Jezi wrote:
It seems like he was left in two minds about the whole thing.
No surprises there then!
There were elements that I found highly entertaining and certain parts that made me smart (yeh yeh, I know, should have stayed longer etc etc). My overall view is that it did not set out to deliberately mock Christianity
(although it has to be said that it's doubtful whether anything similar referring to other faiths would have been allowed [Behtzi for example]), rather it was an extreme satirical poke at the JS telly genre that pushed the boundaries further than most people expect. Yes, I can understand why people are mortally offended, and yes I was offended in parts, particularly where I felt Jesus was inaccurately portrayed. Yes, there are embarrassing moments (I know that's a very personal thing) and part of it I suppose can be viewed in some degree of self-examination, ie 'why am I embarrassed/uncomfortable/offended by that particular aspect of the show?'.
Understandably, there is every conceivable reaction to the show, from those who wouldn't dream of even going near it to those who have felt that it is worthy of awards.
At times I was wondering what the point of the show was - several times the question popped into my head. And then that nonsensical question/answer, 'does there have to be a point to "art"?'. Whether "JS - The Opera" can be described as art is anybody's opinion as well I suppose. Certainly from a musical and visual point of view it was put across very dynamically and skilfully (I didn't agree with the anti-JS pamphlet's opinion that the performers were 'ineffectual') so probably from an "art" perspective it was a success (hence, too, the awards).
Whether for the individual it was enjoyable/a success/entertaining comes down to personal opinion, and it's difficult to dispute an opinion.