Below is an email I received regarding my criticism of the production of Macbeth that I attended last Friday night, followed by my response which I hope is helpful to others who may be confused by the same issues the writer addressed:

Your evaluation of Macbeth made me chuckle. I am going to see the production tonight. My daughter, who works at the theatre, has seen it and was quite impressed with the production. I will reserve my comments to you until after I have seen it. However, I must be upfront and tell you I have little, if any, respect for your organization, so, naturally, your opinion is of no importance. However, I did want to share with you this funny (sad?) anecdote. One parent that came into the theatre worried about the sexual overtones of the show was quite accepting of the violence. No problem there! We can maim people, carry guns, annihilate anyone with whom we disagree, but show people having sex???? Blasphemy!! What a mixed-up set of values . . .

My response:

Dear Ms. F.,

I’m curious why you would bother to write, since you have little, if any, respect for Illinois Family Institute and find our opinions of no importance. Despite your evident disdain for my opinions, I will try to respond thoughtfully to your concerns.

First, I don’t understand what you found amusing either in my evaluation of the play or in the concerns of the parent who was worried about the performances’ sexual “overtones.” An overtone is “a subtle or elusive quality or implication.” There was nothing remotely subtle in the sexuality depicted in Friday night’s performance. If the sexuality had been either subtle or implied, I would not have objected.

Your analogy between depictions of violence and actual nudity seems weak to me. Even an analogy between depictions of violence and depictions of sex acts seems flawed. Many people, perhaps most, believe that sexual acts (and excretory acts) though perfectly normal are intimate, private acts that are not for public consumption. Violence is quite different. Violence is sometimes necessary and justifiable. And though violent acts are always unpleasant and often abhorrent or repugnant, they are not thought of as private, intimate acts.

Violent acts may be moral or immoral depending on the context, just as sexual acts may be moral or immoral depending on the context. But sexual acts are always intended to be private acts. And for many, actual nudity is appropriate in only very limited contexts. Neither I, nor my husband, nor my son wish to see the kind of nudity we saw Friday night. Nor does my father who was planning on attending. Nor do my daughters. This desire grows not out of prudery (one of my daughters is an intensive care nurse who is exposed to naked bodies every day). It grows out of a profound respect for the human body and a recognition of its intimate, inextricable connection to our spiritual natures.

Chicago Shakespeare Theater’s creative staff is free to produce any kind of production they choose, but it only seems fair and respectful of the diverse population that supports CST to provide full and explicit communication of potentially offensive content by the time tickets go on sale. We purchased ours in August.

In writing about the play, I was not trying to change the views of those who have no respect for me and no objections to public nudity or depictions of sex acts. I was trying to provide information to our readers, most of whom tend to share IFI’s values, that Chicago Shakespeare Theater had not provided, so that they could make an informed decision about whether they wanted to attend this performance.

Sincerely,

Laurie Higgins

Director of the Division of School Advocacy
Illinois Family Institute