that Mormon musical and a question of principle
So there's this new musical out there. You may have heard of it: something about Mormon missionaries in Africa.
Okay, maybe you haven't heard of it, although it won a thousand Tony awards and has earned a billion dollars. (Those numbers may be a bit off--I was rounding.) It usually takes time for Broadway musicals to filter into mainstream culture, unless there's another medium involved: books to musicals, musicals to movies, albums by seventies Swedish pop sensations to musicals to movies, etc.
Nonetheless, even though I haven't seen it and don't know any of the songs from it, I have a totally principled stand to announce: I will not see The Book of Mormon musical. Nope. No way.
What's the principle involved? The principle that someone who doesn't enjoy South Park isn't going to enjoy a musical made by the same people. Also the principle of cheapness, since it's expensive to see a Broadway musical. I still haven't seen Wicked, even though there was a traveling production in a nearby city recently; the tickets were simply too costly.
Put those two principles together: why would I pay a lot of money to see a musical in which one of the running gags is the line "I have maggots in my scrotum"? To each his own; this is not my own.
I've read a few opinions and reviews about the musical; some fellow Mormons thought it was hilarious and profanely sweet, others proclaimed they wouldn't see it (and not for the same reasons I won't see it). Oddly, I haven't seen anyone else state that they have a problem with the title, because that's the one thing that does bother me as a Latter-Day Saint (Mormon). I don't like having the title of the musical be the title of a book that I consider to be a book of scripture, along with the Bible. This is particularly irritating because from what I've gathered, the musical isn't even about what's inside The Book of Mormon--it's about the fish-out-of-water experiences of some Americans in Africa. Yes, they're Mormon missionaries, but the musical isn't about the book itself. (This is not an insurmountable annoyance; if I were the type to enjoy South Park and to spend a lot of money to see a musical, it wouldn't stop me from watching it.)
Other things might bother me. The inaccuracies about Uganda and Ugandans, the inaccuracies about my religion... but since I haven't and won't see it, I'll let others analyze them. One Ugandan man said this:
However, the Uganda in this musical couldn’t be any different from those uneventful, lazy days in a then sleepy Jinja. The village they are assigned to is terrorised by a savage warlord, the HIV/Aids prevalence rate is 80 per cent, and the natives believe that raping babies will cure them of Aids. Save for the warlord, the rest of the claims are ridiculous exaggerations. Yet, it is such liberties that are some of its defining qualities, qualities that have led to a ticket sell out for the current performance schedule and universal rave reviews.
But I can't tell if he actually saw the musical or was gleaning information from other reviews. (He included some erroneous information about Mormonism in the same article. This amuses me more than it should.)
Is The Book of Mormon musical going to be good or bad for my church? Yes. Is it going to earn a lot more money? Yes. Will I perhaps eventually learn the chorus line to a catchy song from it? Maybe--provided it doesn't reference diseased scrotums. Am I a wee bit annoyed at being the butt of a joke again from Messieurs Parker and Stone? Yeah, but that's their thing; they earn money from offending as many people as possible, and we* laugh and give them lots of money for it.
Here's my prediction, though. Sooner or later, instead of being a cultural touchstone, the musical will be a cultural relic, perhaps even an embarrassment. Why? Because that's the fate of timely rather than timeless comedies. Eventually they feel dated and even wrong-headed in their treatment of insert religious/ethnic group here. Though I couldn't venture to guess if the cultural relic status will be for the musical's treatment of Mormons or of Ugandans. Or both. Or something completely different.
What does it take to make a timeless rather than timely comedy? I'm not sure, but probably fewer STD references and more jokes about erections.
*Not me--y'all.
Posted at Dreamwidth: http://rose-griffes.dreamwidth.org/208027.html. Comment where you wish.
Okay, maybe you haven't heard of it, although it won a thousand Tony awards and has earned a billion dollars. (Those numbers may be a bit off--I was rounding.) It usually takes time for Broadway musicals to filter into mainstream culture, unless there's another medium involved: books to musicals, musicals to movies, albums by seventies Swedish pop sensations to musicals to movies, etc.
Nonetheless, even though I haven't seen it and don't know any of the songs from it, I have a totally principled stand to announce: I will not see The Book of Mormon musical. Nope. No way.
What's the principle involved? The principle that someone who doesn't enjoy South Park isn't going to enjoy a musical made by the same people. Also the principle of cheapness, since it's expensive to see a Broadway musical. I still haven't seen Wicked, even though there was a traveling production in a nearby city recently; the tickets were simply too costly.
Put those two principles together: why would I pay a lot of money to see a musical in which one of the running gags is the line "I have maggots in my scrotum"? To each his own; this is not my own.
I've read a few opinions and reviews about the musical; some fellow Mormons thought it was hilarious and profanely sweet, others proclaimed they wouldn't see it (and not for the same reasons I won't see it). Oddly, I haven't seen anyone else state that they have a problem with the title, because that's the one thing that does bother me as a Latter-Day Saint (Mormon). I don't like having the title of the musical be the title of a book that I consider to be a book of scripture, along with the Bible. This is particularly irritating because from what I've gathered, the musical isn't even about what's inside The Book of Mormon--it's about the fish-out-of-water experiences of some Americans in Africa. Yes, they're Mormon missionaries, but the musical isn't about the book itself. (This is not an insurmountable annoyance; if I were the type to enjoy South Park and to spend a lot of money to see a musical, it wouldn't stop me from watching it.)
Other things might bother me. The inaccuracies about Uganda and Ugandans, the inaccuracies about my religion... but since I haven't and won't see it, I'll let others analyze them. One Ugandan man said this:
However, the Uganda in this musical couldn’t be any different from those uneventful, lazy days in a then sleepy Jinja. The village they are assigned to is terrorised by a savage warlord, the HIV/Aids prevalence rate is 80 per cent, and the natives believe that raping babies will cure them of Aids. Save for the warlord, the rest of the claims are ridiculous exaggerations. Yet, it is such liberties that are some of its defining qualities, qualities that have led to a ticket sell out for the current performance schedule and universal rave reviews.
But I can't tell if he actually saw the musical or was gleaning information from other reviews. (He included some erroneous information about Mormonism in the same article. This amuses me more than it should.)
Is The Book of Mormon musical going to be good or bad for my church? Yes. Is it going to earn a lot more money? Yes. Will I perhaps eventually learn the chorus line to a catchy song from it? Maybe--provided it doesn't reference diseased scrotums. Am I a wee bit annoyed at being the butt of a joke again from Messieurs Parker and Stone? Yeah, but that's their thing; they earn money from offending as many people as possible, and we* laugh and give them lots of money for it.
Here's my prediction, though. Sooner or later, instead of being a cultural touchstone, the musical will be a cultural relic, perhaps even an embarrassment. Why? Because that's the fate of timely rather than timeless comedies. Eventually they feel dated and even wrong-headed in their treatment of insert religious/ethnic group here. Though I couldn't venture to guess if the cultural relic status will be for the musical's treatment of Mormons or of Ugandans. Or both. Or something completely different.
What does it take to make a timeless rather than timely comedy? I'm not sure, but probably fewer STD references and more jokes about erections.
*Not me--y'all.
Posted at Dreamwidth: http://rose-griffes.dreamwidth.org/208027.html. Comment where you wish.