Comedians are used to being censored. Sometimes, that’s fair enough. On Monday, I watched Stephen Fry explain to an audience at a new Radio 4 panel show that his mother used to describe muttonchops (the large facial hair, rather than the unlikely foodstuff) as “bugger’s grips”. As he was saying it, he admitted that he was simply telling the live audience for their amusement and his – he knew there was no way that Radio 4 would be able to broadcast a phrase like that at 11.30am, when the programme will go out.
Most comedians I know are stoic in the face of this kind of “appropriate-ness” censorship – we’re happy enough to write and perform jokes that are relatively risqué for one audience, and relatively bland for another. Radio 4 isn’t without humour on this issue, either: they did after all once broadcast Fry’s peerless definition of the word “countryside” (the act of killing Piers Morgan, according to Fry: a joke of truly beautiful construction) in I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue, which goes out at 6.30pm.
But if there’s one thing that gets all broadcasters edgy, it is the mention of god or gods in jokes. So I suppose it should come as no surprise to find that Tim Minchin has found himself on the receiving end of this brand of religious or quasi-religious censorship. On the Jonathan Ross Show for ITV this week, he sang a sweet, funny song about how Jesus did magic tricks like Derren Brown and was a thoughtful Jew like Woody Allen.
It’s not his best song, by his own admission. But you would strain to find it offensive, I think, unless you have that disposition anyway (in which case, watching Jonathan Ross seems calculated to give you early heart failure). Comic book nerds might be traumatised by his suggestion that “With great power comes great responsibility” is a phrase belonging to Superman, rather than Spiderman. But, in my experience, even a vexed comic book nerd does not write in to ITV and complain about that kind of thing.
Minchin’s song was recorded, included in the recorded programme, and then removed from it later, before broadcast, apparently at the behest of Peter Fincham, controller of ITV. Minchin attributes this to fear of “ranty, shit-stirring right-wing press”, and I suspect he’s right. Yet Fincham must have known what kind of performer Tim Minchin is: he surely watches television occasionally. So why hire him at all, or let others hire him, if you are then going to wig out when he does exactly what you would expect him to do: write a funny song from a rationalist perspective?
The song is, at the time of writing, on Minchin’s blog, along with Ross’ awkward intro and outro, which seem to me to make it perfectly clear that he also expects complaints by the bucketload and is dissociating himself from the potential shit-storm. Once bitten by a wild-haired imaginative comedian, twice shy, I suppose. So do go and have a look and see if you think the delicate watchers of Ross’s talk-show would have been provoked to swoon.
And if you like the song, perhaps you might write or call in to ITV to explain that you’re offended every time they pull this kind of material from shows (on the rare occasions we find out about it). If offence must be taken so seriously, then perhaps we need to start being offended too, at least for the purposes of complaining. Tell them you object to being treated like a child and to having pre-emptive steps taken on your behalf to ensure you aren’t shocked or upset. At the moment, there are no consequences for this sort of creative cowardice. There are only consequences for taking the risk and broadcasting.
People of religious faith can cope with mild teasing, just like anyone else: they aren’t some exotic, frail species, and some of them even like jokes. ITV should remember – as all broadcasters might – that offending a small number of people, who are bafflingly watching a show where their offence is almost guaranteed by at least some of its content, is a small price to pay for entertaining the majority with thoughtful, clever, musical, non-bullying humour.
Following criticism over the removal of Palestinian artist Larissa Sansour from the short list of the Lacoste Elysee prize, Lacoste announced today their decision to cancel participation and support to the Elysée Prize on the account of the situation, and in order to “avoid any misunderstanding.”
The Musée de l’Elysée also announced today that they have decided to suspend the competition, based on “the private partner’s wish to exclude Larissa Sansour.” They also added that they “reaffirm” their support for Sansour, for “the artistic quality of her work and her dedication.”
The museum said that their decision reaffirms “commitment” to their “fundamental values,” and said that the decision to suspend the prize is in line with their history of defending “artists, their work, freedom of the arts and of speech.”
While the Musée de l’Elysée is placing responsibility on the shoulders of Lacoste, the fashion brand said that both Lacoste and the Musée de l’Elysée “felt that the work at hand did not belong in the theme of joie de vivre (happiness).” Lacoste also added that the decision was only made known to Sansour after making an agreement with the museum.
Lacoste said that Sansour’s work did not fit the criteria for the prize, but the museum said that nominees “had carte blanche to interpret the theme in which ever way they favoured, in a direct or indirect manner, with authenticity or irony, based upon their existing or as an entirely new creation.”
While both statements confirmed the approval of Sansour from the beginning, the objection to her work remains unclear. Lacoste denies implications that she was excluded “on political grounds,” but that it was merely a prize to “promote young photographers and provide them with an opportunity to increase their visibility.”
While both organisations claim to have suspended the competition, it is unclear as to whether or not this was a joint decision.
Lacoste has refuted claims that the work of Palestinian artist Larissa Sansour was removed from the shortlist for the Lacoste Elsee prize based on her work being too “pro-Palestinian” as she has claimed.
Lacoste told Index that the work was removed from the shortlist “because it didn’t correspond to the theme of the 2011 edition” which was “joie de vivre” and said that they “regret the political interpretation” of their decision.
Soren Lind, husband and assistant of Sansour, denied that this was the case and said Sansour had received “nothing but praise” for her work.
Nominees for the prize were told in an email that even though the museum was teaming up with Lacoste, it was not an “advertising campaign” and gave the nominees “total artistic freedom” in interpreting the theme. Lind said that the artists were told that they “didn’t have to take [the theme] literally.”
The question of violating the rules was new to Lind. According to him, “nothing in communications prior had anything saying that she doesn’t meet the requirements.” Messages exchanged between Musée de l’Elysée and Sansour also contradict the reasoning offered by Lacoste. In a message notifying Sansour of her removal from the list, a representative from the museum said that “the decision was taken by Lacoste” and that the museum had defended her work.
Lind also mentioned that the director of the museum, Sam Stourdzé, told him in a phone conversation that while the “piece is not anti-Israeli, he still felt it was too political.”
Steering clear of political themes has been a point of conflict in the past, Lind said. One of last year’s finalists, Camila Rodrigo Grana also created debate with her work, which showed a bootleg vendor in Lima selling counterfeit Lacoste polo shirts, which also could be interpreted politically. Lind said that although concerns were voiced, the committee “ended up allowing the project” rather than pulling her from the nomination list.
Lind pointed out that officials were censoring artists and “expecting them to be compliant.” The museum, which has offered to display Sansour’s work separately, attempted to convince her to sign a statement stating that she “decided to pursue other opportunities.”
Index has also attempted to contact the Musée de l’Elysée, but has not yet had a response.
Virgin Media’s electronic programme guide took offence at a range of inoffensive words at the weekend. Alfred Hitchcock became Alfred Hitchc**k, as Jarvis C**ker was subject to the same treatment. A**enal and Charles D**kens were also deemed too offensive for viewers. A Virgin Media spokesperson told the Guardian: “Over the weekend a temporarily over-zealous profanity checker took offence at certain programme titles. The altered titles have been swiftly an*lysed and we’re fixing any remaining glitches.” Viewers were quick to notice, posting pictures of the c**k up online.
