Tonight I went and saw The Exorcist as performed by Bald Faced Lie as part of the Brown Derby Series at the Rebar. It was of course quite funny, although there were some pop-culture references that I didn’t get (sadly I’ve never actually seen a Milli Vanilli video and I don’t keep up with Pink Floyd). But I did enjoy references to Kiss and Motley Crue, and of course I loved watching Nick Garrison.
But the think I liked most was the interesting thoughts about sex and sexuality that the show fostered in my sangria-soaked consciousness (yes, I did bring my own, leftovers from my birthday party). First, I was thinking how funny it was that the audience was supposed to cringe in horror at 1) the “desecration” of the “Virgin” Mary (she was made up as a whore, with a big erect penis, part of the original movie, I’m sure) and 2) the sexuality of the “men of God,” that is, the priests (mostly added in as part of the comedy of the evening).
What I thought was … first, religiously, it was depressing that the concept of ANY celebration of sexuality had to be “unholy” or even “evil.” For a priest or the mother of Jesus to be seen as sexual came off as a terrible thing. Yet, in looking at the Christian religion, I have to ask, where is the moment where sexuality is to be celebrated? Why is it that to be “holy” you have to be sexless? I thought, “Oh, you want the priests to be thinking about higher things,” but really, at what point is ANYONE allowed to think about sex and not have it be “bad?” This all just fit in with what I’ve read about most religions (well, Islam and Christianity) being, at their hearts, about controlling sexuality. And that was depressing. Of course, I also read that the reason why these religions do this is because first, the sex drive is so strong, and second, because people behave unpredictably when they follow their sexual urges. So if you dominate their sex drives, it is easier to control them in general. (Plus, sex is “dangerous.”)
The other thing I thought was about the supposed rampant sexuality of theater folk. Actresses (some of them anyway) have always been known for their flaunting of sexual conventions, and watching all of these men (and some women) on stage pretending to give each other blowjobs just made me think of what it must be like to pursue a life of pleasure (especially because I knew many of the men were not gay and it just kind of made me think of them going, “Oh well, why not enjoy pleasure or give it if the opportunity presents itself”). Well, not a life, really, but to lead a life where indulging yourself sexually with other people was easy and fun and generally not a big deal. It looked like it would be a very joyful life and thinking about it made me kind of envious. Of course, in reality there would be lots of jealousy and recrimination and anger and perceived back-stabbing. Oh, but if only I were a man … isn’t it possible that within that milieu leading the life of an adventurous lover would be just an enless hedonistic joy?
Of course, what we get is “erect penises equal murdering babies for Satan” and “let’s make women wear veils because men can’t control their sexual impulses if they see their hair.” What crap! Maybe I’m more of a pagan than I ever thought.
(This review is for a performance that took place on June 24th, 2003 and was migrated here from another blog.)
Life in the Cheap Seats - Webcowgirl's London theatre reviews 