posted
HBO's showing a film version of "Angels in America," the play by Tony Kushner about the early years of AIDS in America. Part I was on Sunday night (12/7), it's supposed to be repeated this week, and Part II is on next Sunday night (12/14).
It's really good, I'm looking forward to Part II. The writing's good and Al Pacino and Mary-Louise Parker are both great, as are a lot of other folks in it.
I've only seen Part I, so I'm not gonna comment on it here; I'm waiting to see Part II to see where it goes... anyway, just wanted to give an alert to folks who might be interested.
posted
Great play. Some friends of mine staged a rather enjoyable (though way too long) production of this a couple of years ago.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I only want to point out, if you care or not, that many Mormons find this play highly offensive in the way the blacks see the KKK as offensive.
Well, as offensive movie about the KKK, maybe, and I could better understand the correlation. But has this play gone out and lynched, killed, raped or otherwise beat the crap out of Mormons or Mormon ancestors and I'm just not aware of it?
Seriously, I haven't seen it or a staged version. Why would Mormons have an issue with it?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen the HBO version yet, but from what I remember from when I saw the play a few years ago, I'll try to answer your question.
Kushner makes no effort to hide his views: namely, that the accepted LDS position on homosexuality is unrealistic and cruel. He has, however (in my opinion), done his research into Mormon culture, and I find his Mormon characters well-fleshed-out and deeply truthful.
The play is generously populated with Mormons, but also has some Jewish characters; Kushner grew up and remains Jewish. As far as I can see, he treats Judaism with the same familiarity he uses with LDS.
One conjecture I will make (at the risk of offending some people here) is that perhaps Mormons who are offended by Angels in America are more offended by the casual presentation of homosexuality, and unquestioning assumption that homosexuality even exists; than by the portrayal of the Mormon characters.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it in the theatre years ago, when it was new, and I'm LDS. I don't have HBO and have no plans to see it this time. Interesting play. A friend of mine did walk out when she saw it. It's been a long time (10 years?), but I think the main objection from an LDS standpoint is the use of garments, or facsimiles thereof, on stage. The portrayal of homosexuality isn't really here nor there on the LDS offense-o-meter, though obviously a lot of people aren't going to particularly approve of the play. But that's true of many, many plays; this one stands out because of the garments.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, if there was a scene on film with a temple-married LDS couple in various states of undress that DIDN'T display the garment, it would be heralded as 'unrealistic' and 'unresearched'.
Anyway - I don't think those characters were at all supposed to be stereotypical of Mormons. I believe they were just characters who happened to be Mormon, even though this aspect of their faith is an important part of their character. It's obvious the playwrite didn't just make them Mormon as instant laugh-targets. It was a conscious choice - a major theme in part one is of the state of and future of America. The LDS thought on America's special place in the scheme of things is brought up as a counterpoint. It's not ridiculed - it plays out seriously, if not desperately.
Both the husband and wife already seemed pretty lapsed in their faith, even if ingrained habits and taboos remained. These aren't Molly Mormon and Peter Priesthood - these are people suffering, whose faith is dying.
If anything, the man can perhaps be viewed as one unable to overcome temptation. I found that character to actually be one of the most fascinating (and sypathetic) characters in the piece. His wife, on the other hand, I found to be the most enjoyable character, and hands down the best performance.
I can't wait to see part 2, and won't review the entire work as a whole until I do so.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
way I understand it, the play itself was performed in two parts, just as the Film version is, with both parts being around 3 1/2 hours. there were only a few presentations where both parts were combined in a single night - imagine a 7 hour play performance. I'm sure the actors were EXHAUSTED.
posted
Just found a SALT LAKE TRIBUNE review of 'Angels' which actually states it as being 'very respectful' of the LDS faith. Check it out.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Salt Lake Tribune is traditionaly the "anti" paper - their main rival is owned by the church. *shakes head* They're a fine paper, but not a good gauge of what will be found offensive.
posted
There are two most highly offensive things about this play. The first is using LDS theology and imagry to preach against the religiously conservative views of Mormonism. This includes the strong belief in the very holy nature of traditional family relationships, and the strict understanding of morality and ethics. It is an attack pure and simple. As usual in this kind of treatment, every character either loses faith entirely or gains faith in such a way that they come out crazy, insane, or socially disfunctional. Or, if not that, they gain a faith so foriegn and different from the orthodox understanding that it pretty much nulifies their membership therein for all practical purposes. The latter characters are, of course, put up as what the religion SHOULD BE, ignoring that is not what the religion IS. For those who agree with the message of the film/play they don't see the subtle meanings behind the above mentioned transformations.
But, the real kicker is the use of temple garments in an open and public manner; even luedly presented. Showing, explaining, producing, or otherwise having temple related garb in public is as close to a "stoning offense" as you can get in Mormonism. It is actually more offensive than nudity as far as sensibilities are concerned. If you want to make sure to offend a Mormon (unfortunately I am probably giving some people fire to use in trying to explain this) than open use of these things is the number one way to offend. If you are honestly trying to be respectful, you DO NOT include these things for public consumption.
posted
I would argue that verisimilitude is on the side of showing Mormons in undergarments, but rather AGAINST swimsuit pageants in mosques.
Then again, I've never understood the whole "it's holy because we're sensitive about it, and we're sensitive about it because it's holy" logic, so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask. It seems to me that it basically turns someone into the kind of person who's very easily offended by even the most basic curiosity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* That's because that's the wrong logic.
I don't like sex scenes in movies, either, because if I'm not convinced by the couple, it'd be skeevy, and if I am, don't they want privacy?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sincere what? They're wearing Mormon underwear because they're pretending to be Mormon. Are you saying that they're not pretending to be Mormon sincerely enough?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: It's kinda like Indiana Jones and the Raider's of the Lost Ark. If you're not careful, your face will melt.
...
...isn't it?
^_~
Actually, I think it's very like the Ark (though probably not the raiders thereof). Holy is, by definition, off limits, set apart. It goes with the territory. OT theology puts that kind of thing under the heading "God's portion: keep out"
posted
Being a non-Mormon that is the best I have ever heard. I don't know if you are Jewish, but the way they felt about the Temple is how Mormons feel about their Temples and anything associated with it. Same concept of "set apart from the world" and therefore not to be placed in front of the world.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not being a Mormon is probably the number one reason they shouldn't be wearing them. Of course, if they really were Mormon, that would be even worse and they would most likely be ex-communicated.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not too familiar with the Mormon culture and beliefs. What are "garments," and why would people be offended by them in Angels?
Posts: 274 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're special undergarments which represent God's protection and covenant, as I understand it. Many Mormons believe that they offer actual divine protections; others believe they're merely symbolic.
The garments, as with many of the more unusual elements of Mormon doctrine, are considered "holy," meaning in this case that they should be kept relatively secret from non-members (in order, as I understand it, to protect these and other rituals from being cheapened by mockery and misunderstanding.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I understand how it might be extremely offensive if an actor (LDS or not) wore Temple garments onstage for all the world to see.
HOWEVER, surely everyone in the audience must understand that these are not, in fact, actually Temple garments, and that they probably bear no resemblance to real Temple garments.
It's all representational. No matter how well-written it is, or well-acted, nobody actually believes that this is for real. It's still just actors in costumes on sets. How can mere storytelling be so mortally offensive?
Posts: 1785 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My hometown paper carries a local question and answer section (think of it like a help desk on just about anything), and someone once asked about Mormon underwear. The paper answered in some depth.
The next few issues all carried letters from local Mormons complimenting the paper on the fair minded treatment
Just an interesting anecdote that seemed peripherally related.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the HBO version I was only vaguely aware that those might be "undergarments" -- I didn't notice the symbols at first (they were pretty subtle) and later when I did I thought it was some kind of brand name underwear (it took me awhile to realize, "Oh, undergarments").
I'm curious -- OSC mentions undergarments in "Lost Boys." Is there a difference in OSC's using them for verisimilitude in a novel, and the play using them? (Like martha said, we non-Mormons don't know if those were actual undergarments, the undergarments weren't shown in any detail, and the undergarments weren't the focus of the scene at all.) Obviously OSC doesn't describe them in his book... but the film showed them in such a fuzzy way that I don't feel like the undergarments were really shown there either.
(Also, does "verisimilitude" set a record for the number of times the letter "i" occurs in a word?)
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The garments, as with many of the more unusual elements of Mormon doctrine, are considered "holy," meaning in this case that they should be kept relatively secret from non-members (in order, as I understand it, to protect these and other rituals from being cheapened by mockery and misunderstanding.)
Then wouldn't Mormons be mad at OSC for writing about them in Lost Boys?
posted
I know there would be some that might be, although I have never heard of complaints. Its not just the mentioning of them, as we are talking about them. Rather, it is in the use of them in a time, place, and with people who have no business having, talking about, or using them in any context; expecially in a relatively critical play.
posted
Tom, come on... quotation marks around holy? Stuff like that is EXACTLY why I object to the depiction. You just proved the point.
You're saying they think it's holy, but, you know, it really isn't, those funny, superstitious Mormons.
----
And, in answer, yes, it did/does bother many Mormons when OSC put it in Lost Boys. Those it doesn't, it helps that it's done with sympathetic love and understanding.
posted
I think Mormons are generally prickly about Mormons portrayed in the media for a number of reasons:
1) Often when Mormons are portrayed it is for purpose of ridicule
2) I have never seen or heard of Mormons being portrayed by non-Mormons where the depiction has been remotely accurate
3) Mormons are hypersensitive to ridicule because A) There has been a long history of it and B) Mormons (and Christians in general) seem to be one of the few remaining valid targets (ie no one would think of attacking blacks or some other group in the same ways).
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, would you say that the depiction of Mormons in "Angels in America" is remotely accurate?
-------
And yes, kat, I put quotes around "holy" for two reasons, neither of which are meant to indicate that I don't think they ARE holy (although, of course, I do not):
1) To indicate, using scare quotes, that the use of "holy" in this context means something a little different for Mormons than for mainstream Americans.
2) To indicate that the word "holy" is in fact a preferred term used to describe these undergarments, and that items and rituals matching this description fall into a specific category in Mormon doctrine.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scare quotes are used for many purposes, kat.
Consider this sentence:
Al Gore said today that he was "disappointed" in the election results.
Does this mean that he literally used the word "disappointed?" Yes. Can it mean that the reporter specifically quoted just that word in a cynical way? Yes, it can mean that, too.
You choose to interpret my quotation of the word "holy" in the most negative possible fashion, perhaps due to the aforementioned hypersensitivity. I assure you, however, the reasons I gave for my use of quotes were the only ones.
That said, you KNOW I don't think these undergarments are holy. In fact, you know the overwhelming majority of non-Mormons (at least, those who know about them) not only don't think the undergarments are holy but think they're actively silly. Perhaps you should be less sensitive to this reality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your argument was Mormons shouldn't be too sensitive about the depiction of something they consider holy. Why throw gasoline on the fire in the middle of that discussion?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like martha said, we non-Mormons don't know if those were actual undergarments, the undergarments weren't shown in any detail, and the undergarments weren't the focus of the scene at all.
In the movie, perhaps. When I saw it on the stage, it was pretty hard to miss; as we all know, plays have far less scenery and whatnot, and the actor was just standing on the stage in what was obviously supposed to be the old-style garments (which AFAIK no one under 60+ wears). You couldn't mistake it for plain ol' undershirt-and-pants, and while it wasn't the topic of discussion in the scene or anything, it would certainly not strike any Mormon as remotely appropriate or respectful.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that most people are trying to understand is that if they're not mentioned, or discussed, or referred to in any reason, but used as realistic costuming, where si the offense? They're not being ridiculed. I honestly would bet that most people NOT familiar with LDS beliefs and culture wouldn't even notice anything out of the ordinary.
I also remember people having a fuss because a scene in one of Dutcher's films portrayed an actual Sacrament Meeting. Seeing as he wasn't allowed to shoot in any in-use meeting houses, I understand he ended up having to find one that was no longer in use to film at. And even then, he got flack for it, even though he IS a devout members of the LDS church.
... but yet the complaints are that when people protray Mormons, they aren't portrayed accurately. But when things ARE tried to be shown accurately, it results in this knee-jerk reaction.
Think about it from THAT perspective for a moment. How does that reflect on the Church if when people DO try hard to 'get it right', they're attacked? It's a Catch-22 folks.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: but yet the complaints are that when people protray Mormons, they aren't portrayed accurately. But when things ARE tried to be shown accurately, it results in this knee-jerk reaction.
Think about it from THAT perspective for a moment. How does that reflect on the Church if when people DO try hard to 'get it right', they're attacked? It's a Catch-22 folks.
I don't agree. To portray Mormons accurately must they be shown in their skivvies? I don't reckon that an accurate portrayal of Catholics requires that they be shown in their boxers or huggers or what have you. The question arises: is it necessary that they be shown in their underwear at all? And if so, is it necessary that their underwear be garments? Their are plenty of Mormons who have not gone to the temple and do not wear garments. I think it is the same issue as any number of other issues of accurate portrayal. For example, in order to learn in a play that the characters had sex is it necessary that they be shown having sex? Must we see their flesh?
It is one thing to be realistic and quite another to deliberately cross the bounds of taboo of the society in question.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a member of the LDS church, and I didn't notice anything unusual. To me it just seemed like they were wearing undergarments. I guess I wasn't paying that close attention.
In the context though, they really couldn't have been wearing anything else. The male character in particular would want to wear them I think,with what he was going through and his attitude about it.
Thats just my opinion though.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare: didn't I just point out an instance of Mormons being portrayed by non-Mormons in the media that was realistic? I didn't specify they paper was run by non-Mormons, but I thought it was implied.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is the very fact there is taboo associated with them which makes, from a historic/literary perspective, it necessary to portray Mormons in their "skivvies". Should a historian edit out all references to things that other cultures hold sacred? Should an author not portray a group of people realistically because those people do not want to be portrayed realistically?
It is hard to protest the unrealistic portrayal of Mormons while also condemning the realistic portrayal of Mormons. If you insist that garments not be shown you will never have a realistic depiction of a situation where garments would be worn.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, don't you think you're a little too much on the offensive about this issue with Tom? He doesn't hold your faith, but recognized the importance of the costuming for the play. Why are you trying so hard to take offense, and find any way you can to imply that offense was meant?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay - Part 2 is in progress, and I've already noticed quite a few things in PART 2 that I agree can be offensive to members of the LDS church. I still hold my thoughts on the events of PART 1, but PART 2 is a different story - at least this far (in the middle of hour 2).
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I personally have no idea what these garments are that people are talking about? If someone could explain, thus far all explanations have sorta left me going huh?, I might understand.
I guess that I'm never surprised when art of any type takes something from religion to make a point. I'm a Catholic and I can think of a good number of movies that generally use Catholic ritual/ beliefs in some way that could be offensive or are at least a misrepresentation. And I don't really take offense. I know this next statement is going to probably get me yelled at. But I generally see art as a form of communication that often challenges the fundamentals underlying some belief system. Most of the time I just go interesting...hmm. And if someone is interested and asks me to explain I do. Maybe I should get more upset about the representation of my religion by art and the media. *senses she's about to ramble and runs away*
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So I personally have no idea what these garments are that people are talking about? If someone could explain, thus far all explanations have sorta left me going huh?"
IIRC, all Mormons who have entered a "covenant of righteousness" in the Temple are given robes to wear while in the Temple, and white undergarments that are meant to be worn at all times. These undergarments are manufactured by an agency of the Church, and have undergone several style revisions over the years.
While I've never seen one of the newer garments, I've heard that they are still printed with four Masonic symbols (meant to suggest different meanings to the LDS church, of course) but are otherwise deliberately plain.
The official line on these garments is that they are symbolic of the covenant and a reminder of the duties of the priesthood, much the same way that a Catholic priest's collar is. I've heard several Mormons additionally voice the view -- which I don't think is official doctrine -- that the garments also offer a form of enchanted spiritual protection from harm when worn.
-----
Did I get that right, guys?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
