Russian anti-religious art

Here’s one of those arts stories that should have happened, like, 200 years ago.

If we can trust the Canadian Press (the northern version of the Associated Press), on Aug. 19, “prosecutors over in Russia are preparing to bring a group of artists to trial for allegedly ‘inciting religious strife’ by lampooning the Russian Orthodox Church.”
Wait—isn’t Russia supposed to be a democracy for the last decade or so? And isn’t a hallmark of freedom the right to criticize or lampoon whomever you feel like? Well, that’s tough potatoes for Yury Samdurov, owner of the Andrei Sakharov museum, and his codefendants, the artists Lyudmila Vasilovskaya and Anna Mikhalchuk.

The artists’ exhibit, “Caution: Religion,” went up at the museum in February. “The trial,” reports Fred Weir in the CP, “opened in mid-June with the official charge sheet declaring the defendants had entered ‘into a conspiracy with the intent to inflict humiliation and offence upon the Christian faith as a whole and the Russian Orthodox Church in particular.’”

Not knowing much about Russian law, I can’t say how often “conspiracy to inflict humiliation” is prosecuted, but we can be sure that if it were criminal in this country, Conan O’Brien, David Letterman, et al would be hung from a lamppost. Speaking of this country, another question: How come it’s only the Canadian press picking up on this story of artistic freedom quashing? After all, it wasn’t all that long ago that the same sort of controversy played out in New York City, when the Brooklyn Museum faced a funding cut after offending Mayor Giuliani with its “Sensation” exhibit.

From the descriptions offered in the Canadian (again, not the American) press, nothing in “Caution: Religion” is half as provocative as was “Sensation,” which included a painting of the Holy Virgin Mary featuring elephant dung. Her are a few highlights from the Russian exhibit now on trial: “an oversized icon with a vacant space where the viewer could insert his or her own face in place of the usual holy figure…a sculpture of an Orthodox church made entirely of vodka bottles…a photo triptych depict[ing] three men being crucified -on a cross, a red star and a swastika.” Upset yet? Well, the Russian Orthodox Church sure is : Their department of external relations issued a statement saying that “Any provocation that insults the feelings of the faithful and stirs up religious discord must be classified as a crime.”

Chill down the spine, anyone? If these guys lose, says one prominent Russian humanitarian organization, “It means we have returned to the middle ages.”

Hunting the Vampire

Critics are out for blood over Broadway's Dracula

Next question: How can a new Broadway musical get panned before it even opens?

Answer: When that musical is by Frank Wildhorn, author of Jekyll and Hyde and The Civil War and the favored whipping boy of the snide collective known as New York’s theatre critics. Before the show opened officially on Aug. 20 the critics were busily pronouncing on how crappy they anticipated it would be.

Case in point was an article by Charlie Suisman in the Sunday Arts & Leisure section of the New York Times, a scant five days before the curtain went up on Dracula: The Musical’s opening night. Suisman took a stake to the show and to Wildhorn’s entire oeuvre, patiently explaining to Times readers why his music is terrible and his shows are trash. Wildhorn’s “characters, no matter whether they are in the middle of the French Revolution, on the eve of the Battle of Gettysburg, or in Victorian London, all sing the same, contemporary American Idol-style pop songs, starting out at a feverish pitch and crescendoing from there.” But don’t take his word for it. Suisman called some of New York’s biggest critics and asked them to sum up Wildhorn’s abilities. The answers were unpleasant. “Linda Winer, of Newsday, said that Mr. Wildhorn writes ‘dunderheaded musicals for people who find Andrew Lloyd Webber too difficult.’ Ben Brantley, of The New York Times, allowed, ‘They’re fine if you’re in the mood to be emotionally knee-jerked.’ And Charles Isherwood of Variety said of Mr. Wildhorn: ‘His natural home is in Las Vegas. That might be his most sensible career move. Skip Broadway altogether.’”

One question Suisman didn’t ask: Is it appropriate for critics to give interviews saying how much a writer stinks and review his show later that week?

Because those critics did go to Dracula, and—yes—they all hated it. Winer thought the show “a rare twist on Bram Stoker’s vampire classic,” one with “no discernible concept at all.” Isherwood said the show had “a crippling case of anemia.” And Brantley’s article was dismissive even in the headline, which is pretty unusual for the Times: “The bat awakens, stretches, yawns.”

So one last question: How does Frank Wildhorn keep getting produced on Broadway, if he stinks and/or all the critics think he stinks? Suisman notes that “even without making a profit on Broadway, and without critical approbation…[his] shows can still earn money in international, regional, stock and amateur productions, as well as through recordings.”

That answers that.

Suitcase Full of Nothing

It’s a major disappointment for Beatles fans: What looked to be the mother lode turns out to be a load of something else entirely. In mid-July a suitcase was purchased by a fella named Fraser Claughton at a yard sale in Australia. Claughton just wanted the suitcase, but it turned out to be full of the sort of stuff that keeps collectors up at night: “The suitcase contains hundreds of photographs, vinyl albums, books, concert tickets and programmes as well as the four-and-a half-hours of tapes,” reported the BBC at the time.

But the BBC is reporting now that the case “turned out to be full of photocopies made in the 1990’s, a leading expert on the band has said.” That expert was Pete Nash, of the British Beatles Fan Club; his summation is that the case held a hidden trove of Beatlesalia is “farcical.”

Well, at least Mr. Claughton gets to keep his suitcase.

Home