Paris’ Olympics opening ceremonies performance on Friday sure sparked some strong reactions.
Several parts were a little shocking (headless Marie Antoinettes!) but most of the comments surrounded a drag scene that resembled DaVinci’s “The Last Supper.”
Some people found the scene to be disrespectful toward Christianity. (I suppose if it was, it was also disrespectful toward those who believe in the Greek gods, because a blue Dionysius was also part of the tableau.)
Others applauded the performance, which seemed to encourage inclusivity for the LGBTQ+ community in a way that France has been slow to do.
I don’t want to sound too cavalier, and Olympics organizers already have apologized for causing offense. I think people are perfectly welcome to have their opinions.
However, I don’t necessarily think we have to jump to liking or disliking a performance or other work of art. It’s not just about thumbs up or thumbs down.
Rather, I think we should approach these things with interest and curiosity. What was the director trying to say about his country and its history? Was it effective? Did it make us think or feel something?
We should expect what France has to say in its opening ceremonies to be different than the strict unison of Beijing or the uninhibited vibrance of Rio.
Certainly I think Friday’s staging was meant to be provocative. I think it portrayed a France with a complex past, a penchant for drama and pushing boundaries. I’d also say it was a nod to its cabaret culture and a vision for a more inclusive future.
Was the scene with drag performers surrounding a table a dig at Jesus and the Apostles, or was the message more nuanced? I choose to think the latter.
And since we’re talking about it days later, the performance probably did its job.
I think there were other elements to praise, including the choice of location on the Seine.
And it was great to see Celine Deion make her triumphant return to the stage after time away.
