L is for Language

Posted by Bruce Miller
I love our audience. I think you folks are smart, adventurous and appreciative. I admire your receptive imaginations and expansive hearts.

I know many of you are sensitive to language. I’m thankful for that. Language is a key ingredient in theatre—perhaps the key ingredient. Sensitivity to it is a very good thing.

Boleros for the Disenchanted has some of the most beautiful, evocative and distinctive language you’ll hear from a contemporary playwright. Like Sarah Ruhl, the playwright who gave us The Clean House, Jose Rivera can turn a phrase in a way that sends your spirit soaring.

Talk about sensitivity to language. Jose Rivera is SENSITIVE to language. I like to think I am as well.

I also know that sensitive people are the easiest to offend. This is because our feelings are readily accessible. We wouldn’t have it any other way even if we could. In many ways, that too is a very good thing.

A great playwright—and I believe Rivera is a great playwright—paints with language chosen to evoke strong feelings from the hearer. Particular words and phrases are chosen to stimulate a comic or dramatic effect. Characters speak from their authentic places; they live in real worlds. When they speak, they use real words.

They sometimes use real words that we ourselves may not use. They are not us.

As we all know, real worlds and real words can delight, injure, inspire and offend us in equal measure.

On occasion, I hear from audience members who are offended by the language they hear on our stage. "Why didn’t you warn us?", they ask. This is a reasonable question. I’ll try to provide a reasonable response.

I believe that 85% to 95% of the people who attend our plays are not offended by the language they hear on our stage. Or they are appropriately offended, I should say.

When they hear vulgar, coarse or profane language, they sometimes gasp. They may even be stunned. Nonetheless, they appreciate the way in which the playwright's carefully chosen words and phrases illuminate the character or the situation and draw them into the play. They enjoy experiencing a world that is not their own. They want to ride the emotional roller coaster with the characters, and language helps them do so.

For maybe 10% of you, offensive language jars you out of the world of the play. You hear a word or phrase that you don’t want to hear, a word or phrase that you would never use yourself, a word or phrase that you were always taught should not be spoken in polite society, and the moment you hear it, you are so shaken that you’re no longer taking a journey with the actors. You find yourself sitting self-consciously in a theatre, feeling embarrassed and even a little angry, concerned solely with what just happened in your world, not the world of the play.

I know this; I respect this. I don't like it. I apologize for it.

The theatre artists involved in each production share the job of drawing the audience into the characters’ world. When we suddenly send you reeling into a personal reaction happening in real time, we fail to transport you. We fail at our job.

When faced with this failure—not a failure of intent, but a failure of effect—I struggle deciding what to do.

Here’s what I’ve decided. We will continue to produce plays with strong language—who wants to produce plays with weak language? When a play contains language that approximately 10% of our audience may find personally offensive, I’ll ask our marketing department to place an L in the lower left hand corner of our promotional materials for that play.

L is for language. S is for sexual activity that is seen, not just discussed. N is for nudity. V is for violence.

These letters are not “ratings.” Every play I select to present to you is rated W for Wonderful. If I don’t think the play is Wonderful, then we’re not going to produce it.

These letters are not “warnings.” I would never select any play that I felt required me to warn audience members not to come.

These letters are “advisories.” Understated advisories to be sure. Understated because I don’t want to misrepresent the content of the play and advise anyone that the content is improper or ill conceived. I believe in and stand in support of every play we produce.

These understated advisories are there to prepare the 10% or so of you who find that offensive language takes you out of the play. If you see such an advisory, you can call our box office or check our website and we will provide you with a very detailed description of the content that is being referenced. If you choose not to attend a play after seeing such an "advisory," we will, of course, be happy to refund your ticket price.

This may not all be in place immediately. It will all be in place soon.

Regarding Boleros, the L will soon be appearing in our ads. Boleros is a beautiful, spirit-lifting, heart-warming play. It is filled with wonderful characters and magnificent language. The script includes a few words and phrases that may take some of you out of the play. I encourage each of you to see it.

As always, I welcome and ask for your thoughts. Thanks for your support of Barksdale Theatre.

--Bruce Miller

Standin' By My Girl

Posted by Bruce Miller
No matter what show Theatre IV chooses to produce, some parents and teachers are going to be offended. I don’t mean one or two. I mean 25 to 50. Every year, a growing number of those who are offended insist that their personal viewpoint is “moral” and that those with differing viewpoints are “immoral.” With the assurance of those who know they are right, they insist that their perspective is the only one that matters.

I’ve been in my job 34 years. It didn’t used to be this way. Adults used to be more open-minded and accepting of diversity. They viewed each show as a whole. If they loved nine tenths of it, they focused on that and went away happy. They never called me and demanded their money back because of the tenth they didn’t like.

They never were astonished that the public was not forewarned about this “objectionable” content or that. They never had the arrogance to demand that all future productions be rewritten to suit their personal perspectives. “And I know it’s against the law to rewrite,” I was told yesterday by a teacher, “but it’s time Judo-Christians (sic) took a stand and stood up for what’s right.”

In the old days, if adults objected to one particular aspect of a show, they seized the opportunity to talk with the children in their care about their personal beliefs and preferences. They made teachable moments out of content they considered to be non-desirable. They didn’t assume or expect the world to be in sync with each of their personal feelings and beliefs. They accepted that it was their responsibility to discuss issues with children.

They chose not to try to “protect” their children from any and all “objectionable” content. Instead, they felt good knowing they were with their child, and talking with their child, as the child encountered such content in the world.

From 1975 until about 1995, I rarely if ever heard complaints from parents about content and language. And the shows we did then were no different from the shows we do now.

In the mid- to late-90s, we entered into the current “just say ‘no’,” “I’m mad as heck and I’m not going to take it anymore,” “zero tolerance” period. Nowadays, most of the angry letters, emails, phone calls etc I receive come from parents and teachers in their 20s, 30s and maybe early 40s.

As a general rule, adults born before 1970 remain open-minded and eager to expose children to the world. But there’s a vocal, frequently angry minority of younger adults born after 1970 who seem to believe and insist that the entire world should fall in line with their personal perspective. They don’t care what anyone else believes. They don’t want to discuss values with children; they want to force their values on the world before allowing their child to enter into it.

They object to Winnie the Pooh because A. A. Milne “doesn’t make it clear enough that Mr. and Mrs. Rabbit are married.” They object to Treasure Island because “no one warned us that there would be all those pirates and rum.” They object to Hansel and Gretel, Rumpelstiltskin, Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, Sideways Stories from Wayside School and The Wizard of Oz because they “celebrate satanic forces.” They object to The Best Christmas Pageant Ever because the minister uses the word “sexy” when describing the subject matter preferred by some of the older Herdman children. "How am I supposed to explain ‘sexy’ to my eight year old?!” one mother asked me.

They object to the euphemisms that the father in A Christmas Story uses as a substitute for vulgar language. They are livid when Peter Pan (written in 1904) uses the word “ass” even though he's clearly referring to a jackass or donkey. And they are beside themselves with righteous rage when in Annie (written in 1977) Daddy Warbucks and President Roosevelt's cabinet members use the words “damn” and “hell” a handful of times when discussing the Great Depression.

The most recent objection I received, and this from a student who was writing with her class under the direction of an offended teacher, mentioned the pain caused by Annie herself singing that she liked to imagine her parents collecting things “like ashtrays and art.” "Why," I was asked, "did you have to use the word ashtray?"

I guess I’m old fashioned. I believe it would be unwise for me or anyone to rewrite classics like Annie and Peter Pan to be in step with a vocal minority. I think it’s regrettable that teachers encourage children to write to nonprofit leaders and ask them to knowingly break the law. I think in an age when Christian conservative icons like President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney openly used words far more vulgar than “damn” and “hell” in the Oval Office and on the floor of the U. S. Congress, it’s actually helpful to see Annie and afterwards talk with children about language and the pressures placed on adults in power.

Regarding adults in Annie using the words “damn” and “hell” a dozen times (I think it's 10 "damns" and two "hells"): “It is immoral,” I’m told, “for you to expose my children to this terrible behavior.” Not a single one of these adults has mentioned any discomfort with their children being exposed to the behavior of the character Rooster, who alludes to the fact that he’s going to take Annie away and dispatch her with a knife. That behavior, apparently, fails to meet the “terrible” threshold of saying “damn” and “hell.”

Anyway, I’m whining. We try our hardest to offer positive, uplifting experiences to children, families and schools. It depresses me that an increasing number of adults would prefer to see us not do Annie at all than see us abide by the law and present Annie, an American classic, the way it was written.

--Bruce Miller

Final Thoughts on the Word "Ass"

Posted by Bruce Miller
As I and others have mentioned previously on this blog, the word "ass" and its appearance in Peter Pan seem to be causing increasing consternation these days. On Monday of this week I received what I hope will be my last letter from a disappointed patron. I responded (it is my practice to respond to every communication) with this iteration of the letter I wrote to address the controversy.

It's about the 50th response, so I might as well share it with the world.

"Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for your support of Theatre IV, for purchasing tickets to Peter Pan, and for writing to express your concern. I appreciate your bringing your grandson to our shows. We work very hard on behalf of the children, families and schools of Central Virginia. I hope you and your grandson have enjoyed our work and will continue to attend. We want and need you both in the Theatre IV family.

I value and respect your concern, and appreciate your sharing it with me. In your letter, you state that you are “very disappointed” in Theatre IV and in me because the word “ass” was spoken during Peter Pan. It was not my intention to disappoint or offend you and your family. I apologize for having done so. I offer the following to explain my thinking. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m offering another point of view.

You are correct in noting that the word “ass” occurred in our production of Peter Pan two times. I didn’t cut the word for three reasons.

1. The word “ass” is not inherently vulgar. I do not deny that some people, perhaps many people, hear it and use it in a vulgar way. But children, throughout their lifetimes, will hear it also in its correct usage. I believe I would be betraying the trust of countless parents and educators if I were to treat a generally acceptable word as vulgar only because it is sometimes used in a vulgar manner.

2. It’s inappropriate and ill advised for me to rewrite the words of great writers. Again, I believe I would be betraying the trust of parents and educators if I were to presume to do so. Perceptions of some words do change over time. I believe this makes it all the more important to preserve the words of the great writers, so that students of all ages can know and understand the true meanings of words that are going through periods of transition.

3. It is illegal for me to rewrite or omit this word, or any other word, from the play. Had I done so, the good people at Music Theatre International who represent the estate of J. M. Barrie would be legally entitled to shut down our production of Peter Pan, and sue Theatre IV for breach of contract.

In support of the above three points, I offer the following.

I don’t mean to overstate the obvious, but it’s good to remember that the word “ass” is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “any of several hardy gregarious African or Asian perissodactyl mammals (genus Equus) smaller than the horse and having long ears; especially an African mammal (East asinus) that is the ancestor of the donkey.” That is the first and only proper definition of the word. All subsequent definitions are preceded by the phrase “sometimes vulgar.”

Being a man of great character and conscience, J. M. Barrie was not writing a vulgarity in 1904 when he created Peter Pan. When Peter translates Tinkerbell to Wendy, after Tinkerbell has called Wendy “a silly ass,” both Peter and Tinkerbell were referring to the donkey-like animal.

The same can be said for the authors of the Bible. The word “ass” appears in the King James translation of the Bible as follows:

GENESIS 22:3, GENESIS 22:5, GENESIS 42:27, GENESIS 44:13, GENESIS 49:11, GENESIS 49:14, EXODUS 4:20, EXODUS 13:13, EXODUS 20:17, EXODUS 21:33, EXODUS 22:4, EXODUS 22:9, EXODUS 22:10, EXODUS 23:4, EXODUS 23:5, EXODUS 23:12, EXODUS 34:20, NUMBERS 16:15, NUMBERS 22:21, NUMBERS 22:22, NUMBERS 22:23, NUMBERS 22:23, NUMBERS 22:23, NUMBERS 22:25, NUMBERS 22:27, NUMBERS 22:27, NUMBERS 22:28, NUMBERS 22:29, NUMBERS 22:30, NUMBERS 22:30, NUMBERS 22:32, DEUTERONOMY 5:21, DEUTERONOMY 22:3, DEUTERONOMY 22:4, DEUTERONOMY 22:10, DEUTERONOMY 28:31, JOSHUA 6:21, JOSHUA 15:18, JUDGES 1:14, JUDGES 6:4, JUDGES 10:4, JUDGES 12:14, JUDGES 15:15, JUDGES 15:16, JUDGES 15:16, JUDGES 19:28, 1 SAMUEL 12:3, 1 SAMUEL 15:3, 1 SAMUEL 16:20, 1 SAMUEL 25:20, 1 SAMUEL 25:23, 1 SAMUEL 25:42, 2 SAMUEL 17:23, 2 SAMUEL 19:26, 1 KINGS 2:40, 1 KINGS 13:13, 1 KINGS 13:13, 1 KINGS 13:23, 1 KINGS 13:24, 1 KINGS 13:27, 1 KINGS 13:28, 1 KINGS 13:28, 1 KINGS 13:29, 2 KINGS 4:24, JOB 6:5, JOB 24:3, JOB 39:5, JOB 39:5, PROVERBS 26:3, ISAIAH 1:3, ISAIAH 32:20, JEREMIAH 2:24, JEREMIAH 22:19, HOSEA 8:9, ZECHARIAH 9:9, ZECHARIAH 9:9, ZECHARIAH 14:15, MATTHEW 21:2, MATTHEW 21:5, MATTHEW 21:5, MATTHEW 21:7, LUKE 13:15, LUKE 14:5, JOHN 12:14, JOHN 12:15, and 2 PETER 2:16.

None of these Biblical references are meant to be vulgar. As children encounter the word “ass” in the Bible, in classic literature, or in timeless Christmas carols like The Little Drummer Boy and Good Christian Men, Rejoice, I believe it is important for them to know that the word has a proper usage as well as a vulgar one.

Regarding legal issues, I offer this explanation. U. S. Copyright Law and all international copyright laws require theatres to produce plays exactly as written. We (and every other theatre and publisher) have no legal right to rewrite the great (as in the case of Peter Pan) or the not-so-great works of stage literature. When I signed our contract to produce the musical Peter Pan, I signed a legally binding document and promised that Theatre IV would “not alter any line of dialogue or omit any words or phrases” from the script as written by the author.

Copyright laws are written in this way to ensure that producers will respect the language that was purposefully selected by the author. It is illegal for producers to amend the language as they see fit. Every professional production of Peter Pan, including the Mary Martin productions broadcast nationally on television in the 1950s, used the lines as written.

When we first produced Peter Pan in the 1990s, we received only one or two comments about the word “ass.” When we produced it again just after the turn of this century, we received maybe ten comments. Today, in 2008, we probably received 50 or more complaints.

The “zero tolerance” language police are in full force today, and I respect their (and your) motivations. None of us like for children to be exposed to vulgar language. The tricky part with the word “ass” is that it is not a vulgar word. Are we therefore well advised to join with those who would like to turn it into one? Or should we continue to respect the word as it has been properly used in classic literature, in beloved Christmas carols, and throughout the Bible?

When I took my children to Peter Pan in the ‘90s, it presented a wonderful teachable moment. My wife and I had the chance to talk with our son and daughter about the word “ass,” about what it meant when we heard it spoken from the pulpit or the stage or sung by Julie Andrews on our Christmas albums. We also had the chance to talk about how some words can mean one thing to people who use them correctly, and something else entirely to people who use the words incorrectly. Unless that is explained to them, how are children to understand?

Again, I thank you for writing. I honestly mean it when I say that I value and respect your opinion. I take my responsibilities seriously, and try hard to contribute positively to the cultural life of our community. It’s not always easy.

Thanks for your consideration of my thoughts, and for your support of Theatre IV.

Sincerely,

Bruce Miller
Artistic Director"

Language - Part II: Copyright ... the Religious Right ... It's Your Right to be Offended ... etc

Posted by Bruce Miller
Warning: To add clarity to this discussion of "offensive language," a few words are used that you may find "offensive." Continue at your own risk. Thanks.

Under U. S. copyright law, it’s illegal for any theatre to rewrite or edit a single word in any play published after 1923 without first receiving written permission from the author or his/her agents. It’s not only a legal issue; it’s an ethical issue. If you’re going to tell people that you’re producing a play written by, say, Tennessee Williams, then the only honest thing to do is present the play as Williams wrote it. Williams no doubt chose his words carefully and with purpose, and it’s unethical to “sanitize” his language and then market the play as the authentic original. That’s why Barksdale, along with every other professional theatre worth its salt, presents plays as they were originally written.

Our 2004 production of The Man Who Came to Dinner starred Jill Bari Steinberg and Joseph Pabst (pictured to the right), and was written by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart in 1939. During the run I received several letters from audience members complaining that I’d “added” profanity to the play. Of course I hadn’t. The few mildly profane words that were spoken from our stage all came from the minds and pens of those beloved, iconic American playwrights, Kaufman and Hart (pictured below and to the left). In the popular culture of 1939, their language caused nary a ripple. In today’s cultural climate, heavily influenced by the rise of the religious right, these same words prompted a small parade of conservative audience members to march to the exits in a huff.

When I assured the complainers that I had not added profanity to this cherished American script, they told me I was lying. They had “seen the movie,” they said (and perhaps a couple high school or community productions), and “those words were not spoken." What they may have failed to consider is that the film codes of the ‘40s were more Puritanical than the Broadway codes, and so Kaufman and Hart apparently chose to cut a few words from the movie version while keeping the original stage version in tact. The high school and community producers who had removed the words on their own accord most likely did so illegally.

Yes, I know this happens all the time and I'm making no judgements about high school and community theatres. They face their own challenges and I applaud their work. I also believe that professional theatres are held to a different standard.

As we engage in Part II of this discussion about “offensive language,” I’m using “profanity” as the catch-all word. At its root, “profane” means “worldly,” as in the opposite of “spiritual.” Profane language—profanity—can be sub-divided into four categories:
· blasphemy (taking the name of a diety in vain),
· obscenity ("crude" words for sex acts or private body parts),
· scatology (having a fascination with excrement or urine), and
· cursing (“damn you,” “go to hell” etc. and their abreviations and euphemisms).
There are other offensive words having to do with race, but we’re going to discuss race in a separate blog entry. Slurs and profanity are not really the same thing.

By far the most objections I hear relate to blasphemy and stem from offense to religious principles. (If you like, you can read my thoughts on “offensive language” and Christian faith in Language – Part I: From Potter to Shakespeare to Jesus and Beyond, Jan 12, 2008.)

Sometimes it almost seems ludicrous. We produced The Lark in 2006, written by Jean Anouilh and adapted by Lillian Hellman, and the central character of the play was Joan of Arc (pictured to the left in a painting by Dante Gabriel Rossetti). This is, of course, the same Joan who was at first persecuted and later sainted by the Catholic Church. A couple audience members were offended when Joan cried out to God in her moments of greatest spiritual despair. “Why did you have to make Joan of Arc use the Lord’s name in vain?” one chastiser wrote. IN VAIN!!?? What on earth led any audience member to think that Joan’s cry to God was in vain?

When we produced The 1940's Radio Hour in 2002, one congregant really let me have it over the telephone for performing “Satanic music.” “That old black magic has me in its spell,” she eerily chanted into the phone. “That old black magic that you weave so well. Those icy fingers up and down my spine…” Finally the images became too much for her to continue.

Sometimes religious concerns cross over into moral situations. When we produced Winnie the Pooh at Theatre IV, a very sweet grandmother called me to ask if we couldn’t rewrite A. A. Milne to make it clearer that Mr. and Mrs. Rabbit were married. “I mean they keep talking about having all those babies, and you never really make it crystal clear that they’re married.” When I reminded her that Mr. and Mrs. Rabbit were, in fact, rabbits, and that rabbits didn’t get married, even in the days of A. A. Milne, she simply said, “Oh, you know what I mean.”

I did know what she meant. But still...

Another animal that never ceases to rile the religious right at Theatre IV is the ass referred to in Peter Pan—come see it this spring; my mailbox is ready and waiting. When Tinkerbell becomes frustrated with Peter’s attentions to Wendy, she calls Wendy “a silly ass.” Of course, Tinkerbell “speaks” only through the tinkling piano (or is it a flute?) that represents her fairy voice. Peter giggles when Tink calls Wendy the name. When Wendy inquires as to what funny thing Tinkerbell just said, Peter translates, and you can often hear the gasps.

I’m frequently told that language is so much more coarse in popular culture now than it used to be—and in many ways that’s true. But what’s also true is that there’s a growing group that becomes offended far more easily than people used to. When Mary Martin (pictured to the left) said “a silly ass” on the national airwaves in 1954's TV version of Peter Pan, no one batted an eye. Everybody accepted the word “ass” as another word for donkey. Today, some people hear “ass” and all they can think of is someone’s buttocks.

So is the problem with the word or the person hearing the word?

Thousands of audience members have loved our current production of Moonlight and Magnolias (pictured to the right, starring Dave Bridgewater, Scott Wichmann and Joe Pabst). And 20 or 40 audience members have been really offended by the language. A group of well-meaning folks from Good Samaritan Ministries called and asked for comps to one of our shows. They do amazing rehabilitation work with indigent men dealing with addiction in Richmond's South Side, and we were eager to help them out. We gave them comp tickets to the show of their choice, and they selected Moonlight.

The woman who set up the group called the box office to double-check the language. “No, the language isn’t bad,” our box office representative assured her. “They say the d-word once…I’m a little embarrassed to say it over the phone…but other than that, the language is fine.”

The woman thought, well, they only say “damn” once, and I think we can handle that, so we’ll accept the 15 free tickets and have a lovely evening out. What she didn’t know—what we didn’t make clear—is that “the d-word” was not “damn” but “dick,” as in Selznick’s graphic line about Hollywood pandering, “We suck the collective dicks" of our audience.

In fact, the actors in Moonlight say “damn”—and the far more controversial “God damn”—several times long before they get to the “collective dicks.” Our box office representative never even noticed that language when he saw the show. It simply rolled by him without calling any attention to itself. I'm not faulting him for this. He is pure of heart and more power to him. I'm just telling the story the way it happened.

When our urban missionaries arrived at the theatre and took their seats, they lasted only about 10 minutes before they couldn’t take it anymore. They stood up en masse and beat a hasty retreat to the lobby. Others in the audience looked at them and hadn’t a clue as to what was the problem. I called them on the following Monday, after hearing about their departure, and learned the whole story.

One of the challenges we face is finding the correct way to communicate with our audience about the language they can expect in any particular production. It is never our intention to surprise or offend. It is also not our intention to bowdlerize the language of the great playwrights to meet the particularly sensibilities of our times.

Coming soon – Language Part III: a history of censorship

--Bruce Miller

Language - Part I: From Potter to Shakespeare to Jesus and Beyond

Posted by Bruce Miller
Writing about “offensive language” has the potential to be both dangerous and constructive. I vote for the latter. Some of you are more liberal than I, and may find this post to be prissy and/or quaint. Some of you are more conservative, and may be upset by what you’re likely to view as rationalization or misrepresentation. To one and all, I say this: I’ve written this carefully, intending all due respect to others who hold opinions different from mine. Every word was selected thoughtfully and is meant to be sincere. I’m not trying to rationalize, criticize, or look down upon anyone else’s beliefs. I hope not to have the last word, and welcome your comments.

Following that preamble, I will now begin to ramble.

To many if not most theatre artists, the subject of “offensive language” is simple. We don’t believe there is such a thing. No word, we believe, can be inherently offensive. Language is our medium. Find me the painter who is offended by a particular color. We celebrate and revere language, in all its variety, beauty, coarseness and power.

We are like Harry Potter. Let the rest of the wizarding community cower in the Dark Lord’s shadow, referring to him euphemistically as “you know who” or “he who must not be named.” We refuse to give darkness that power. We shout the name “Voldemort” out loud. And just like Harry, we sometimes get in trouble for it.

We may not believe that language is inherently offensive, but, unless we are fools, we are well aware that there are audience members who are offended by certain language. If we are pure artists—I am not one but I ask God to bless those who are—we relish this knowledge. Offend is a very useful instrument in our tool box, laying right there alongside amuse, titillate, anger, sadden, inspire, thrill, scare, energize and delight. Our job is to connect with audience members using every tool at our disposal. Why on earth would we be afraid to pick up offend? When an awl is called for, a carpenter reaches for his awl.

In Act III, Scene 2, Shakespeare famously has Hamlet deliver this advice to the players: “Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature: for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.”

In other words, the life we create on stage should accurately reflect the life we find in our world. The language featured in an on-stage scene reflecting the life of a ladies luncheon should sound one way; the language found in a theatrical portrayal of a fight in a soldier’s barracks should sound another. Were we to apply a filter that made the language in the barracks sound just the same as the language in the church parlor, we would be holding the mirror up not to nature, but to priggishness.

But let’s step back into that church parlor for a while. I love the peace, comfort and fellowship I find in my church’s parlor. I am a Christian—a quiet, introspective, “religious left” Presbyterian—a Christian nonetheless. I’m slightly ashamed to say that I’m not confident enough in my faith—my pride would prefer me to say not arrogant enough regarding my confidence—to proselytize. So I’m speaking personally, for whatever that’s worth.

Here’s what my Bible tells me about language:

from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, chapters 4 and 5 – “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. … Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving;”

from Paul and Timothy’s letter to the Colossians, chapter 3 – “But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips;”

from James’ letter to the twelve tribes, chapter 3 – “Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be;” and

from the second letter of Simon Peter, chapter 2 – “For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.”

Also, of course, there’s the Ten Commandments, but most Biblical scholars agree that “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God” refers more to false oaths than to profanity.

I accept all of these Biblical lessons and value their guidance as it relates to the way in which I personally speak to those around me. When I speak to others, I try mightily (not always successfully) to speak graciously and not to offend. But I do not believe these lessons relate directly to my calling as a theatre artist or as artistic director of Barksdale Theatre. My responsibilities in that realm, I believe, are to create theatrical productions that impact our community positively. And often the best way to have a positive impact is to honestly examine human behavior.

Consider the great variety of human behavior, and language, detailed in the Bible itself. As only one of scores of examples, no lesser light than the Apostle Paul uses scatalogical profanity when he’s trying to make a point. In Philippians 3: 7 through 9, Paul recounts and disavows his former prosperous life as a Pharisee (more about them momentarily).

“But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.”

Please note in the above quote that itilicized word, rubbish. The word Paul actually wrote is skubala, which in Greek was the lowest, most coarse word for animal excrement, a word that appears frequently in the ancient graffiti found in archeological digs, a word more accurately translated as shit. All the profit and respect I gained as a righteous Pharisee, Paul states, doesn’t mean shit compared to the peace and strength I find in my Christian faith.

One of my favorite readings in the New Testament is found in Mark 7: 1-20. I recommend it to you. It is a complex passage which is near and dear to my heart. I will now, humbly, summarize it, inadequately I’m sure.

Jesus and his disciples (pictured in the Ottonian vellum panel to the right) were carrying out their mission of healing the sick and ministering to the poor. The Pharisees (one of the most influential, zealous and traditional religious parties operating during and after Jesus’s lifetime—see the reference to Paul above) saw the disciples eating with unwashed hands, in noncompliance with Jewish tradition. “So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, ‘Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with unclean hands?’”

Jesus replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

Jesus then gives specific examples of how religious fundamentalists can, by demanding strict compliance with established religious laws and traditions, inadvertently “nullify the word of God.” He adds, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ … For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’”

A contemporary corollary comes from a Baptist preacher whom I admire, although I don’t always agree with him. Tony Campolo (pictured to the left) began his famous sermon entitled The Positive Prophet with this: “I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

Whatever language is said from our stage, I'm confident that the purpose that comes from our hearts is free of “evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and ...” All right, I confess to “folly.” The language on stage will not always be in compliance with religious law and tradition, because I believe that such compliance would cause us to “let go of the commands of God.” Here’s what I believe: whatever “uncleanliness” is perceived comes from the heart of the hearer, not from the heartfelt intentions of our humble, respectful company of fools.

Coming soon, Language – Part II (maybe even III), in which we shall discuss copyright law, the history of censorship, specific complaints we’ve received at Barksdale and Theatre IV, and other funny theatre stories.

--Bruce Miller