Why give Shakespeare a licence to shock?: Letter
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I must take issue with Polly Toynbee ("Old enough for the bloody Bard", 30 April). Why should Shakespeare be placed in some special category over and above all other playwrights, novelists and scriptwriters whose work finds its way into film? I am quite sure that the British Board of Film Classification takes artistic merit into account and that it was borne in mind in awarding Richard III a 15 certificate. A film featuring graphic violence and explicit oral sex (even off camera) would not normally be anything other than an 18.
A director has a choice as to how he or she will portray the violence and sex that a script demands. They can be as unnecessary in an adaptation of a classic play as of a blockbuster - look at Jarman's Edward II. The name of Shakespeare or Marlowe or Ian McKellen cannot somehow magic away the harmful effects (if any) of on-screen violence.
Polly Toynbee's article does help expose the absurdities of the current system. The fact that a 16-year-old can legally have real sex yet is deemed too young to watch other people pretending to has been pointed out many times. But if we are to have silly rules, there is no reason not to apply them across the board. Is her point not really that it's all right to have the young watching violence in highbrow drama because the only ones who will want to are our own, nice, middle-class children who can be trusted to resist its baleful influence?
Christopher Camp
Amersham, Buckinghamshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments