h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

only 2 things to add.
One that doesn;t seem to be mentioned anywhere is that this play is billed as a black comedy, so by its very nature it will be offensive to many.

2ndly, the Reps own forum has some interesting comments on it, I'll link in the next post as not sure if a theatre constitues a commercial site or not!

One comment froma Sikh that caught my eye tho', who was feeling somewhat singled out :
"I wait for the sequels on the themes of rape, torture and murder in Churches, Mosques,Synagogues and maybe the houses of the monarchy? "

B'ham Rep forum:

http://www.birmingham-rep.co.uk/core_asp/feedback_message.asp?cmd=view&id=464

>>"I wait for the sequels on the themes of rape, torture and murder in Churches

Murder in the Cathedral by TS Eliot springs to mind

>>and maybe the houses of the monarchy? "

Name your Shakespearean tragedy.

Well for the last one I suggest the chap in question casts his eye over the plays of Shakespeare, where he will find quite a lot of nasty things going on in the houses of monarchy. Not to mention the delights of 'nunsploitation' films of the 70s. Something rotten in the state of Denmark, anyone?

Ahh. Great minds and all that

As far as I am aware, the 'Gay Christ' play in Edinburgh provoked criticism from various quarters, (as usual, mainly from people who hadn't actually seen it) though no threats of violence.
Maybe the Sikhs in Birmingham could learn from the tolerance of the Catholics.

The anger expressed that "we protested all week and they still didn't cancel the play" would seem to indicate that the people involved think that demonstrations should inevitably result in changes of policy.
If so, I can't help wondering which dark cave or distant country the people have been living in for the last few decades.

It might have been insensitive, it might have been a bad script, or a bad production, but they seem to be reasons for not going to see it, or for walking out part way through and demanding a refund. From what I've heard, the Satanic Verses wasn't particularly good, but that just seems an argument for ignoring it.

It seems almost certain that without protests, the play would have gone unnoticed by the vast majority, who are generally pretty ignorant of anything much about Sikh culture. If the first thing that pops into people's heads in future is 'Oh - *they're* the ones that attacked that theatre', what have the protests really achieved?

To put them in the same mental bracket as extremist Muslims?

"If the first thing that pops into people's heads in future is 'Oh - *they're* the ones that attacked that theatre', what have the protests really achieved?"

Isn't that what they're supposed to achieve? "Don't f**k with Sikhs, because they'll come round and brick your windows."

In precisely the same way that the Muslims in Bradford made the point "Don't f**k with Muslims because they'll come round and brick other people in the street."

In precisely the same way that the US has for decades: "Don't f**k with the US, or we'll bomb your ass."

OK, so, list of people we should avoid because they're violent intolerant a**holes:

- The USA
- Muslims
- Now, Sikhs.

Any more for any more?

(Here's an interesting one: until Dr. David Kelly threw a seven, how many people had heard of the Baha'i faith? How many people had ever heard of them chucking bricks or beating people up? Is there something inherent to Baha'i that makes it less violent than other religions? Or is it just that there aren't as many?)

H.

People named "hoo"? "Don't mess with people named "hoo" or gallons of vitriol will spill out of your PC."



I had heard of the Baha'i faith.

Without bothering to do any research, I think that Bahai is supposed to be a more universal kind of faith that accepts people from various other traditions, and so is presumably rather less dogmatic about what people are supposed to think.

I also. A persecuted offshoot of Islam. They believe that all faiths are one and preach global tolerance.

The belief that the extremity of one's indignation entitles one to prevail reminds me of animal rights extremists, whose argument for violence appears to be the depth of their anguish over fluffy wee bunnies.

In a civil society, there are two conditions which need to be met for the classical justification for political violence. Firstly that violence is being used against you and secondly that you are denied other avenues of protest. Those who believe in the retardation argue that they are representing the bunnies against whom violence is used...but they still fail to meet the second condition. In the Birmingham case...neither holds.

A comment to Hoo...as you will know, I am an atheist fundamentalist. That said, I think we should be careful to avoid attributing wrongful actions to *all* Sikhs or *all* Muslims...or indeed to *all* Americans.

Latest news - another Birmingham theatre offers to stage the play.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4112985.stm

Or London...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4116335.stm

Oh look, a link conga!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4114497.stm


"The right to be downright offensive"

"'What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist,' wrote Salman Rushdie. It's 15 years since Rushdie's novel, the Satanic Verses, earned the Booker Prize-winning novelist death threats, but the question persists."



az

This begs the question of whether there are any topics which we feel, from a European liberal perspective, are so far beyond the pail that they ought not to be portrayed as art.

A play denying the holocaust? Depictions of sexual acts with children?

Or, in 'our' (and I use the term loosely) has anything been fair game since Duchamp's urinal?

>A play denying the holocaust? Depictions of sexual acts with children?
Well there goes Lolitia, then.

And Romeo and Juliet...

H.

Yes, points well made. And Lolita is one of the best books ever written. 'Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.'

So....lets see how far we can stretch it. Let's hypothesise a photorealistic painting of a sexual act between an adult and a young child, depicted as though the child is enjoying it.

Could it be valid art? Even though it might inflame a paedophile?

(I'm just curious here. Are there any limits to freedom?)

Could it be valid art?

Sure. Is it a good idea, maybe not. But then neither is putting goldfish in food blenders, and that won a prize. At least some technical and artist skill would have gone into such a picture.

Jaysus! If technical skill is the criterion then our galleries ought to be full of goddawful pictures of elephants.

So...the 'is it a good idea' question. Doesn't that rule out Bezhti and The Satanic Verses?

Are artists responsible for (mis)perceptions of their work?