Why I Won’t Be Seeing the Book of Mormon Musical

[Analytics]

Analytics,

Let me be the first to express my admiration for the broad-minded tolerance you show when it's someone else's ox being gored.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks, LOL.

[Analytics]

I loved, loved, loved the play. I can’t stop listening to the soundtrack (which I’ve since purchased). The characters (both the missionaries, and the Ugandans) have heart and are so multidimensional and empathetic. Besides being SO witty and well-done (some of the musical numbers are just hilarious, as they cleverly pay tongue-in-cheek homages from “Wicked” and “The King and I”), it made me proud to be Mormon, proud to be a returned missionary, and proud to be a former Latter-day Saint, all at once.

Kudos to the creators!

My view,

Darin

It sounds like a good show, thanks for the review. The knee-jerk reaction of people who haven't seen it is interesting.

In some ways this play is like Saturday's warrior goes to Africa, with funnier jokes, better music and more serious issues than the Zero population movement. I don't understand those who would cast stones at it without knowing much about it.

That's my impression as well. I wonder if the swearing was removed and it was released by Mormons rather than non-Mormons, would it be embraced by the people who are so offended by it?

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

A little swearing in a show doesn't bother me, but excessive does. I get to determine what I consider excessive. I still won't waste my hard earned money to watch.

[Mars]

I don't mind that others think it's funny while I find the play in poor taste.

What bugs the ever living daylights out of me is someone telling me I *shouldn't* find it in poor taste, or that Mormons *shouldn't* be offended, or that hey - all in all, it actually praises Mormons! Oh, right! Matt Stone and Trey Parker are just chomping at the bit to praise Mormons! I must be out of my mind...

[bluebell]

That's my impression as well. I wonder if the swearing was removed and it was released by Mormons rather than non-Mormons, would it be embraced by the people who are so offended by it?

If the swearing was removed, then i'd at least see it to judge it for myself, regardless of who released it. Without the swearing, it sounds like i would probably like it.

Like i said though, i can't get past the swearing-it's offensive to me. I know that some people would be fine with hearing people directing swear words to a loved one like a mother, wife, father, husband, or child. Some people can find value in a song where someone they personally love, like a parent or a child, is spoken of in what i consider foul terms, but i could never listen to someone say such things about someone I love. It would be painful and, like i said, offensive and no amount of 'funny' or 'feel-good' or 'morals' would make me o.k. with hearing a loved one disparaged so.

[Mars]

Swearing is at the bottom of a big-*** list of things I need to repent for.

[frankenstein]

The swearing is the least of the offense.

Here is the gist:

Someone in LDS Church history Biblically "knew" a frog - yes, the amphibian frog - said frogs were the reincarnation of some really bad people. This Biblical "knowing" is the cure for aids (I kind of got lost at this part of the music but I think that is what they were getting at. This song is about a missionary just making things up to stop people in Africa from doing things that do not jive with Western Culture.)

And if we subsitute "God can chew on a lemon" for a phrase in one the songs, then the chorus of sorts for said song would be "God can chew on a lemon" "Everyone in my village has aids ... God can go chew on a lemon" that is the gist of that song, well insert some tragedy then say the chorus.

I agree with Libs take on this. I think this could have been very funny to almost all LDS Folks - who doesn't know a missionary who just made things up or was completely wrong about something, or who doesn't know a LDS person is gay or identifies as such and struggles with it *I counted the other day and I know more gay people in the Church than out of the Church* .

A highly highly edited version of this might not be offensive to many LDS. But just taking out the swearing still leaves much to be offended by.

[Jeff K.]

Typed conversations bewteen us often seem challenging, Jeff, though I trust that in real life, it woudln't be so difficult.

I didn't "carefully selecta group who's core values are vague"--I used Unitarians as an example because that is my own system of religious belief, and so chose it to demonstrate to you that I am happy to laugh at my own Faith.

However, it's a mistake to assume that as a gay Unitarian, I can not or do not identify as Mormon--which I strongly do. Mormonism is as much my heritage as it is yours, Jeff--in fact, it may be even MORE so.

This play doesn't tell "your" sacred truths, as opposed to telling "my" sacred truths------this play is very MUCH just as much "mine" as it is "yours." In fact, I'd bet it's my story even MORE than yours, in many ways.

You seem to struggle with the complexities of different facets of the same individual. I am Mormon. I am gay. I am a returned foreign-serving LDS missionary. I am spiritual. I am atheist. I am a former Latter-day Saint.

This play isn't JUST about you.... It is very much about ME, too. You've personalized it and taken offense at something you haven't even seen, and continue to make snap judgements about, without having direct first hand knowledge. In my book, I avoid foolish behavior such as speaking about something about which I have no or little first hand contact. This play is NOT mean-spirited or spiteful or ridiculing in tone. It is very much outsiders' gentle--and even respectful--approach and portrayal of LDS belief and practice.

AIDS isn't sacred to anyone. It isn't a belief-system. It's a medical plague which is killing thousands of innocent people around the world. The Holocost or even the acts of terrorism on 9/11 were similarly horrible events that caused devastating losses of human life. Millions of innocents have died, between all three. So far as the loss of human life is concerned, all three are some of the greatest human tragedies in our modern era.

I am truly stunned that you keep attempting to draw any kind of analogus parrallel to a play on Broadway affectionately satirizing Mormonism (in a very positive way)(and a play which you haven't even seen) to some sort of humorous play mocking AIDS, the Holocost, or 9/11. The two are WORLDS apart.

Darin

I don't see our conversations as "challenging" though I think one of us is a bit disengenuous in the way the avoid the key points and dance around the issues. I tend to be very straightforward in what I state and why. You seem to constantly have difficulty understanding such straightforward speech. I will continue to attempt to show through analogies what you seem to be avoiding.

I didn't "carefully selecta group who's core values are vague"--I used Unitarians as an example because that is my own system of religious belief, and so chose it to demonstrate to you that I am happy to laugh at my own Faith.

You seem to conflate ridicule with humor, in fact you have avoided the term ridicule for some reason. I believe you attempt to conflate the issue of humor with ridicule allows you the leeway to presume innocence instead of actually acknowledging that you enjoy ridiculing a church that disagrees with you. You of course are free to laugh denigrate, make fun or ridicule your your faith in anyway you wish. I am afraid I have too much respect for belief systems, even ones I disagree with.

This play doesn't tell "your" sacred truths, as opposed to telling "my" sacred truths------this play is very MUCH just as much "mine" as it is "yours." In fact, I'd bet it's my story even MORE than yours, in many ways.

In fact the play ridicules what Mormons hold important. It need not "tell" sacred truths, an obfuscation. But it can ridicule sacrifice, belief, core values. It can make clowns of our children who sacrifice much to go out in the world. Your keep hearing the same stanza, that somehow Latter-day Saints beliefs and their adherents are stupid, but a nice stupid. To you this is not ridicule. And yet I do not know what else to call such a view of a belief system I claim as a part of who I am. Frankly if you ridicule such a belief system, you no longer have empathy for it, and in effect have cut yourself off of any claim of being "part of your story". Your story apparently doesn't hold a high opinion of the doctrine we hold important.

You seem to struggle with the complexities of different facets of the same individual. I am Mormon. I am gay. I am a returned foreign-serving LDS missionary. I am spiritual. I am atheist. I am a former Latter-day Saint.

No, not at all. I have no struggle with the complexity since there really isn't any complexity to the question of ridicule. No one can say that the play does not ridicule the church. You are the one involved in a game of self deception (said with great charity) in which you avoid the obvious use of the word and are at pains to conflate ridicule with humor. There are many humorous things in the world, but ridicule is hurtful, it denigrates, and makes cheap what others hold important. And clearly this play relies on ridicule, as mean spirited aspect of "humor".

This play isn't JUST about you.... It is very much about ME, too. You've personalized it and taken offense at something you haven't even seen, and continue to make snap judgements about, without having direct first hand knowledge. In my book, I avoid foolish behavior such as speaking about something about which I have no or little first hand contact. This play is NOT mean-spirited or spiteful or ridiculing in tone. It is very much outsiders' gentle--and even respectful--approach and portrayal of LDS belief and practice.

I agree, the play is about you. But perhaps not in the sense you may enjoy. It gives vent to your anger, to your feelings towards the church and the fact the church does not accept your lifestyle. It allows enmity and animosity to be freely shouted callous and malicious ways. Ways that you call "humorous". You are right. I would never visit an LDS play that made fun of gay men and women and what they hold important, it isn't in me to do so. I cannot bring myself to such a poisonous level. I would condemn whoever did such a thing, and I would not betray my core values by supporting such a group.

There are two questions to ask.

1 - Do they ridicule our doctrine?

2 - Is our doctrine sacred to us?

I think to most members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, our doctrine is sacred. To some our doctrine is not. This does not negate it's sacredness though. Nor does it mean that we should celebrate such ridicule. Just as we would not seek to ridicule others.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

If I presented a comedic farce on gay men dying of AIDS and ridiculed their lifestyles, their belief that a bond can form between men (or women) that an emotional tie can exist. If I so ridiculed it with great music, and laughter as say one AIDS partner slowly died (laughing and dancing away). I think more than a few in your community would be deeply offended. As they should be. Gay men and women would not laugh it off, they would not appreciate the humor or recognize the humor of the play. Many feel those relationships to be something sacred that should be cherished in a difficult world that does not understand them.

Maybe the point I am making is being lost on those who are beyond feeling.

AIDS isn't sacred to anyone. It isn't a belief-system. It's a medical plague which is killing thousands of innocent people around the world. The Holocost or even the acts of terrorism on 9/11 were similarly horrible events that caused devastating losses of human life. Millions of innocents have died, between all three. So far as the loss of human life is concerned, all three are some of the greatest human tragedies in our modern era.

I am truly stunned that you keep attempting to draw any kind of analogus parrallel to a play on Broadway affectionately satirizing Mormonism (in a very positive way)(and a play which you haven't even seen) to some sort of humorous play mocking AIDS, the Holocost, or 9/11. The two are WORLDS apart.

It appears you are running away from the issue with as much nimbleness as you are able to. The issue was not about AIDS obviously. I suggest you reread the underlined parts. Think about the issue of belief system, and what is held as important by those in your community. What stunns me is how you willingly overlook the main point in order avoid the issue once again. Forcing me to question whether or not you are being entirely honest in this dialogue.

[Sky]

I had that same thought, Sky. In other words, the temple content would be some of the easiest parts to misconstrue and take out of context. The play, however, features absolutely ZERO temple content, and only discusses topics that you'd hear at the level of the missionary discssions.

Darin

Thanks for answering my question. I’m thankful that they had the decency to leave the temple content out of the play.

After reading reviews of the play, as well as everybody’s responses here, I have come to the conclusion that Trey Parker and Matt Stone really do respect and even admire LDS people and many aspects of the Church.

Despite many apparent absurdities about Mormonism to them, they seem to recognize the enormous amount of good that the Church can do for people. They may not believe that the Church is true, but nonetheless they have a fascination and fixation with Mormons and Mormonism in general.

This is just my personal opinion, but I believe that deep down, there is a part of Parker and Stone which not only see the good about Mormonism, but they actually wish they could believe in it and be a part of it themselves. But they won’t allow themselves to get past the absurdities and the things they don’t understand. They won’t give place in their hearts for the Holy Spirit to teach them with a still small voice - line upon line, precept upon precept. But if they would allow it to, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ could change their lives for the better just as much as it has for anybody else.

Changing the subject back to the play itself, I think I better just accept the fact that there will be some people who will love it, and some people who will hate it, as demonstrated in this thread. Everybody has their reasons. The play is personally not my cup of tea, so to speak, and I will just leave it at that.

[Jeff K.]

I have a general rule to avoid movies that denigrate what people hold sacred. There is too much humor in the world to necessitate laughter at religion. Its a soft target that doesn't require much more than stereotyping. Cheap laughs. If you don't like it, then supposedly you aren't funny, or have no humor. I won't be attending and I am disappointed when saints help support cheap laughs that stereotype anyone, including themselves. The saints that saw the movie and thought if funny and tried hard to look past the ridicule are like the nerdy little kid who wants so hard to be cool, he will go along with anything. Shrug, its the way of the world I guess.

[bluebell]

The saints that saw the movie and thought if funny and tried hard to look past the ridicule are like the nerdy little kid who wants so hard to be cool, he will go along with anything. Shrug, its the way of the world I guess.

Jeff, why do you have to denigrate people who disagree with your personal opinions?

[thesometimesaint]

bluebell:

One common reason is that it gives them a sense of self superiority.

[frankenstein]

Jeff, why do you have to denigrate people who disagree with your personal opinions?

another common reason at least for this board is "Jesus did and we are suppose to be like Jesus" or "I my hate is because I love God so much"

While there is truth to hate the sin love the sinner, the line becomes all to blurred when we fallen mortals attempt to put the principle in to practice.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff, why do you have to denigrate people who disagree with your personal opinions?

I don't. But I do pay attention to conference talks.

I do think that sometimes we saints seek acceptance in the world so much that we forget what is important.

[Jeff K.]

I will not applaud a play or people who go to a play that denigrates the church in such a manner. I have heard many justifications for doing so. One themes seems to be that we are supposed to "take it". And members who actually celebrate the play and say how wonderful it is. I cannot be part of a collaborative effort to laugh at something Christ restored. Nor could I be part of a collaborative effort to denigrate the belief system of someone else's beliefs.

Bluebell, Perhaps if you thought less about getting along, and more about what is important there would be more clarity in my words. I presume you were thinking that I was speaking directly to Sky regarding the issue, I wasn't. His position is clear and neutral. My point was that seeing the play was in itself wrong and a mockery of Christ and his work. I won't justify it, and it worries me that so many Saints try to do so. It is one thing for non members to laugh and jeer at our church. It is another for the Saints to support such actions either passively or actively.

[bluebell]

Bluebell, Perhaps if you thought less about getting along, and more about what is important there would be more clarity in my words.

You're doing it again-claiming a weakness for anyone who disagrees with your personal opinions.

I presume you were thinking that I was speaking directly to Sky regarding the issue, I wasn't.

I honestly did not think you were speaking to Sky. I didn't think you were speaking to anyone specific on the board but making a generalized judgment.

My point was that seeing the play was in itself wrong and a mockery of Christ and his work. I won't justify it, and it worries me that so many Saints try to do so. It is one thing for non members to laugh and jeer at our church. It is another for the Saints to support such actions either passively or actively.

Yes, i do understand your point. I just think determining that all who disagree with it need to repent because the very act of seeing it is mocking Christ might be way beyond our paygrade.

[Jeff K.]

Again no. Opinions are good and bad. I think someone isn't thinking things through when they collaborate with those who seek to hurt or destroy the church, or denigrate it. What am I supposed to say "thats fine"? And "I disagree" is too dishwater weak.

It is wrong, they should not see it. And the Lord doesn't approve either. If you think he does I suggest you review some of the basic ten commandments.

[bluebell]

It is wrong, they should not see it. And the Lord doesn't approve either. If you think he does I suggest you review some of the basic ten commandments.

If you feel comfortable speaking for Him for the entirety of humanity, then do what you have to do. I personally don't feel I am entitled to do that, nor do i think anyone but the prophets and leaders of the church are entitled to do that, and so i think it would be too 'dishwater weak' NOT to speak up in opposition to your speaking up.

However, now we've both spoken up and had our say and i'm sure everyone else in the thread is becoming annoyed with us, so, at least from my end, i'm moving on.

[Jeff K.]

If you feel comfortable speaking for Him for the entirety of humanity, then do what you have to do. I personally don't feel I am entitled to do that, nor do i think anyone but the prophets and leaders of the church are entitled to do that, and so i think it would be too 'dishwater weak' NOT to speak up in opposition to your speaking up.

However, now we've both spoken up and had our say and i'm sure everyone else in the thread is becoming annoyed with us, so, at least from my end, i'm moving on.

As a missionary I did indeed speak for Him for the entirety of humanity.

Behold, verily I say unto you, that it is my will that you should proclaim my gospel from land to land, and from city to city, yea, in those regions round about where it has not been proclaimed.

along those lines

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Sure, I feel comfortable saying that to all humanity. And you aren't merely entitled to do that, as a member of the church you are obligated to do it.

I agree we have both spoken our minds on the subject. My mind definately has been tossed about a bit on the matter. I think what bothers me is how my friends who happen to be gay are so very happy when I refuse to buy into items that undermine or denigrate what they feel is important (mainly how their relationships are) and they respect the fact that while I disagree with the lifestyle they have chosen, I will still respect that they chose their partners in good faith with each other. And yet some of those same people can't understand why I am not laughing at our church with them. It is especially disheartening when someone calls themeselves an active member and simultaneously says its a wonderful play about Mormons.

It might be a nice play about people, but it completely denigrates Christ's work and restoration as nothing more than a parody of lies and missteps, and mocks the sacrifices so many have made in Africa and so many other places to spread the gospel. I do not think we Latter-day Saints should be supporting such a position with either our money or praise.

[Jeff K.]

Oh and thanks for responding, even if we disagree on this matter.

[Anijen]

Considering that some people don't believe that its acceptable for women to show their face in public, your criticism is meaningless.

If you are going to use the word "acceptable" you need to define the standards you are applying.

The play was written to be performed on Broadway, not at a high school theater in Utah County. By the standards of Broadway, the play is most certainly acceptable.

Most people have this concept of Broadway, Technically on Broadway or Broadway means 500 seats or more. You can be on Broadway in Bakersfield Ca if its 500 seats etc. I know some high school theaters would be considered Broadway.

[Daniel2]

'Book of Mormon,' 'Anything Goes' Top Drama Desk Awards

Each wins five awards at Monday's ceremony, including the top musical prizes; "War Horse" and revival "The Normal Heart" top the best play categories.

The Book of Mormon and Anything Goes topped the 55th annual Drama Desk Awards on Monday with five wins apiece.

Mormon -- which leads the Tony nominations with 14 and also led the Drama Desk noms with 12 -- was named best musical, while Anything Goes -- which has nine Tony noms -- won for best revival of a musical.

Mormon also took home trophies for direction for a musical (Casey Nicholas and Trey Parker), music (Parker, Robert Lopez and Matt Stone), lyrics (Parker, Lopez and Stone) and orchestrations (Larry Hochman and Stephen Oremus).

...

Harvey Fierstein hosted the ceremony, which took place at the Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. Highlights will air June 4 on Ovation.

The above article also has a link to the following, which I thought might be interesting to some:

Why South Park's Trey Parker and Matt Stone Now Say It's 'Wrong' to Offend

3/24/2011 by Stephen Galloway

Trey Parker and Matt Stone sit slumped at a table, exhausted.

Their sense of humor has almost vanished, their energy disappeared, their anarchists’ willingness to say “---- you” to anything that smacks of the establishment has utterly drained away. All they can think of is sleep.

“The schedule throws you off so much,” says Parker, referring to their new Broadway musical, The Book of Mormon, about two young missionaries who are sent to Uganda. “We’ve been going to previews every night then staying up till 2 or 3. I’m worn out.”

Who can blame him? In the nine weeks since South Park’s creators decamped from Los Angeles for New York, they’ve plunged into a frenetic world of rehearsals, rewrites and directing their show — all with, between them, a wife, a girlfriend and two kids in tow. The sheer volume of work, and the lightning speed at which it has raced by, has caught them unawares.

“It’s crazy how fast it is,” says Parker, wolfing down dinner at Serafina restaurant. “We did four weeks of rehearsals, then two weeks of ‘tech,’ then went into previews. Seriously, this is what blew my mind: We only heard the thing with a full orchestra six days before the first paying audience.”

On March 24, a far higher-profile audience is scheduled to attend Mormon’s opening night, when New York will be counting on the production to sustain Broadway’s momentum — with more than $1 billion in grosses last year — and restore some of the luster tarnished by Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark.

But at this point, with just eight days left before the premiere, that’s the last thing on the writers’ minds. Parker dreams of taking a vacation “somewhere in the Caribbean,” while Stone just wants to “go look at a wall and check out.”

He won’t have long to do so. A week after they leave New York around March 28, the pair hurtles into the 15th season of South Park, part of a new pact with Comedy Central that keeps the show on the air through 2013 and is said to be even richer than their previous $75 million deal. They’ll have just one week to create each episode, with no time to prep.

“Every show, we’re down to the wire,” says Parker, running his hand through his hair in exasperation. “I don’t know how we’re going to do it. It’s a nightmare.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“They’ve matured. I’m very proud of the men they’ve become.” — “South Park” exec producer Anne Garefino, on Parker and Stone

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This nightmare, a good problem to have, might have been averted if not for a chance meeting with Robert Lopez in 2004.

On producer Scott Rudin’s advice, Parker and Stone went to see the writer-composer’s Tony-winning Avenue Q, then took him for a drink.

“Bobby said, ‘I want to do something about Joseph Smith,’ ” recalls Stone, the younger and more extroverted of the South Park duo, referrring to the founder of the Mormon religion. “And we were like: ‘Wait! We want to do something about Joseph Smith!’ ”

Growing up in Colorado, next door to Utah, Parker and Stone had long been familiar with the Mormon church and its members; Parker even dated a Mormon girl and was badly hurt when she ditched him.

They had first thought of a fictionalized Smith while working on an aborted Fox TV series about historical characters. Now, with Lopez, they started bandying about more concrete ideas — though they weren’t sure if their work would lead to a play or a film or something else altogether — only to realize Smith didn’t provide a strong enough hook.

“Within a few days, we were like, ‘Nah!’ ” Parker says. “We pretty quickly got to a modern story.”

This new version revolved around two young men who would go into the world on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a missionary task that’s obligatory for all Mormons. Precisely who they would be and where they would go remained undetermined.

In an effort to hone the tale, the three creators — who jointly wrote the book, music and lyrics — took a research trip to Salt Lake City.

“Bobby had never been there,” Stone remembers, “so we ended up doing all the visitor stuff and museums but mostly talking to a lot of people.”

As their ideas evolved, the principal characters crystallized into a bright-eyed zealot and his wacky, comedic companion. But developing them further proved a challenge. Lopez was based in New York, the South Park guys in Los Angeles — and they were working ceaselessly. How would they ever find the time to create an entire musical?

In 2006, Parker and Stone flew to London, where they spent three weeks with Lopez while he was working on the West End production of Avenue Q. “We wrote four or five songs and came up with the basic germ of the idea there — that they would go somewhere not Salt Lake City-like,” Parker recalls.

During the next few years, the trio met frequently to develop what they initially called The Book of Mormon: The Musical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“There was a lot of hopping back and forth between L.A. and New York,” Parker says. “That probably helped the project because there would be, ‘Oh ----, the guy flew out; we should probably work.’ ” All the while, the format itself remained uncertain. “We were thinking, ‘Let’s make an album; let’s just write another song,’ ” Parker says.

It was Lopez who pushed for the stage, and as his partners concurred, he prodded them to take the vehicle a step further and “workshop” it. Coming from TV and film, Parker and Stone were clueless about what he meant.

“We didn’t understand the whole workshop process,” Parker admits. “Bobby had to explain, ‘We need to cast it and have people there with music stands in a little theater, reading the script and singing the songs.’ ”

The group embarked on the first of a half-dozen workshops that would take place during the next four years, ranging from 30-minute mini-performances for family and friends to much larger-scale renderings of the embryonic show. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money, still unconvinced they’d take it any further.

The workshop process was thrilling but posed its own challenges.

“In animation, we would simply have people do an ‘animatic’ [in which storyboards are designed to accompany prerecorded dialogue], something we could look at on an Avid,” Stone says. “But for Broadway, you need 20 actors and auditions — and that means dealing with Equity, the actors union. They have a pay scale just for workshops.”

A final five-week workshop took place in August, when Casey Nicholaw came on board as choreographer and co-director with Parker. By that time, several of the cast members who’d been with them all the way — like Josh Gad, the plump sidekick whose confused mangling of Mormonism with Star Wars provides some of the show’s biggest laughs — were starting to get antsy.

“August was our ‘****-or-get-off-the-pot,’ ” Parker says. But the response they received was enough to make them commit. “Then we opened a corporation and did the whole investment thing.”

Financing Mormon proved easy and modest by Hollywood standards. “It’s more than $2 million-$3 million but less than Spider-Man,” quips Stone. An insider estimates the budget at about $10 million, low for a big musical.

With Rudin in charge, the creators had one of Broadway’s leading producers at their side, who had also worked with them on the films South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut and Team America: World Police. It was Rudin who now booked a theater and hired key players while sets were designed and built, hundreds of actors auditioned and some 28 cast. Finally, a rehearsal space was found, tape laid on the ground to mark key spots, and the actual work of producing a full-blown musical got under way.

On Jan. 10, Parker and Stone flew to New York, ready to give Mormon their all.

♦♦♦♦♦

It’s mid-afternoon on a Thursday, precisely a week before the show premieres, and their all just doesn’t seem to be enough.

They’re huddled with Rudin in the stalls of the Eugene O’Neill Theatre, locked in intense discussion as Nicholaw pivots across the stage, a whirlwind of energy, putting his cast through one of the show’s bouncier numbers. The number may be bouncy, but the cast isn’t. Like the dozen or so technicians and stagehands sprinkled throughout the auditorium, they look wiped out.

Nicholaw shakes his whole head and body as two of the cast fail to get a movement quite right. “No, no, no!” he says, maintaining a remarkable ebullience despite his frustration. Across the stage, an actress who plays one of the Ugandan villagers rolls her eyes.

Parker glances up at her somberly.

At 41, he is no longer the enfant terrible who became notorious for lampooning everyone and everything — from Tom Cruise to Paris Hilton to Muhammad — and, along with Stone, even appearing in a dress at the Oscars. Rather, there’s a high seriousness to him that might surprise South Park aficionados.

He treats the series as more than a job; it’s a cause.

“South Park is way bigger than either of us,” he says. “And it’s this curse, and when we are doing it, I hate it. I’m pissed off and I’m tired, and every single Tuesday I say, ‘This is the worst show we’ve ever done!’ It’s brutal. But it’s something I am a part of that’s bigger than I am. That’s what most important.”

Says Rudin: “It’s this thing that happens rarely in the culture, where something very subversive is also very affirmative. It has affirmative values but also tears down every possible institution.”

That combination has resulted in an enterprise worth hundreds of millions of dollars. South Park T-shirts alone generated some $30 million in sales in the late ’90s.

And yet its success comes at a price: When they return to Los Angeles, Parker and Stone will have just two months to produce a batch of seven new episodes, followed by seven more after a brief hiatus. Without their usual two weeks of prep before the season begins — and without their habitual five-day writers retreat — they’ll be scribbling ideas on Thursdays and working nonstop till the early hours of the following Wednesday morning, the very day each episode airs, when it is finally locked.

Both write, but their chores are slightly different. Parker, the more introspective of the two, also directs, while the effervescent Stone, 39, interfaces with the world at large.

“He’s genuinely a true artist,” Stone says of his colleague. “I’m more mercurial. I have a temper more than Trey; I’m not proud of it, but I have that edge. Trey avoids conflict like the plague.”

Raised in Conifer, Colo., the son of a geologist father and an insurance-salesman mother, Parker spent a semester at the Berklee College of Music before meeting Stone at the University of Colorado, where the latter — from suburban Littleton — was a math major. Both shared a uniquely provocative, anti-authoritarian humor, which they quickly applied to their first movie, Cannibal! The Musical.

Cannibal sold to schlock purveyor Troma Entertainment and got them a writing deal with Rudin while they were still in their early 20s.

But it wasn’t until they made a much-talked-about video greeting card for Fox executive Brian Graden that they were commissioned to make South Park some 15 years ago. Other than the two forays into film and a TV misfire, That’s My Bush, they’ve remained exclusively with South Park ever since.

Parker says they’ve had it “pretty good.” He doesn’t voice the familiar complaints about interference from Standards and Practices — in fact, he says Comedy Central’s lawyers have helped the series.

“The Scientology episode, for instance, started with the idea that Tom Cruise is going to show up and he’s just flamboyantly gay, and we were going to say, ‘There’s that gay guy!’ ” he explains. “And the lawyers said, ‘You just can’t do that.’ So we went, ‘What if we say, “There’s that guy, and he’s in a closet?” ’ And they said, ‘Can’t do it.’ So we said, ‘What if he’s literally in a closet?’ And they said, ‘That you can do!’ ” He smiles. “Bargaining makes you come up with the best ideas.”

The Cruise episode was one of many that defined South Park as among the most cutting-edge shows of its era, a creation that made fun of individuals and institutions alike. Which makes it surprising to discover there’s a gentleness and even a kindness about Parker and Stone that’s far from the flipness one might expect.

South Park executive producer Anne Garefino. “I’m very proud of the men they’ve become.”

It’s easy to forget that the guys who started South Park as twentysomethings are now on the brink of middle age.

“We care about different things today,” Parker admits. “First, we were friends f---ing around, trying to get laid, breaking into Hollywood, sleeping on couches. Now Matt is married, and I’ve got a little family.”

Two years ago, Stone wed his longtime girlfriend, with whom he has a 1-year-old boy. As for Parker, after a failed earlier marriage, he says he’s found contentment with his girlfriend of the past two years, who has a 10-year-old son.

Both have become more sedate: Stone, who’s been with the same woman for 10 years, believes he’s born to be a family man, and Parker says most of his spare time is now spent at home.

“For better or worse, we’ve gotten older,” he acknowledges.

In his down time, the Cruise/Muhammad/Mormon satirist is obsessed with Food Network, and his hobby is designing houses. “I got into this little habit of architecture and building,” he says. “I designed a house in Colorado and one in Hawaii. The idea is supposed to be build and sell — but then I can never bring myself to sell them.”

He laughs easily, appreciating the brief respite from all the pressure. Like Stone, he’s almost shockingly normal and decent.

Even at their most sacrilegious, Parker says, they never plan to inflict pain. He seems relieved at the Mormon response to his satire.

“The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening,” the LDS website notes, “but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people’s lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ.”

“When someone goes, ‘Oh, this group is really pissed off at what you said,’ there’s not a piece of my body that goes, ‘Sweet!’ ” Parker asserts. “That means I did it wrong. I’m just trying to make people laugh.”

Which is precisely what he says he’s trying to do with Mormon.

And yet the amount of effort the writers have expended, the perfectionism they’ve brought to bear, seems designed for something far grander.

The result might have lyrics like “**** you, God, in the ***, mouth and ****,” but that shouldn’t dispel its underlying humanity. If anything, the shock element seems a distraction, as if Stone and Parker were reminding us they’re still the South Park creators of old when in truth they’re reaching for something new.

But can they succeed?

♦♦♦♦♦

Night. Ad the 1,102-seat theater fills to capacity, a rapid-fire prologue introduces us to the history of Mormonism, then we meet the show’s leads. Minutes later, we’re whisked to Africa, where we encounter cheery locals who sing with an abandon that the rehearsals simply don’t convey:

There isn’t enough food to eat/Hasa diga eebowai!/People are starving in the street/Hasa diga eebowai!

Gad’s Elder Cunningham squeals with an infectious giggle, unaware that Hasa diga eebowai will turn out to be blasphemous. Then we’re on a roller-coaster ride of comedy and characters with names like General *** ******* Naked all wild and anarchic and yet so fundamentally sweet it hurts.

As the curtain falls two hours later, the audience rises in a thunderous ovation. Mormon is very possibly about to become a phenomenon.

This isn’t South Park: It’s a deeper, more mature work, which is terrific and terrifying at the same time.

“Once you get yourselves into things that are working on a deeper level, you just have to keep going,” Stone reflects. “When you reach that deeper level, you can’t go back.”

[Sky]

A good read...

Mocking the Mormons