Talk:Jerry Springer: The Opera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Musical Theatre Portal
Jerry Springer: The Opera is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks:


Theatre Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] UK Tour

I heard that the opera was going on a UK tour in October 2005 but i haven't heard anything about a run on Broadway before. - 81.157.34.136

To be honest, it looks like the American run's unlikely to go ahead, owing to the actions of Christian pressure groups [1]. Certainly couldn't have seen that coming... - MykReeve 19:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Or, perhaps not [2]. Who can say? - MykReeve 19:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now that's the thing, some of the US theatre crowd would LOVE it! But sadly as America is "one nation under God", the Christians would stop it ever happening. -TR Wolf
This really p's me off. Why do these christians feel the need to censor art for EVERBODY? If they don't like it, they shouldn't watch it. --Intimidated 15:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

The article seems only to mention the charge of blasphemy. My memory is that some (many? most?) of the complaints were to do with the number of repetitions of the "F-word", which set some kind of record. No doubt these people were not all concerned on religious grounds but more general ones of "taste and decency". Perhaps someone better informed than me could add something about that. Flapdragon 03:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have found no evidence of anyone campaigning against the show other then the Christian Voice action group. In the real world, just walking down a London street can expose you to more "foul language" than this show. --Intimidatedtalk 22:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but they don't repeatedly say the F-word five times in a row! You'll hardly hear the C-word either, especially not seven times in a row. I don't have a problem with swearing, but the opera goes OTT with the language. Are they going to to an opera about Tourette's? Oh, they already have.(AndrewAnorak 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

Is it worth mentioning that the large numbers of complaints mostly came from people who hadn't actually seen the show? Most (47,000) came before the show was televised. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

[edit] High court is a disambiguation page

The correct link for hte Eng High court is High Court. Regards FedLawyer 06:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulling out due to CV protests?

In "UK tour 2006", "Nine theatres originally scheduled to host the show pulled out after Christian Voice threatened to picket them." I wonder. A local theatre advertised that it was going to show it, and so was one of those on the original list, and I was surprised to find later that it was not going to show it after all. I asked them why. They said it was nothing to do with protests, but simply advertised before dates were confirmed, and in the event, the dates were wrong. I am inclined to believe them because this is not the first time this has happened. (Normally the plays are somewhat more innocuous...) I am not going to claim that "I went down and asked" counts as a verifiable source for Wikipedia. But: on this basis, I start to wonder about these nine theatres and Christian Voice's part. Is it confirmed -- or even claimed -- anywhere which these nine theatres were and that they pulled out due to CV and no other reason? --Telsa ((t)(c)) 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, it doesn't attribute the decision to pull out to the protests; the article just says that theatres decided to pull out 'after' (not 'due to') protests. I think "Christian Voice" is sinister, crazed and dangerous and while I wouldn't object to a greater distance in the sentence being placed between effect and alleged cause in the sentence, I don't think it's necessary simply on the grounds you cite here. - Stevecov 07:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies

Can anyone list any of the inaccuracies about the show? Its usually the Christians spewing them out. My favourite three are:

1) "There are 8000 swear words" ...what 1 a second? No.

2) "It shows a gay Jesus in a nappy" ...no, when everyone accuses Jesus of being gay, he defends himself, then says "Im a bit gay" but thats IT, he doesnt wallow in bath-houses or anything! And as for the nappy thing, no, the guy playing Jesus is the same guy who plays a man wearing a nappy in act 1... NOT THE SAME CHARACTER!! Especially as when playing Jesus he isnt wearing a nappy, but loin cloth robes!

Although the diaper Montel wears and the spangly loincloth Jesus wears are different, there are clearly pallerels, especially when Jerry tells Jesus to "Grow up and put some clothes on!"
Because he was just wearing a loin cloth, as many pictures of adult Christ show! And of course there's parallels, because Jerry is dying, and all of this is in his imagination. TR_Wolf

3) "It's blasphemy and immoral!" ...no, it's satire! What about shows on TV in the past mentioning Jesus or God comically, everything from South Park to The Simpsons! If you WATCH the show, you'll see that it is NOT trying to take itself seriously, its joking, its laughing at its own expense and yet throughout, especially at the end, there are some moral and deep philosophies about how you treat one another, and many of the song lyrics are serious and accurate with how the Christian religious icons are portrayed, and not mockingly!

for example:

Jesus: "I am Jesus! Son of Man, son of Mary, son of God" "You took the path of ambition and vanity, but it was me who had to redeem humanity!" "I want your love and your respect, for I am love and I love all mankind"

Satan: "Once in happy realms of light, I was transidental, golden and bright, bright, but I rebelled and was cast down, forced to surrender my celestial crown, oh, my crown! Oh! Then God hurled me from the skies not merciful enough to let me die! Let me die! Confounded immortal lie, paradise lost and pain eternal! Pain eternal!"

God: "It aint easy being me. Billions of voices, making all the wrong choices, then turning round and blaming me"

Jerry: "I've learned that there are no absolutes between good and evil, and that we all live in this glorious state of flux. What can I say? You're not looking at a dying man here, you're looking at yourselves, in a matter of days, months, whatever. And for better or for worse, history defines us for what we do, or what we choose not to do, hopefully what survives of us, is love."


[edit] The DVD

Just to clear this up: is the DVD the same performance as the TV broadcast? --Bonalaw 18:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, just with extras :) TR_Wolf
And accurate subtitles (the ceefax ones on the BBC2 broadcast were godawful). Proto||type 14:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blasphemy

I moved this here from the main article so we can keep the artical as factual TR_Wolf

There are some instances in Act II that could be considered "blasphemy":

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus does not wear a diaper but a spangly loincloth. However, pallerels are clearly drawn between Christ and Montel (the infantile and bodily waste fetishest in Act I). Jerry tells Jesus at one point to "Grow up and put some clothes on!)

Many traditional images of Jesus show him just in a loin cloth, so the 'put some clothes on' thing is fine, plus the only parallel is that Jesus is played by the same guy who played Montel, and this is just because its all in Jerry's imagination as he's dying, it isnt reality. TR_Wolf
And If you had a neocon's dream or fantasy with the Prophet Mohammed (Praise be upon him) as a suicide bomber, would that be OK as it wasn't reality? No of course not!
Sign your posts! And the suicide bomber thing is stupid because that isnt relative to the original character traits of Muhammad, wheras most of the Judeo-Christian characters, although charicatured, were acting correctly for their personality and descriptions in mythology, with dialogue appropriate to character too, aside the odd comedic embelishment. Also its not about Islam or Christianity, its about the derranged thoughts of a dying man. Most of the British public (and the writers!) are more familiar with the Christian mythological stories and characters than the Islamic ones, and so thats why the show was done in that way. TR_Wolf

Reading Satan's cue cards, Jerry introduces Jesus as the "Hyprocrite son of the fascist tyrant on high"

Duh!! SATAN wrote them! Of course he's going to say something like that, he's the devil! TR_Wolf

Satan and his minions heckle Jesus with cries of "Jesus is Gay!" to which Jesus replies "Actually, I am a bit gay"

The creators said that its because everyone is "a bit gay" in how they act etc. TR_Wolf

At one point, Jesus is shocked when Eve puts her hand down his loincloth and fondles his genaltalia.

Wrong. This proves you've only seen the DVD. That action was only done that one time by ONE actress playing Eve, and the writers/creators asked her not to do it again, and wished she hadnt in the first place as it was not scripted. It doesnt happen in the production itself. TR_Wolf
If Lee and Thomas didn't want this to happen, why wasn't it cut out of the Broadcast and DVD versions?
Because it was in the middle of a song, and they probably were only able to record ONE performance. Also, make sure you sign your contributions. TR_Wolf
I have only seen the broadcast BBC2 version, But I did watch it before getting offended. If I had gone to see the performance on tour as well, you would have said "Well if you found it so offensive, why did you watch it again?" User:AndrewAnorak`AndrewAnorak
Blasphemy aside, this is clearly a case of sexual harresment on stage. If a male actor fondled a female actor's breasts during a live performence, he would face charges. Were any charges brought against the actress in this case? User:AndrewAnorak¦AndrewAnorak
Don't be idiotic, it was acting, as could be seen obviously by the character's reaction. And actually there are pleanty of performances with both scripted and improvised groping and the such (just look at Rocky Horror!), its ACTING. TR_Wolf

The virgin Mary is indroced to a chorus of "Raped by an Angel, Raped by God"

Technically that's correct. She didnt ask to be impregnated, she was just told she would be. But its not meant to be serious anyway, again its in Jerry's imagination, and its not supposed to be taken seriously! TR_Wolf
Also, Mary was about thirteen. As Stewart Lee said "The relationship between a thirteen year old girl and a God can never be an equal one".

The "you wouldn't be this offensive to Muslims" argument is absurd. The only reason for this is that a minority of Muslims have no respect for civilised values. Writers don't want to have to spend the rest of their lives in hiding. It has nothing to do with PC-inspired respect for Islam.Jamrifis 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So because Christians don't riot, burn effigies or threaten people's lives, their reward is to have their religion and religous figures constantly ridiculed. Doesn't seem fair to me. If you won't make fun of Mohammed (peace be upon him) then you shouldn't make fun of Christ either, or any other religous figure. (AndrewAnorak 17:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC))
The above discussion is a great start for a section on the controversy about claims by the Christian groups and the responses by the producers/director. By the way, on the sexual harassment issue, the male actor didn't object to being fondled (as far as I know), the director objected. So it's not harassment, just an unauthorized "ad lib". By the way, TR Wolf, please try to be civil when discussing things on Wikipedia talk pages. -- Ssilvers 07:08, 2 March 2007

(UTC)

When have I been uncivil? I've done nothing other than factual, and as someone passionate about this show, especially the debate over controversy, I like to get involved. TR_Wolf

[edit] Copyright violation removed

This edit by TR Wolf introduced a vastly expanded plot section. I thought that the phrase "the show's opaque doctrine of moral relativism" was just too incongruous for a plain-speaking Wikipedia, so I looked it up and found a substantively similar plot synopsis. According to that page's headers, it was last updated on January 10, 2006, which is more than a month before TR Wolf's edit.

If TR Wolf or anyone else can show that they are the copyright holder of http://www.nodanw.com/shows_j/jerryspringer.htm, they can re-license the synopsis under the GFDL and we can include it in Wikipedia. Otherwise, it's outright copyright violation to have it on the page. 195.173.23.111 08:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I cant prove myself as copywright holder, I simply wrote the synopsis as shown on the website, in the brochure, and in the CD sleeve, as I couldnt imagine they'd particularly mind, as the synopsis doesnt seem to have a copywright logo or anything, plus it's simply the synopsis of the show.
I could if you want, simply paraphrase the official version instead of using it right out, as the current one sounds stupid and makes the show sound utterly lame.TR_Wolf
All literary works (even synopsises) have a copyright, even if there's no copyright symbol displayed. The copyright symbol just gets you better damages in court. If you think the producers don't mind, why not write to them and ask if they'll license their synopsis under the GFDL? If they agree, we can use their synopsis on Wikipedia, which would be great. If we can't get that agreement, we need to explain the plot in our own words to avoid copyright infringement. You can use quotes from the official synopsis, you can also paraphrase provided the result has substantiatively different wording AND credits the original source. Changing a few words about is not valid paraphrasing. Here's a page explaining "good" and "bad" paraphrasing. 195.173.23.111 08:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have an E-Mail from Stewart Lee with permission to use the original synopsis, as he wrote it. So I've put it back in. How do I submit the E-Mail as proof? TR_Wolf
Maybe you could reproduce its salient features in a footnote? --GuillaumeTell 08:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A year later this issue is up again, as TR Wolf is attempting to prevent editors from changing the synopsis. This is Wikipedia; unless they've released that text under GFDL, we can't use it -- and if they have, we can change it all we want. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • And again. WP:OWN applies here. Either remove what you claim can't be edited, or release that claim. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Then either re-write it yourself to a decent standard, thus removing the current version, or don't edit the current version, but I'm not simply deleting the entire thing and leaving nothing there. I just find it funny that you feel you're able to 'edit' or 'improve' the synopsis as officially written by the people who wrote the show! TR (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You may not say "don't edit". You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is; it certainly isn't a platform for external writers to place their material. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the non-free material, since TR Wolf objects to it being edited. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title change

Why was this page moved from Jerry Springer - The Opera to Jerry Springer: The Opera? Isn't the former the correct name? --Adam (Talk) 16:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as Im aware, it uses the colon, not the hypen TR_Wolf
The "History" tab on the official Jerry Springer The Opera website and the CDs and DVDs for sale[3] all use Jerry Springer - The Opera. What's your source for the colon? - Mr. Zarniwoop 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

This article is a bit rambling, yet it omitted major sections. I added a "principal characters" section and the track list of the CD (is that the same as the list of musical numbers in the actual show? I couldn't figure out where to put a heading for Act III songs). I consolidated the production history stuff somewhat and started a more organized section on protests/controversy, but it needs to be expanded with a much better and more focused discussion of the controversy, the various accusations and the responses to them (see the "Blasphemy" discussion above for ideas). Quotes and all the info about protests on the tour need to be referenced or deleted. Some POV still needs to be removed, and references need to be added. Good luck, fans! -- Ssilvers 06:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:JerrySpringer-TheOpera-Chicago.jpg

Image:JerrySpringer-TheOpera-Chicago.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis

Just because a user has obtained permission to use a plot synopsis does not nullify WP:OWN. Besides, it's fundamentally in error to think that a copyrighted synopsis is preferred over a free editor produced plot outline. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't include primary sources in wikipedia. This synopsis if it is GFDL compliant belongs on wikisource. It is effectively a long quotation of external source material and not part of the wikipedia article. This is a no-brainer. I have removed it.--Docg 17:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If it can't be edited, it can't be released under the GFDL, and we can't use it. Mr.Z-man 17:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a new synopsis.TR (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little suggestion

How about (without the bold print) Jerry Springer: The Opera is a controversial British musical written by Stewart Lee and Richard Thomas, based on the television show The Jerry Springer Show.

Just a thought :) St91 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Why characterize it? It's best to avoid characterizations in the intro to articles, I think. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)