The Recovery of Art at the End of the Spear?

    When I first heard about End of the Spear (the new movie based on the real life story of the five missionaries killed in Ecuador by the indigenous Waodani tribe) I let out a tired groan, knowing that Christian production companies (this time it's Every Tribe Entertainment) have a tendency to produce artistically terrible stuff.  I was dead set on not seeing it.
    Recently, however, much of the evangelical community has been up in arms over the fact that Every Tribe hired not only a gay man (*gasp*) but a gay activist (*double gasp*) to play missionary Nate Saint and the grown up version of his son, Steve.
    Oddly enough, this makes me want to see the movie.
    I appreciate the fact that Every Tribe refused to brush off the actor with the best audition simply because he is gay and a gay activist.  It shows that their focus is on making a good movie, rather than making politico-religious statements.  I think this is the most Christian thing a Christian production company has ever done and, as a result, I will now be seeing what I hope will be an excellent movie.

The Song I Love: The Melody of 42nd Street

    As I have stated before, the theatre world can be extremely aggravating because of how rife it is with ungodliness.  If you're not forced to compromise your beliefs for just a chance to get on stage, you are bombarded by sexuality from every possible angle.  And that's fine, as far as those things go -- at least I expect that from a fallen world.  What really gets to me is that Christians don't care to change it or they have given up entirely.
    Yes, the Greeks are credited with inventing theatre during the licentious festivals of Dionysus and it certainly was unclean there, but we have to ask ourselves: What is theatre at it's heart?
    Theatre is a medium for telling stories.
    Is God not the greatest storyteller -- the greatest playwright -- of all time?  Why then have Christians abandoned such an excellent art form to pagan culture?  Or, if not wholly abandoning it, why have Christians tried to make it into something it is not?
    Perhaps it is that Christians no longer understand the meaning of "dominion".  God commanded man to have dominion over the earth, and that includes art.  Does not Christ, at this moment, reign over all the earth as the One, True King?  Why, then, do Christians not act like it?  Christians should view theatre -- like everything else -- as God's possession.  Theatre is a specific art form with an objective standard of excellence: to glorify God.
    If this is true -- if theatre is God's and we, as Christians, are to glorify Him through it -- then why would a person be very hard-pressed to find a theatrical company that doesn't rehearse and/or perform on Sundays?  Why, upon finding this theatrical company, does a person find a stupid (and I use that word deliberately) "Christian" theatre that is more concerned with evangelism than telling a good story, to the detriment of both?
    If theatre is God's then why can't a Christian, if it is his calling, go to school to learn his trade without having to work on Sundays or fear of compromising his morals?  Granted, there are Christian colleges out there with drama programs, but they are by no means excellent nor are they artistic.  It's the same old theatre-as-evangelism poppycock that one sees across the country.
    Because Christians haven't seen fit to call theatre "good" and make quality work in the field, it leaves Christians with the talent, the desire, and the calling to act, direct, write, and produce without a godly way to do so.  There is no way to gain experience, no way to learn our craft, and no venue to produce and perform quality works.
    So where does that leave us?  Should we just give up?  Should we tell the pagan world, "Take your theatre, we'll have nothing to do with it!" and leave our thespian brethren chained to desks pushing papers in high rises while their hearts ache for 42nd Street?  Or should we make ways for the artists to learn their craft so that Christians can make theatre better than the pagans could ever dream?
    We should encourage our fellow Christians to pursue their art that people might say:
    "Stephen Sondheim?  He wasn't a true lyricist.  Listen to the words of THIS guy." 
    "Chita Rivera?  She was alright, but just look at HIM dance." 
    "Yeah, Ian McKellen can act, but not near as well as SHE can." 
    "You shouldn't even try to compare the trite compositions of Robert Lopez and Jeff Marx to the masterful artistry of THIS GUY."
    Ordinary grace did well, but just look at what saving grace can do.

Logical Foolishness

    There is a very short, but packed, list of reasons why a Christian should not pursue a career in theatre and I have often struggled with my choice to pursue this career because of them.

- Rehearsals and performances inevitably fall on the Lord's Day.
- The number of roles and shows that do not compromise a Christian's principles continue to dwindle.
- A sort of unorganized "gay mafia" pulls the strings of Equity theatres forcing the Christian to speak carefully regarding his God's abhorrence of sodomy.
- A strange and disgusting sort of openness about sexuality pervades rehearsals and backstage during shows. 

    Perhaps it is my tenacity, perhaps it is my enormous love for the theatre, or maybe it's just my stupidity, but, despite all the possible arguments against it, I can't seem to give up my pursuit.
    There is one thing that keeps me hanging on.
    I've often heard it said that Christians should not pursue theatre today.  My question is, if not today, then when?  If Christians abandon the theatre world, not encouraging those with the talent -- maybe even the call -- to pursue what may be their vocation, then we have given over theatre to the pagans and Christians will never be able to participate.
    The surrender is already happening.  Christians, as a whole, have been withdrawing themselves from the theatre-at-large for a long time -- or, if they have not, then they (like Kristin Chenoweth) have compromised their principles to satisfy the "gay mafia".
    The Christians who have not completely abandoned the theatre in physical sense have done so artistically.  These are the people who write campy, trite, and laughable theatre that preaches more than it entertains.  They have surrendered the good stuff to the pagans and settled for passion plays and morality plays worthy of the scoffing they receive from both the pagans and people like myself.
    I would, somehow, like to stop this surrender.  I don't know how it is possible: perhaps simply by sticking to my guns, maybe by starting my own theatre company . . . I don't know.  But I refuse to believe that that the only places left for Christian theatre-lovers are high-school drama, evangelical fluff, or the audience.
    God commands we have dominion over the earth and I don't believe he made an exception for the arts.

RENT -- "How about love?"

    Of late, I have been considering not seeing the RENT movie when it comes out next week.  Yes, I am a musical nut, but I've never really liked RENT.  I only enjoy about four songs on the cast album and I find the message weak and lacking.  Here you have these rebellious bohemians who care only for their art (and -- so they say -- each other).  They refuse to be responsible and pay rent (however devious their landlord has been), they sleep around and contract AIDS, one is an S&M dancer at a local club, some cheat on their significant others, and half of them are decidedly not heterosexual.
    Yes, this sort of thing is "real".  Yes, New York City was like this at one point (probably still is in a lot of areas).  But do we really have to glorify it?  Do we have to lift up the actions of the reprobate in order to tell a good story?  Is it really a good story or is it the secular world's idea of a good story?  Somehow, I find it very hard to see the redemption in RENT.
    Unlike it's predecessor, La Bohème, RENT fails to show the consequences of the characters' actions.  The RENT-bohemians, like the La Bohème-bohemians, live the life of the poor.  They are cold, tired, weary, and can't find work to make money.  La Bohème shows what actually happens to people in this sort of situation; RENT sugarcoats it . . . glorifies it. In both shows, Mimi is terminally ill -- in RENT she has AIDS, in La Bohème, tuberculosis.  But AIDS, unlike tuberculosis, is usually contracted through less-than-blameless activities.  RENT's creator, the late Jonathon Larson, not only replaced the one sickness with another, he gave it to Roger/Rodolfo, to Angel/Schunard, and to Collins/Colline in addition to Mimi.  Instead of keeping it the tragic love story of two flawed people, he made La Bohème into a mock-tragedy more about a group of rebellious friends than love.
    Why do I call RENT a mock tragedy? You cannot present something as tragedy without the actual death of a character.  If Mimi is going to die, let her die.  The story will be stronger for it.  While I understand and love theatre's heavy reliance on "suspension of disbelief", when a playwright asks me to accept what he presents as what happens in the real world, then brings a main character back to life, I can no longer suspend that disbelief.  Larson crushed his own world and I can no longer believe in it.

    RENT chronicles a year in the tumultuous, self-serving, drug-filled, and sometime sodomic "love lives" of a group of friends; La Bohème follows the love of one man for one woman and how its comedy and tragedy helped bring a group of friends closer together.

    So, is it worth my while to watch this movie?  Will it instruct as well as entertain?  If so how will it instruct and will it be worthwhile instruction?  Will the learning be so valuable that it's worth watching Mimi pole dance in skimpy clothing, Maureen propose to another woman, Collins and Angel (two men, one a transvestite) kiss and profess their love for each other?  It's not that I think this movie will change my staunch position on certain topics like homosexuality, only that I'm not sure it's worth it to fill my mind with such filth in order to receive the movie's over-generalized moral: love.

To See or Not to See What I Wanna See

    When I first read a spoiler-filled synopsis of Michael John LaChiusa’s newest work, See What I Wanna See I immediately rejected it as a show I could see (given the opportunity) because of some of its content – namely both rape and consensual sex depicted on stage.
    Since the show has been running in previews for two weeks (it officially opened last night), a number of people I know have gotten a chance to see it and have been discussing the meaning and implications of the show ever since.
    From all I’ve read, See What I Wanna See seems the most thought-provoking musical to come to New York in a very long time.  This is exciting for me.  The world needs more thought-provoking theatre.  LaChiusa and the gang of writers/composers he is often grouped with (Jason Robert Brown, Adam Guettel, Stephen Flaherty & Lynn Ahrens) are working hard to bring this kind of theatre back to the Great White Way.

Idina Menzel (The Wife) and Marc Kudisch (The Husband) in See What I Wanna See (Photo copyright Michal DANIEL, 2005)

    However, one dilemma remains: Can a Christian, in good conscience, go to See What I Wanna See?  Theatre isn’t like the movies.  You can’t wait for the DVD to come out and fast-forward the unpleasant or explicit scenes.  You’re not so removed from the characters in the theatre.  If you were to watch a rape scene in a movie it would be far less disturbing than watching one in the theatre – especially at the Public, a very small theatre with a thrust stage.  All the terrible action is right there in front of you . . . in the very same room.

Idina Menzel (The Wife) and Aaron Lohr (The Thief) in See What I Wanna See (Photo copyright Michal DANIEL, 2005)

    Even with this disturbing imagery, can a Christian see it?  The story would be monumentally different without it and far less thought-provoking.  Can rape be portrayed tastefully?  Perhaps it is portrayed as tastefully as possible.  But is it proper to portray it at all?  Is there another way to show the selfish paradigms of sinful man without using rape, consensual sex, and grim murders to do so?  If there is, would the story be nearly as powerful since part of the hard-hitting nature of the show is found it the extreme nature of the situations at hand?

    These are the questions that have my mind churning in circles about this show and theatre in general.  If given the opportunity, I would want to see it because nothing like it has come along in a very long time, but I do not want to be desensitized to sinful extremes.  Thankfully I live 550 miles from the city and don’t have to actually make the decision, but I can’t help wondering . . .