urbanSTL

Bastiat wrote:

Tysalpha wrote:^ Good.



I still think they should add this number to it:

The Church should review material before it makes any public complaints, but they have a legit reason to complain if it is inappropriate.



Oh, wow you rebel! Showing images that are blasphemous to Christianity! That is so outrageous and original! I bet that will really offend some people and they might even get angry! This is not childish and overdone, it is really clever and really shows you aren't afraid to make a point! You're really putting yourself in a dangerous position, look out!

Oh come on that was just being sassy.

^Okay... Well, if I saw the title "Sex Drugs and Rock and Roll" on a theatre bill, I would not expect something controversial. Nothing makes me think that they were trying to be controversial with a title like that. I mean, yeah, it's in a church... I suppose the context can make that title seem more threatening or provocative. But, come on. This doesn't sound like a big deal.

Bastiat wrote:Sorry, that was not really directed at you, but the people like Madonna and a lot of modern artists (the Piss Christ) trying to be controversial by attacking Christianity. First of all, it has been done thousands of times, it no longer really makes a point and there are no consequences for it.



If these artists are so bold and shocking, where are their fecal matter displays of Mohammad and Muslim prophets? There's that Gay festival promotion making controversy in the news because of the leather-dominatrix Last Supper depiction. Why didn't they have one of Mohammad? Aren't Muslims an even bigger threat to gays and alternative lifestyles? Perhaps the little girl he married could have the red ball gag in her mouth.

You do know that Jesus Christ is considered a prophet in Islam, don't you? But I agree with your point.

At least one of Abp. Burke's power plays finally backfired on him.



Well, if anything good came out of this, at least the Ivory Theater got more attention than it may have otherwise.

Bastiat wrote:Sorry, that was not really directed at you, but the people like Madonna and a lot of modern artists (the Piss Christ) trying to be controversial by attacking Christianity. First of all, it has been done thousands of times, it no longer really makes a point and there are no consequences for it.



If these artists are so bold and shocking, where are their fecal matter displays of Mohammad and Muslim prophets? There's that Gay festival promotion making controversy in the news because of the leather-dominatrix Last Supper depiction. Why didn't they have one of Mohammad? Aren't Muslims an even bigger threat to gays and alternative lifestyles? Perhaps the little girl he married could have the red ball gag in her mouth.

Thanks for the clarification. I do think there is a place for being provocative and, perhaps, shocking people into questioning the status quo. But there's also being provocative just for the sake of provoking. Even though that's protected speech and completely legal, on a personal level I don't respect it. Or rather, I don't respect the motivation.



Tangent: I do respect Madonna and think she's done more good work than bad as a pop artist. Like a Prayer actually has a good message; but maybe the imagery in the video distracts from that message more than it supports it. But I'll agree with you about 'piss christ'!



As for why other religion's figures aren't treated the same way: Our culture, although secular, is still largely based on a foundation of Christianity. It's natural that those who want to challenge the status quo would do so though it, since it's what they are most familiar with.



I imagine people in other cultures want to use (or "corrupt") their religious imagery the same way. But in many cases they don't have the freedom of speech we have. I'd rather be here than there.

Sister Wendy Beckett, who is at once an art critic, a consecrated virgin, and a Catholic nun approves of Piss Christ, even if she doesn't find the artist particularly talented: 'Sister Wendy absolutely refuses to see Piss Christ as blasphemous. Instead she reads it as an admonitory work that attempts to say "this is what we are doing to Christ."' I think this just goes to show that just because you find something provocative or shocking and you don't understand the message immediately, it doesn't mean that it was meant to be shocking for the sake of shock. Here we have a Catholic nun who should be most shocked by it and she finds in it a message worthy of approval. No church or religion should be afraid of criticism and commentary. Why should, what is probably a harmless play, be any sort of threat to Catholicism?



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 13230/pg_2

I just love how "provocative" these pop stars think they are by insulting the Christian religion by smearing piss and sh*t on pictures of the Virgin Mary and Jesus. Or Madonna posing on a cross at concerts. I'm not religious at all, even though I grew up going to church- I'm personally agnostic. So, nothing from what I described offends me, but what I DO find offensive is that NO ONE would DARE to do the same to Muhammad in this country! I would LOVE Madonna to TRY to insult THAT religion. Now that would be "provocative"! Of course these people know there are no SERIOUS repercussions for their actions by insulting Christians.

Well, come on. You are most likely to criticize that which is most apparant to you. Christianity is a major factor of and an influence on western culture. It should be no surprise that American and European artists are more likely to satirize the religions that they are closest to. They have no reason to insult something they are less familiar with firsthand. There are people in the Islamic culture who criticize and critique the religion that they were brought up in. Salman Rushdie, for one. There are plenty of artists that criticize Islam, and it usually is because those artists were brought up in its culture and are therefore more aware of its faults than, say, Madonna is. If you are looking for a genuine, knowledgable, and artistic critique of any religion, I assure you that you will find it in abudance in the underbelly of the culture that it produces. You can't blame an artist for selecting some targets and not others. That is not wrong. It's what artists do. They react to what they see. It's not always good, but it's what they do.

^Good point, and well said.

^Yep. I just heard a promo for their current show on KDHX.

$10 on Thursdays for students and seniors!





http://www.geocities.com/newlinetheatre/

In the newly rehabbed space across the street there is a sign in the window for 'Ivory Coast Bistro - Coming Soon.' Anyone have details? A quick sleuth on the web produced no results.

The women that owns it has run several other places in St. Louis. I believe the most recent was a tavern on north Telegraph in the strip mall with the bingo hall. It appears they have done a pretty good job outfitting the space although in a "county" type decor, i.e.. not very stylish. They plan to be open for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

...and Bingo?

This past weekend I went to the Ivory Theatre for the first time to see New Line's excellent production of Sondheim's Assassins. I was quite impressed by the conversion of the church building: Apart from the striking illuminated sign out front, new glass doors, and the elimination (concealment?) of what was presumably a statue of St. Boniface, the building still looks very much like a church from the outside. However, what is now the main auditorium has been fitted with "stadium" seating, giving virtually everyone a clear view, and the stage area is surprisingly large with a fair amount of depth. Acoustics seemed pretty good from where I was sitting. The lobby is small but pleasant, and the remodeled restrooms are very elegant. There are about 50 parking spaces on the fenced lot immediately behind the theater, though street parking is also available.



Unfortunately, there seems to be a question mark over the theater's future operations. Someone associated with the company told me that both New Line and Hydeware (the two theater companies that have routinely used the Ivory since it opened) are planning to switch to other venues for their summer 2008 productions. This decision to relocate must have been made quite recently, as the printed program included an ad highlighting the fact that these theater companies had made the Ivory their new home. I don't know if the exodus is in any way connected with the planned sale of the Ivory by Pete Rothschild, continued concerns/disgruntlement regarding the "restrictive covenant" on the building which Archbishop Burke invoked last year, or simply perceived unsuitability of the venue for the respective companies' future productions. It would be a shame if the theater were to be effectively abandoned so soon after its opening, as it seems to be one of the few bright spots likely to attract people to what is otherwise a somewhat decayed neighborhood.





EDIT:



I just checked New Line's website and see that they've added this note sometime in the past 24 hours:



"New Line has left the Ivory Theatre, due to very difficult working conditions and many other problems, and we will be announcing soon where our next show will be. Stay tuned..."

I wonder if the problems are with the theaters facilities. The front of the house appear to be fine however backstage seems rather cramped and awkwardly configured.

The new edition of the <I>Riverfront Times</i> has an article explaining why several theater groups have decided to stop using the Ivory Theatre. It seems it was a combination of technical inadequacies arising from the way the building was refitted and problems with the management.



<a href="http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2008-04- ... eless/">St. Louis theater companies are homeless</a>

"They installed outlet covers on the stage that stuck up so we couldn't do choreography," he complains. "And the outlets were on the front half of the stage. We needed them in the back where the band would be."



Also, the doors to the stage were too narrow, so the crew had to build sets directly onstage. The counters in the dressing rooms were at bar height instead of table height, so actors were forced to stand while they attended to their hair and makeup. Worst of all, the Ivory had only one backstage toilet, which had to accommodate the entire cast and band during intermission.

You'd think the theater companies would have checked that stuff out before they signed on.