|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dean rejects critics of Southwark's "Swearing Jesus" mystery play
Religious play provokes fury
by JONATHAN PETRE and GARETH STURDY
A RELIGIOUS play staged in an Anglican cathedral has provoked
fury after it featured a swearing Jesus and Satan wearing a phallus. The
Southwark Mysteries, was produced by Southwark Cathedral and Shakespeare's
Globe Theatre in south London as part of the capital's "String of Pearls"
Millennium celebrations. It mixed bawdy medieval scenes with modern imagery
and referred to bishops engaging in homosexual sex with altar boys and priests
visiting prostitutes. The character of Jesus, who rode onto the stage on
a bicycle, was shown apparently condoning a range of sexual activities, while
Satan told scatological jokes and ordered Jesus to "kiss my a***." At one
point Jesus was admonished by St Peter for his swearing and responded: "In
the house of the harlot, man must master the language." At another, Satan,
played by a female actor, strapped on "a huge red phallus" before using it
to beat his sidekick, Beelzebub. The play was written by John Constable,
who said that he had deliberately wanted to challenge Christians. "Profanity
is a theme of the play," he said. "The point of it was to explore the sacred
through the profane." Mr Constable said he had worked closely with Mark Rylands,
the Globe's artistic director, and the Dean of Southwark, the Very Rev Colin
Slee, who conceived the idea of a joint production to mark William Shakespeare's
birthday falling on Easter Day. He said that the clergy had made a number
of suggestions about the content, but he had not acted on all of them. "They
did ask me to make sure that Satan did not wear the phallus in the presence
of Jesus, which I did he said. The first section of the play, which contained
much of the bawdy material, was staged at the Globe and The final part, the
Harrowing of Hell",in the cathedral. "Colin Slee was very robust in keeping
me on straight and narrow" Constable said. "The play is a new version of
the traditional medieval Mystery plays, which were religious in nature but
accepted human imperfections and took place in a carnival atmosphere. It
seemed to be well received by most people who saw it." But one member of
the audience, Simon Fairnington, has condemned the play as "disgustingly
offensive", saying that it "revelled in the glorification of vice". In a
letter to the Dean he complained: "Had the play been a purely secular production,
one might not have been surprised at its treatment of Christian belief. "What
was dismaying was that it was sponsored and performed in part within a Christian
cathedral. The cynical part of me wonders whether this is simply a sign of
the times, and the way the Church of England cares about its Gospel and its
God." Anthony Kilmister, chairman of the Prayer Book Society, said; "This
is not the sort of play that should be performed in God's house. It is quite
disgraceful." But the Dean, who was the centre of controversy a few years
ago when he allowed the cathedral to be used for a Lesbian and Gay Christian
Movement celebration, defended the play. The performance was in keeping with
traditional Mystery plays and "portrayed graphically the life and history
of the area" which was "where the seamier side of life was to be found",
he said. "The message was that even the worst sins are not beyond redemption,"
he added.
There will always be people like Simon
who find things "disgustingly offensive".I dare say that the words "wry"
or "satirical" to not enter such people's vocabulary. One is always offended
by the truth because it hurts. The truth is people are liable to mock and
make fun of silly stories and myths and the people who believe them and hold
fast onto them because they are not adult enough to grasp reality.
Notwithstanding any incapacity on behalf of the offended,the historical heritage
of these plays is being reproduced and in good grace the producer has sought
the counsel of those whom it might offend,he can do no more. There are some
people who will be offended no matter to what lengths you go to protect their
very easily irritated sensibilities. Words are not offensive,but yet the
term "expletive" exists to describe a word that has become taboo and is censored.
I have taken to rearranging the letters of my foreshortened screen name in
order to highlight this (For those who were wondering why I signed Empt and
not Temp),as strangely the company who manufactures clothes- FCUK draws no
flack for exploiting the advertising potential of utilisation of a rearrangement
of a term used to describe the sexual act.I wonder why? Are the letters FCUK
offensive? Even if they were presented in their capacity as an expletive
(I refrain from doing so,so as not to offend the easily offended),would they
be offensive then? No.It is the conurtation and social history that suggests
offence.The sexual act is not offensive (except to the religious),it is the
idea that this word presents a rough and ready and perhaps unwilling sexual
act,and it's use as a term of abuse and to display one's venom that is
offensive,not the actual word.It is the "context" that carries the offence.Thus
the hypocritical and absurd policies of TV companies in beeping out a word
is absurd,we all know what word it is,and sometimes it is uttered in a humorous
context.It is not always corrupting,and does not carry a corrupting influence
merely by the arrangement of the letters. Upon this kind of premise,McCarthyism
witch hunted people in farcical ways,on the strength of the conurtation of
what they said.To be anti establishment was seen as being a traitor.These
are the thoughts of simpletons.It is possible,as with the Simpsons,for bad
attributes to be highlighted for the purpose of ridicule,so that via humour
we can see what errors we may be making.If the religious actually had a sense
of humour instead of having it surgically removed at birth (which incidentally,if
we are to use their own enforced renormalisation process used on
transsexuals,then there ought to be an onus upon us to enforce them to have
a sense of humour),they might not get so incensed at apparently "blasphemous"
material. Understand,not everyone has those values where people and icons
are held in so high esteem that nothing can be done against them under any
circumstances. Everything has its faults,including religious belief,and it
has perhaps more than most,if anything it is ripe to be satired and lampooned
and mocked. If the satirist then goes out of his way to take your worries
into account,he is doing more than he actually should,especially if the
production has a history of a particular context that he is trying to maintain.
This does not mean immorality results,it means everyone's values have equal
capacity to be open to being mocked for their absurdities.No special case
can be made for convicted belief to be exempt.If their was a play mocking
an atheist stance,like as not I would watch it and be amused,I wouldn't try
to ban it or be offended by it.Indeed most of our society indulges religion
and superstition to an appalling extent,apparently with no rebuke because
of PC silliness that all values are equal. Apparently "everyone is entitled
to believe what they wish",presumably even that the
Earth is flat or the Moon is made out of cheese. I can understand how
a picture of Myra Hindley made out of babies hand prints could be liable
to incense,but it only does so if you take a negative stance in the first
instance. No doubt such an artist is naive if they do not think that the
subsequent furore will not catapult them to notoriety,but equally such an
image could be a lament for lost innocence and an image evoked out of feeling
for the victims as opposed to the perpetrator.The knee-jerk hyper- emotional
reaction is ill-advised. Rama Chandran
the neuroscientist,recently characterised the hemispheres
of the brain as being left for language and logical model building,and right
for playing devil's advocate and dealing with emotion.The simple minded offence
taken over expletives and blasphemy seems to me to be indicative of a brain
controlled to much by the right hemisphere,given to flights of fantasy,and
dreaming,and over indulgence in what is believed and not what is worked out
to be true.It is somewhat ironic that the religious appear to be dominated
by a "devil's" advocate, perhaps this observation would offend their
sensibilities.But perhaps,like transsexuals,the religious have a fault in
some sense, a heightened devil's advocate who is let loose to get animated
and furious over little things that fit the model,and find innocuous things,
offensive. According to
Michael Persinger,there is some evidence
to think that religion of superstitious belief in myths is a brain fault,and
if so,then the Alliance of clerics should be careful
who they wish to "normalise",lest they be the next on the agenda. I find
it highly amusing that such a one as Simon is offended by the artistic
reproduction of a personage,Satan who does not exist.The worst exception
one could take is akin to that of finding Mr Punch objectionable for being
violent in an age seeking to curb violent acts. Possibly,Punch and Judy is
more of a corrupting influence,than any expletive uttered on TV. Perhaps
if adults were not offended by such language, youth would not be corrupted
by it. Bizarrely,soap operas show the same
predispensation towards problem solving with violence as does Mr Punch,and
Hollywood blockbusters glamorise it further,and yet our TV companies see
no problem at all with showing such behaviour,they just prudely and priggishly
bleep out "offensive" language. If they wish to be so mumsy and look after
my well being then censor the actual material.No that would interfere with
profits and we can't have that can we? So leave it the hell alone.I'm adult
enough to decide,what I like and what I don't.If we want puritanical censorship
we'll vote for it. Conversely,I'm not in favour of becoming depraved by
default,but get a grip Simon,just because something has a phallus in it,does
not make it depraved,it depends on context and meaning and social history.
The history of these plays is as stated,and let's not be a hypocrite.Clerics
have been found with altar boys and have visited prostitutes.I know one cleric
who even married a prostitute,so don't be so sanctimonious. Such people do
fall from grace as Kevin Spacey does in portraying Jim Bakker,and thus society
is allowed to take issue with those who do not practice what they preach.
If we censored everything it would be brushed under the carpet,and spoken
of in hushed tones and metaphor in an apologetic and embarrassed way.There
is a word called "honesty" which perhaps the religious speak of a lot,but
perhaps are not too familiar with. If they familiarised themselves with this
perhaps they would not be subject to the pretence of being holier than thou
and then after being found out having to come clean,and saying that they
were "tempted" and "corrupted".It's no excuse.If they are human,so are we
all,we all "err",we are not angels,but neither are we devils. Some of us
just play devil's advocate too much. -LB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|