BOOK OF MORMON offends New Orleans Drama Critic

[bobs3]

Posted: 10/20/13 at 11:50pm

Despite near unanimous raves from theatre critics and audiences across the country this critic seems to have a big stick up his backside. By the way, according to the Saenger box office the entire run is sold out, with only a limited number of day-of-performance lottery tickets available.

Vulgar and tasteless 'Book of Mormon' opens Broadway series at Saenger

by Theodore P. Mahne The Times-Picayune
October 17, 2013

“The Book of Mormon” opened the fall Broadway in New Orleans season this week at the Saenger Theatre. The long-awaited return of a hit Broadway musical to the venerable arts palace should be cause for celebration. Instead, however, it begs a simple question: Just where is the line? At what point in the overwhelming coarsening of our culture do we finally say, “Enough”?

Despite the anticipation and the hype, and despite the multiple Tony Awards and its blockbuster status, “The Book of Mormon” is little more than degrading, offensive trash.

Knowing that the musical is the work of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the team behind television’s celebration of gross-out humor, “South Park,” this shouldn’t be a surprise. Most would be shocked if “The Book of Mormon” didn’t raise eyebrows. Indeed, edgy humor, even bitingly vicious satire, has been a vital part of theater since Aristophanes, and can often serve as a telling commentary on the times.

The musical tells the story of two young missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons. For their two-year mission trip, Elders Price and Cunningham are assigned to travel to a small village in Uganda with a goal of converting the indigenous people. They are met initially by opposition from both the villagers and the local warlord.

“The Book of Mormon” could be the stuff of a satisfying and funny buddy story and fish-out-of-water comedy, even while poking fun at the inevitable clashes of cultures that erupt. But Parker, Stone and co-writer Robert Lopez fail to reach even for that degree of substance. Instead, they rely upon the most puerile laughs that are rarely aimed higher than vulgar, scatological humor. Such grotesque jokes usually lose their appeal once one hits puberty. In a telling example, the warlord’s name is unprintable – even in the show’s own program – all for the sake of another cheap joke.

Far too many followers, however, have given the show a pass, claiming that because there are no limits to their attacks, at least Parker, Stone and Lopez are “equal opportunity offenders.” But the utter lack of originality in “The Book of Mormon,” combined with an often downright mean-spiritedness, drags the show to unforeseen depths. To those who insist we look beyond the vulgarity, there simply is no there there. Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, George Carlin, and others in the tradition had powerful points to make. The delinquents of this creative team are far from the inheritors of that mantle.

If the humor was merely in poor taste, the show would be simply innocuous. But its offensive aim runs more deeply. The Mormon Church, and ultimately faith itself, bears the biggest bull’s-eye. As is the case with the doctrines of most religions, the details of Mormon theology are unfamiliar to most who are not a part of that faith. But the exaggerations and mocking of those beliefs are simply insulting. And the overriding attack on religious faith, in general, is blasphemously offensive. The lyrics to one key song, which also cannot be quoted here, were so horribly offensive, that I was tempted to walk out with the large handful of others at intermission.

Many of those who stayed largely laughed at it all, and the show’s energy drew the requisite standing ovation in the end. However, patrons should know that if you aren’t already a fan of “South Park,” this might not be the show for you.

Other material seen fitting for jokes includes sexual violence against women and children, as well as genital mutilation. Black Africans are depicted in a crude and demeaning manner not seen on stages since the time of minstrel shows. And don’t forget to throw in lots of barbs about AIDS and cancer. That's sure to draw laughs.

Because it is all draped in mocking religious faith, however, its base insults have been deemed acceptable, even worthy of multiple Tony Awards. The politically correct crowd, which would usually be shouting from the rooftops, appears to be willing to accept the show’s virulent racism and sexism as pure lagniappe.

In addition, the creative team cannot develop a story beyond the level of an episode of an animated TV series. The storytelling of the thin plot crawls; the characters throughout are flatly one-dimensional.

It is a shame to see the wasted talent involved here. As the two lead missionaries, Mark Evans and Christopher John O’Neill are an appealing pair. As Elder Price, Evans hopes to be the super-missionary, ready to save the souls of the entire continent. His crisis of faith could have been explored with both humor and complexity; instead it is reduced to being the butt of another asinine sight gag.

As the clumsy and socially awkward Elder Cunningham, O’Neill plays the lovable loser well, though his shtick grows tepid as the writers fail his character. No one could be this stupid and make it out of bed in the morning.

Samantha Marie Ware also stands out among the large cast as Nabulungi, the girl drawn to the hope that Cunningham’s faith (or his fabulist rendition of it) presents.

The musical numbers are badly composed, lacking any original melodic flair. One small blessing is that they are quickly forgotten. Compared to the amateurish lyric writing of “The Book of Mormon,” the score to “Avenue Q” seems worthy of Cole Porter.

A moral patched on at the end plays as little more than weak pabulum. We’re all misunderstood, across cultures, and if we love one another, everything works out. Stone, Parker and Lopez should realize that the path of degradation, humiliation and insult hardly constitutes the first steps toward common understanding, much less love. Even amid the big, brassy finale, this juvenile trio cannot resist leaving the audience with a reprise of one of the show’s most disgusting images.

“The Book of Mormon” runs through Oct. 27. American culture, meanwhile, continues slouching toward the abyss.



Updated On: 10/21/13 at 11:50 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/20/13 at 11:53pm

Finally, finally, FINALLY, someone steps up to the plate and tells it like it is.

Bravo!

[PlayItAgain]

Posted: 10/20/13 at 11:54pm

^ oh my god shut the **** up, YOU ARE THE WORST HUMAN BEING EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 12:18am

What's funny are the comments to the actual story. The twitter response was pretty fun, too.

Thanks, bobs3, for linking! Oh wait, I guess that's my job... http://www.nola.com/arts/index.ssf/2013/10/vulgar_and_tasteless_book_of_m.html

And here was a followup story: http://www.nola.com/arts/index.ssf/2013/10/heres_what_others_had_to_say_a.html

What's funny is the critic is a theology professor, and that conveniently was left out of his initial review.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 12:47am

Yes. Me thinks the review was stunned that someone dare offer what was taken as a challenge to the religious norm. Though I am sure said reviewer has no problem questioning others. Merit aside, vulgarity aside and thoughts on skill of writing aside, it is apparent that the reviewer was so concerned with being outraged and showing their ignorance as a theatre critic that the entire POINT of the story was utterly missed, which, as a theology professor, you'd think the reviewer would appreciate and herald.

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 12:51am

Why does anyone even care what some random critic in New Orleans said? Why even publicize the review and give him the attention? What do you expect in such a staid, religious, conservative, button down town like New Orleans anyway.

[bobs3]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 12:51am

Kudos to the editorial staff of the newspaper for publishing excerpts from the reviews of other drama critics (NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Daily Mail).

[bobs3]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 12:54am

"Why does anyone even care what some random critic in New Orleans said? Why even publicize the review and give him the attention? What do you expect in such a staid, religious, conservative, button down town like New Orleans anyway."

You have obviously never been to New Orleans -- while the rest of Louisiana is very conservative -- there is nothing conservative, staid or button down about New Orleans. It is called "Sin City" and "The Big Easy" for a reason.

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 1:29am

Actually bobs3, I have been to New Orleans, a number of times. My comment was strictly tongue-in-cheek LOL.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 2:10am

Finally, finally, FINALLY, someone steps up to the plate and tells it like it is.

Bravo!

I have bit my tongue nearly every time I read your reviews, but I have to ask... Why in god's name do you keep bothering going to see things when you literally HATE everything? Why?

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 6:04am

^

I don't hate everything. I go in the hopes of seeing something good. And don't bite your tongue so much, you could hurt yourself. Use the ignore feature instead. Then you won't have anything to bite your tongue over.

As for this review, the critic is just telling the truth.

I don't know why that troubles people.









Updated On: 10/21/13 at 06:04 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 6:39am

That's right, A8, the only two people in the world that got it "right" is you and the reviewer.

But I agree with the above poster: you hate everything, so why bother/ Obviously, no one creates anything that will speak to your sensibilities, but at this point, I find it impossible to understand how nothing has been worthy of your praise in the last 40 years.

If I hate hitting my thumb with a hammer, how many times should I keep trying to see if the pain stops?

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 10:24am

The review is laughable. The show is a hit. People will go just to say they were offended. If you do not like something I think that is completely acceptable. I really hate Rent but I understand that I am in the minority. There is nothing that will dislodge Book of Mormon (or Rent) ticket sales.

BTW when Book of Mormon began there were countless articles and television appearances by members of the Mormon church. They were not offended and took the show as a platform to introduce people to their faith!

Get over being offended.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 10:46am

"As for this review, the critic is just telling the truth."

He's giving his opinion.

And since his opinion aligns with yours, you claim it's the truth.

It's a wonder you have a glass house at all considering all the times you throw stones.

Posted: 10/21/13 at 10:49am

Seems like the reviewer got it right on. It is a show written to offend and he got offended.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 11:21am

I have to disagree. I don't think it is a show "written to offend". I think it is a show written to make you question some things and it does so with low-brow humor. If you are offended, I think it should make you question. So I would say it is a show written to make you question.
Some people, as this review, take offense to being questioned or having uncomfortable truths pointed out. Is laughter the best tool? That is up for debate, but it's the most non-threatening way to raise the issues.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 11:43am

I was most amazed at the "critic" in question's assertion that "there's no there there" once you get past the vulgarity.

There most certainly is a there there, it's just one he didn't want to hear. As a theologian, he has certain responsibilities, and as a theatre critic he has others. He seems to have allowed his theology to overrule his critical eye; it's one thing to disagree with MORMON's thesis that religion is a manmade fabric of stories and morals designed to bring people together in the face of great strife (a rather pro-faith message, actually, just not pro-any specific faith) but to insist that the show is just filth and AIDS jokes and minstrelsy without any deeper level of interest is failing the people of New Orleans.

I have no problem disagreeing with MORMON on the merits of its content; but denying that it has any content at all is baffling.

Updated On: 10/21/13 at 11:43 AM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 11:54am

I can't find it now, but there was a pretty good blog post by a reverend in Washington DC when the 1st national tour was there a few months ago. She really enjoyed it.

In the meantime... http://thefeministwire.com/2013/08/white-people-talking-to-white-people-about-social-justice-why-book-of-mormon-just-may-be-doing-something-right/

Updated On: 10/21/13 at 11:54 AM

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 12:36pm

I'm nor surprised by the New Orleans' critic at all. Take a look at the comments on the NY Times website under the BOM listing and it's just person after person saying how offensive the show was. The friend I took to see it last summer was totally offended at how Africans were portrayed.

The real problem with the response to BOM is that so many people don't understand satire as a literary device. Take a look at The Onion's facebook updates; every single one has people saying "THIS was too far! This was not funny! You can't make fun of ABC or XYZ!"
It's the same with BOM. If you don't understand that the creative team is saying that female genital mutiliation is horrible and needs to be stopped, and that organized religion isn't always what it seems, and that AIDS is still ravaging Africa, and it is not trivializing or demeaning these topics.

[suestorm]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 12:51pm

well the door has been opened so many times by so many people being offended by so many things that you cant do anything without someone being offended.

Its kinda as silly as those folks on this board being offended by the FIRST DATE gay character or that lady who was offended by the White Rabbit at DisneyWorld

Where does it end?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 2:21pm

^This. Entirely.

[Idiot]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 2:45pm

I do agree with the critic's question about the coarsening of society and whether or not there is or should be a 'line'.

However, reviewing a shock theatre piece (which MORMON is) and being shocked by it is a bit intellectually dull.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 4:15pm

If the reviewer was actually posing a question and opening debate about the coarsening of society, that would be one thing. But that is not at all what the reviewer was doing. The reviewer was making a very direct condemnation and very dull in the observations.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 5:09pm

Theodore misuses the term "begs the question" which makes me wonder whether "Book of Mormon" dumbed him down or is he dumbing down his readers and therefore contributing to the dumbing down of America?

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 5:39pm

The whole question of whether the show is offensive or not is irrelevant to the critic's most important point: the show itself stinks. That would be the case even if it were removed of all its crassness and obscenities so as to be as pure as the driven snow. A stupid book, weak score, maybe a handful of genuine laughs (if that), satire about as sharp as a rubbed-out pencil eraser. Yes, indeed, there is no there there; just a lame charade with the smell of a sewer.