Another 19th Century Moral Panic: Theater

from the everything-is-evil dept

Every so often, we've written about examples of historical "moral panics" -- those moments when "concerned citizens" (often including the press and/or politicians) freaked out about the moral horrors of... some awful "new" thing. You all know the obvious ones: like comic books and Dungeons & Dragons, but we like to highlight the truly oddball ones that people these days don't realize were ever possibly considered a threat to our moral fabric. Things like chess and the waltz. Oh, and of course the printing press. Evil, evil, evil filthy things that will warp the minds of our young people and make them lazy, violent and degenerate.

A few years ago, we wrote about the delightful skewering of a couple of Thomas Edison inventions in the NY Times in 1878: the phonograph and the "aerophone" (a sort of loudspeaker). Here's a snippet from that report:

THE AEROPHONE.

Something ought to be done to Mr. EDISON, and there is a growing conviction that it had better be done with a hemp rope. Mr. EDISON has invented too many things, and almost without exception they are things of the most deleterious character. He has been addicted to electricity for many years, and it is not very long ago that he became notorious for having discovered a new force, though he has since kept it care- fully concealed, either upon his person or elsewhere. Recently he invented the phone- graph, a machine that catches the lightest whisper of conversation and stores it up, so that at any future time it can be brought out, to the confusion of the original speaker. This machine will eventually destroy all confidence between man and man, and render more dangerous than ever woman's want of confidence in woman. No man can feel sure that wherever he may be there is not a concealed phonograph remorseless gathering up his remarks and ready to reproduce them at some future date. Who will be willing, even in the bosom of his family, to express any but most innocuous and colorless views and what woman when calling on a female friend, and waiting for the latter to make her appearance in the drawing-room, will dare to express her opinion of the wretched taste displayed in the furniture, or the hideous appearance of the family photographs ? In the days of persecution and it was said, though with poetical exaggeration, that the walls had ears.

Thanks to Mr. Edison's perverted ingenuity, this has not only become a literal truth, but every shelf, closet, or floor may now have its concealed phonographic ears. No young man will venture to carry on a private conversation with a young lady, lest he should be filling a secret phonograph with evidence that, in a breach of promise suit, would secure an immediate verdict against him, and our very small-boys will fear to express themselves with childish freedom, lest the phonograph should report them as having used the name of "gosh," or as having to "bust the snoot" of the long-suffering governess. The phonograph was, at the time of its invention, the most terrible example of depraved ingenuity which the world had seen; but Mr. EDISON has since reached a still more conspicuous peak of scientific infamy by inventing the aerophone--an instrument far more devastating in its effects and fraught with the destruction of human society.

Apparently that year -- 1878 -- was a big one for moral panics. The twitter feed of the wonderfully named "Pessimists Archive" recently tweeted out another story from 1878, discussing the addictive horrors of... the theater (dramatic music cue). From the article:

Whole evenings are squandered away. "Night unto night" teacheth not "knowledge," but the reverse. Can it be for the good of any young person to form such a habit? He may think that he can go and stop, but often stopping becomes next to impossible. Whenever the flaming posters are seen a restlessness steals on--a craving is created. Duty becomes drudgery; industry grows tiresome; business a bore. Arrant shiftlessness is the result.

What a horrible world. But apparently the author is just getting warmed up:

Theatre-going has a very dissipating influence on the mind. It takes away the taste for serious thought, solid reading, sensible conversation and spiritual employments. The glitter and glare of the theatre, the attitudes and attire of the performers, the looks and language of the spectators are not favorable to devotion. In enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season, we lose relish for the pleasures forevermore at God's right hand. The most limited experiences amongst us in theatrical courses will attest that nothing is apter to impart a vain and frivolous cast to the mind, to familiarize it with loose images and objects, to rub off the delicate enamel from the conscience, to deteriorate the spirit of devotion, and to destroy that true spirituality which is the Christian's glory and joy. If you wish to have your heart draw away from what is pure, pious, sober, useful, and get in sympathy with what is gay, showy, sentimental, sensual, extravagant; to dwell in a world of romance rather than reality; to look to the things seen and temporal rather than to the things that are unseen and eternal--then by all means rush with one accord into the theatre.

Theatre-going is injurious to morals. One of the causes which contribute to this is the nature of the plays acted. There is a drama which is comparatively pure. But what is called the "legitimate drama" has been tried again and again in circumstances most favorable to its success, and has almost invariably brought bankruptcy to the well-meaning triers of the experiment. Pieces redolent with the odor of brothels and bar-rooms, and with a spice of devilry in them, are the popular ones.

You've been warned.

Filed Under: moral panic, techno panic, theater

Theater Sues State Police For Using State Liquor Laws To Walk All Over The First Amendment

from the creepy-cops-on-creeping-missions dept

In which we learn the Idaho State Police Department isn't so much interested in law enforcement as it is with easy wins.

The operator of the Village Cinema is suing the Idaho State Police for threatening to revoke the theater’s liquor license for serving alcohol while showing the R-rated movie “Fifty Shades of Grey” last February.

Why would that even matter? Because Idaho has a law in place which ties liquor regulation to a bunch of sexual activity, most likely meant to keep booze sales out of strip clubs and/or porno theaters.

Idaho law prohibits places licensed to serve alcohol from showing movies that depict “acts or simulated acts of sexual intercourse” or “any person being touched or fondled” in areas including the breast and buttocks.

Two state police officers bought alcoholic beverages and tickets to "Fifty Shades of Grey." They also took copious amounts of notes, so if you'd like to see the "highlights" of the film without having to suffer through all of it, skip to page 28 of the filing. That's the Idaho State Police's criminal complaint and it contains a detailed description of every sex scene in the film.

The theater is allowed to sell alcohol to attendees, who are then directed to "VIP" areas of the theater, cordoned off from non-drinkers. The only stipulation is that it can't sell alcohol to viewers with tickets to movies where "simulated sexual acts" might be depicted. As the lawsuit points out, the actions of the Idaho State Police -- which threatened to pull its liquor license -- have First Amendment implications.

Idaho Code § 23-614 purports to authorize the Director of the Idaho State Police to punish the owner of a licensed movie theater by suspending or revoking his or her liquor license, or by imposing a fine, based on the content of movies that the owner decides to show.

Idaho Code § 23-614 purports to authorize the Director of the Idaho State Police to suspend or revoke a liquor license, or impose a fine upon the licensee, based on the content of movies that are not legally obscene and that have artistic merit.

Accordingly, Idaho Code § 23-614 is a content-based restriction on speech that is prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to non-obscene movies.

The law itself appears to be unconstitutional. Certainly, the enforcement of it in this fashion is.

The cinema’s lawyer, Jeremy Chou, cites a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said it had been “clearly established that liquor regulations could not be used to impose restrictions on speech that would otherwise be permitted under the First Amendment.”

But that's what's happening here. As the theater points out, plenty of other R-rated films contain depictions of sexual acts. It lists several other Academy Award-nominated films that were screened during the same year -- none of which received the same attention from law enforcement "Fifty Shades of Grey" did.

a. “American Sniper”
b. “The Grand Budapest Hotel”
c. “12 Years a Slave”
d. “Dallas Buyers Club”
e. “The Wolf of Wall Street”
f. “American Hustle”
g. “Les Misérables”
h. “Silver Linings Playbook”

The only exception was "The Wolf of Wall Street." Apparently, law enforcement received a "tip" that alcohol would be served to viewers of the film. Officers informed the theater that serving alcohol would violate the law and the theater made those showings alcohol-free.

The law forces theater owners to either guess what sort of simulated sexual acts will fly under state police radar or simply ban alcohol consumption at a majority of its screenings. Rather than play this broken game of chance with local law enforcement, the theater is seeking to have the law struck down as unconstitutional. It notes that the statute has had a detrimental effect on its income and notes that it makes it far too easy for alcohol-free competitors to send law enforcement out to hassle staff and supervisors by phoning in "tips" any time a new title appears on the marquee.

Beyond all of that, there's the issue of law enforcement resources. Is this the best way to spend taxpayer money? Playing gotcha with a local theater showing MPAA-approved films that are clearly protected expression? Even the police department's criminal complaint states more than one employee informed undercover "detectives" they could not drink alcohol while watching "Fifty Shades." But because one server brought them drinks before the film started, the agency decided to go after the theater's liquor license. It's the sort of effort that puts the "petty" back into "petty criminal offense." It's selective enforcement that does little more than turn the government into everyone's prudish aunt, wagging a finger at booze consumption, sexual activity or any combination of the two.

Filed Under: 50 shades of gray, first amendment, free speech, idaho, idaho state police, liquire license, movies, theater
Companies: village cinema

Spouting Cliches In A Crowded Theater: Steve Wynn's Lawyer Argues For The Dismantling Of Nevada's Anti-SLAPP Law

from the I-HEART-FREE-SPEECH-EXCEPT... dept

Pity the poor lawyer who has to argue on behalf of his employer's desire to curtail the public's free speech rights. Not only are you indirectly arguing on behalf of those who've abused the legal system to stifle speech, but your defensive arsenal is going to be limited to assertions that are ineffectual, blunted, stupid or any combination of the above.

Free speech in the US is (mostly) an absolute. There are very few areas that aren't covered by this Constitutional protection. Defamation is one of those areas. But defamation isn't what so many people apparently believe it is -- i.e., unpleasant things being said about/to them. Many nasty things can be said without rising to the level of defamation, but that's rarely considered before lawsuits get filed. Anti-SLAPP laws -- instituted by far too few states -- ensure that aggrieved parties double-check their allegations before filing a defamation suit.

Nevada has a perfectly fine anti-SLAPP law, but aggrieved parties who'd rather exercise their perceived "right" to use bogus lawsuits as speech suppression devices are looking to carve out everything about the statute that makes it a deterrent. The person chosen to sell this dismantling of legal protections is Mitchell Langberg, outside counsel for Wynn Resorts (and self-proclaimed "expert" on anti-SLAPP laws). Steve Wynn, the company's owner, recently lost a defamation lawsuit in California, thanks to its anti-SLAPP law. Now, he wants the law changed on his home turf. Langberg appeared (by phone) on Nevada Public Radio to argue on behalf of his employer -- as well as on behalf of the Roca Labs and Thomas Cooleys of the nation. When you're sticking up for plaintiffs like these, what do you say? What can you say?

Well, apparently you start by referring to online criticism as "online terrorism" before heading towards even worse assertions.

According to Langberg, the existing law is too broad and offers too much protection to the public. He wants to remove the "clear and convincing evidence" stipulation and replace it with a much lower bar of "some evidence." (He refers to a "70-75% convincing" evidentiary standard, which I don't even know what that means…) He also claims the statute is "intimidating" to businesses, especially the small ones, who feel they must just deal with criticism -- even false criticism -- because they have no way of proving the statements made are false, at least not to the extent that the law demands.

The unspoken summation of these points is this: if potential plaintiffs are finding it hard to prove defamation, chances are it doesn't rise to the level of defamation.

But it gets worse from there. By four minutes into his call, Langberg has referred to Yelp as being a "mechanism" that allows for "online terrorism and character assassination." A few minutes after that and he's reduced to regurgitating anti-speech cliches.

First, there's the qualified support of free speech, which always starts with the person arguing for limiting speech giving his or her First Amendment version of the "some of my best friends are black" argument. ("I'm not racist…")

I support the First Amendment right to free speech. I'm a strong supporter of it. I have represented newspapers in my career against defamation complaints.

I'm also a strong supporter of people's rights to protect their reputation, which is also a First Amendment right -- the right to petition the government when you've been harmed -- by filing lawsuits.

So far, it's mostly acceptable, although it seems clear Langberg is far more concerned with upholding the rights of the latter group, which apparently values "petitioning" over exercising their right to counter critical speech with speech of their own.

Then the love for the First Amendment starts slipping.

There is no First Amendment right to say false things.

Sometimes true, but context matters (satire, etc.). And statements of opinion are often misconstrued by litigants as false statements.

And then, Langberg destroys his own reputation as an expert on anything speech-related.

There is no First Amendment right to scream "fire" in a theater.

Every state's bar association should add a stipulation providing for the banning of any lawyer uttering this phrase from acting as counsel in First Amendment lawsuits. The only people who deploy this phrase are those who can't find anything coherent (or precedential) to support their particular beliefs as to what the First Amendment should cover, rather than what it actually does. Meanwhile, we'll take the opportunity to point to Andy Sellars' excellent new post about all of the many times you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

And, continuing his way to the bottom of the rhetorical reef, chained to the mast of his swiftly-sinking arguments, Langberg then asserts that the right to free speech isn't actually a right.

The First Amendment right is a privilege and a responsibility.

Now that it's simultaneously a right and a privilege, all sorts of crazy things can be asserted.

There are certain limitations. You can't say anything you want, any time you want.

Agreed, but how can anyone not agree with such a robust strawman!

People's reputations are very, very valuable.

Certainly.

So there has to be a balance between people's right to speak freely and their necessary responsibility when they abuse that right.

What? There is a right to speak freely. Those who disagree hold the same right. You can't really "abuse" the right. You either stay within its bounds or you find yourself outside of its protections. Defamation is outside of that boundary. The law Langberg is arguing against does nothing to prevent the pursuit of defamation suits. But Langberg wants a law that allows him and his clients to hold people "responsible" for protected speech. That's why listeners are being subjected to this list of nonexistent exceptions to the First Amendment. Langberg needs the public to believe hurtful, mean statements of opinion are actually unprotected by the Constitution.

When they make false statements of fact, that's an abuse of that right.

No. It isn't. It's something not covered by the First Amendment. It isn't an "abuse" of that right. Someone who steals a gun from someone's house isn't "abusing" his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He's a thief, not someone who acted irresponsibly within the confines of that right. Langberg is trying to paint protected and unprotected speech the same shade of gray.

On top of that, Langberg keeps steering the conversation away from who he's actually arguing for -- Wynn Resorts, a large corporation with a litigious background. He claims it's small businesses that will be hurt the most by the loss of the option to file bogus lawsuits. He continually asserts that the gutted, stripped law will also effectively deter frivolous lawsuits.

But his arguments against the existing anti-SLAPP lawsuit are contradictory. He says the stringent evidentiary standards will result in possibly legitimate cases being tossed out on "day one," with the plaintiffs being saddled with the defendant's legal fees -- something that could put these supposed "small businesses" out of business. Really? If suits can be tossed "before discovery, before a jury trial," as Langberg describes it, then there certainly can't be much in legal fees amassed by the point the court tosses the case.

Beyond that, Langberg overstates the law's current demands in terms of the level of proof needed to follow through on a defamation suit. Langberg portrays it as an almost-insurmountable obstacle of "clear and convincing evidence." As Marc Randazza points out later, the current statute demands no such thing.

Our current statute just requires the plaintiff to prove a "probability of prevailing." Not "most likely." A "probability."

If you can't get over that and you're a licensed attorney, why are you putting your signature on that complaint?

Good question. Langberg would apparently like to be applying his signature to more complaints, but state law sets the bar too high. Langberg isn't quite the First Amendment fan he portrays himself as. He's a fan of his version of the First Amendment. Unfortunately for him, the state's current anti-SLAPP law won't allow him to fully exercise his interpretation of other people's rights.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, fire, free speech, marc randazza, mitchell langberg, nevada, slapp, steve wynn, theater
Companies: wynn resorts

The Many Killers Of The Film Industry: Volume One

from the just-alive-enough-for-the-inevitable-sequel dept

As many of you may recall (and hurriedly navigate away from this page), we took a two-part look (Analog Age and Digital Age) at the many premature obituaries self-published by the recording industry with every new technological development (cassette tapes, mp3 players, the internet). This time around, we'll be recounting the many near-fatalities suffered by the motion picture industry at the hands of various inventions and services.

Prehistory
Before the advent of motion pictures, there was live theater. Performed live by live actors and actresses (but more frequently by actors in wigs), theater enthralled thousands with its over-emoted lines, bellowed by all manner of waiters, maitre'ds and pool boys.

While kings and queens encouraged young playwrights to "sell out," the general public was amused by bawdy puppet shows and other lowbrow works, including the bawdiest of puppet shows: finger puppets. (You know what I'm talking about.) [Ed. - No one knows what you're talking about. Ever.] It had something for everybody and this "something" was usually expositionary songs and minimal sets.

Live theater flourished for centuries, becoming the common man's escape from crushing reality and taking him to places previously only glimpsed in his fevered (and Black Plagued) imagination. Whether it came in the form of Greek dramedy or Shakespearean sitcom, theater was the only game in town.

The lively art expanded and mutated, bringing forth several new artistic forms, both legitimate (opera, musical, kabuki) and illegitimate (off-Broadway, mime, pro wrestling). Others operated at the fringe, trafficking in dubious artistic merit and collecting money no one else would touch (cosplay, Samuel Beckett).

Just when it appeared that nothing would loosen theater's stranglehold on the public's entertainment dollar, something loosened theater's stranglehold on the public's entertainment dollar.

Motion Pictures
Little did Lumiere realize, when he debuted his first "moving picture," that his new invention would revolutionize the entertainment industry, mainly by killing off most of it and homogenizing the rest.

Proponents of the established live entertainment industry noted that the proliferation of "movie" houses would adversely affect its business, what with better entertainment being provided at half the price. They staged protests at major theaters, waving placards bearing slogans like "Motion Pictures Are Killing the Theater Industry" and (once the first concession stand was installed) "They're Also Killing Dinner Theater." This battle was carried to citizens of developing nations via propaganda stating that the "motion picture camera" was capable of "stealing over 30 souls per second."

The first movies were a spectacle of sight and sound, although most of the sound was nothing more than the projector running or a drunken former cabaret piano player banging away lustily at his instrument and most of the spectacle was of, like, a horse running or something.

With the advent of sound, motion pictures were now on par with live theater's use of voices, sound effects and coughing audiences. The sky was the limit! With Al Jolson's game-changing, black-faced "The Jazz Singer," Hollywood knew it had a hit on its hands. An audible hit. With racist overtones.

Soon every Tom Screenwriter, Dick Producer and Harry Director were jamming their movies full of chattering heads, cramming every free space in the film with nonstop, fast-paced talking. Even the dames got into the act, see? No wisecrack was left uncracked. No song was left unsung. No woman ever walked sultrily into a detective's poorly lit office unnarrated.

This addition of sound proved to be a deathblow for the theater. With the live-r of the lively arts effectively bleeding out (except for pockets of resistance both on and off-Broadway), movie-going became America's favorite pastime, supplanting the wireless, baseball and beating Irishmen.

A new breed of heart-throb rose from Hollywood and spread throughout the nation, taking advantage of swooning women and inconclusive paternity tests. The motion picture industry rushed through its Bronze and Silver Ages, riding the crest of fast-paced dialogue and cries of "What a dame!" But no sooner had the triumphant industry kicked up its feet and rested its head on its laurels, then disaster struck.

A disaster called television.

Coming up next:
Volume 2: A Disaster Called Television

Filed Under: film industry, theater

Julie Taymor Blames Twitter For Bad Reviews Of 'Spiderman: Turn Off The Dark'

from the denial-runs-deep dept

If you haven't been following the massive disaster that is the Broadway production of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, you've been missing a massive train wreck in slow motion. Julie Taymor, who was the original person behind the effort was fired in March and has finally spoken out about the scathing reviews the show has received all along (apparently, the only reason to go see the show is in the hopes of catching someone get injured). Apparently it's not her fault, the fault of any of the other writers, actors, musicians, etc. No, no. You see, it's all Twitter's fault. Apparently, with people writing bad reviews on Twitter, the producers overreacted:

Breaking her silence about “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark,” the Broadway musical from which she was fired in March, Julie Taymor tacitly criticized her former producers on Saturday afternoon for relying on audience focus groups and said that the rise of Twitter and blogs for instant theater criticism was damaging to shows...

“It’s very scary if people are going more towards that, to have audiences tell you how to make a show,” she said. “Shakespeare would have been appalled. Forget about it. It would be impossible to have these works come out because there’s always something that people don’t like.”

[...]

“Twitter and Facebook and blogging just trump you,” Ms. Taymor said during a moderated discussion at the annual meeting of the Theater Communications Group, an umbrella organization of regional and nonprofit theaters. “It’s very hard to create. It’s incredibly difficult to be under a shot glass and a microscope like that.”

Well, well. It turns out that not only is Taymor not very good at judging the quality of this particular play, but she seems rather ignorant on history as well. Clive Thompson reminds us that the audience in Shakespeare time didn't quietly type their opinion of the plays they were seeing into the internet, they spoke up about it immediately:

Shakespeare's audience was far more boisterous than are patrons of the theatre today. They were loud and hot-tempered and as interested in the happenings off stage as on. One of Shakespeare's contemporaries noted that "you will see such heaving and shoving, such itching and shouldering to sit by the women, such care for their garments that they be not trod on . . . such toying, such smiling, such winking, such manning them home ... that it is a right comedy to mark their behaviour" (Stephen Gosson, The School of Abuse, 1579). The nasty hecklers and gangs of riffraff would come from seedy parts in and around London like Tower-hill and Limehouse and Shakespeare made sure to point them out:

These are the youths that thunder at a playhouse,
and fight for bitten apples; that no audience, but
the Tribulation of Tower-hill, or the Limbs of
Limehouse, their dear brothers, are able to endure.
(Henry VIII, 5.4.65-8)

On top of that, Thompson also points out that even audiences for plays in New York City haven't always been so nice, pointing to the famed Astor Place riots that happened as anti-England sentiment in New York City at the time caused audience members to start "loudly voicing their disapproval with booing and hissing" during Shakespeare's plays, leading to the eventual riot:

The most brutal of these eruptions occurred as a result of two rival actors, each of whom was starring in a competing production of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Celebrated American actor Edwin Forrest, who patriotically extolled the virtues of the American Dream of self-actualization, employed a performing style that was passionate and visceral. English actor William Charles Macready, on the other hand, had an elitist attitude, a poised stature, and an approach to acting that was more subtle and cerebral. When Macready and Forrest both presented the play on May 7, audience members booed and heckled Macready, then started throwing objects at the stage, and the performance had to stop with almost half of the play unperformed. Macready was ready to go back to England; but as Lawrence W. Levine notes, a letter from individuals including authors Herman Melville and Washington Irving—insisting that Americans would be civilized enough to allow him to perform—convinced him to stay. The result was disastrous: although Macready was able to make it through the full performance at the Astor Place Opera House on May 10, a crowd of working-class men attacked the theatre with the intention of causing severe damage. The rioters backed down only after militia opened fire into the crowd, killing at least 22 and as many as 31 people. As Nigel Cliff notes in The Shakespeare Riots, “Never in the nation’s history had soldiers fired volley after volley at point-blank range into a civilian crowd.” And this infamous event is a disturbing milestone in the lore of the Macbeth curse. Perhaps it is only fitting that the riot resulted from a play that mentions the word "blood" and its variants a whopping 41 times.

It seems like having some fans bitch about a crappy stage production that seemed like a bad idea from the very beginning seems rather tame in comparison, Julie.

Filed Under: julie taymor, reviews, shakespeare, spiderman, theater
Companies: twitter

Red Cross Says Theater Nurse Costume Violates The Geneva Conventions

from the this-is-torture dept

Joe Publius alerts us to a story that I had to check multiple times to make sure wasn't satire. Apparently the British Red Cross got upset that nurse the costume used in a small theater production of a pantomime of Robin Hood (don't ask) included the standard red cross on the hat and the tunic as seen below: According to the Red Cross, this was an unauthorized use of the Red Cross emblem, which represented a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

"We have no desire to be the villains of the pantomime or to appear heavy handed, but we do have a very serious obligation to protect the Red Cross emblem.

"The emblem is a special sign of neutrality and protection recognised by all sides during armed conflicts.

"Misuse of that emblem - even when done in an innocent and light-hearted manner - has to be addressed. Repeated and widespread misuse of the Red Cross emblem could dilute its neutrality and its ability to protect."

I don't buy that at all. It's not like someone was going to get confused by this use in a pantomime production of Robin Hood. The idea that this dilutes the legitimate symbol seems like a huge stretch. Either way, the production swapped the red cross out for green crosses, as if that really makes any difference.

Filed Under: geneva conventions, red cross, robin hood, theater
Companies: red cross