CENSORSHIP

CENSORSHIP
in the American Theatre

(This title has been censored for your protection) Table of Contents

 * 1) Overview
 * 2) Introduction
 * 3) Origins of Censorship in American Theatre
 * 4) Corporate Censorship
 * 5) "Self-censorship" and Expressive Accessibility
 * 6) Focus: "Red Scare" and Truman
 * 7) Focus: The Federal Theatre Project
 * 8) Focus: HUAC
 * 9) Censorship in America 1970's-Present
 * 10) Sources

=Overview =

**1. Introduction**
Throughout the course of American History, issues of freedom and liberties have been at the forefront of political discussion. The United States of America are unified under a [|constitution] containing a [|bill of rights] which holds foremost the right to free speech and assembly. Still, public opinion and societal expectations are often equally-powerful factors in determining who has right to express themselves in the American public forum.

In American Theatre, issues of censorship developed on a large scale following the [|great depression], during the [|McCarthy Era]. The Federal Theatre Project brought about a stronger connection between government policy and the content of stage productions, and during the HUAC trials of 1947 several theatre-makers associated with the FTP were brought into question for their possible connections to the communist party. This controversial exposure carried into public support for more politically conservative works of theatre (Downer). Post-WWII, many American families moved to newly-created suburbs to build safe communities for their children. Along with this physical move came a ideological shift into a new American morality commonly held in the middle-class. The nuclear family and its protection from dangerous and taboo subject matter gained new importance, and its economic impact was seen most greatly in the entertainment field (Houchin). Censorship in the theatre during this time took various forms, both overtly in legislation and less apparently though the effects of public opinion on audience size and critical review. Since the 1950's censorship efforts in the U.S. have mostly been focused upon the film industry, but issues raised in theatres continue to cause controversy.

**2. Origins of Censorship in American Theatre **
Censorship in the American Theatre can be traced back as far as the 1630's with the settlements of British North America. Within the Massachusetts Bay Colony, English Puritans believed the stage to represent something outside of the laws of the state and of God, a place where sexual, social, and religious transgressions could occur without repercussion. As other forms of entertainment, the establishments of dance halls had been on the rise in Boston and concerts were becoming more widely performed, became increasingly popular in a growing public, Theatre had no such luck. In 1714, when a group of students prepared to petition the city council for use of the Town Hall as a performance space, Samuel Sewall, a judge from Massachusetts who later became involved in the Salem Witch Trials, wrote Issac Addington addressing his disagreement in the use of the space. In which Sewall makes connections to Roman society, stating that they”…were very fond of their Plays: but I never heard they were so far set upon them, as to turn their Senate-House into a Play-House…” later saying “…Let it not be abused with Dances, or other scenical divertissements…Let not Christian Boston go beyond Heathen Rome in the practice of shameful vanities. ”

While Boston and the other established Colonies of the area did not allow Theatre to root itself in the community, Southern colonies were quite the opposite. Southern colonies were incredibly isolated at the time due to the large farming community inhabiting the area, with thousands of acres of land spanning between homes. This made annual gatherings a highly anticipated time where families could socialize. These events offered many different forms of entertainment including races, parties, concert, and, eventually, plays. In fact, one of the few moments of attempted censorship in the southern colonies occurred in Virginia in 1665 when Edward Martin disagreed with the play //Ye Bear & Ye Cubb//, the first English-language play in North America, and demanded punishment for those involved with the production. The judge presiding over this trial, however, disagreed with Martin and ruled that he pay the court costs.

In 1682, William Penn drafted the first //Frame of Government in Pennsylvania//, which strictly prohibited Theatre, calling it a thing that excited people to rudeness, and that anyone performing in it would be severely punished. Charles the II allowed this act to be passed, but not before allowing the crown the power to revoke any legislation within that colony and, later, King William, who now ruled, exercised his his power and rescinded this act in 1693. This, however, did not last long, when in 1700 the colony passed “An Act against Riots, Rioters, and Riotous Plays, Plays, and Games”, which was rescinded again in 1705, along with two more similar laws in 1706 and 1711, both of which were also vetoed.

For the next 50 years, as Philadelphia economically and politically prospered, Walter Murray and Thomas Kean set up the first professional company in North America. Producing the plays outside of the city limits, and thusly outside of the laws of the area, in a warehouse, the company survived in the area until February of 1750 when religious hostilities forced the group to leave for New York. The following month, Massachusetts passed the “Act to Prevent Stage-Plays and other Theatricals” in which they punished anyone who performed or watched plays and, furthermore, any person who allowed permission to perform any type of play. This act remained for the next forty years.

This did not stop the evolution of Theatre and in 1751, William Hallam, an actor-manager in London whose theater was recently closed, began to create a company to travel to British North America. In 1752 this company, The Company of Comedians landed in Yorktown, travelling to Williamsburg to build a theater, later opening its first production, //A Merchant of Venice// in September of 1752. It is from that moment until 1774 that this company became the main focus of attempted censorship.

In the later months of 1754, Hallam received a letter inviting him to bring his company to Philadelphia to perform. This invitation prompted Hallam to ask permission from Governor James Hamilton to open a theater in the city. Word supporting and opposing the company opening a theater spread to the newspapers of the area in an attempt to convince Hamilton and sway his decision. One such article opposing the company, written by a someone under the pseudonym “A.B”, called Theatre a “great Corrupter of the Town” and a “Shame to our nation and religion” even going so far as to call actors “the very Dregs of human nature”. In response to this, another individual under the pseudonym “Y.Z”, posted a response defending the company with the statement “…and it is not at present unlawful for any man, or set of men, to be entertained in any manner not injurious to their neighbors.” In the end, Governor Hamilton sided with “Y.Z”s argument, but placed guidelines on the company, restricting the shows they could perform so they would not include anything “indecent or immoral”. Hallam also noticed the tension and agreed, performing in the same warehouse that Murray and Kean performed in. Hallam later died of yellow fever and the company was then operate by David Douglass. Unaware of the bureaucracy, Douglass went to New York and began construction on a theater, later being shut down due to his application to perform being denied. Upon hearing this, Douglass published an article stating that he would be opening a “Histrionic Academy” providing “Dissertations…Moral, Instructive, and Entertaining.” This article invoked the anger of the magistrate of the area, leading Douglass to commit public degradation to better his favor with them. Upon begging for forgiveness the company was granted opportunity to perform, opening New Years Day, 1759.

In June of 1759, the Assembly passed the “Act of the more Effectual Suppressing and Preventing of Lotteries and Plays” calling them a “scandal of religion”, and accused the London Company of seducing the “weak” public. The governor passed the law, but didn’t allow the enforcement of it until January of 1760, and the law was later vetoed by the crown in September. For the next eight years censoring of this company continued until, after returning to New York, it seemed to at least be accepted by the general public. From that point until 1774, theater productions seemed to go on without much dispute. Then, in October of 1774, the Continental Congress in session in Philadelphia at the time, attempted to close all theaters to "encourage frugality" among the public. Following this, the company withdrew to Jamaica until 1784.

Throughout the war, both the British and the American armies presented plays. One such play occurred to celebrate when the American and French signed a peace treaty in February. On May of 1778, Washington ordered a military celebration with Addison's //Cato// as the centerpiece of the festivities. And this was not the only time that soldiers blatantly disregarded the laws of congress. In September and October of 1778, soldiers presented plays to benefit the "families who have suffered in the war for American liberty." These acts outraged Congress, who passed yet another resolution stating that theater was waging not only a political war, but a moral one as well later going on to outlaw theatrical entertainments. This law, though didn't seem to affect the public and, when rumor spread that plays were still being performed, Congress published another, even harsher sanction removing any government official who aid in the production of plays in any way. Regardless, many of the colonies continued to blatantly disregard the laws passed and plays were still performed. With the end of the war cam mass confusion and theater became a voice and engine of virtue, only to be used in the progression of public and private morality. This was not believed by some states and anti-theater legislations were passed in 1779. After three failed attempts at repeal by different individuals, the American Company returned to America, reconstituted. To dodge these laws, the presented lectures interspersed with "pantomime" and "dialogue and dumb show". Congress caught on to this behavior and further strengthened the law to include pantomime and for every production would be fined £200 per occurrence. In 1788, an appeal was filed against the law again and met with a favorable committee, leading to the the tabling of the law.

In the first two decades of the 1800's, the acceptance of Theatre began. People set aside their religious concerns and saw theatre as a means of expression. This is not to say that all controversy ceased. The 1830's and 1840's were a very stressful time when upper and lower classes clashed around the theatre. Different theaters supporting the upper and lower class separately began to be established as feuding over pre-established locations increased. In May of 1849, as actor William Macready took the stage to perform, he was met with an angry crowd of theater patrons, who were fans of Macready's rival, Edwin Forrest, who was performing the same role as him in a theater close by. Persuaded to leave, but begged to stay, Macready agreed to perform again. This time necessary precautions were taken to ensure his performance. Police were called to enforce behaviors and stop angry patrons and militiamen guarded Macready in the theater. This enraged the 5000+ crowd of theatergoers, who began to throw cobblestones at the officers. The officers retaliated, killing 21 individuals. By the 1890's, theatre censorship had evolved into control over the audience. Audience members were now told to sit quietly and the only response the would be allowed is polite clapping, all other forms of praise would be subject to ejection from the space.

Censorship in the American Theatre in the early 1900's effected a large number of groups. It was at this period that such figures as Mae West, Lillian Hellman, Theresa Helburn, Lawrence Langer, Lee Simonson, Philip Moeller, Maurice Wertheim, Robert Sherwood, Sidney Howard, Rachel Crothers, Maxwell Anderson, John Howard Lawson, and Eugene O'Neill appeared and engaged the audience in new and culturally different ways. It was also a period where censorship continued on a strong path and, as we will later discuss, lead into one of the most important moments in American Theatre history, The Federal Theatre Project and HUAC.

**3. Corporate Censorship **
** In America's free-trade economy, the interests of corporations have had a silent but powerful influence in a wide range of moral and political issues. Public opinion plays a large role in sales and investments, which in larger corporations becomes very important. Theatre and other expressive mediums have the capability to raise awareness about a company's actions or impacts which might not otherwise be perceived by the audience, so corporations have a vested interest in their content. Conveniently for corporations, [|advertising] and [|sponsorship] fund the majority of highly visible media. And less visible artists often rely upon [|corporate-funded grants] to develop their work. Corporate censorship occurs when an entity uses its economic power to protect its own interests.

One specific example of corporate censorship occurred in 1998, when the creative forces behind sketch-comedy show Saturday Night Live were forced to cut a skit which satirized the concentration of power in corporate media conglomerations. Officials at NBC and GE, who provide production funding for the show, were threatened by the skit and it never aired (Croteau & Hoynes).



In the theatre, corporate sponsorship takes a more indirect form, but its effects are still visible. Theatre artists catering to the qualifications for grants from the foundations of large corporation could be said to be "self-censoring" because they are enforcing corporate ideals upon their own work (Sellar 3). It is difficult to gauge exactly how widespread this form of censorship is, but its influence is seen in the season of every corporate-funded theatre in America. **

**4. "Self-Censorship" and Ex****pressive Accessibility**
Traditionally, censorship is viewed as the enforced limitation of expression by a controlling party, like a government or company. But the suppression of ideas often takes place before tangible forms of expression can be filtered by such structured bodies. A broad definition of censorship includes the creator as a potential source for limitations.

Janelle Reinelt warns that “caution needs to be exercised concerning the charge of ‘censorship’” (Reinelt 5) by theatre artists when applying it to the internal and subconscious forces limiting their expression. Self-censorship is present in everyone who expresses; we correct and plan our actions based on our experiences and expectations. So why should the self-editing of one person be different than the “self-censorship” of another?

In America this question is especially relevant, given that the law (in theory) is firmly in favor of free expression //and// a free market. The attitudes of the American public drive the means of production for artistic work directly, and any unwelcome content faces economic difficulties. The viability of creating unfamiliar and challenging work in the American theatre is a struggle that leads some to compromise their artistic integrity.

="Red Scare" and Truman = It was President Harry S. Truman who had instigated what was to be called the “Second Red Scare”, which had occurred in the late 1940s till the early 1950s. The “Second Red Scare” should not, however, be confused with the “First Red Scare”, which had occurred in 1917 and had lasted till 1920. In 1917, right after the Bolshevik Revolution and World War 1, when the Russian communists gained power, and American communists were being persecuted people lived in fear.

In 1947 President Harry S. Truman had signed the “Executive Order 9835”, which is also referred to as “The Loyalty Order”, which essentially was designed to “find” communists. This was considered by many to be the start of the “Second Red Scare”. This order allowed boards to be formed to conduct “loyalty screenings”. If you were found to be a communist then you were immediately fired. Only around 378 federal employees were actually fired for “spying”. 5,000 People had resigned from their jobs due to investigations being conducted. It was a time of fear, people feared for their jobs, their families, and their lives.

The “Second Red Scare” had seriously altered the moods and minds of the people. Movies were even influenced by the “Second Red Scare”. Movies like “My Son John” (1950) and science fiction classics like “The Thing From Another World” (1951). All of these stories were about infiltration, invasion “and destruction of US society by un-American thought and inhuman beings. The baseball team the Cincinnati Reds had even temporarily changed their name to the Cincinnati Redlegs to avoid any problems or issues due to their name. Historians now believe that the “Executive Order” had been more politically motivated than anything else. Even though President Truman had started the whole thing he may not have entirely believed the need for such actions himself. He had stated once, before he signed the “Executive Order”, that “People are very much wrought up about the Communist “bugaboo” but I am of the opinion that the country is perfectly safe so far as communism is concerned – we have too many sane people.”

=**The Federal Theater Project **= =media type="youtube" key="PlUvXKvgDpk" height="385" width="480" =


 * The Federal Theater Project ( // FTP // ) was created by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt through the Works Progress Administration ( // WPA // ) in 1935 ([|United States] ). Its purpose was to provide jobs for the many theater artists who found themselves unemployed as a result of the Great Depression. Although the FTP was based in Washington D.C. it had companies in 40 cities in 31 states throughout the country ([|Flynn p.67] ). There were also several touring circuits, such as the Illinois circuit which took companies from Peoria and Chicago through Wisconsin and Illinois. These tours brought theater to states and cities that did not have their own companies as well as rural areas that normally did not see theater.

The National Play Policy Board ( // NPPB // ) was the body that decided which plays the FTP would produce as well as making contracts for the production rights and taking care of any fees that needed to be paid ([|Flynn p.70] ). It was first established in January 1937 in response to a need for a unit of central control over the operation and finances of the FTP ([|United States] ). The NPPB was comprised of ten members who met every four months. Because the FTP was a federally funded program this marked the first time in the history of American theater that what theater could and could not do was decided on a national scale.

Although the stated goal of the FTP was to provide jobs it had another goal as well. This goal was to provide “free, adult, uncensored theater” as stated by Harry Hopkins, the administrator of the WPA ([|Federal Theater] ). It is therefore all the more ironic that the FTP would eventually be censored and disbanded by the government. This was done through The House Committee to investigate Un-American Activities ( // HUAC // ). HUAC specifically took issues with the “Living Newspaper” performances being done by the FTP([|Flynn p.71]).

Living Newspaper’s were theatrical performances whose scripts were based off of actual news and social issues([|Flynn p.70-71)]. Often these performances dealt with controversial topics such as labor unions, housing conditions, syphilis, health care, and national resources. In fact the very first FTP Living Newspaper never made it to the stage([|Federal Theater] ). It was a production called __Ethiopia__, and it dealt with Mussolini’s takeover of Ethiopia. Because the State Department was afraid of offending Mussolini they censored the play. One of the main criticisms was that the Living Newspapers were essentially propaganda, and propaganda that criticized the government it was funded by at that. It probably did not help that the Living Newspapers in the FTP were based on a theatrical form that created in the 1920s in the Soviet Union ([|Pendell] ). **


 * < [[image:image1.jpg width="189" height="300"]] ||< [[image:image2.JPG width="182" height="286"]] ||< [[image:image3.png]] ||< [[image:image4.jpg width="180" height="299"]] ||

All of this helped convince HUAC that the FTP was a hot bed for communists and communist sympathizers. The committee called Hallie Flanagan, the National Director for the FTP, to testify on December 6, 1938 ([|Flynn p.75] ). She was not even given a full day to refute HUACs many accusations. Many of these accusations were clearly based on hearsay and were blatantly false or misguided. One well known example of these misguided accusations was when the committee demanded to know whether Christopher Marlowe, a famous playwright from the time of Shakespeare, was a member of the communist party ([|Pendell] ). Ultimately the FTP was unable to survive against the tide of censorship and suspicion. The FTP was disbanded in 1939, only four years after it began ([|United States] ).

=**HUAC **= The House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was the conservative incarnation of a bill that was earlier presented by Congressman Samuel Dickstein (D-N.Y.). The bill was originally designed to investigate and hinder the flow of slanderous propaganda which was producing libelous material and images. By the early thirties, congress had turned much of its attention to internal political subversion (Houchin 144). Many Congress people were plagued by a fear of foreign spies attempting to dismantle American democratic institutions. Many trade unions were controlled by radicals and pro-Hitler sympathizers were making themselves more apparent by meeting in lager groups while also forming youth camps. Congressman Dickstein, who runs a district along the East River from Chatam square to East Houston (home to tens of thousands of Eastern European Jewish immigrants), was concerned by the growing presence of anti-Semitism. He was an active participant in committees that investigated subversion. In April, 1937, he introduced a bill to give Congress authority to investigate any organization that distributed "slanderous or libelous un-American propaganda"(Houchin 145). Yet, the bill which was mounted against "Nazi rats, spies, and agents,"(Houchin 145) was soundly defeated.


 * [[image:Samuel_Dicksten.jpg width="185" height="235" caption="Samuel Dickstein"]] ||

Martin Dies was a Congressman from east Texas. He often displayed a suspicion of big cities, big capitol, and big government, and frequently proposed to deport foreign nationals. He had a strong drive to become the head of a Congressional Committee. In May, 1938, Dies introduced a complete copy of Dickstein's bill calling for Congressional investigation of subversives (Houchin 146). The new anti-Roosevelt coalition of republicans and a lot of southern democrats had more trust in Dies rather than the liberal Dickstein. Thus, The House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was formed.


 * [[image:160px-Dies-Martin_001a.gif width="192" height="230" caption="Martin Dies Jr."]] ||

Dies was appointed chairmen of HUAC. He surrounded himself with two democratic luke-warm New Dealers, two conservative democrats and two republicans. HUAC was required to investigate a large spectrum of political subversion in the United States. The committee members eventually and subtly molded their mandate and started to swing their investigative capabilities towards wounding the Roosevelt administration by linking it with radicals. The committee then focused in on the WPA. They claimed the president of the Federal One association was advancing the socialist agenda through national art programs (Houchin 146). In addition, Dies never let up on the investigation of fascists and communists. J. Parnell Thomas, a republican representative from New Jersey also on the committee, targeted the FTP. He claimed the Federal Theater project had, “become a part and parcel of the Communist Party, spreading its radical theories through its stage productions.”

HUAC began hearings on August 12, 1938. Walter S. Steele was the chairman of the American Coalition Committee on National Security. He added nearly 200 pages of spoken testimony and just about 200 more pages of written reports to the record (Houchin 146). The most detailed and comprehensive list consisted of nearly every playwright, director, and producer who had the slightest association with worker theater. People such as Clifford Odtes, Elmer Rice, and Paul Robeson were all added to the list because they were well known for their support of radical theater. In the future, being involved with progressive theater, literature, art, music, film, or dance would be labeled as subversive. On August 19, Hazel Huffman was put on trial. She was a representative of the committee of Relief Status Theatrical Employees of the Federal Theater Project(Houchin 147). J. Parnell Thomas revealed the purpose of the trial was to prove the existence of communistic activities in the FTP. She then presented to the committee a sum of facts, innuendos, and suppositions that created a false image of the FTP as a force of Communist activity. This gradually snowballed and eventually the committee was accepting testimony from anyone who had reports of un-American activities performed by the FTP.



After HUAC eventually breaks down the FTP, it moves steadily on towards Hollywood. HUAC began a series of hearings in order to rid the nation of subversives. Hollywood is home to many personalities that get frequent national media attention. Many of the people placed on trial cooperated nicely, but HUAC made a category for its more “unfriendly” cases (Houchin 157). These “unfriendly” cases eventually boiled down to just ten people. Some of the more familiar ones were Adrian Scott, Lester Cole, and Bertolt Brecht. They were called the “Hollywood ten” and they were all jailed on the grounds of contempt of Congress.

media type="youtube" key="P3MlaFIzCw8" height="385" width="480"

= = = = Throughout the 1950’s HUAC continually attempted to establish that Communists were waging a secret war using the film industry to subvert the United States Government. Tensions ran high between blacklisted Hollywood actors and HUAC member Francis Walter (D-Penn.). Seeing these blacklisted actors and playwrights get work in New York theater agitated Walter. In 1955, the committee finally started to prove a connection between contemporary professional theater and Communism. Walter opened HUAC hearings in New York on August fifteenth. Immediately, equity and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, fearing that union leadership will be accused of protecting subversives, threatened to fire anyone of there members who did not cooperate with the committee. Alliance, Inc., an ad hoc assemblage of aggressive ant-Communists, supported HUAC with enthusiasm during the trials. They were proud that the committee was successfully revealing subversives in the entertainment industry. //The New York Daily Worker// stood against the committee, called the trials a “witch hunt”, discovered several connections between Alliance, Inc. and Senator Joseph McCarthy, and organized demonstrations outside the Congressman’s house(Houchin 166).



The trials weren’t going very well. The committee suddenly engaged in an unclear and muddy strategy. Instead of going after prominent actors, directors, and producers, the committee targeted 23 journeymen actors. All but one of the actors resisted the investigation by accusing the committee of exceeding its jurisdiction by attempting to establish control and conformity. New Yorkers came together and picketed the trials in full force. They intimidated HUAC and for the first time, the committee was frozen with stage fright. HUAC failed to scare actors and never even attempted to take down directors and producers.

HUAC came back with spirit and a sharper bite one year later. They where able to effectively target Arthur Miller and popularize his trial because of his relationship with Marilyn Monroe. The committee successfully filed charges against Miller for contempt of Congress(Houchin 170). Despite this victory for HUAC, in 1956, the committee’s beaming light of justice began to fade. The Supreme Court issued a decision to severely limit the level of power the committee had created for itself. Finally, the Watkins case reached the Supreme Court. John T. Watkins was the vice president of the Farm Equipment Workers Union and was interrogated by HUAC. When he refused to give them the names they asked for, they charged him with contempt, fond him guilty, and him a twelve- month suspended sentence with a fine of $500. The Supreme Court examined the case and decided since HUAC has the right to question witnesses in order to gain information necessary to draft legislation, the desire for specific names from Walter were irrelevant to any legislative process. After Walter won his appeal, Arthor Miller appealed and soon after won. Around the end of the 1950’s the nation as a whole began to lighten up and grow tired of espionage. The relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union started becoming less hostile.

==

In 1960, The House of Un-American Activities Committee made its most drastic and fatal mistake. The Committee caused a riot. Protesters were demonstrating in San Francisco around the hearings and practicing the First Amendment. Suddenly, the police got involved using brutal tactics to demoralize and arrest a lot of the demonstrators. This stand in San Francisco against HUAC’s weakening reach was a stern and necessary step in making this overly suspicious committee substantially unpopular. From then on, HUAC gradually descended further and further into obscurity. Other changes to its name and nature became apparent but eventually, it was no longer intimidating or had the lust for "justice" as it once did.

=Censorship in America 1970's-Present=

In today’s technological society, individuals have more capacity to express themselves than at any other point in history. The information age has ushered in a global consciousness which has never before existed. The most isolated people and ideas are now instantly accessible worldwide with the internet. The only thing limiting most Americans from accessing free expression over the internet is a lack of interest in communicating, rather than a lack of cap ability. This newly found connectedness has led to increasingly fervent discussions covering the spectrum of ideologies and issues. The immediacy of these discussions promotes the spread of ideas, but the collective internet community quickly makes judgments. Productive conjecture is stifled by the need to make a personal impact, immediately, without processing. Internet users learn to “demonize opponents and sanctify supporters” (Houchin 5) of their internet self-expression. In some cases, this leads to more extreme and slanderous arguments. For some, however, the pressure of the internet community is too much to attempt direct expression at all. Television has had much the opposite effect. Modern Americans well trained in sitting in front of the TV “increasingly believe they have a right not to be offended by or confronted with alien or unfamiliar perspectives at live performance, where there can be no channel-changing” (Sellar 2).

In an article released on playbill.com in 1998, writer David Lefkowitz addressed audience concerns with the content in Broadway shows. Most recently released at the time, Broadway shows //Cabaret// and //Judas Kiss//, along with other popular Broadway shows including: //The Lion King, The Beauty Queen of Leenane, Freak,// and //The Life// were being brought into question on the safety for younger audiences as well as clearly addressed content for adults. Companies already provide specific warnings for the audience (on-stage smoking, nudity, bright/flashing lights, etc.) to protect certain audience members and, upon spending a few moments on the playbill website, one can find a basic "rating system", listed as the show advisory, for various shows (depending on the content within the show and how severe the content is, it is either deemed kid friendly, no advisory, or mature). However, the website states that there is currently no standardized rating system for shows. This is, however, not the same for film, who has had an established rating system since the early 1900's. Originally named the Hays Code, by the original president of the company Will Hays, the ruling board was used to either allow or not allow the release of a film, much like the Lord Chamberlain of London with theatre. This was later updated in 1968, when the modernized ratings system came to exist. Since then it has developed to become the ratings system that exists today. The censorship of Theatre through the medium of film is easier to hide. With film, the audience has the ability to know how long they will be sitting and watching the film, what content is in the film exactly, and the appropriate age groups for each film before even knowing the plot of the film. Part of why certain audience members become offended from live performance is they feel they need to know what they are getting into. Without an established rating system for them to gauge what is appropriate and not, audience members. However, because the information is not present and available, the audience member should ask the appropriate question and do the research required to understand the content within a show.

This is, however, not the same for film, which has had an established rating system since the early 1900's. Originally named the Hays Code, by the original president of the company Will Hays, the ruling board was used to either allow or not allow the release of a film, much like the Lord Chamberlain of London with theatre. This was later updated in 1968, when the modernized ratings system came to exist. Since then it has developed to become the ratings system that exists today. The censorship of Theatre through the medium of film is easier to hide. With film, the audience has the ability to know how long they will be sitting and watching the film, what content is in the film exactly, and the appropriate age groups for each film before even knowing the plot of the film. Part of why certain audience members become offended from live performance is they feel they need to know what they are getting into. Without an established rating system for them to gauge what is appropriate and not, audience members. However, because the information is not present and available, the audience member should ask the appropriate question and do the research required to understand the content within a show.

Since the Iraq War began, several British plays have encountered difficulty producing on American stages due to touchy political subject matter (Adjmi 94). //Stuff Happens// by David Hare depicted the years leading up to the Iraq War, and included overtly negative interpretations of George W. Bush and Tony Blair. It faired poorly in New York in 2004 and never reached Broadway until after Bush was re-elected. //My Name is Rachel Corrie// (2006) was also initially refused by American theaters because it sharply criticized Israel's injustices against Palestinians. //Rachel Corrie// was held under intense scrutiny because some believed it was anti-Semitic, and many audiences and producers kept their distance.

//Stuff Happens, 2004//


 * __Sources:__**

"Federal Theatre." <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 32px;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; font-weight: normal;">Answers.com // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.4px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;">. American Theater Guide. Web. 6 May 2010. <[]>.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.75pt;"> Houchin, John H. //Censorship of the American Theatre in the Twentieth Century//. Cambride, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 1-332. Print. Downer, Alan S. //The American Theater Today//. New York, USA: Basic Books, 1967. Print.

Parkes, Adam. //Modernism and the Theater of Censorship.// New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 1996

Adjmi, David. //American Playwrights on Language and the War in Iraq: A Virtual Roundtable//. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;"> //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Theatre // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">. 38.3 (2008): 91-107. Print.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;"> Flynn, Kathryn A., and Richard Polese. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 32px;"> //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">Title The New Deal: A 75th Anniversary Celebration // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;">. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 32px;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">Google Books // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;">. Gibbs Smith, 2008. Web. 6 May 2010. <[]1Kk0C&dq=Federal+Theatre+Project+%22National+Play+Policy+Board%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s>.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Thornbury, Barbara. "Negotiating the Foreign: Language, American Audiences, and Theatre from Japan." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Theatre Journal // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">. 61.2 (2009): 249-269. Print. Sellar, Tom. "Connecting Dots." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Theatre //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt; letter-spacing: 1pt;">. 38.3 (2008): 2-5. Print.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Houchin, John. "Bodily Fear and Recent American Performance Controversies." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Theatre // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">. 38.3 (2008): 5-12. Print.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; letter-spacing: 0.75pt;">Reinelt, Janelle. "The Limits of Censorship." <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.75pt;"> //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Theatre Research International // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; letter-spacing: 0.75pt;">. 32.1 (2006): 3-15. Print.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;"> Flynn, Kathryn A., and Richard Polese. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 32px;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Title The New Deal: A 75th Anniversary Celebration // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 32px;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Google Books // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.4px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;">. Gibbs Smith, 2008. Web. 6 May 2010. <[]1Kk0C&dq=Federal+Theatre+Project+%22National+Play+Policy+Board%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s>.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;"> Lefkowitz, David. "With Adult Content on the Rise Again, Are Broadway Ratings Far Away?." //Playbill// 26 Mar 1998: n. pag. Web. 7 May 2010. []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;"> Pendell, Aaron D. "HUAC and the New Deal: The Federal Theatre Project Controversy." <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 32px;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Suite 101 // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14.4px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;">. 1 Feb. 2008. Web. 6 May 2010. <[]>.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;"> United States of America. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 32px;"> //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">The WPA Federal Theatre Project, 1935-1939 // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 32px;">. The Library of Congress. Web. 6 May 2010. <[]>.

David Croteau and William Hoynes (2006). //The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest//. Pine Forge Press. pp. 169–184

= [|TIMELINE]=
 * [[image:concept_map.jpg]] ||
 * Concept Map ||

__Reflective Blog:__


 * <span style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Arial,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">In the beginning of our project, we had a a very broad idea of covering Censorship in Theatre. We planned on a historical overview/ examination of Censorship in American Theatre, with slight emphasis on key moments in World Theatre (i.e. the Legislation Act of 1737). Upon submission of our proposal we received feedback addressing the size of our project, that it was far too expansive and that we needed to focus in on a specific moment in time. It was suggested to us our focus migrate toward Mcarthyism, HUAC, and The Federal Theatre Project, as it was a key moment in Theatre Censorship in America.

We accepted this idea, and created a more-stable framework for our project, still focusing in on a timeline, but conducting research around specific groups and ideals as well (McCarthyism, HUAC, The Great Depression, etc.) From there we branched out a little and hyperlinked that moment in time to others that came before and after. This allowed us to touch on some of the ideas we had originally wanted to pursue in depth and at least bring them to the attention of the class. We did find a wealth of information about the Federal Theater Project, HUAC, and McCarthyism for our WIKI. Even with everything we did cover there is still so much more information out there. Esentially we centered our project around HUAC which allowed us to tie the Federal Theater Project, the Hollywood 10, Truman, and McCarthyism together.

<span style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Arial,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">With regards to the creation of our instillation, we tried to find moments in the time period that we could show to the class to further enlighten them. This did not work out as well as we had hoped. We instead dramatically restructured our design of our Instillation to focus on the idea of Censorship, as a action of a higher power (our group as the presenters) and an individual (self censorship by the students). To create this, our group searched for clips that gave a sense of unease and the "need" to be censored. Clips from the films American Psycho, Un Chien Andalou, Bamboozled, Happy Tree Friends, a YouTube video (drinkingwithbob), and Mae West. Through these videos we hoped to get the class thinking about whether censorship is ever acceptable and under what circumstances. We originally intended to facilitate a discussion to this effect after we showed the clips, but unfortunately we ran out of time. If anyone would like to comment feel free to do so below. **

//This Wiki was created by Jeff Shockley, Chris Sik, Laura Topham, Miles Duffey, and James Person on May 7, 2010 It was created as a project for TH3172: Engaging Theater History II in the Spring of 2010 at the University of Minnesota, taught by Professor Megan Lewis//