The Wonderful Thing About Triggers

CONTENT WARNING: May contain the Daily Mail.

Is it a good idea to inform punters about the contents of a movie or a play before they buy a ticket for it?

Maybe. Maybe not. It certainly can't do any harm. Some people really, really, don’t like to see a man with no clothes on; so putting up a little notice that says “This exhibition includes some paintings of men with no clothes on” seems like simple good manners. Of course, you can smirk slightly if the notice is outside an exhibition entitled Classic Renaissance Nudes. We used to smirk when we found that a product called Just Nuts had a sticker on it saying “May contain nuts”. But I reckon it’s the sort of silliness society can probably survive. Someone might go and see Equus honestly thinking it was a play about horse racing. Someone else might have seen the trailer for Pillion and thought it was mostly about motorcycles. Not everyone knew that the opening scene of the National Theatre’s Frankenstein would include parts of Benedict Cumberbatch which were not normally on public display.

You might think that it would be a better world if no-one was bothered about the unclothed human body. And members of the naturist community might well say “Yeah? Well maybe I am offended by all the people in Baywatch wearing unnecessary swimming costumes?” But I think there’s a pretty wide consensus about what people are and aren’t bothered by. You might point out that the screenplay of this week’s movie included the word “cunt”; you probably wouldn’t mention that it contained the word “nasturtium”. It’s not a hard one to navigate, and in no sensible world would it become a politicising issue.

So, in November, the Daily Mail printed a headline which ran “Theatre blasted as woke after ‘slapping trigger warning on musical Jesus Christ Superstar because it depicts the crucifixion’”.

Well, people going to see Jesus Christ Superstar must logically fall into one of two groups:

Group One: People who already know what happens in the show.

Group Two: People who don’t already know what happens in the show.

Group Two might contain foreigners, Martians and friends of Prof. Richard Dawkins, who are completely unfamiliar with the Easter story. Don’t laugh, necessarily. When I saw the show in Bristol last year, I overheard some people in the interval who were unclear about who “the baddies” were. ("Er…The Jews, actually.") And some people on the way out were expressing disappointment at the down-beat ending. Knowledge of the story can’t be taken for granted any more. I myself saw Mahabharata without having the faintest idea what the Bhagavad Gita was. 

But Group Two might also contain an awful lot of people who did know the basic story, but who didn’t know that Superstar focuses entirely on the lead-up to Jesus’ death; and people who did know that it was basically a rocked up passion play, but didn’t realise that this particular production depicts the flogging and execution of Jesus in moderately graphic detail. And among that sub-group, there are presumably some people who are perfectly fine with watching fictionalised violence, and other people who are very bothered by it indeed. Conceivably, there could be refugees or ex-servicemen who have first hand experience of torture. There might well be abuse-survivors more generally. But there are also bound to be people who are just squicked out by fake blood and would prefer to spend their evening watching something else. Yes, theatre is meant to be shocking and unsettling, but tickets cost between £82 and £395 and Wicked is on next door.

The web-page for the Palladium includes a side-bar containing boilerplate information about access, age restrictions, and what happens if one of the celebrity cast is indisposed. Shockingly, a drop-down under “Content Warning” says that the show “Contains flashing lights and visual effects, pyrotechnics, theatrical smoke and haze, some violence, imitation blood, and an onstage depiction of the crucifixion.” This appears to be standard operating procedure for the London theatre: the sidebar for the panto (Sleeping Beauty) mentions that “parental discretion is advised due to innuendo”. This makes someone called Gerald furious: he thinks that if you warn theatre-goers that a musical contains violence, the next step will be to warn them that it contains catchy tunes. 

I think that from now on I may refer to this as Gerald's Fallacy: that if you can think of a stupid thing which is not being done, it follows that the sensible thing which is being done shouldn't be. But suppose you actually did put a small notice saying "Warning: May Contain Catchy Tunes" by the box office. Who, precisely, does Gerald suppose might be harmed?

If I were a director, I might possibly be annoyed by a content warning which said something like “Contains scenes in which the butler turns out to have dunnit.” This is a point on which good men can legitimately differ. Some people think that there is, or should be, no such thing as spoiler warnings. If knowing Luke’s dad was a toboggan ruins the movie, then the movie wasn’t worth seeing in the first place. Others say that the only point in going to the theatre or the movies is to discover how the story ends, so if the title of the piece is The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford or The Life and Most Piteous Death of King Richard the Second then the story is ruined before it starts. I believe I said at the time that the BBFC’s certificate at the beginning of The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Frye telegraphed a significant “reveal” by stating that “suicide depiction” was one of the reasons for giving the movie a 12 Cert. It might be part of the director's plan to suddenly introduce a graphic axe murder into what appeared to be a harmless little “cosy crime” story. He might legitimately be cross if someone put up a sign saying "Warning: Contains unexpected axe murder." But someone else might think that the director had absolutely no business freaking out the paying customer in the name of artistic integrity. 

Jesus Christ Superstar is not setting out to shock anyone. The whole reason Gerald is furious is that he takes it for granted that anyone seeing the show must already knows that it contain nuts. So who does he think is being harmed? In Scenario One, every one knows what is in the musical so the warning is gratuitous: no harm done. In Scenario Two, some people don’t know what’s in the musical, but aren’t particularly bothered by it; so, again, no harm done. But in Scenario Three, some people didn’t know and do mind; and make an informed decision to spend their money elsewhere. In what possible world is this insane or staggering or infuriating or even, god help us, woke?

Over the last twelve months, the Daily Mail has published at least fifty stories in which “woke trigger warnings” are “slapped” on a wide variety of artistic works. The stories all follow roughly the same format:

"ITV is flooded with complaints after slapping 'woke' trigger warning on beloved 1970s sitcom"

"Tommy Cooper ITV compilation is hit with woke trigger warning over 'adult humour and outdated attitudes'"

"Doctor Who episode from 1969 is slapped with trigger warning amid complaints from readers show has gone 'woke'"

If you can be bothered to follow up the references, a rather less hysterical situation emerges. 

The ITV streaming service utilises a system of parental guidance. If a programme isn’t entirely innocuous, it puts a little G for Guidance by the listing, and a three or four word comment so Mum and Dad can decide if it’s appropriate for their offspring to watch it. Love Actually contains “very strong language and scenes of a sexual nature”; the Batman prequel Pennyworth contains “strong language, drugs and scenes of graphic violence”; but the old musical Grease (“the latest in a series of shows and movies to be slapped with a woke trigger warning”) has “mild language and teenaged misbehaviour”. It is in this context that The Best Of Tommy Cooper is said to have “Outdated attitudes”. 

This last guidance note has “sparked outrage from free speech campaigners and fans of the legendary comedian alike”. 

Has it? Has it really? 

Every movie or DVD released in the UK is given a rating by the British Board of Film Classification: only the most inoffensively harmless get a U. The majority of the classic era of Doctor Who is rated “U” (“infrequent very mild violence") or PG (“mild violence, threat”). The sacrilegious Russel T Davies colourisations are given slightly more in depth commentaries, presumably because they count as “new” movies. In the colourised Daleks—which has been rated “PG”—we are told that “a man punches another man but the blow is un-detailed” and that “a man dangles precariously from a rope in a sequence of sustained suspense”. (I would have written “remorseless tedium”.) The intention is clearly to reassure parents that while Doctor Who is a little bit more scary than, say, Peppa Pig (“no material likely to offend or harm”) it’s basically pretty tame and wholesome.

And this is clearly the context in which a warning has been "slapped" on the War Games. It is entirely clear that remarks about characters being “killed with fantastical weapons” and “questioned using fantastical interrogation machines” are there to reassure parents that although Doctor Who is a little bit violent, the violence is all in a harmless fantasy context. The BBFC point out that characters are “threatened with execution by firing squad” and that an American Civil War soldier uses a racist term (“boy”) in order to explain—if you want an explanation—why Doctor Who has got a PG cert (like Zootopia and Matilda) as opposed to a U (like Bluey and Tellytubbies).

The Daily Mail's language implies that these comedies and movies and stage plays have been singled out for special condemnation; that they have been slapped or hit by or handed or issued with a warning or reprimand: where in fact pretty much everything now comes with a brief description attached to it. And the rubrics are described as “Content Warning” or “Content Advice” or “Parental Guidance”. Trigger Warning is the Daily Mail’s own description.

The sidebar for the Royal Opera’s 2025 production of Puccini’s Tosca stated that it contained “depictions of executions, violence, blood, gore, murder, sexual assault, implied torture and suicide”. Rita Skeeter’s Quick-Notes-Quill transmogrifies this into “It carries eight trigger warnings relating to murder, sexual assault and torture. So far, so woke.”

The Mail's piece continues: “But now comes a trigger warning with a difference: for the venue is now alerting its audiences to – horror of horrors – the curtain-up bell.”

Up to a point, Lord Rothermore. On the Royal Opera House’s website, there is a menu called Your Visit, and on that menu there is an item called Accessibility. On the Accessibility page, there is information about an Access Scheme, Relaxed Performances, Audio Descriptions and Touch Tours for the visually impaired; wheelchair accessible toilets and step-free access. And towards the bottom of the page, you will indeed find the following:

“The Royal Opera House is a large building with many floors, lifts, escalators, corridors and open spaces….

….Lighting and sounds also vary depending on where you are in the building, with public areas being brightly lit and noisy, while the areas around the stages are dimly lit.

A handheld bell is rung by Front of House staff to signal guests to take their seats before a performance. The bell is loud and can be startling. The bell is rung approximately ten minutes before the show starts and at each interval.”

How could any sensible person object to this innocuous piece of small print? 

And how could anyone infer that there is an ulterior, left-wing (“woke”) motive behind it?

I toyed with the possibility that what was being objected to is the whole idea of "accessibility" in general, as opposed to the bell warning in particular. Is it possible that what lay behind the complaint was a wider scepticism about the whole idea of illness and disability? Does the writer of the article believe that most disabled people are not really ill; or that even if they are, the able-bodied community has no business trying to make their lives easier? The article certainly complains about West End theatre's "deference to those of sensitive disposition". The warning about the bell is specifically said to be "crazy": earlier this year the deputy Prime Minister in waiting, Richard Tice, said (in remarks which he later withdrew and apologised for) that allowing children to wear ear-protectors at school was "insane" and that the supposed over-diagnoses of special educational needs was "mad" and "an insane situation". The Tosca story carries a quote from "Free Speech Union founder" Lord Young. This is our old friend Toby Young who complained in 2018 that the word "inclusion" was a “ghastly, politically correct word” that implied “wheelchair ramps, the complete works of Alice Walker in the school library (though no Mark Twain) and a Special Educational Needs Department that can cope with everything from dyslexia to Münchausen syndrome by proxy.” 

So: is the point here that people with so-called medical conditions make a very great fuss about stairs and flashing lights and loud noises, and that the British way is to just stiffen your lips and suck it up? 

I also briefly speculated that the obsession with content warnings derived from the belief that everything not forbidden should be compulsory and anything that is not compulsory ought to be forbidden. The ITV guidance notes seem to acknowledge that Grease is a little bit rude and Love Actually is very rude indeed; and that there is a parental judgement call to be made about when kids are old enough to deal with them. But the conservative right often have a problem with shades of grey. 

As recently as the 1980s, it was the reactionary right, not the politically correct left, who objected to rude words, dirty pictures, and simulated violence. And they didn’t just want to avert their own eyes from it: they didn't want anyone else to look at it either. A content warning saying “Contains graphic depictions of anal rape” might have been a perfectly sensible notice to put by the box office for Romans in Britain: but that would not have satisfied Mrs Mary Whitehouse — she wanted the play closed down, and the producer jailed for a criminal offence. Channel 4 did, indeed, warn viewers that Tony Harrison’s poem contained a lot of very bad words, but the same Mrs Mary Whitehouse was not satisfied with this: she thought that it should not have been transmitted in the first place.

So perhaps the point is that warning us that Tommy Cooper occasionally made mildly racist jokes; and that Life of Brian contains a brief bit of full-frontal nudity, acknowledges the possibility that some people might be okay with nude scenes; and that other people might not be okay with racism. Perhaps the thinking is that violent or sexually explicit operas ought to be banned outright (because no decent person could possibly want to see them) but racist and sexist ones should be shown without comment (because no decent person could possibly object to them). Everything is clean, except a small number of dirty things which should be banned. This would be consistent with a newspaper that portrays and England in which a decent majority is permanently under siege from a destructive mob of Others. (cf Ben Goodacre's joke about the paper's ontological project to divide all substances into the ones which cause cancer and the ones which prevent it.)

But I don't even think that this is really what is going on. 

I think that we are looking at a fairly considered and politically motivated language game. I think that conservatives have been working fairly hard and fairly consistently for a number of years to give the phrase “trigger warning” a negative connotation. (They have successfully done the sane same thing with expressions like "woke", “political correctness” and “cancel culture”.) It's a pretty straight forward technique: invent a category; assert that nearly everything falls into that category; and then start wringing your hands because things in that category are so widespread.

At one time, “trigger” had a fairly clear meaning. (So, I think, did “woke”: “political correctness” was only ever a catch-all for things social conservatives disagreed with.) Someone who had undergone a trauma could suffer a severe adverse reaction to something which reminded him of the original traumatic event. It was, therefore, a good idea to warn people in advance if a dramatic work is going to feature gunshots, for example, or references to rape or child abuse. 

So: the first move is to establish that "trigger warnings", in this primary sense, are Bad Things. Gerald’s fallacy will come in handy: since it would obviously be silly to issue a trigger warning for Dumbo in case someone in the audience had once collided with a flying elephant; it follows that it would be silly to mention in advance that Prima Facie contains a very detailed description of a serious sexual assault. 

I think that this is what lies behind the use of the word "woke" in this context. The word is not being used in the original sense of "aware of structural prejudice", nor even as a pejorative term for "left wing". I think it is pretty clearly being used to mean "weak" or even "effeminate". It will be remembered that when the people of Bristol started to say that the city’s involvement in the slave trade was nothing to be very proud of, the most common response among the Daily Mail’s commentariat was the single word “pathetic”. 

Soldiers coming back from the Second World War weren’t given trigger-warnings for their PTSD, after all: they were expected to suck it up. Soldiers suffering from PTSD in the First World War were put up against a wall and shot; and it never did them any harm.

Having debunked the word in its original, legitimate sense, widen the usage, so that practically everything is a trigger warning. All movies have BFFC classification; everything on the TV streaming services have parental advisories; nearly all the London theatre websites publish information about the content of their shows. But if you say so often enough, all these innocuous bits of text can be regarded as "Trigger Warnings"--and therefore Very Bad Things. 

Now we have established that practically everything is a trigger warning, we can move on to the final stage: bombard the world with essays asking why-oh-why trigger warnings are suddenly everywhere. You might just as well proclaim that any woman owning a cat is a witch, and then throw your hands up in horror about the witchcraft epidemic. Play your cards right, and even the serious newspapers will start asking where these trigger warnings came from and what they say about modern society and when there is going to be a public enquiry and if there should be a law against it—when in fact literally nothing has happened.

And this has three excellent side-effects:

1: It means you don’t have to make accommodations for people who may literally and reasonably require actual warnings about actual triggers. If it is ludicrous to provide the information that a passion play depicts crucifixion, then it follows that it would be ridiculous to state in advance that a war film contains a graphic depiction of a napalm attack. 

2: It furthers the idea that young people are weak and that society mollycoddles them. But some people genuinely are freaked out by a five minute representation of a man being whipped; or a person being tied to a chair and shot; or of blood, albeit theatrical blood, in any context. Well, they shouldn’t. They should grin and bear it. Ban avocado lattes and bring back national service! 

3: Most importantly, it furthers belief in your conspiracy theory about how the Gnomes of Zurich or the Bavarian Illuminati are secretly controlling western civilisation. If everything is a trigger warning and all trigger warnings are woke, then it is easy to prove from first principles that the Woke Mob—which is to say the Cultural Marxists, which is probably to say the Jews--secretly control everything. 

And that we need a powerful Man of the People to set us free...

One last point. I cannot prove this: but I am pretty sure that I will be and indeed am being proved right. Whatever the Right accuses the Left of doing is the thing the Right are planning to do themselves. If Daily Mail thinks that the Left are being comically over-sensitive about sex in the media, then you can be sure that the Right is planning a puritanical backlash. If the Right say that the Left are attacking free speech in the theatre, then you can be pretty sure that they'll be reopening the Lord Chamberlain's office as soon as they get back into power. Howls about free speech presage book-burnings and state imposed censorship. 

If you find this kind of thing interesting, please consider supporting my Patreon