationale and put it on this blog? This might actually diffuse the debate and help both police and the Catholic diocese to make a reasoned decision. After all, unlike with Ford, whose ideas behind his plays we can only guess at, we are in a privileged position with the Playhouse designers: we can actually ask them. Who knows, something good might come out of this debate — perhaps pre-performance talks or discussion groups?April 14, 2011 – 3:33 pm
Franc Chamberlain@Paul Taylor
You ask the question: “How many semiotically-disingenuous academics does it take to defend the bone-headedly insensitive juxtaposition of a depiction of the Virgin Mary and the word “Whore”?”
A juxtaposition provides a contrast. The word ‘Whore’ and the image of the Virgin are contrasted with each other. By claiming that the word ‘whore’ refers to the BVM you erase the contrast and make the assumption that the ‘she’ in the title refers to the Virgin.
By removing the contrast between image and text you emphasize the similarity — so you emphasize the similarity between ‘virgin’ and ‘whore’ rather than the difference between them.
I woud have thought that it was common to see ‘virgin’ and ‘whore’ as oppositional terms and I would imagine that this is what the designer had in mind, but you, the Bishop of Leeds and others prefer, unfortunately, to see similarities between the image of the Virgin and the word Whore, rather than the differences.April 14, 2011 – 3:53 pm
Steve NicholsonI recall a Front Row feature some years ago which focused on the controversy around another West Yorkshire Playhouse show. If memory serves, a poster advertising Phoenix Dance Company featured a naked dancer, but the show didn’t. I believe someone took them to court (certainly complained to newspapers) under the Trades Description Act for misleading information, saying he had gone to the show in good faith to see a naked dancer. Front Row discussed how far it is the duty of a poster to accurately depict the content of a show it is advertising…
In this current case, I’m not sure why the designer or the theatre should have to defend or explain themselves. The image can be read in different ways. It offends some people. Censors always ask why you couldn’t have used a different word or imagie instead – and of course you could have done. But you didn’t. Arguably, the most insidious and dangerous form of censorship is self-censorship; to create an image the theatre thought appropriate to the production and then to reject it because it might offend would have been to practise self-censorship. Actually, the risk now is that whatever happens this time, the designers and the theatre will be more ‘careful’ next time, and do their best to make sure they don’t offend anyone. The censor wins again…April 14, 2011 – 4:50 pm
Dr Mike ThompsonI work on theatre censorship in 20th-century Spain. Priests played an influential role in Franco’s censorship apparatus, and the Catholic Church operated its own semi-official censorship. The Church and the state censors paid attention to publicity materials as well as to texts and performances, exercising tight control over words and images (including limiting the use of Catalan, Basque and Galician on posters). The poster is not the same as the play, but it’s part of the theatrical event. Individual members of the Catholic community in Leeds have the right to complain of feeling offended (and the right not to see the play), but the bishop’s intervention and the police’s decision to back it up are alarmingly reminiscent of the authoritarian alliance between Church and dictatorship in Spain between 1939 and 1975. The theatre should stand its ground. The design idea of the poster seems clear to me. It suggests the point of view of Giovanni and/or Annabella, on their knees, facing two conflicting impulses: their love for one another (idealized as the innocent love of children in the photo) and the guilt tormenting them as a result of religious condemnation of their passion. Some icon of Catholicism other than a Pietà could have been chosen, but it is the Virgin to whom repentant Catholics traditionally tend to turn, hoping for her to plead on their behalf to God. The juxtaposition of this image with the word ‘whore’ is provocative, but so was the play in its time. And, thank Democracy, art has a right (a duty!) to be provocative in this country.April 14, 2011 – 4:58 pm
Archbishop CranmerMr Franc Chamberlain, would it be a mere ‘contrast’ if one were to have the words of a new play ‘Tis Pity He’s a Paedophile’ next to a picture of Mohammed? Assuming, of course, that the image of the Prophet and the title words were divided by a picture of (say) Gary Glitter? Who draws the parallel and who makes the contrast?April 14, 2011 – 4:59 pm
Franc Chamberlain@ Archbishop Cranmer, firstly, I didn’t say ‘mere contrast’. The contrast is significant and crucial to an understanding of the poster (and the play). It is not an arbitrary or frivolous juxtaposition. If you reduce a significant contrast to a ‘mere’ contrast then you are simultaneously reducing the difference between the image of the Virgin and the word “Whore”. It’s your failure to appreciate the significance of the difference that’s the problem. Mike Thompson is right about the relevance of the image to the conflicting desires of the protagonists of Ford’s play — and also why the choice of the Pietà itself rather than another icon is appropriate.
You, and others, have the right to reduce the difference between the image of the Virgin and the word “Whore” to a ‘mere contrast’ rather than a significant one. You ask: “Who draws the parallel and who makes the contrast?” The answer is clear — you and others who are feeling offended are drawing a parallel between Virgin and Whore. Others, like me, see a contrast between the two that is perfectly in keeping with the content of the play. I think you’re missing the point to read the poster in the way that you do, rather like someone who thinks the that words “suffer little children to come unto me” justify the physical abuse of children.
Secondly, this isn’t about a new play called ‘Tis Pity He’s a Paedophile’ and there isn’t a script of that name in my local library or on Project Gutenberg’s site or even on Kindle — unlike Ford’s play. It might or might not be perfectly appropriate to advertise this imaginary play with the imaginary poster you’ve described – I can’t say without the opportunity to read or watch the play.April 14, 2011 – 5:58 pm
jimnow i must firstly put this, i personally do not have a problem with this sort of thing, be it, catholic,islam,buddhism or any religious paraphenalia. but in the times we are living in is it wise to associate a figure of such importance to christians with a play title with the word “whore” in it? i think most educated people would agree that, a play, even one that does suggest mary was a hooker, would be wise to pick their poster choice carefully, artistic content of your play is not the issue.
if we have to be so careful about not upsetting “other” religions (ie a certain danish cartoonist springs to mind) then we also have to be wiser and more intelligent than to throw a symbol of so many peoples faiths together with the word “whore”
good luck with the production though!April 14, 2011 – 6:10 pm
Polly@ Archbishop Cranmer – i would simply like to point out that there are no images of Mohammed, since graven images are forbidden in Islam. Thus your imaginary poster would be extremely difficult to create. This is not a debate about which religion would be most offended by what but a debate about whether one group of people have the right to censor another. I read an article in todays Times newspaper about a piece of art called The Great Wall of Vagina – it stated that ‘some people may be offended by this piece of work’, and i am more than sure that they are right – but the key word here is ‘some’, for others it is beautiful, insightful, thought provoking, biological, anatomical and cause for debate. Isn’t that what all art should do, encourage conversation and enlighten us through our different opinions?April 14, 2011 – 8:47 pm
BibbleProstitutes were Jesus’s people. Those of righteous judgement, the preachers and the powers of fear were not.April 14, 2011 – 11:34 pm
Professor Stephen ColemanThose commenting in this debate should be aware that the question before us is whether the police should or should not enter a theatre in Leeds with the purpose of telling its management how they may or may not publicise a play. Those who are blase about such aesthetic policing should bear in mind that once this particular application of censorship is conceded here it can be applied in many other contexts. The legal argument, as I understand it, is that by displaying this poster the theatre could be responsible for causing public order offences. Had I been the senior police officer involved in this case, I would have done three things: i) told the offended people that they were free to express their feelings by protesting; ii) made it clear to the protesters that any attempt to disrupt the production (including its publicity) would be stopped; and iii) told the WYP to expect a possible protest and that they could rely on the police to ensure that the production would not be disrupted. In short, it is the threat of public disorder that should concern the police, not making a judgement about the significance of a classical painting being used to advertise a classical play.April 15, 2011 – 8:21 am
Garry LyonsProfessor Coleman puts it succinctly and clearly. In my experience of theatre management, a good way to take the steam out of these kind of situations is for the theatre to offer the offended an opportunity to express their point of view publicly – in a pre-show or post-show debate or discussion group or some such. That way, everyone gets their say, the values of free speech are preserved, and a line is drawn under the matter. As a bonus, ludicrous irrationality is clearly exposed. Obviously a judgment would need to be made as to how disruptive or unhelpful such an event would be in this case.April 15, 2011 – 11:43 am
Fr John AbbertonAs to the police entering a theatre on what is NOT a censorship matter but a possible matter of public order, that, I would suggest, is not the main question as far as the reactions here are concerned. The intemperate language used by some against Catholics and others who are offended only increases the offence. These things should not be a matter of law or policing at all. However, in a civilised society (I suggest) we should all hope for understanding and sensitivity. This is what seems to be lacking in the use of that poster – especially sensitivity at a certain time of the year. Non-believers may well see this as an opportunity to bash those silly Christians who are being foolish again. On the contrary the kind of society many are arguing for – a tolerant open society – cannot be built on such glaring examples of thoughtlessness and self-righteous indignation from those who claim to (but ought to) know better.April 15, 2011 – 3:16 pm
Franc Chamberlain@Fr John Abberton
You say:
“However, in a civilised society (I suggest) we should all hope for understanding and sensitivity. This is what seems to be lacking in the use of that poster – especially sensitivity at a certain time of the year.”
I would like you to be open to the possibility that you are mis-reading the poster and that, given the information provided for you in this blog, your post demonstrates neither sensitivity nor understanding. Look at the plank in your own eye.April 15, 2011 – 3:43 pm
Fr John AbbertonFranc, for myself I can accept the information given – but only to some extent. The problem is that many people not only do not know the play, they also do not understand the meaning of the poster. Call them philistines if you want (I know you will not), but they are people and deserve some respect whatever their academic or artistic lack may be. By replying as you did, you showed precisely that lack of sensitivity I was adressing. It is not what is said on this blog – which most people will never see – that matters, it is what people out there passing the poster think and feel. If you can get someone to stand out there and publicly say what the poster means, all well and good. If the theatre can put up an explanation for it, saying that absolutely no offence was intened, that might work, but many (if not most) will not be aquainted with the play and will not read this blog. Those are the people I am talking about, not you and me and others who might be commenting here. And may I say, that just because many people do not know the play does not mean they are lesser beings for that. That is the point.April 15, 2011 – 4:14 pm
Mark Taylor-BattyJohn Abberton makes an important point, which reflects an understanding articulated in other comments that the (mis)apprehension that the word ‘whore’ might possibly apply to the image is most likely rooted in a.) not knowing the play and/or b.) not appreciating the medium of the publicity poster and how it seeks to represent a dramatic world we are invited to engage with. He is absolutely correct to assert that we should not dismiss people for these qualities. It is all too easy to qualify these qualities in terms of something lacking (education, sophisticated readings, understanding) which are then used to condemn or dismiss the experience and opinion of such people. Of course that should be resisted (as should calling academics ‘bone-headed’). Certainly, our understanding of ‘philistinism’ does include the ideas that any engagement with arts and artistic expression (that might lead to readings of the poster that are more in tune with its intention) as unimportant, unappreciated or under-valued is anti-expression in outlook, but that would not justify the use of ‘philistine’ as a dismissive or insulting term. A poster that can be seen in such dimensions in a public environment that is, in effect, separated from the artistic context it invites us to (that is the nature of publicity) might well be misconstrued. But to leap to the assumption that a deliberate provocation was sought is unacceptable. To suggest that there should be an equaling of responses based upon any possible response (of offence or otherwise) is to propose a form of censorship. The poster can be justified in terms of the play, and in ways that very clearly clarify that the term ‘whore’ does not and is not intended to refer to the image. An explanation is possible, and can be offered, and has been offered, in ways that should mitigate against the offence caused to those who – with no detriment or judgement – read the poster in a way that caused them offence. That should be enough. The visual language of the poster needed some understanding of contexts to be read fully. That some people do not appreciate are cannot access those understandings is not intolerable, is not to be condemned, is not demeaning in any way, but that cannot form a fair or serious basis for condemning or removing the poster. Equally, a recognition that the poster might actually cause offence to some people merits some response to the offended other than dismissal.April 15, 2011 – 5:38 pm
Steve BottomsIn response to Father Abberton’s first intervention, I want to be very temperate in my tone (to avoid being accused of intemperacy), but I also want to challenge him on his implication that “the main question as far as the reactions here are concerned” is the desire to use intemperate language towards Catholics and “bash those silly Christians”. I would quietly suggest that the dialogue here has for the most part been thoughtful and careful (far more so in fact than in many other blogs I could mention), with arguments on both sides being put clearly but reasonably. There are one or two exceptions to this, certainly, but your comments seem to me to misrepresent the range of views and opinions that have been expressed, some of which are very astute and even enlightening. As to “bashing Christians”, I can see very little of that here. Indeed, I myself (as the original blogger) come from a sincere Christian family – Baptist, as it happens – and although I am no longer practising I have the utmost respect for sincerely held religious faith. That does not mean, however, that I am not allowed to disagree vociferously with people of faith if/when they prioritise sensitivities of their own over the rights of free expression by others. That is the issue at stake here. And it does not help others to see your side of the argument if you simply dismiss those who disagree with you as being intemperate, insensitive or thoughtless.April 15, 2011 – 6:24 pm
Franc Chamberlain@Fr John Abberton I’m afraid you miss my point. You made the accusation of insensitivity and i returned it. I’m asking you to think a little more carefully and sensitively about the way in which you label others as ‘insensitive’. I think that is important, because if you can engage with what has been said here with a little more appreciation of viewpoints that differ from yours then you can discuss the issue with those who are disturbed and help to put their minds at ease — you now have the information you need. Should passages in the Bible be removed because, in your view, perhaps, I don’t understand them and I take offence at them? If not, why not?April 15, 2011 – 6:37 pm
Philip CrispinI think that several contributors to this discussion who support the maintaining of the original poster have put forward arguments which have been sophistical and indeed disingenuous.
I am a passionate believer in freedom of expression and a supporter of WYP but it is crucial to appreciate both intention and effect. This is clearly what satirists and polemicists do.
A spokeswoman for WYP said, ‘It is never our intention to cause upset and we regret that this particular image seems to have distressed a number of people.’
So WYP never intended to upset but the effect has been to bring about precisely that.
This same spokeswoman added that the theatre carried out a meticulous process for creating images for all of its productions. However, she added, ‘The poster was always supposed to suggest a sacristy.’ This comment does not inspire confidence. Statues of the pietà along with votive candles are not generally found in sacristies.
So while the director and poster designer may have come up with what they thought was an artistically coherent image, they along with the theatre failed to appreciate the incendiary nature of the juxtaposition of the most prominent feature of the picture (the Virgin Mary cradling the dead Christ on her knees) with the prominent word ‘whore’ in the title.
Such a failure to anticipate the distress that this image would cause, and indeed in the run up to Holy Week with the sudden proliferation of the poster, demonstrates a huge gulf in understanding of the religious world by the secular. Muslims, too, honour Mary.
Attacking the institutional Church’s grievous implication in abuse scandals or evoking the pre-Tridentine Church’s Index, or even the Inquisition, deeply disturbing as these topics may be, are actually diversions from the main point at issue here: an ill-advised poster and a lack of sensitivity, empathy and even responsibility (understood in the etymological sense of an answering to others).
What we have here is essentially a dearth of good will.April 18, 2011 – 12:03 pm
Philip CrispinCorrection: Tridentine Church’s Index (not pre-Tridentine) in the previous contribution.April 18, 2011 – 12:20 pm
Franc Chamberlain@Philip Crispin: Why do you and others who have a problem with the poster design have to attack the sincerity of those who disagree with you? The main point at issue here is the attempt to censor an advertising poster for a theatre event by some people, you included, who insist that their reading of the poster trumps both the intention of the designer and the readings of others. In what sense do you see those who resist your proposed censorship as lacking in good will? You are effectively saying that you believe in freedom of expression unless you don’t like what you take the other person to mean and if the other person doesn’t agree to your imposition of meaning and attempt at censorship then they are lacking in sensitivity, empathy, and responsibility. So, your argument is that you find the poster offensive and some other people do to and anyone who doesn’t agree with you is either disingenuous or somehow lacking in virtue? I notice that a print of Andre Serrano’s was destroyed in France today, will you speak out against the violence of these protestors?April 18, 2011 – 7:17 pm
Tilly MichellHas anybody considered that it is the Catholic church that wants the publicity? There’s nothing like a media scandel to rally the faithful during Holy Week. I say this as a Catholic. All sections of society like their time in the limelight.April 19, 2011 – 11:18 pm
Professor Colin HarrisonWho is the whore? In the post-Christian homes of Leeds today, many of those who are mystified by the ‘Tis Pity poster controversy will have been unaware of the sensitivity of Catholics to the word ‘whore’. The average person is no doubt aware that the Virgin is worshiped by Catholics as the Mother of God, but less aware that over the centuries some anti-Catholics have portrayed the Madonna as a whore who conceived Jesus in an adulterous relationship with a blacksmith. Many of the good folk of Leeds will be unaware that the Catholic Church itself has for centuries been described by some Protestants as the ‘Whore of Babylon’, and even if, thanks to Ian Paisley, they were aware of this mysogynistic phrase, will not have understood its Lutheran provenance. Thanks to the controversy, many more people will now be better informed about these historical associations.April 20, 2011 – 8:37 am
Steve BottomsThe Playhouse yesterday removed the large, offending poster, and replaced it with a simple white one bearing only the words “Judge the Play, not the Poster,” followed by the title of the play, and the dates etc. Clever marketing twist or strategic climb-down? And is it just me, or are the words “Judge Not, that Thou Shalt Not Be Judged” floating around in the subtext here?April 20, 2011 – 9:17 am