Calm Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) Warning: vulgarity discussed.... #6 the assault apparently happens after the "I believe" song (possibly a gang rape from the way it is written, he is surrounded by the general and his men), but the result is shown after the I am Africa song. The script has the doctor getting all excited from the X-ray and Price as "embarrassed" by the fact he has been sodomized by a Book of Mormon. Man, is that understanding of sexual assault victims. Legally, "rape" may be the wrong term, don't feel like looking at more than one state's differentiation. "Sexual assault" if you reject the term "rape". "After re-affirming his faith, he confronts the general with the Book of Mormon in hand, determined to convert him ("I Believe"). The general is unimpressed and angrily drags Price away; Price is next seen in the village doctor's office, having the Book of Mormon removed from his rectum." From wiki I saw it referenced in a half a dozen reviews and it is clear from the script what has happened, though the brutality is downplayed as I said to simply a cause for embarrassment. Rather disgusting in its treatment of a horrific and dangerous assault, but bet it gets lots of laughs. "Something incredible. You've done something incredible! I have never seen a rectal blockage of this kind! I have seen patients in the past with [edited]! But this is something incredible, and it blows my freakin' mind! [Price shakes his head from the embarassment] Edited March 21, 2017 by Calm 1 Link to comment
california boy Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 12 minutes ago, Calm said: Warning: vulgarity discussed.... #6 the assault apparently happens after the "I believe" song (possibly a gang rape from the way it is written, he is surrounded by the general and his men), but the result is shown after the I am Africa song. The script has the doctor getting all excited from the X-ray and Price as "embarrassed" by the fact he has been sodomized by a Book of Mormon. Man, is that understanding of sexual assault victims. "After re-affirming his faith, he confronts the general with the Book of Mormon in hand, determined to convert him ("I Believe"). The general is unimpressed and angrily drags Price away; Price is next seen in the village doctor's office, having the Book of Mormon removed from his rectum." From wiki I saw it referenced in a half a dozen reviews and it is clear from the script what has happened, though the brutality is downplayed as I said to embarrassment. Rather disgusting in its treatment of a horrific and dangerous assault, but bet it gets lots of laughs. "Something incredible. You've done something incredible! I have never seen a rectal blockage of this kind! I have seen patients in the past with [edited]! But this is something incredible, and it blows my freakin' mind! [Price shakes his head from the embarassment] I am going to bow to your information. I don't remember it. But it has been a year since I have seen it. I do remember the war lords as being pretty nasty people. The play convinced you that they were very bad guys which made the villagers ousting them that much more rewarding. Link to comment
Calm Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) Reminds me of Avatar and every other movie that has the poor savages getting destroyed until the white guy steps in to lead them as if they are incapable of coming up with a positive, life saving/affirming approach without the great westerner showing them the way. But it doesn't demean them at all because in the end it is a group effort, right? And this time the audiences can even feel better about it because the white guy is as clueless in reality as the savages. Everybody wins because they are nice. Trust me on this one, in no way would I have ever walked away unoffended from this patronizing collection of tropes made novel by pushing to the extreme. Edited March 21, 2017 by Calm 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) I didn't want to criticize the musical without providing substance as to why. The script itself is too vulgar to use as a reference, so I used the safest nonMormon reviews I could find (as I did not feel the need to focus on the antiMormon aspects of it...yeah, I do think after researching it all day it is anti Mormonism, racism, idolism of vulgarity, and sexism all wrapped up in a charming, but thoroughly juvenile package; more familiarity has bred contempt for me), Anyone who feels I went too far for a hopefully family friendly site please report my posts that offended. I have no problem with any being deleted. I might report some myself. However, I have wallowed enough in the offal (Bernard is dead on in his descriptive label) and won't be revisiting it tomorrow. Edited March 21, 2017 by Calm 3 Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Tacenda said: From this description, I would have a problem. Are you sure this was in the play, because that is definitely sick. Oh, it's all in good humor, and they really love the Mormons. Really. You can watch the show on Youtube if you can stomach it. Edited March 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui 2 Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 8 hours ago, california boy said: I focused on the Mormon stuff because I thought that was the op of this thread. Calm, I find you to be quite reasonable and willing to look at both sides. I get that you haven't seen the play and are going off the comments of others. But in your logical mind, do you think that someone could do a racist play degrading women and raping babies in this day and age would receive the wide acceptance and 9 tony awards including best musical and have the strong box office success this play has had without any riots in the streets or protests at every single opening? Yes, because it's about the safest group to demonize and lampoon....the Mormons, and Yes, it did get Tony awards and has had great success and it's still a dead skunk in the middle of the road stinking to high heaven, which is why I believe it reveals the utter depravity of much of American pop culture. Quote I didn't intend to find myself in defending "The Book of Mormon" and all that it entails. My intent was simply to say that I personally feel many Mormons could see this play and not be offended in the least. It is not the evil anti-Mormon, worst piece of pop culture to ever come out. There is genuine reasons why this play has been so popular and received so much positive attention. Is it for everyone? Absolutely not. Is every active Mormon that sees the play going to be offended and feel attacked? Absolutely not. Is every black person that sees the play going to feel like they just set through 2 hours of racism? Absolutely not. Is every woman going to feel like the play demeans and shames women? Absolutely not. Are some of each of these groups going to be offended. Yes. Would you be offended? I don't think so, but you might be. Just my opinion. I am not really going to comment much more on this issue. Honestly I have said more than I intended to say. I would like to meet a Mormon who saw the play and was not offended in the least. You have said plenty. Link to comment
Calm Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) I don't think I am someone who is easily offended. I do admit to being sick and tired by the arrogance of the white savior trope, so am easily offended by that...and honestly think I should be. For those who don't see it as a common expression in award winning media, let me point you to another's very limited list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior_narrative_in_film Quote A White Savior film is often based on some supposedly true story. Second, it features a nonwhite group or person who experiences conflict and struggle with others that is particularly dangerous or threatening to their life and livelihood. Third, a White person (the savior) enters the milieu and through their sacrifices, as a teacher, mentor, lawyer, military hero, aspiring writer, or wannabe Native American warrior, is able to physically save—or at least morally redeem—the person or community of folks of color, by the film's end. Examples of this genre include films like Glory (1989), Dangerous Minds (1996), Amistad (1997), Finding Forrester (2000), The Last Samurai (2003), Half Nelson(2006), Freedom Writers (2007), Gran Torino (2008), Avatar (2009), The Blind Side (2009), The Help (2011), and the list goes on.[5 There is plenty of racism present in Oscar/Tony/Emmy winning productions. Edited March 21, 2017 by Calm Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: I don't think I am someone who is easily offended. I do admit to being sick and tired by the arrogance of the white savior trope, so am easily offended by that...and honestly think I should be. For those who don't see it as a common expression in award winning media, let me point you to another's very limited list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior_narrative_in_film There is plenty of racism present in Oscar/Tony/Emmy winning productions. As there should be, since racism is part of our human reality. The question is, how is it handled by the artwork. Is the bent of the work intended to perpetuate racism or expose it? I have not seen the musical either, but being somewhat familiar with Southpark my guess is that the musical in part is written to expose Mormonism, including racism and sexism. The untenable and uncomfortable part for believing Mormons, then, is that to interpret the musical consistently, Mormonism must inevitably go the way of sexism and racism. But of course Mormons do not want to belong to the trash heap of history. Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: As there should be, since racism is part of our human reality. The question is, how is it handled by the artwork. Is the bent of the work intended to perpetuate racism or expose it? I have not seen the musical either, but being somewhat familiar with Southpark my guess is that the musical in part is written to expose Mormonism, including racism and sexism. The untenable and uncomfortable part for believing Mormons, then, is that to interpret the musical consistently, Mormonism must inevitably go the way of sexism and racism. But of course Mormons do not want to belong to the trash heap of history. I wouldn't credit them with having such noble intentions. Seriously, I kept waiting for something even remotely funny, endearing, memorable, or redeeming. After all, it is a love letter to Mormons. Total veggie burger. Kimchee without the cabbage. An emperor with no clothes. A tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. I think of Fiddler on the Roof, Show Boat, Oklahoma, West Side Story, South Pacific, The King and I, The Sound of Music, and other great musicals that not only entertained with great music, dialogue, dance, and lyrics but also dealt with social and religious issues. BoM the Musical in comparison is like an ant floating down the Mississippi River on a blade of grass shouting, "Raise the drawbridge! Raise the Drawbridge!" Edited March 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui 2 Link to comment
Calm Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: As there should be, since racism is part of our human reality. The question is, how is it handled by the artwork. Is the bent of the work intended to perpetuate racism or expose it? I have not seen the musical either, but being somewhat familiar with Southpark my guess is that the musical in part is written to expose Mormonism, including racism and sexism. I think they got so caught up in their lampooning of Mormons, they threw everything into the brew without regard to the ultimate implications. Black guy gets killed...minor plot point so that white guy gets a chance to grow up, no one else appears to be the least affected, his wife is off dancing with the rest a few scenes later. White guy gets killed, everyone falls apart, major sorrow, major disaster, major scene display..but like all white saviors he comes back from the dead and saves the poor black savages who can't save themselves...but being Mormon, he makes a real hash of it. The elders do manage to scare off the Big Bad by threatening to turn him into a lesbian, what could be worse...not only gay, but a woman too! I don't have a clue about what their typical treatment of racism and sexism. Is it typical that their strong black female leads knows she can escape whatever problem she has...all she has to do is follow "the white boy"? If you believe there was intentional social redeeming value in their portrayal of racism and sexism and trivialization of sexual assault into a throwaway gag, but not inherent racism/sexism/degradation of humans and their pain in their choices in creating the story, I would appreciate seeing you justify this belief by showing how reviewers felt the work contributed positively to an examination of racism, sexism, and abuse around the world or even just in the US. Edited March 21, 2017 by Calm 1 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 51 minutes ago, Calm said: I think they got so caught up in their lampooning of Mormons, they threw everything into the brew without regard to the ultimate implications. Black guy gets killed...minor plot point so that white guy gets a chance to grow up, no one else appears to be the least affected, his wife is off dancing with the rest a few scenes later. White guy gets killed, everyone falls apart, major sorrow, major disaster, major scene display..but like all white saviors he comes back from the dead and saves the poor black savages who can't save themselves...but being Mormon, he makes a real hash of it. The elders do manage to scare off the Big Bad by threatening to turn him into a lesbian, what could be worse...not only gay, but a woman too! I don't have a clue about what their typical treatment of racism and sexism. Is it typical that their strong black female leads knows she can escape whatever problem she has...all she has to do is follow "the white boy"? If you believe there was intentional social redeeming value in their portrayal of racism and sexism and trivialization of sexual assault into a throwaway gag, but not inherent racism/sexism/degradation of humans and their pain in their choices in creating the story, I would appreciate seeing you justify this belief by showing how reviewers felt the work contributed positively to an examination of racism, sexism, and abuse around the world or even just in the US. I would really have to see it myself before going beyond hypotheticals. However, the trope of white people (including Mormons) saving the savages and indoctrinating them into their civilised ways is real in cinema. The Other Side of Heaven is an example. I remember being upset that a film reviewer was offended by that theme in the movie, but she made her case. If I watch the musical, I'll get more specific. Link to comment
bcuzbcuz Posted March 21, 2017 Author Share Posted March 21, 2017 13 hours ago, bluebell said: I think most people realize that no one joined the church because of the musical but that the musical caused people to wonder about the church, and after investigating it for themselves, people decided to join. Then it would seem that the appropriate words to use, instead of they joined the church "as a result of seeing the play","they joined the church DESPITE their seeing the play". Which again returns me to my original question. "Why are Mormon missionaries handing out BofM's outside the theatre?" Can it be safely assumed that the missionaries themselves have not seen, nor do they know the content of this musical,.......other than its name? They are being asked to endorse a play that in actual fact would repulse and horrify them. It reminds me of the demonstrations against Salman Rushdie and his book "Satanic Verses". Thousands of people demonstrated against his work, not because they had actually read his book and were reviled and insulted, but merely because their religious leaders had told them to. Where is the difference? Link to comment
Calm Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 What do you think they are doing that somehow endorse the play? 1 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: What do you think they are doing that somehow endorse the play? Buying ad space is frequently considered a tacit endorsement of a medium. The church has purchased ad space in the playbill. Link to comment
Atheist Mormon Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 On 3/18/2017 at 10:07 PM, Tacenda said: I think a lot of people would enjoy the church whether true or not. If the church would allow those that don't believe it to be literally true, but a faith like all the others out there, something to help them live a Christlike life. Oh, this is great...What part actually people would enjoy sitting there three hours to listen a two thousand years old stale story? When there's full of life to be lived........ I could never understand what a "Christlike living" was even in my most active periods, I always thought "Why would I need Jesus to breathe oxygen, enjoy life, I still continued for a while.... Then I figured "I can do Life by myself without help of anybody." Link to comment
bluebell Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: Then it would seem that the appropriate words to use, instead of they joined the church "as a result of seeing the play","they joined the church DESPITE their seeing the play". Which again returns me to my original question. "Why are Mormon missionaries handing out BofM's outside the theatre?" Can it be safely assumed that the missionaries themselves have not seen, nor do they know the content of this musical,.......other than its name? They are being asked to endorse a play that in actual fact would repulse and horrify them. It reminds me of the demonstrations against Salman Rushdie and his book "Satanic Verses". Thousands of people demonstrated against his work, not because they had actually read his book and were reviled and insulted, but merely because their religious leaders had told them to. Where is the difference? Not really. If them seeing the play was the catalyst to them joining the church, then saying 'they joined the church as a result of seeing the play' is perfectly reasonable. 3 Link to comment
bcuzbcuz Posted March 21, 2017 Author Share Posted March 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: Not really. If them seeing the play was the catalyst to them joining the church, then saying 'they joined the church as a result of seeing the play' is perfectly reasonable. I still cannot see the reasoning. I agree with Calm and Bernard Gui. The musical appeals to prurient interests and pee and poo jokes. I did not go with my wife, nor did I accept an invitation to see it at a separate opportunity. Yes, the church is endorsing the play by having missionaries outside. The authorities who have admonished the missionaries to stand outside the theatre, in this case, a mission president, is proclaiming, "You've seen the play, now read the book" as though the two were connected. Anyone who sees the play and then expresses interest in the church is doing so based on entirely different reasons than those they state. They are either attracted to the fine young men standing outside the theatre or they have had an interest in the church prior to seeing the play, or something similar. IMO a person saying "I saw the play, now I want to know more about the church", either slept through the whole musical or they are saying "they saw the play" in order to, or because of the, shock value it adds. It makes that person noteworthy for their 15 seconds. I have, long ago (30+ years), stopped attending church and am far more than just in-active but a declared opponent to church doctrine and the worship of Joseph Smith. But I still wouldn't see this musical because of its moronic premise, gutter jokes and stated purpose as outlined by Parker and Stone. I'd rather be locked in a room with 24 hours of "South Park" being forced into my eyes and ears. Link to comment
bluebell Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 6 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: I still cannot see the reasoning. I agree with Calm and Bernard Gui. The musical appeals to prurient interests and pee and poo jokes. I did not go with my wife, nor did I accept an invitation to see it at a separate opportunity. Yes, the church is endorsing the play by having missionaries outside. The authorities who have admonished the missionaries to stand outside the theatre, in this case, a mission president, is proclaiming, "You've seen the play, now read the book" as though the two were connected. Anyone who sees the play and then expresses interest in the church is doing so based on entirely different reasons than those they state. They are either attracted to the fine young men standing outside the theatre or they have had an interest in the church prior to seeing the play, or something similar. IMO a person saying "I saw the play, now I want to know more about the church", either slept through the whole musical or they are saying "they saw the play" in order to, or because of the, shock value it adds. It makes that person noteworthy for their 15 seconds. I have, long ago (30+ years), stopped attending church and am far more than just in-active but a declared opponent to church doctrine and the worship of Joseph Smith. But I still wouldn't see this musical because of its moronic premise, gutter jokes and stated purpose as outlined by Parker and Stone. I'd rather be locked in a room with 24 hours of "South Park" being forced into my eyes and ears. That's like saying that the evangelicals are endorsing General Conference by standing outside of it. That doesn't seem like a very accurate or logical way of interpreting their actions. 4 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Oh, this is great...What part actually people would enjoy sitting there three hours to listen a two thousand years old stale story? When there's full of life to be lived........ I could never understand what a "Christlike living" was even in my most active periods, I always thought "Why would I need Jesus to breathe oxygen, enjoy life, I still continued for a while.... Then I figured "I can do Life by myself without help of anybody." You know what, I feel like scrapping my quote after giving this a lot of thought. But do think some would enjoy the community, or the instance of it when being in a ward. But if you're not a member and possibly a project or missionary op, then I see how that might not be sincere at all. And who needs friends that have those reasons as their motivation to befriend, although they've been discouraged by leaders to not be friends for a missionary op only. I just thought some who aren't bitter about the church may still get something out of it. I wish I could, but thinking on it, it probably couldn't work if you're not a believer. Although I know a member in my neighborhood that fakes it till she makes it, and everyone loves her because she stays involved and is a lot of fun. I feel like I take everything too serious. Too bad the LDS church can't include all walks of life. Like some churches out there, but they all still have their agendas I guess. I'm still trying to overcome my disbelief, so it's baby steps to do life by myself. Way to go though! Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Calm said: Warning: vulgarity discussed.... #6 the assault apparently happens after the "I believe" song (possibly a gang rape from the way it is written, he is surrounded by the general and his men), but the result is shown after the I am Africa song. The script has the doctor getting all excited from the X-ray and Price as "embarrassed" by the fact he has been sodomized by a Book of Mormon. Man, is that understanding of sexual assault victims. Legally, "rape" may be the wrong term, don't feel like looking at more than one state's differentiation. "Sexual assault" if you reject the term "rape". "After re-affirming his faith, he confronts the general with the Book of Mormon in hand, determined to convert him ("I Believe"). The general is unimpressed and angrily drags Price away; Price is next seen in the village doctor's office, having the Book of Mormon removed from his rectum." From wiki I saw it referenced in a half a dozen reviews and it is clear from the script what has happened, though the brutality is downplayed as I said to simply a cause for embarrassment. Rather disgusting in its treatment of a horrific and dangerous assault, but bet it gets lots of laughs. "Something incredible. You've done something incredible! I have never seen a rectal blockage of this kind! I have seen patients in the past with [edited]! But this is something incredible, and it blows my freakin' mind! [Price shakes his head from the embarassment] More disappointing and disturbing than the play itself was the audience's cheering reaction to this scene and other truly disgusting or disrespectful gags. Were the subjects Jewish or Muslim we would not be having this conversation. The show would have been shut down after one performance if it even got past a script reading. Edited March 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui Link to comment
Gray Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 I don't like musicals OR South Park. So I was never part of the target audience. Link to comment
bcuzbcuz Posted March 21, 2017 Author Share Posted March 21, 2017 29 minutes ago, bluebell said: That's like saying that the evangelicals are endorsing General Conference by standing outside of it. That doesn't seem like a very accurate or logical way of interpreting their actions. I will just have to acknowledge that you and I do not see this the same way. 1 Link to comment
bcuzbcuz Posted March 21, 2017 Author Share Posted March 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: More disappointing and disturbing than the play itself was the audience's cheering reaction to this scene and other truly disgusting or disrespectful gags. Were the subjects Jewish or Muslim we would not be having this conversation. The show would have been shut down after one performance. Instead of the show being shut down, the missionaries stand outside hawking (giving away) copies of the Book of Mormon. I agree with your analysis of the show, I don't agree with placing missionaries outside the theatre in order to distribute books. I did read the post from a parent, referencing to a letter from a missionary, about how successful the program was. Apparently the mission president thinks the idea of handing out the BofM at this show is a success. Link to comment
Gray Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: Instead of the show being shut down, the missionaries stand outside hawking (giving away) copies of the Book of Mormon. I agree with your analysis of the show, I don't agree with placing missionaries outside the theatre in order to distribute books. I did read the post from a parent, referencing to a letter from a missionary, about how successful the program was. Apparently the mission president thinks the idea of handing out the BofM at this show is a success. I'm sure at the very least they got rid of a lot of their excess supplies of Books of Mormon! Link to comment
bcuzbcuz Posted March 21, 2017 Author Share Posted March 21, 2017 On 3/20/2017 at 3:35 PM, Scott Lloyd said: I'm trying to resist re-establishing a presence here, but I can't resist offering this eyewitness account from my missionary son as a counterpoint to the above. He was called a week or two ago to the mission office in Stockholm for a "train-the-trainers" training session. Here's his account: I read your son's letter with extreme interest. It reminds me, with a bad taste in my mouth, of my experiences as a missionary in Sweden during the 1960's. I've told you before how we missionaries were pressured to sell and press BofM's into the hands of any unsuspecting person. One elder got his name to the front of our weekly newsletter by wrapping BofM's in Christmas wrapping paper, then selling them at Hötorget. He didn't tell people what they were buying. His line was, "This is a Christmas present that just costs one dollar. It would be bad form to tell you what is inside the wrapping." He asked the mission president to double his next week order of books. We were told every book would result in a convert, somewhere down the line. Yeah, sure. Handing out BofM's to people outside a darkened theatre following the showing of a distasteful musical is not far off the mark from what I remembered. Link to comment
Recommended Posts