I will discuss what people have called a rape at the Royal Opera House and argue that the objectors do not have a case.
There has been a lot of controversy in old and new media over a scene in a new production of Guillaume Tell at the ROH; cf. http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/30/william-tell-nudity-and-scene-greeted-with-boos-at-royal-opera-house
Two preliminaries:. One: I was there at the first night, in seat W14 at the back of the Orchestra Stalls. If you weren’t, then you will have to take my word for it in terms of what actually happened. Two: I am a philosophical psychologist (cf. http://www.psypress.com/authors/i9043-tim-short) so if you would like to respond, do so to exactly what I write below and not to something in the vicinity of what I say which annoys you. If you want to be formal about it, I suppose the proposition for which I am arguing is “the scene was appropriate.”
I will start by outlining the events I saw and then show that all of the objections aiming to show that the scene was inappropriate fail.
A foreign army is occupying Switzerland. At the point in the libretto of interest, some soldiers force the local women to dance with them. One woman drinks champagne, somewhat against her will. She acquiesces nervously. The soldiers douse her in champagne. The leader of the occupying forces, Gesler, molests her by placing a pistol between her legs at around mid-thigh level. She moves on to the dining table, upon which is placed a large table-cloth. She disappears behind a group of perhaps 10-15 soldiers. Shortly afterwards, she reappears naked. The duration of the nudity was something like half a second. She partly wraps the table-cloth around her and moves away from the table. The hero, Tell, then ensures that she is fully covered.
That’s it for the stage action. There ensued enormous amounts of booing which interrupted the action. One man shouted out “one step too fucking far mate” and another shouted “Holten out”. (Kaspar Holten is Director of Opera at the ROH.) There were a number of noisy walkouts.
The objections I have seen are as below.
The scene was too long
I don’t really see how this objection works. People have spoken of a ” five-minute gang rape”. I do not think you can get to five minutes even if you include all of the events I outline above in your duration. I would put it at two minutes; perhaps three at the outside. In any case, the nudity was momentary. This means at the outset we have to decide what constitutes a depiction of rape. That is a difficult question. Naturally, there was no sex or simulated sex on stage by anyone, so a fortiori there was no sex or simulated sex involving multiple men and the woman.
However, it was clearly the intention of the director to depict rape in some sense. That intention was realized, because of the intense audience reaction. I think that this intense negative reaction meant that the “rape” was perceived by the audience was too long simply because any duration was too long to be comfortable. But if we are purely talking about seconds on the clock, then it could not have been shorter and remained what it was. (You may wish to challenge me here by noting that the scene is now shorter. Is it still what it was?)
The scene was gratuitous
This objection cannot succeed. It gains its initial plausibility by appearing to be the nearby objection “the scene had a negative effect”. To make out the claim that the scene was gratuitous, you have to show that the scene had no effect. In other words, the aesthetic impact of the piece would be identical without the scene. This is transparently false since the audience reaction to the scene and the reaction of others who were not there was immense. You may well feel that the aesthetic effect of the scene was undesirable, but that is not consistent with saying that its inclusion was gratuitous.
The scene was unnecessary
I can again respond similarly to what I said to counter the previous objection. In addition, I can observe that nothing is necessary. Even claims like “everything is identical to itself” are questionable under certain circumstances.
I do not expect to see Rape at the Royal Opera House
Why not? I will defer to others, notably the Director of Opera, to make a number of valid points in response to this. The scene is fully justified by the libretto (cf. http://www.roh.org.uk/news/guillaume-tell-a-response-to-recent-debate-and-discussion); perhaps also the purpose of art is to shock, sometimes. Bear in mind that this is about war, not the marriage of Figaro. Also, why are we holding opera to a much different standard to those we permit on the theatrical stage, or film (cf. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/reviews), let alone what one can see on the internet.
Why should a “rape” at the Royal Opera House be more of a problem than a “rape” depiction in a film?
We need to protect victims of rape from depictions of rape at the Royal Opera House
Was this a depiction of rape? Was this really something that we should call a rape at the Royal Opera House? Perhaps we should reserve that term for an actual crime committed in the building.
Do we also need to protect people who have had a family member murdered from depictions of murder? There were several of those in this piece; they aroused no comment.
The inclusion of the scene condones rape
I don’t understand this objection, so if you share it, you will have to explain it to me. One question is whether or not it matters that the perpretators of the “rape” were the villains of the piece. If this is an alleviating factor, then it would have been an aggravating one to have had the hero Tell perpetrate it. Perhaps that would have been the provocative directorial choice. I don’t see why even if this was a rape at the Royal Opera House, it means that it approves the act.
The scene was “the last straw”
This is one of the more common objections. It seems to run approximately as follows: `this was a terrible production full of infantile symbolism, each scene was more offensive and unimaginative than the last, the “rape” scene was one step too far’. I happened to think that the production was brave and innovative, but that is not actually relevant to the argument. The problem with this objection is that it seems to entail the following: `this rape scene would have been appropriate in a more traditional production, or a production I liked more.’ That seems unmotivated and hard to argue for. It is caused by the phenomenon of “moral licensing,” which is not a way to stand up an objection.
Conclusion: there was no Rape at the Royal Opera House
I conclude that all of the objections fail and the scene was appropriate. It is therefore unfortunate that the scene has now been modified by weakening it and shortening it. We may at least note that the Director of Opera did not insist on this. In fact he apologized for the offence caused and explicitly did not apologise for the production.
This is right and proper; I do not want what I can see at the Royal Opera House controlled by reactionary prudes who can only stomach totally traditional productions. The changes were made by the Director; so our regret should be that a courageous and ground-breaking production team have been forced to weaken the impact of their vision.
For me, the most dismaying part of the experience was seeing the change in the countenance of Malin Bystrom, who was superb. She was quite clearly delighted by the richly deserved approbation she received in her curtain call, but was still there for the booing of the production crew. This is what I call gratuitous. In fact, I can’t see any occasion on which booing is appropriate. Walk out silently if you must, but otherwise why not just stay at home. The ROH generally sells out; we can do without your ticket money if you think you are going to decide what is appropriate in a production.