Johnnie Cake Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Well, I'm glad to hear that clarification. American Moses....did it get laughs or gasps? Personally I'm not a big fan of shock/sexually offensive humor...nor am I a fan of bathroom humor. perhaps a hold over from my TBM days...but its just never been my thing. With respect to your question...like everything it depends on the person receiving the material....I'm all for lampooning Joseph Smith...I also believe that he had a sense of humor and would have laughed at the ribbing as well. That said, it does get rather shocking and the creators seems to delight in how much shock and awe they can pack into the show. The first time I saw it last time it came to SLC...I had only listened to the music...so I was somewhat aware of what to expect...but in all honesty...I wasn't prepared enough. The show has no boundaries or at least expands the boundaries of normal public decency. It is designed to shock and it succeeds. As far as whether the audience laughed or gasped during this particular song...I would have to say probably both. Personally I both gasped and laughed. I hadn't anticipated this level of lampooning.
Johnnie Cake Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Apologies if this has already been posted in this fast-moving thread, but the Deseret News's Chris Hicks captures my own feelings about The Book of Mormon: The Musical and why I won't see it rather nicely: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686278/6Book-of-Mormon7-musical-No-thanks-but-it7s-not-what-you-think.html Yeah Hicks nailed it...this show is raunchy comedy...and while I'm not a fan of raunchy comedies either...I do enjoy all of the other elements found in the Book of Mormon (not the raunchy parts) that lampoon aspects of the LDS church...all in a good fun way.
Daniel2 Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I think you can figure that one out for yourself, given the insistence of the show's fans on actually seeing the mess before being able to comment on it. The libretto is also been available on line. Do you think there is something prurient or untoward in my behavior? I'll just level with you, Bernard... As I have repeatedly said in this thread, I have NO problem with those that choose to avoid watching any show that violates or offends their beliefs or sensibilities. I think we all make choices to do so, regardless of what our personal beliefs are. I'm just not sure what you're going for, in this thread, and I'm puzzled by your behavior. You're on record as clearly disapproving of this play and it's contents. You find it vulgar and offensive and blasphemous and horrifically insulting. I think that's clear to all. So why subject yourself to watching it in it's entirely? It seems like you're suggesting that your reason was/is to give yourself more credit to those who suggest that you don't have any credibility to comment on it if you haven't seen it.... My response to that would be: so what? Who cares? Why should YOU care what THOSE people think about your lack of so-called credibility just because you haven't seen it? Aren't the lyrics of the songs--even just one or two if them--enough to have told you that this was going to be too vulgar and offensive and blasphemous and horrifically insulting? Why did you feel the need to plow ALL the way through it just to gain credibility in the eyes of THEM--the blasphemers who might like the play? Why the need to rewind and watch the audience's reactions upon multiple viewings? Did you need multiple viewings to arrive at a more nuanced condemnation that their amusement at mocking your sacred things needed additional condemnation and chastisement? Who's really bullying who here? Those that support each individuals' right to choose? Or those that insist they've been wronged in the name of their sacred cow, and the need to continue throwing stones after repeatedly beating into others just how horrific and terrible and--wait, can we re-wind that part?!?--blasphemous this thing REALLY is!!!! Boy... we REALLY are justified in condemning THIS sort of trash!!!! What TERRIBLE people that are mocking our SACRED things!!!!! These people are TERRIBLE... After all, Christ said... Quote 1 aJudge not, that ye be not bjudged. 2 For with what ajudgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what bmeasure ye mete, it shall be cmeasured to you again. 3 aAnd why beholdest thou the bmote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the cbeam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou ahypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. Oh.... wait... That's what Christ said.....? Sorry if the above comes across too strongly. I really don't mean to offend, and I slipped into exaggeration myself here.... But Bernard, in all sincerity... does it have to be that the people who are watching this MUST be horrific people? Can they not have a different opinion and belief and get some value out of something? Or does it have to be all or nothing, to you? And even if they're wrong and at the judgment bar, you prove right, what have you accomplished in this thread? Or in your efforts to educate yourself enough on this play that you could "debate with credibility" about how bad the content was, because you subjected yourself to every horrific detail x 3 rewinds? As my church leaders used to say when I was young, you don't have to wallow in a dirty puddle to know you'll get dirty... right? Isn't that reason enough for you to avoid it? You don't need the approval of those that are in the Great and Spacious, anyway. Edited August 7, 2017 by Daniel2 1
JulieM Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: I'm unaware of an authorized video of the play having been released... Watching a pirated copy of copyrighted work would presumably be against the law, is it not...? Yeah, Scott is usually all up in arms about that! Where's the outrage about this? Edited August 7, 2017 by JulieM
JulieM Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Would you agree that seeing the movie "To Kill a Mockingbird" qualifies one to form an opinion about the work more than reading the book? Nope. Would you rather experience Handel's Messiah in person, or just watch the video? There's a difference. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 55 minutes ago, JulieM said: I already stated above that was disturbing and unneccessary. Does it sound like I thought it was enjoyable? But overall, all in our group really enjoyed the play. I can only report my experience, of course, and completely understand it is not for everyone. With due respect, that sounds disturbingly like the justification leaders, teachers, parents, and others in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints frequently argue against: "The book/play/movie/song/etc. was great ... except for that one/all of the bad part(s)." Is that simply something we tell our teenagers/young people, but which we are free to disregard with no negative consequences as adults? If that's your stance, then I beg to differ. 1
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2017 Author Posted August 7, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, JulieM said: Nope. Would you rather experience Handel's Messiah in person, or just watch the video? There's a difference. If I were making a study of the Messiah in order to have a discussion about it, which I have, I would study the score and do research on the background. In addition, I would listen to a number of excellent performances. Seeing it live once in no way prepares me to comment on it or direct it. Indeed, there's a difference. I could report an emotional response to the music and text, but that doesn't say much. Edited August 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2017 Author Posted August 7, 2017 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: As far as whether the audience laughed or gasped during this particular song...I would have to say probably both. Personally I both gasped and laughed. I hadn't anticipated this level of lampooning. Yes, it does sink to new levels. Quote 57 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I'm all for lampooning Joseph Smith...I also believe that he had a sense of humor and would have laughed at the ribbing as well. The man who saw God and Jesus would laugh at actors giving them the finger and them telling Joseph to obscenity a frog instead of a baby and to rub the frog in Brigham Young's face? Right. Edited August 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Kenngo1969 Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 42 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Yeah Hicks nailed it...this show is raunchy comedy...and while I'm not a fan of raunchy comedies either...I do enjoy all of the other elements found in the Book of Mormon (not the raunchy parts) that lampoon aspects of the LDS church...all in a good fun way. I hope you'll forgive me if my definition of "good fun" does not happen to accord with yours.
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2017 Author Posted August 7, 2017 (edited) 33 minutes ago, JulieM said: Yeah, Scott is usually all up in arms about that! Where's the outrage about this? It's available on Vimeo. Edited August 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Analytics Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Ooooo. You got me there. For the record, you obviously know a lot about music and theatre, and you have a lot of credibility when judging theatre. But on regarding this one you do get a ding for not having watched it and for having a certain bias against it. All that is okay--it's okay if you don't like the play and don't want to see it. My favorite books and plays cause my eyes to open and help me have more empathy with characters I didn't originally understand. From my seat, this play does that. It pokes fun at religion, but it also endears you to the adherents it depicts. A lot of people genuinely like this play and have no feelings of malevolence or scorn or contempt. Their opinion is valid too.
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2017 Author Posted August 7, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Analytics said: For the record, you obviously know a lot about music and theatre, and you have a lot of credibility when judging theatre. But on regarding this one you do get a ding for not having watched it and for having a certain bias against it. All that is okay--it's okay if you don't like the play and don't want to see it. My favorite books and plays cause my eyes to open and help me have more empathy with characters I didn't originally understand. From my seat, this play does that. It pokes fun at religion, but it also endears you to the adherents it depicts. A lot of people genuinely like this play and have no feelings of malevolence or scorn or contempt. Their opinion is valid too. I am no great theater critic. I've just been around for a long time and participated. What is dingable about an experienced musician reading a libretto, seeing song and choreography on tape, and having the luxury to scrutinize a show scene by scene for the purpose of discussing it? How is that inferior to seeing one live performance? If anything, it makes the reviewer less emotional about the experience and better able to define what's good and what's not. The criticism came after doing those things that one would expect a critic to do. Film critics don't write their reviews based on a showing in the theater. They get pre-release copies to view in order to make an informed criticism. It's also ok if you or anyone else likes the play. I would not for a moment prevent you from seeing it or censor the show; however, I would spend my money for other things. There is no accounting for differences in taste or tolerance when it comes to the arts. Edited August 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Amulek Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 41 minutes ago, JulieM said: Where's the outrage about this? I might not be the best one to answer this, seeing as how I wasn’t sufficiently outraged about the play (for some), but I don’t think pirating is cool.
Amulek Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: It's available on Vimeo. Not officially it isn't. The official channel on Vimeo has a few 15-30 second clips and a 3 minute interview with the creators. The only full-length version of the play is a bootlegged copy.
Kenngo1969 Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, Analytics said: For the record, you obviously know a lot about music and theatre, and you have a lot of credibility when judging theatre. But on regarding this one you do get a ding for not having watched it and for having a certain bias against it. All that is okay--it's okay if you don't like the play and don't want to see it. My favorite books and plays cause my eyes to open and help me have more empathy with characters I didn't originally understand. From my seat, this play does that. It pokes fun at religion, but it also endears you to the adherents it depicts. A lot of people genuinely like this play and have no feelings of malevolence or scorn or contempt. Their opinion is valid too. As I predicted, even though Bernard has said he has seen the play, his opinions are still being dismissed because he hasn't seen it live. If he'd seen it live, his detractors would simply find other reasons to discount his opinions ("Seeing it live in Salt Lake City is one thing, but you haven't really seen it until you've seen it on Broadway ..." and so on, ad infinitum).
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2017 Author Posted August 7, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Amulek said: Not officially it isn't. The official channel on Vimeo has a few 15-30 second clips and a 3 minute interview with the creators. The only full-length version of the play is a bootlegged copy. I just watched the rape scene to verify my memory of it and the audience reaction on Vimeo. It takes place around 1:25 at the end of I Believe. The baptism of the girl is also a gem of reverence and love-letter writing. Edited August 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Analytics Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I am no great theater critic. I've just been around for a long time and participated. What is dingable about an experienced musician reading a libretto, seeing song and choreography on tape, and having the luxury to scrutinize a show scene by scene for the purpose of discussing it? How is that inferior to seeing one live performance? If anything, it makes the reviewer less emotional about the experience and better able to define what's good and what's not. The criticism came after doing those things that one would expect a critic to do. Film critics don't write their reviews based on a showing in the theater. They get pre-release copies to view in order to make an informed criticism. It's also ok if you or anyone else likes the play. I would not for a moment prevent you from seeing it or censor the show; however, I would spend my money for other things. There is no accounting for differences in taste or tolerance when it comes to the arts. My point is that the experience matters. I suppose somebody could pick up some sheet music and if they have the right skills could audialize it in their mind. Or they might listen to bits of it on YouTube. But it's a different experience to go to symphony hall and experience it live. There are nuances and a cumulative effect of the scenes that are hard to otherwise appreciate. Really, my only point on this thread is to try and represent the viewpoint of the people who find the show uplifting and neither see nor feel the spite that others see in it. I wouldn't argue with somebody who says, "I wouldn't want to see that show because the language offends me." In contrast, I would want to argue with people who say things like, "That show has no redeeming qualities and does nothing but mock religion for cheap laughs, and anybody who thinks otherwise is lying." With that, I've said my piece. Thanks for starting this thread. The last word is yours. Edited August 7, 2017 by Analytics
Amulek Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I just watched the rape scene to verify my memory of it and the audience reaction on Vimeo. It takes place around 1:25 at the end of I Believe. The baptism of the girl is also a gem of reverence and love-letter writing. Not sure what this has to do with anything that I said. Did you mean for this to be a response to someone else? I never said that you weren't able to form an opinion about the play based on having watched an illegal copy of the performance.
Johnnie Cake Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Yes, it does sink to new levels. The man who saw God and Jesus would laugh at actors giving them the finger and them telling Joseph to obscenity a frog instead of a baby and to rub the frog in Brigham Young's face? Right. Probably not at the part...that part is vulger
Johnnie Cake Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 52 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I hope you'll forgive me if my definition of "good fun" does not happen to accord with yours. But I'm guessing that you enjoyed Sister Act or The Sound of Music which lampoons certain aspects of the Catholic faith right?
Kenngo1969 Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: But I'm guessing that you enjoyed Sister Act or The Sound of Music which lampoons certain aspects of the Catholic faith right? It's not simple lampooning that I have a problem with. I don't think I'm humor-impaired (though you may disagree). I think your characterizations and your attempt to draw equivalencies between The Book of Mormon: The Musical, on the one hand, and the other works you mention, on the other hand, is inapt. (Was crude, vulgar humor employed in Sister Act or in The Sound of Music?) Edited August 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969
JulieM Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: If I were making a study of the Messiah in order to have a discussion about it, which I have, I would study the score and do research on the background. In addition, I would listen to a number of excellent performances. Seeing it live once in no way prepares me to comment on it or direct it. Indeed, there's a difference. I could report an emotional response to the music and text, That's the point. You do feel and experience something different when being there in person and seeing it live. Edited August 7, 2017 by JulieM
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2017 Author Posted August 7, 2017 13 minutes ago, Amulek said: Not sure what this has to do with anything that I said. Did you mean for this to be a response to someone else? I never said that you weren't able to form an opinion about the play based on having watched an illegal copy of the performance. You said it wasn't on Vimeo. I just watched part of it on Vimeo. Either it is or it isn't.
Calm Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I hope you took my comment about hilarious as not sincere. Of course.
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2017 Author Posted August 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, JulieM said: That's not the point. Would you feel and experience the same thing if you watched a video of it vs. being there in person? You seem to refuse to acknowledge there's a difference and I have to believe you know better. Well, since this discussion has been mostly about the merits of two specific songs and a couple of really awful scenes, not about an emotional reaction to the show, I think my point is valid. Seeing it once on stage does not qualify one to discuss its value in any meaningful way. The live performance is great, of course, but other than saying "I enjoyed it" and "It made me laugh and cry" it's pretty useless in a debate. I cried when all the boats pulled up to the beach in Dunkirk. That doesn't make me an expert on the movie or the event. And I assure you playing Beethoven's 9th Symphony is far better than sitting in the audience and listening to it. Although I've never done it, conducting it would take it to another level. There is a difference.
Recommended Posts