Is it right to protect audiences from disturbing material? In Steve Thompson’s new play, No Naughty Bits, we time travel to December 1975, when the surreal BBC comedy series, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, was due to be broadcast across the United States. But wait a minute, here’s the snag: about one in four of the jokes have been cut. Why?
Pythons Michael Palin and Terry Gilliam go to the States to find out. At first, they are told by the ABC broadcasters that the cuts have been made in order to make room for adverts, but they soon discover the real reason. All of the programme’s naughty bits have been axed. Jokes about sexuality have been chopped. A sketch about the torture of an Asian man in a turban goes the same way.
OK, so this is a battle between English artistic integrity and Middle American morality. The teams are as follows: Pythons Michael and Terry are joined by their American agent, Nancy, and their corporate lawyer, Osterberg. The ABC network is represented by television executives Franklin and Myers, plus lawyer Fried.
Initially, the argument between the financial exigencies of commercial TV – articulated most clearly by Myers – seems to prevail. After all, the Pythons are getting a load of money from the American broadcast and commercial telly has a responsibility not to offend its audience.
But, spurred on by Nancy and Osterberg, the Pythons gradually bite back. Terry, who was born in America, doesn’t need much persuading, but Michael, the diffident Brit, is unwilling to fight. The play charts his transformation from worm to lion. Slowly, the sheer silliness of the ABC’s censorship proposals provokes Michael to take on the prudes. But a strong point in Thompson’s play is that these conflicts are never as simple as they at first seem.
The central trial scene, when the Pythons apply for an 11th-hour injunction to stop ABC screening their programme, is a joy, mainly because the judge, one Lasker, is almost as eccentric as the Pythons. With his motto of “I love to laugh”, this larger-than-life character presides over a surreal extravaganza in which the laughs come fast and furious. It’s a masterclass of comic fiction.
In general, Thompson’s larger themes often appear in their underpants, being suggestive, allusive and funny. For example, the Pythons argue that censorship actually perpetuates the vulgarity it aims to stamp out. Bleeping out naughty words on TV simply draws attention to the words: “The bleep is what makes it obscene – it’s the effort to conceal a thing that makes it vulgar.”
No Naughty Bits also plays humorous games with national stereotypes. The Americans come across as litigious, censorious, po-faced (very), money-minded and efficient. By contrast, the Brits are easygoing, tolerant, eccentric, funny (very), arty and bumbling. One of the stimulating things about the play is that these contrasts are heightened and then questioned by the author.
Edward Hall’s production plays games with the play’s fictional character. Inside a television frame, the set has an aptly Pythonesque feel, with a blue, cloud-flecked sky which occasionally hosts the iconic Python foot and other models which refer to the original series, and the visual gags are good.
As the pliable, self-doubting Palin, Harry Hadden-Paton portrays a man finding his way to humour, truth and the right way to behave. Sam Alexander’s Terry is apeallingly zany, while Matthew Marsh’s hilarious Lasker and Clive Rowe’s majestic Osterberg contrast nicely with Izzy van Randwyck’s corporate Franklin. Like much of his previous work, Thompson’s play is well plotted and has a small sting in its tail. It’s an extremely enjoyable account of a forgotten episode in the history of the right to offend.
