“What feels like the early stages of an interesting workshop has instead been presented as a finished work. While the intentions behind The Censor are clearly well meant, intention alone is not enough, particularly when young artists are involved and when the work is presented as part of a major international festival”
Fiona Hallenan-Barker
2 Stars
Venue: Performing Lines at The Rebel Theatre, ATYP
Sydney
Reviewed on Thursday 22nd January.
The Censor arrives at Sydney Festival with strong marketing, sincere intentions and a clear desire to centre young people’s voices. What unfolds, however, feels less like a fully realised production and more like a work still in development, presented on a major festival stage before it has had the time to grow.
Originally created for Melbourne Fringe, this experimental youth theatre piece has been brought to Sydney with a new cast and, it seems, limited opportunity to develop beyond its initial idea. While the concept is engaging, the production does not yet offer a clear or particularly new perspective on censorship, children’s agency or control over media.
The premise is appealing: an island where children are in charge, adults are pushed to the margins and young audiences are invited to think about what they are and are not allowed to see, hear and access. The marketing promises something “unexpected, unfiltered, uncensored,” and the family guide provides thoughtful questions and resources for discussion after the show. Unfortunately, these surrounding materials feel more fully considered than the production itself, leaving a sense of imbalance between intention and execution.
Structurally, the show struggles with clarity. Scenes often drift without clear purpose or resolution, and periods of sitting and conversation, frequently with performers’ backs to the audience, make it difficult to stay engaged. Despite the use of microphones, dialogue is often hard to hear. Several design ideas suggest stronger possibilities but are not fully realised. The chalked floor, for example, is introduced with promise but quickly abandoned. Venetian blinds repeatedly get stuck, and the performers are left without the support needed to manage these disruptions. A “squid kingdom” sequence hints at imaginative world-building before dissolving into a confusing and largely inaudible video sequence.
The content itself feels uncertain. After being heavily signposted, the Andrew Tate segment lands with little impact. Child performers debate whether children should be allowed to watch his content, concluding that those aged 12 and over should decide for themselves. Audience members aged 12 and under are then asked to leave before a surprisingly mild clip of Tate is shown. When the children return in silence the awkwardness of a moment that adds little to the production’s exploration of censorship. References to film, horror and censorship culture are introduced but quickly softened, and a scene attempting horror, using video projection and stage blood, lacks a clear point of view. Rather than unsettling or challenging the audience, it leaves them unsure of what they are meant to take away.
Some moments raise concerns about how much support and care is given to young performers. One scene involving a parent speaking openly to their child about personal hopes and fears feels emotionally exposed in a way that may not be appropriate for a public performance context. More broadly, the approach of “gently” hearing young people’s voices appears to leave them without enough structure. The largely improvised scenes lack the dialogue and shape needed to build dramatic tension. The result is frequent pauses, uncertainty and moments of awkwardness that risk disengaging the audience. This is not a reflection of the young artists, who are clearly committed. Rather, it points to a process that has not given them enough time, structure or guidance. Devised theatre at this scale requires months of careful development, trust-building and dramaturgical support. Many companies successfully centre youth voices while also providing strong artistic frameworks that allow young performers to feel confident and flourish on stage.
What feels like the early stages of an interesting workshop has instead been presented as a finished work. While the intentions behind The Censor are clearly well meant, intention alone is not enough, particularly when young artists are involved and when the work is presented as part of a major international festival. New projects like this need time to be nurtured, space to evolve and working environments that prioritise clarity, imagination, and performer wellbeing.
In attempting to champion young voices, The Censor ultimately exposes how vulnerable those voices can be. These young performers deserve more time, stronger structure and clearer storytelling. They deserve theatre-making that allows them to shine.
As it stands, The Censor serves as a reminder that supporting young people in theatre requires not just good ideas, but thoughtful processes that support both the artists and the audience.
2 loudspeakers out of 5
photos by Neil Bennett
Fiona Hallenan-Barker, Theatre Now
