BoM The Musical in SLC

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Your comments above are a Straw Man Arguement.  Those of us who can appreciate the satire of BOM:TM within the confines of a theater aimed at adults aren't arguing that it's appropriate to use such language in every of the scenarios you listed.  After all...

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Hmmm. That's the first scriptural defense of BOMTM I've seen.

A time to spew vulgarity, a time to talk potty mouth;

A time to blaspheme God and Jesus, a time to mock sacred things.

So, why is language that could get you thrown out of a restaurant or a school, arrested by the police, fired from a job, sued by a co-worker, shamed by your children or parents, beat up by your brother-in-law...things you would never dream of saying in public or to a friend, never to a spouse or child or even a complete stranger, words you would never write in a letter to a friend or a memo to a boss...words that are inappropriate in virtually any other situation....why are they laudable just because they are spewed in a theater? 

Could they have created a great satire without the s-c-f-bombs, maggots in my s-----, missionary raped with his scriptures, and profanity from the mouth of Jesus? Yes. Would they have sold as many tickets and garnered so many awards without them? No. That's not entertainment for real adults. It's purely puerile.

The bogus favorable comparisons of this show with the great, successful, and award-winning musicals of the past illustrate the undeniable debasing of our culture. I recently attended with Sister Gui a community theater production of "The King and I," a musical in which I have performed. It powerfully deals with serious social and moral issues that we still face today. First performed in 1951, it tackled taboos and injustices, but it's still as fresh and poignant today as it was on opening night. Narry a cuss word. Narry a scatological joke. Narry a warning not to bring your kids. Narry a critic refusing to see it. Narry a claim that a member of the bishopric went with me so it must be ok to see it. Narry making excuses for obscenity because, despite the debauchery, it had "heart and a certain sweetness." No excuses that it was a "love-letter" to bigoted racist colonialists. It was great theater in the true sense of the word. Not one word of the musical would be inappropriate in any other situation.

"Book of Mormon the Musical" will not stand that test of time. There's just so much mileage you can get from obscenity. But.....to each his own.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hmmm. That's the first scriptural defense of BOMTM I've seen.

A time to spew vulgarity, a time to talk potty mouth;

A time to blaspheme God and Jesus, a time to mock sacred things.

So, why is language that could get you thrown out of a restaurant or a school, arrested by the police, fired from a job, sued by a co-worker, shamed by your children or parents, beat up by your brother-in-law...things you would never dream of saying in public or to a friend, never to a spouse or child or even a complete stranger, words you would never write in a letter to a friend or a memo to a boss...words that are inappropriate in virtually any other situation....why are they laudable just because they are spewed in a theater? 

Could they have created a great satire without the s-c-f-bombs, flies in my s-----, missionary raped with his scriptures, and profanity from the mouth of Jesus? Yes. Would they have sold as many tickets and garnered so many awards without them? No. That's not entertainment for real adults. It's purely puerile.

The bogus favorable comparisons of this show with the great, successful, and award-winning musicals of the past illustrate the undeniable debasing of our culture. I recently attended with Sister Gui a community theater production of "The King and I," a musical in which I have performed. It powerfully deals with serious social and moral issues that we still face today. First performed in 1951, it tackled taboos and injustices, but it's still as fresh and poignant today as it was on opening night. Narry a cuss word. Narry a scatological joke. Narry a warning not to bring your kids. Narry a critic refusing to see it. Narry a claim that a member of the bishopric went with me so it must be ok to see it. Narry making excuses for obscenity because, despite the debauchery, it had "heart and a certain sweetness." No excuses that it was a "love-letter" to bigoted racist colonialists. It was great theater in the true sense of the word. Not one word of the musical would be inappropriate in any other situation.

"Book of Mormon the Musical" will not stand that test of time. There's just so much mileage you can get from obscenity. But.....to each his own.

You really don't know the answer to your question?  I think we all get that you don't like the vulgarity of the play.  And quite frankly not a single person is defending the bad language or obscenely .  You have made that point for the past 13 pages, on every page.  And this is a statement that no one is disagreeing with.  But it is getting ridiculous when you can't see the difference between using bad language or inappropriate behavior in  a restaurant or police station and a theater where people have paid money to see that very thing you are offended by.  Geeze.  You have made an obsession out of this play.  One you are not forced to see nor have seen except a pirated copy on YouTube.  Something that is beyond me why you did that knowing the content of the play.  

Do you know why I am not offended by women dancing naked on a pole in a strip club?  Because I have never been to one and I have not spent hours researching the subject.  I haven't looked for pirated copies of a performance on YouTube.  Now if that happened in Walmart or a classroom, then I would have reason to be offended and I would be writing a similar tirade like yours.  Hopefully you can see the difference in what you are pointing out.  Now, stick with the King and I.  We will all be happier. 

[thesometimesaint]

I think it should be given all the attention it deserves.

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

You really don't know the answer to your question?  I think we all get that you don't like the vulgarity of the play.  And quite frankly not a single person is defending the bad language or obscenely .  You have made that point for the past 13 pages, on every page.  And this is a statement that no one is disagreeing with.  But it is getting ridiculous when you can't see the difference between using bad language or inappropriate behavior in  a restaurant or police station and a theater where people have paid money to see that very thing you are offended by.  Geeze.  You have made an obsession out of this play.  One you are not forced to see nor have seen except a pirated copy on YouTube.  Something that is beyond me why you did that knowing the content of the play.  

Do you know why I am not offended by women dancing naked on a pole in a strip club?  Because I have never been to one and I have not spent hours researching the subject.  I haven't looked for pirated copies of a performance on YouTube.  Now if that happened in Walmart or a classroom, then I would have reason to be offended and I would be writing a similar tirade like yours.  Hopefully you can see the difference in what you are pointing out.  Now, stick with the King and I.  We will all be happier. 

Yes, master. I will stick to the wonderful things that have actually contributed to the enrichment of our culture and decry the things that are destroying it. Even if....shudder....it means watching a Vimeo video. I know what your reaction would be to my criticism if I had not seen the play. You would dismiss it. So let's just say I took one for the team.  I certainly am not answerable to you. You don't have to engage me. You seem not to understand why I gave extensive attention to The King and I.

How do you feel about people sneaking into the temple to record the endowment? I hope you are as put out as you are with a Vimeo video.

After 13 pages you've  entirely missed the point and misconstrued my passion. This slime keeps getting shoved into our faces and I object. Careers are destroyed by just one anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim comment, even if unintentional. Here careers are made by a purposeful sliming of my religion. I object to that. We don't have to step back and take the mockery. Yet we have good members of the Church who defend it. I get the rest of the population getting their jollies watching the depravity, but I don't understand members doing it. I see my efforts as the child who points out the naked emperor. Maybe someone will save the ticket money and give it to a homeless shelter.

Nor have you answered the questions. The writers falsely claim they love Mormons and the press parrots the condescending "love-letter" baloney as it comes to town after town. In reality it's a cruelly cynical mockery of a religion and a race of people. The writers knowingly took the most sacred things in our religion and turned them into the most foul obscenity possible. That it really is hateful is proved by the double-meaning of the words of Jesus to the Mormons.  I object to that vigorously. If others know the truth about it and still applaud, it's a sad day for all of us.

You get the last word.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

While part of me is sympathetic to this view would this mean no mockery of Scientology? How far does this go?

Don't get me wrong, I can give and take a good religious ribbing, but I feel that more sensitivity and restrain should be used in regards to a people's God/s and most sacred beliefs.  I understand that satire is about crossing the line, but I feel that as a matter of religious and cultural sensitivity and civility, perhaps some lines are better left uncrossed.  When such lines are crossed, then I feel that some push back is warranted and those lines need to be defined. 

[pogi]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

You really don't know the answer to your question?  I think we all get that you don't like the vulgarity of the play.  And quite frankly not a single person is defending the bad language or obscenely.

Then what are you defending exactly?  Why are you giving us push-back for expressing our disgust and shock that society is so accepting of this?

4 hours ago, california boy said:

But it is getting ridiculous when you can't see the difference between using bad language or inappropriate behavior in  a restaurant or police station and a theater where people have paid money to see that very thing you are offended by.

I think we all see the difference.  What we (or at least I) can't understand is the apparent double standard in society.  If such language and religious mockery wouldn't be tolerated in public, why does paying for it suddenly make it acceptable?  The fact that people are paying to see this crap is that much more offensive to me.  Do people have no integrity?  Do their principles simply vanish in the theater?  Why so two-faced?  Can you please address this issue, because it appears to me like society has lost all integrity if their principles in public are different from their principles in private.  

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think it should be given all the attention it deserves.

As you should.

[thesometimesaint]

I do. As close to none as is humanely possible.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I do. As close to none as is humanely possible.

I admire your self-control

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

If such language and religious mockery wouldn't be tolerated in public, why does paying for it suddenly make it acceptable?

One of my favorite musicals (which I have played twice) and watched multiple times including an unforgettable live performance in the Polish National Theater in Warsaw with Sister Gui and our sons Abogadissimo and Artisticcino) is "Fiddler on the Roof." Written by Jews about Jews, it deals with some very difficult Jewish issues. It spoofs some things, reverences some things, never mocks, never sinks into profanity, but always with an unquestionable love and gentle respect for the religion they know and love. Talk about a "love-letter to Jews!" No word or subject in the play would be inappropriate in any other situation. 

Mel Brooks and others satirize their religion, but what about an obscene sacrilegious play that mocks the most sacred aspects of Judaism, written by non-Jews who say, "We love Jews. Some of our best friends are Jews. My first girlfriend was a Jew. I grew up around Jews. They are really nice people." And then making obscenities spew from the mouths of G-d, Moses, Abraham, Jacob? Using the Torah for a cruel depraved joke? How would it be received? What term would be used to describe it? What awards would it be given?

Edited August 11, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, master. I will stick to the wonderful things that have actually contributed to the enrichment of our culture and decry the things that are destroying it. Even if....shudder....it means watching a Vimeo video. I know what your reaction would be to my criticism if I had not seen the play. You would dismiss it. So let's just say I took one for the team.  I certainly am not answerable to you. You don't have to engage me. You seem not to understand why I gave extensive attention to The King and I.

Burlesque is an art form that uses raunchy language and satire has been going on since before the Victorian age.  I highly doubt one more raunchy play is going to destroy our culture.  I too enjoyed "The King and I"  Seen it several times as well.  I will leave it up to you whether you continue your practice of watching pirated ranchy plays.  

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How do you feel about people sneaking into the temple to record the endowment? I hope you are as put out as you are with a Vimeo video.

I think It is disturbing and poor taste.  But then I also think viewing pirated videos of any material is immoral.

 

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

After 13 pages you've  entirely missed the point and misconstrued my passion.

You have made three points.  

1. The play is vulgar, obscene and in poor taste.  Something that not a single poster has disagreed with you on.  So not really a point of any difference.

2.  You feel the play doesn't respect your beliefs.  I agree, but also point out that the church also has a track record of not respecting other peoples beliefs.  The South Park group wrote a play about it.  The Mormon church worked to take away the civil rights of gay couples.  

3.  You think a play that has bad language and disrespects your own personal beliefs that people pay hundreds of dollars to see should be equated with someone doing similar things in the general public. I have expressed to you my opinion on this issue.  There is a difference between a stripper performing in a night club that people expect and pay to attend and a stripper doing a performance in Walmart or any of the other places you mentioned.  I personally can't understand your confusion on this issue and disagree with your assertion.  

Quote

 

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This slime keeps getting shoved into our faces and I object.  

 

Sorry WRONG.  Nothing got shoved in your face.  You actually resorted to dishonest and illegal activity to view a pirated copy of the play.  No one shoved anything on you.  You actively sought everything you have seen about the play all by yourself.  No one had any part in that.  
 

Quote

 

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Careers are destroyed by just one anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim comment, even if unintentional. Here careers are made by a purposeful sliming of my religion. I object to that. 

 

Already discussed and answered.  

Quote

 

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We don't have to step back and take the mockery. Yet we have good members of the Church who defend it. I get the rest of the population getting their jollies watching the depravity, but I don't understand members doing it. I see my efforts as the child who points out the naked emperor. Maybe someone will save the ticket money and give it to a homeless shelter

Sorry, but you don't get to dictate what others do.  You only can decide for yourself what you are going to do.  

 

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Nor have you answered the questions. The writers falsely claim they love Mormons and the press parrots the condescending "love-letter" baloney as it comes to town after town. In reality it's a cruelly cynical mockery of a religion and a race of people. The writers knowingly took the most sacred things in our religion and turned them into the most foul obscenity possible. That it really is hateful is proved by the double-meaning of the words of Jesus to the Mormons.  I object to that vigorously. If others know the truth about it and still applaud, it's a sad day for all of us.

You get the last word.

Sorry I can't speak for the writers.  You will have to ask them.  

My last words:

The Mormon church is tied with the Muslin church is the most disliked religion in America.  You got bigger problems than a play that feeds upon that dislike.  Perhaps if the church wants increased respect it should start by respecting other peoples beliefs and the choices they have made.  The church thinks it has the right to dictate the choices others make.  You seem to have picked up on that same belief.  I personally don't think that attitude is going over well with the general public.  

[Dexter Eli]

I think you are making too much of this.

I am thrilled that we live in a society where religions can be mocked without those who mock being killed, tortured or imprisoned.  

I am sickened by cowardly media groups who allow threats from some religions to scare them into NOT expressing their views.  (those who didn't support Jyllands-Posten)

It's not as complicated as many make it out to be. Do you want a society where religion trumps freedom of speech?  I certainly don't. 

Is the BOM Musical offensive? It certainly is to many, including myself. Am I glad I live in a country where it can be put on? ABSOLUTELY! 

Besides, the church should just view it as any publicity is good publicity so what's the harm? 

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

... I am thrilled that we live in a society where religions can be mocked without those who mock being killed, tortured or imprisoned. ... 

I don't know anyone here who is arguing that Parker, Stone, and Lopez should be killed, tortured, or imprisoned.  If you can point such an argument out to me, I will be happy to denounce it.

Quote

It's not as complicated as many make it out to be. Do you want a society where religion trumps freedom of speech?  I certainly don't. 

False dilemma. But thanks fer playin'!  

Quote

Besides, the church should just view it as any publicity is good publicity so what's the harm? 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders apparently are proceeding on the basis that it's better to be talked about ... even if Parker, Stone and Lopez are doing the "talking" ... than it is to be ignored, but that doesn't mean that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have to be happy about what they say or about how they say it: Rest assured, your motives may be noble or benign, but for Parker, Stone, and Lopez, it's "all about the Benjamins" (my phrase).

Edited August 11, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

Then what are you defending exactly?  Why are you giving us push-back for expressing our disgust and shock that society is so accepting of this?

I haven't defended the obscene language and gestures in the play at all.  None.  Nothing.  You are welcome as well as others to express that disgust.  

On the other hand I tried to bring up possibilities as to why the public has such a dislike for the Mormon church.  This doesn't happen in a vacuum.  Do you think anyone wants to discuss the reasons why society is so accepting of this?  So far no.

 

Quote

I think we all see the difference.  What we (or at least I) can't understand is the apparent double standard in society.  If such language and religious mockery wouldn't be tolerated in public, why does paying for it suddenly make it acceptable?  The fact that people are paying to see this crap is that much more offensive to me.  Do people have no integrity?  Do their principles simply vanish in the theater?  Why so two-faced?  Can you please address this issue, because it appears to me like society has lost all integrity if their principles in public are different from their principles in private.  

Interesting perspective.  But I think you would agree that we live in a society where everyone is allowed to say whatever they want about whoever or whatever they want.  (The whole free speech thing.)  But that doesn't mean that there are consequences.  When a person pays to go to a performance, what is said is not forced on anyone who happens to be within ear range.  That is why saying similar things in Walmart or at your office would have such consequences as getting kicked out of the store or fired from your workplace.  I think you are saying that you also see the difference.

Now the question you raise is why do some people that do pay for a theater ticket not get criticized for paying for that kind of language and disrespect for a religion.  Perhaps those attending the theater believe the church doesn't deserve the respect that it is asking for.  Perhaps when a church doesn't allow a person full participation in their religion simply because of the color of their skin or allow a gay couple the right to their beliefs and choices they make, the church looses that respect among much of the public.  There are consequences for that kind of speech as well.  Specifically the Pew poll that I quoted shows that almost half of the American people have a negative view of the church.  I think that a large part of those negative feelings against Mormonism is a direct result of the church's own actions and policies.  Respect is not freely given.  It has to be earned.

 

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

27 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

I think you are making too much of this

I believe that when I start a thread, I have an obligation to answer all comments directed at me. You're probably right about making it a big deal, so in our joint effort to downplay the issue I won't bother to respond beyond this.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Dexter Eli]

16 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know anyone here who is arguing that Parker, Stone, and Lopez should be killed, tortured, or imprisoned.  If you can point such an argument out to me, I will be happy to denounce it.

False dilemma. But thanks fer playin'!  

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders apparently are proceeding on the basis that it's better to be talked about ... even if Parker, Stone and Lopez are doing the "talking" ... than it is to be ignored, but that doesn't mean that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have to be happy about what they say or about how they say it: Rest assured, your motives may be noble or benign, but for Parker, Stone, and Lopez, it's "all about the Benjamins" (my phrase).

I agree no one said they should be killed, tortured, or imprisoned. I am asking what is it that you want? You seem to want everyone to just agree to not be offensive to YOUR specific sensibilities. You want Parker, Stone and Lopez to just be nice? You want the people who are buying tickets to the musical to boycott it? To just leave the church alone? What you want seems so wildly ridiculous. You are sitting around complaining and hoping people just realize they are being rude and should leave the church alone. I want world hunger to end but wishing it doesn't make it happen.  We live in a society where, luckily, this mockery is allowed and sometimes people get rich off of it. If you don't like it, what are you suggesting be done?  

[Calm]

I think what many here would like would to be in a culture that had full freedom to express whatever they want without fear of retaliation, but where the society would be sufficient mature and compassionate that no one would consider vulgarities, etc. as entertaining, intelligent, or worth anyone's time.

Think of it like a society with no gun laws at all because no one was interested in possessing or even inventing them, so it never became an issue.

Idealistic, but I don't see anything wrong in expressing a desire that our culture would be so favoured.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

never mind.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Dexter Eli]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think what many here would like would to be in a culture that had full freedom to express whatever they want without fear of retaliation, but where the society would be sufficient mature and compassionate that no one would consider vulgarities, etc. as entertaining, intelligent, or worth anyone's time.

Think of it like a society with no gun laws at all because no one was interested in possessing or even inventing them, so it never became an issue.

Idealistic, but I don't see anything wrong in expressing a desire that our culture would be so favoured.

I'd love to live in a world where I don't need to lock my doors but sadly that is not the case. 

[Dexter Eli]

I don't mean to make it sound like this isn't worth discussing. I think it is interesting. Bottom line, despite all the annoying, perverse things out there, I appreciate living in a place where artists (or so-called artists) are free to do that. There are many productions that have made me wonder about that freedom more than this Musical. [I heard a summary of the film the Human Centipede and I will be honest, I wondered if we couldn't imprison the creator or prevent him from making films, but that's a discussion for another time].

But the original post spoke to how some Mormons weren't offended enough or weren't offended at the most offensive parts of the BOM Musical. That, to me, is fascinating and surprising to me as well. I am perplexed by true blue mormons who don't mind the BOM Musial. That just doesn't make sense to me, either, Bernard Gui. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Dexter Eli said:

I agree no one said they should be killed, tortured, or imprisoned. I am asking what is it that you want? You seem to want everyone to just agree to not be offensive to YOUR specific sensibilities. You want Parker, Stone and Lopez to just be nice? You want the people who are buying tickets to the musical to boycott it? To just leave the church alone? What you want seems so wildly ridiculous. You are sitting around complaining and hoping people just realize they are being rude and should leave the church alone. I want world hunger to end but wishing it doesn't make it happen.  We live in a society where, luckily, this mockery is allowed and sometimes people get rich off of it. If you don't like it, what are you suggesting be done?  

To an extent, you answer your own question in your reply to Bernard Gui, above, but to make the implicit, explicit ... It would be nice if more of my fellow purportedly-faithful-and/or-striving Latter-day Saints recognized this dreck for what it is.  It would be nice if more people, whatever their religious or irreligious leanings, realized that even if their refusal to patronize it may not make much of a difference to Parker's, Stone's, and Lopez's bottom line, refusing to support such stuff is important on principle.  It would be nice if more people had the horrified reaction so often exhibited when such far over-the-top satire is directed at blacks, at women, and at other religious minorities such as Jews.  

As Bernard pointed out earlier in the thread, there are so many other worthwhile things which people may patronize and of which they may partake ... school and community theatre, locally-produced musical works, worthwhile literature, and so on. Time, money, and other resources expended to support drivel such as this means that less time, less money, and fewer resources are available to support other, far more worthwhile endeavors.

I'm not humor-impaired, and I don't necessarily have such a huge blind spot that I don't agree that there's nothing worthy of satirizing in my faith.  The Salt Lake Tribune's Robert Kirby often employs satire in his critique of Mormonism and of things Mormon ... often rightly so, in my book.  Clever satire is one thing, but, to me, The Book of Mormon: The Musical doesn't even rise to that level: It seems that outrageous actions and language are employed more for shock value than for anything else.  Such tactics seem, to me, to be among the last, desperate refuges of supposed "satirists" who actually have run out of witty, clever, thought-provoking things to say: I wonder if Parker, Stone, and Lopez aren't actually in that camp.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To an extent, you answer your own question in your reply to Bernard Gui, above, but to make the implicit, explicit ... It would be nice if more of my fellow purportedly-faithful-and/or-striving Latter-day Saints recognized this dreck for what it is.  It would be nice if more people, whatever their religious or irreligious leanings, realized that even if their refusal to patronize it may not make much of a difference to Parker's, Stone's, and Lopez's bottom line, refusing to support such stuff is important on principle.  It would be nice if more people had the horrified reaction so often exhibited when such far over-the-top satire is directed at blacks, at women, and at other religious minorities such as Jews.  

 

Quote

7 ¶ Woe unto the world because of ^aoffences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Matthew 18:7

[Bernard Gui]

An interesting side story about the real connection between the Mormon Church and Africa. Warning: may contain uplifting material. Not for the faint of heart.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.ng/article/first-public-borehole-in-amaeke-item-community

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Dexter Eli said:

But the original post spoke to how some Mormons weren't offended enough or weren't offended at the most offensive parts of the BOM Musical

This is the kind of reaction I don't understand, given the extreme vulgarities in the show...from a previous comment...

Quote

I haven't seen the musical, but one of my friends in my ward thought it was largely enjoyable as far as entertainment goes.

 

[Calm]

I can get enjoying something where the language more or less happens in between the good stuff or the language is the point a few times in the story for shock value, increasing the pace of the story for a moment.  I don't like roller coasters or horror movies, but I get that some people do.

However, when vulgarity becomes a major theme or the major theme as the script appears to make it to me, I don't get the enjoyment there.  Eating something extremely sour may, if done right, enhance a sweet dessert (or ruin it if not done right), but eating all extremely sour just dulls the taste in the long run.  A slasher movie that is all slash and no suspense or plot I hear gets boring, not thrilling.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Calm