The Book of Mormon

(Not a film, but eh, I don't have a theatre blog)

Much of the buzz about The Book of Mormon is that it’s got a lot of buzz. You won’t get tickets without booking six months in advance. That’s part of the whole mythos it’s created. Well, I got lucky – a Facebook message from a schoolfriend saying a ticket was spare if anyone wanted it, so I waited all of two hours to get the hottest ticket in town.

And it was well worth the price of admission, and the genuine waiting time too – from beginning to end, it was incredibly enjoyable, and funny enough that I don’t want to do a plot summary in case any little detail of the brilliantly funny story is spoiled. Suffice to say it’s very much in the South Park vein, a few degrees away from the extreme crudeness and out-and-out surrealism of similarly-themed episodes, but also has its own strong identity and voice.

Throughout, much like Parker and Stone’s other musical ventures, there are gentle parodies of other musicals and musical styles. The hand of Avenue Q guy Martin Lopez is apparent too, and I felt like the momentary appearance of a big monster head was a nod backwards. Nothing is quite as good as the Les Miserables parody in Bigger, Longer and Uncut, and the general pastiches of rock musicals, showtunes et all work better than the direct derivatives of The Lion King and Annie, but the fact is that the writers are absolutely brilliant at making their songs funny – not counting sad refrains, every single musical number had at least one huge laugh, several of them being the very first line.

I paused to wonder in the interval why it is that I love the parody and pastiche here, but hate what Joss Whedon does and found it didn’t work in Eric Idle’s stage production Spamalot. After all, Parker and Stone are poking fun at musicals, and have a certain way of being able to stand above criticism by saying ‘Oh, it’s parody’. They can go over the top, have their actors overact and their songs lack taste because it’s comic exaggeration based on expectations, which rather makes hard criticism seem to miss the point. But the difference is, I think, affection. These imitations don’t sneer at what they poke fun at, they make an earnest and convincing attempt to recapture the same thing and do it right. They don’t sarcastically push camp and silly tropes away, but make use of them in a loving, amused way. That seems to be the distinction.

What The Book of Mormon emerges as is a warm tribute to a rather silly American institution, with odd-couple humour and Parker and Stone’s appealing skewering of naivety in the face of a world with problems that happy-clappy proselytisers seem to have no conception of – but they are strong with characters, too, and both the leading characters, while they go off on their own individual paths, end up likeable and deeply flawed. The Ugandans are not a politically correct representation of a people – of course not! – more a collection of others who have an innate noble-savage superiority to the clueless white kids who want to teach them about God, but they also get most of the best moments, especially a King & I-like moment towards the end, and I suspect ‘Hasadiga Eeboway’ will enter pop culture in some way or another. None of the characters are exactly detailed, realistic character studies – nor meant to be – and it works perfectly that way.

Analyse it however you like – the bottom line is that this is brilliantly funny stuff, and masterfully executed. Add in an ensemble that put anyone who’s ever been on X-Factor to shame, inventive costumes and sets and a very accomplished orchestra and you have…well, a show that deserves all the awards and attention it’s getting!