FWIW, the ambiguity has always been one of the things that I like best about JCS. I feel like it's really about the different "boxes" people tried to put Jesus in--deluded lunatic, trouble-making revolutionary, he who will smite the wicked (ie. anyone who we don't like at the moment)--and that tendency is reflected in our modern attitudes toward Jesus and Christianity as well. The reason why Judas' questions in the title song go unanswered--Who are you? What have you sacrificed? Did you mean for all this to happen?--is because those are questions we still have not answered, two thousand years later. Also, as you like Phantom I would recommend you give Sunset Boulevard a listen. Not quite as good but a lot of that same sweeping, melodic style--in my opinion the last truly good thing Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote.
Would definitely agree - the musical doesn't seem to seek to answer the questions, merely to posit them. I do think Jill's right tho re Judas' character setup...?
@@marieindia8116 Which bible? did you mean the one King James of England commissioned when he decided he wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't give him one? The Apocrypha has many of the texts written by Apostles and saints that James's editors felt didn't help their king's position as the new head of the Church of England. You might wanna give it a read. Unless you think Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were just better than the other eight apostles?
It's not respectful of Christ and Christianity, but then again, it is not and has never been a Christian play. It's always weird to me when I see Christians who consume it (and even enjoy it) as if it were a Christian play. If anything, it's the ultimate agnostic play. It's framing leans really heavily towards doubt and agnosticism. We don't know if Jesus was Jesus or not. The musical doesn't either.
I love the hell out of the show, and I consider myself a very devout Christian. And I think the thing about the show that really rings with me is how it might not be especially faithful to the Gospels or even history, but it's incredibly humanist. It's all about complete, flawed people trying to do what they think is best. Judas, Jesus, Caiaphas, Peter, Mary, Pilate--they all feel like genuine people who might have actually existed rather than stiff paintings in church windows. And the core conceit of the show--that people are twisting what was once a message of peace and compassion into whatever the hell suits them best, and that people are more caught up with Christ performing miracuous parlor tricks than what He had to say--is something Christians still struggle with on an individual level.
I agree. It sets up Judas as the first impression. And part of the reason I think Heaven on their minds is a great song despite the rest of the show is because it questions the blind faith of his followers.
So... The piece of culture don't have to be in Christians point of view to have messages important to Christians. Take O. S. Card's book - lot of messages that Christians agree with and lot of reflections about close to Christian view spirituality in book where main (and The Rightful) character is atheist and disagree with Christians.
First a serious comment(a silly one will follow) I always felt the JCSS Judas was motivated by Jesus's Social Justice message, and he saw the idolisation of Jesus as overpowering that message. People weren't gathering to hear Jesus speak, but to see a miracle worker perform. Judas saw Jesus in danger of becoming more a circus act than a reforming preacher. The story of Jesus in the other hand is one of doubt and weariness. Yes, he really could and did do miracles, but the constant want, want, want from everyone around him was getting to him. I like the JCSS Jesus, because it emphasises his humanity, that I have always thought an important aspect of him.
+Jill Bearup Being old enough to have seen this move when it first came out and also having seen it a hundred times I think I can help you. First off you and I are opposites here since Jesus Christ Superstar is the only Webber musical I really like. And I actually only like the 60's movie version. I've never seen a stage version of this I liked much. But as with any musical if you don't like the music you're not going to like the play. As for the play itself I always felt like in Jesus Christ Superstar Webber was asking two questions. First, Was Jesus a god? And second, did Jesus think he was a god? In the play Judas seems to think the answer to the first question is no and the second one yes. In short Judas was not trying to save Jesus he was abandoning him because he thought Jesus had "gone too far" (as Judas says several times) and begun to believe that he (Jesus) himself was a god. Webber also choses to focus on the scene where Mary had bought perfumes and Judas posits that the money would have been better spent on the poor. All of this adds up to Judas's disillusionment in the play. Later Judas feels bad when Jesus is tortured and perhaps even questions that disillusionment. This drives him to suicide. Then later in the final song Webber has Judas also ask "Who else is a god?" "Is Buddha where it's at is here where you are? Did Mohammed move that mountain or was that just PR?" As for Jesus I agree that Webber doesn't really know what to do with him since he exists mainly as the question, the enigma at the center of it all. Anyway how any of this ties into the bible is questionable. Also the no resurrection part was the big controversy when it first came out. But in the end I think Webber wanted to ask the questions I mentioned above without ever answering them. Having Jesus be resurrected would have run counter to that. You might call the whole thing an agnostics view of the new testament.
I’m just a fan of the original test album tbh. It took several listens for me to really get in to it though. I also don’t like really any other ALW (PoT is alright when the mood is right). There are some songs that are okay from other shows, but that’s about it imo.
Musically I can see why you would find it frustrating. As someone who loves the musical, I'm mostly a fan of the Ben Forster and Tim Minchin version. The older versions have a different vibe and odd style that feels off at times. In terms of "strip away the myth from the man", I think Judas meant to remove the idolisation and see him as a human. He says Jesus is starting to believe his own hype and as such is becoming a symbol instead of a proper leader. I think the aim (whether successful or not) was to humanise Bible figures more and blur the lines of the morals.
I do think the unclearness if whether Jesus is actually supposed to be the son of God in the musical is a feature, not a bug. Judas wants to believe it, but is unsure and since we see the play through his eyes we share his confusion. The musical does not go for a clear "The Christians are right" or 'The Christians are wrong", because it wants to challenge the audience, both believers and non-believers, to question their preconceiced notions about Christianity. However I don't think the play fully succeeds at that. That said: Why do you like Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat BETTER? It started out as bearly tolerable, but since it has grown into a full length musical it's a pure waste of time that has the audacity to claim it has a point. Any Dream Will Do has to be the worst addition to a musical ever Edit: I since changed my opinion to Kein Kommen ohne Gehen being the worst addition to any musical ever
Julia Mavroidi let's just say your right, in an overly Broadway like play Superstar is what you'd expect. However Joseph is more upbeat and do I dare say hopeful than the bleakness of Superstar. The songs albeit simple and somewhat corny are made for the audience it was intended for, which was kids if you look into it. All in all it is all in your preference which one you like. Me myself I like Joseph and Superstar for it's music however when it comes to a better story I'll have to give it to Joseph.
Ok, my whole argument was that JCSS is tonally consistent, while Joseph tries to both be a silly, risque comedy and a show with a message, but it all came crackling down when I remembered the Pontius Pilate scene.Still imho a serious show interrupted by a silly scene holds up better than a silly show framed by "serious" (I'd say sappy) narrative. With JCSS, I believe that Webber had something important to say, in JATCDC the message feels tacked on (because it is) and the whole show gives the impression of disjointedness. However I give you that the version of JATCCD before it was extended into a 2 hour show IS superior to JCSS.
Jill, ever thought that Judas turned in Jesus in JCS because he had the gay hots for Jesus, when he repeats MM's line "I don't know how to love him/..he's a man, he's just a man" AND THEN STOPS right before MM's "and I've had so many men before, in many different ways, he's just one more"
PS. I met Ted Neeley recently. A very, very interesting and nice man whose had what looks to be a wonderful life. He met his wife on set, she was one of the dancers.
I walked in last night as family was watching it, and reacted, "so why did they hop back into their hippy bus and not put down the crucified actors? Did they actually perform a production to crucify an actor?" A question that plagued me since I was 6.
crithon if I remember it correctly, Jesus wasn't shown arriving on the bus with them. He just sort of appears among them then they all got ready for the perfomance, like he was summoned.
Lloyd Webber has said he was inspired by the Dylan song With God On Our Side, which has the lines 'I can't think for you, you'll have to decide / whether Judas Iscariot had God on his side.'
Speaking of hippies, I was listening to JCSS today and the line that Judas sings, “it was beautiful but now it’s our “. That line jumped out at me like in 1967 supposedly, the summer of love, everybody was expanding their minds on LSD and eastern mysticism and I’ll kinds of neat psychedelic rock ‘n’ roll but by 19 7172 the dream was over. And I’m just thinking in fact I can’t help but think that that feeling crept into this musical. And it doesn’t do Jesus any justice. I happen to believe he is the son of God for several reasons. One of them being that the same disciples who denied him and ran away from him because they were scared spotless when Jesus was arrested, were later willing to die horrible death rather than say Caesar as Lord. I mean they wouldn’t even say it like I’ll just say it Cesar is Lord without believing it I’ll just say it to save my skin. They wouldn’t say Caesar as Lord. They were willing to die. Not to mention, how is it that of all the Jewish itinerant rabbis back in the first century, how come we know so much about this one? How come there’s so much history, even outside the Bible, about this one particular Jewish rabbi? I’m thinking if he wasn’t who he said he was and if he didn’t do all those things that the gospel says he did, we wouldn’t even know his name. I mean, even in our modern day with technology and video and UA-cam and newspapers and TV and radio and all that, how many Jewish rabbis do you know by name? And their biography? And how many followers they have? Maybe you won’t consider that incontrovertible evidence, but it does bear looking into, doesn’t it? I have to laugh when Judas sings “he is not a king, he is just the same as any man I know “. I’m like, Judas, dude, how many guys do you know who can raise the dead open the eyes of the blind, etc.“ I’m blind myself and I have some other maladies so please introduced me. If you know so many guys that can do all that, where are your manners chum? By the way, they still haven’t found the bones of Jesus yet. They’ve done all kinds of archeology over there and haven’t found them. I’m guessing he took his whole body, including said bones, with him when he went back to heaven after his resurrection.
JCSS is about the ambiguity in the gospel. It's about the differing accounts of key events, the weird political mess, and the implausibility of Jesus' differing messages and public persona. Mostly it's about the common thread of Judas trying to save himself and his people from a horrifying, near-genocidal backlash. It's his story. JCSS embraces the jumbled mess and tries to deconstruct it rather than embellish it. It doesn't require any more knowledge of the source material than anybody with a 1960s British religious education wouldn't have. Also yeah ALW is garbage. It's lucky then that he didn't write the lyrics. Also the songs are amazing (except for the shitty Herod one) and you are so wrong about that
where did you get your Bible knowledge? atheist Bible college professors? the gospel is not a jumbled mess at all but 4 interlocking jigsaw puzzle viewpoints that round out the real story. and Judas wasn't trying to save himself at all, only in the script writers' imagination.
Just as you have a visceral negative reaction to this musical I have a positive one (is not logical, I just like it), so I admit that my opinion can be biased, but as I understand it, JCS is not negating the divinity of Jesus but it chose to focus on his humanity; it is supposed that Jesus was god made man, but almost all representation prefer the god in him over the man he supposedly was (I admit is not that of an original idea, as exists also "the last temptation" among others). The point of the musical is for the viewer to empathise with the struggle of the man who has to stand against his fate and faith
Life of Brian is more respectful of Christ and Christianity than Jesus Christ Superstar is a scalding hot take that I did not know I needed until right now
"every time I hear it, I want to punch a hippy" I had to pause the video to write this. That's to most beautiful thing I've heard! (I won't go into why I think that. You're welcome)
I don't know if you take musical cast album suggestions, but if you do, I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on Frank Wildhorn's Bonnie & Clyde! A lot of historical research was put into that show and the songs/vocals themselves are just incredible.
Wow. I think you're taking this much too seriously, especially in criticizing how the show does not conform to the stories from the Christian Bible. It *is* an alternate take, but as such can set its own ground rules. Judas is motivated, as you note, by his fear that their movement will spark violence if they get above themselves. Betraying Jesus may have been, in his eyes, the only way to save the rest of the gang, after their leader turned it into a cult of personality. Or maybe it was just a bad decision. Those are both believable. I also don't think the show ever states explicitly that Jesus *does* perform miracles; only that there are rumors he does. One of the most moving things about the Jesus figure is that he is truly human, subject to fear, hesitation, and exhaustion, and he gets overwhelmed by what he himself has created. By the time he realizes that he "let the things [he] did get so out of hand," it's too late and he is a prisoner of larger forces. That's understandable, relatable, and very human. The main theme of the show is that the whole mishegas was an ordinary event of ordinary people, driven by public reaction and official response. It explicitly uses the term "PR," and that's what is driving events. The show puts them in that context: what they claimed, how people reacted, and how the authorities responded. That's brilliant! And that makes leaving "the Resurrection" out of it also brilliant: because it's the story of ordinary events in ordinary lives, that got out of hand. (Note also that the original stage production was not as crazy and circus-like as the movie version, though I love both.) Finally, do not punch hippies! The music is fantastic: I love it all (though I am also no Lloyd Webber stan, and nobody likes "Cats")! This is a really lovely, heartfelt, and fun rocking show that brings a crazy story down to Earth with a moving take on the price of your reach exceeding your grasp, and the loss of love and community that results.
And from a lyrics not getting the story across: Judas Motive: Judas feels that if Jesus' cult is twisted from what it was "You've begun to matter more Than the things you say." and "You have set them all on fire.They think they've found the new Messiah.And they'll hurt you when they find they're wrong." So Judas definitely sees Jesus not being the son of god and the whole thing spiraling into it as dangerous because the Romans will come down and smite them. "Listen, Jesus, to the warning I give. Please remember that I want us to live." All from Heaven on Their Minds Judas feels that if Jesus is arrested the cult will stop and the punishment will be less severe than if the Romans come cracking down on it at full force. "Jesus can't control it like he did before.. And furthermore I know that Jesus thinks so too.Jesus wouldn't mind that I was here with you." And he knows Jesus might die from it, but he thinks it'll save the people "...see the sad solution - know what must be done?" And on Jesus being or not being capable of miracles. I'm inclined to believe he is indeed just a man in over his head here. And that's sort of the point. He dies, no resurrection, but he becomes the Superstar and a hero of major world religion. I think actually one of the criticisms for the film was that it showed Jesus as "just a man in the right place at the right time"
I always saw it as he could perform miracles but he became overwhelmed as people relied too much on him to solve all their problems. His denial during the trials was simply to serve the "fate" he had finally accepted.
I'm not an ALW fan either. He is the Steven Spielberg of the stage, trite, simplistic and manipulative. This movie, however, having two of the greatest singers ever captured on film, Ted Neely and Carl Anderson, is my exception. And the overall 70's Funk sound is almost perfect. So really for me the story is irrelevant, its the music that I love.
Please don't get me started on the manipulative nature of Steven Spielberg. I'm not saying he's never made a good movie, but once he discovered the emotional effect of children in peril that all he did.@@TheUnmitigatedDawn
OK, haven't watched the video yet, but I "grew up" with JC Superstar - the Broadway sountrack. The 70s movie was not quite "up to snuff". A theology proff used the movie in his class. There was a 90s/early 20K Brit version on PBS that was an interesting take where Judas was a leather-jacketed punk guy. A friend who was in the Theology grad school while I was an undergrad in college and I spent a good chunk of the afternoon listeneing to the Broadway soundtrack. Ah, those were the days.
I do love this musical, because I've made a different interpretation of the elements than you have. That being said, your points about it being just silly and incoherent... You're right. It's almoat campy and that's one of the reasons why I like it
I was ten when the theatrical movie was released, and was very aware of it, although I never saw it. But I watched the 2018 live (i.e. not recorded) TV version with John Legend (and Alice Cooper as Herod). And I was moved. Moved by the utter commitment of the entire cast, crew, and orchestra. It had weaknesses, but effort was not one of them. Unclear motivations, deviation from the source material, muddled messages and Norm Lewis's vocal shortcomings were all overwhelmed but the commitment. And Norm Lewis _was_ trying his damnedest. I recommend it. Seems to stream on Roku, depending on your location.
This was one of my exes favorite movies and he dragged me to a stage production of it. I never really got what he saw in it because it all felt really superficial and not that deep to me. Then again, he also thought blue people Avatar was a masterpiece for its story as well as its visual effects, so there you go. Thanks for validating my teenage self's opinion in a slightly more eloquent way than just asking "yeah, so what?" a whole bunch.
BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!! IS he God? IS he just a man? HAS he performed these miracles? DID he and Mary have "a thing?" It's all left up to the viewer/listener! The show doesn't state one way or the other, it caters to both Christians and non-Christians by not taking a firm stance but rather asking questions! It's not a "Christian" show, it just presents Jesus and lets you decide what was and wasn't true! Also they have yet to make a good movie version
Problem: A character who's character is left THAT ambiguous in terms of his nature, motive and drive is not really appealing. At least not to many. A character that might be the messiah, but might also not be (which are two VERY different and mutually exclusive characters) is not a character, but a mistery box. Which can work, but only if the mistery box is ultimately opened (and the mistery turns back into character). If you give me a piece of art that takes a stance on wether Jesus was God or not, I can respect that, even if I disagree with the statement. I mean, I find the stories of both the "His Dark Materials" and "Narnia" series well-written stories that I can get invested in and have intellectual discourse about. Even though I thoroughly disagree with the philosophical implications of one of them. But what am I supposed to do with a piece of art that tries to eat it's cake and have it?
I think the answer to the music aspect might be answerable by listening to the 2012 version, possibly. The looseness of the original album and film are very of the time but some recent versions have modernised it without really changing the composition itself. The only setback is that every so often a vocal note is adjusted for seemingly no reason (especially on Tim Minchin's voice). It also gave me a different understanding of Judas' motivation. While his actual plan still makes no sense, the "myth from the man" part is stated by a questionable narrator. Whether he is right about the hype being false is seemingly left for the audience to decide in order to please all potential markets. The definitive aspect of this seems to come from Jesus being overwhelmed multiple times which humanises him more.
Here's some ambiguity for you - pay attention to the last few minutes. It shows the cast reloading the busses and driving away. The last shot is the bus pulling out with Judas hanging on the door, looking back up the hill - to where the crosses are still standing. And you never see Jesus get back on any of the busses. Hmm . . .
All your video clips reference the movie version. The only one I think worth listening to is the original album, not the movie nor the Broadway show. Judas' motives are fairly clear, but then I followed the original album. He starts out worried that the Jesus movement has snowballed out of control, and when they're found out the crowd will tear them apart. He betrays Jesus to what he might have considered "protective custody," although he seems conflicted about taking the reward. ... The ambiguity about Jesus steams from the fact that different songs reflect different points of view, most of them skeptical. Judas, for example, loves the man but doesn't seem to believe any claims to divinity. Herod mocks him, and Pilate tries (by his own lights) to be merciful. He doesn't care about divinity, but legality. But, as I said, I listen only to the original album, which was a who's who of contemporary music at the time.
About Judas reason... This is actually pretty close to one of assumed reasons he did this. Close to one of my favourite explanations: that Judas wanted to kinda force Jesus to go into his Messiah Mode (something what Jews actually believed Messiah will be - The powerful warrior who will kill all his opponents), he just didn't understand there's not such a thing and saving the world and Israel is not about defeating Romans and be super warrior.
I normally love and agree with most of your opinions, but I love JCS. I love almost everything about it. I grew up with this and it informed most of my opinions on how I feel about Jesus's impact, humanity and divinity. Yes, they got the whole Mary of Magdala thing all wrong, but everything else really resonated for me. I'm an old rock and roller and I love the music, although I will say the album is better, and I love most of the innovative imagery and cinematography.
My mom isn't such a big fan of JCS either; she's more of a "Godspell" fan. Also, I think NBC is planning to do JCS for their next LIVE! musical production next year.
The reason the Resurrection was not shown is that Lloyd Webber and Rice were following the tradition of the "passion play", a form of theater that began in the Middle Ages, and heavily influenced the passion oratorios of J.S. Bach and other composers, as well as modern fare like _Godspell_ and Mel Gibson's _The Passion of the Christ._ The idea of the passion play was to follow the last week of Christ's life, with the main emphasis being on the Last Supper and what followed. Because passion plays would be performed on Good Friday, they always ended with Christ's death and burial. (The Resurrection stuff was for Easter Sunday services.)
Judas thinks Jesus has gone to far and has lost his way. On top of that he thinks that he's egotistical and that him claiming to be a god will only piss the Romans off and destroy not only their cuase, but their nation. Judas thinks that he's saving his people by turning over Jesus.
imo, JCS is about Judas killing Jesus because "[he's] begun to matter more, than the things [he] says". The tradegy is his followers only care about feeling good by being a follower rather than being good by following his values. Judas was trying to save the Jesus movement by removing the messiah worship so his followers could focus on ideas and actions. but, Rather than forget the mesiah worship and focus on doing good, they fully disgarded his message to worship his corpse and use him to justify doing whatever they wanted instead. Its a tragic story disturbingly downed out by an upbeat soundtrack, like Outcast's 'hey yeah'. Mirroring how his followers care only about validation and catharsis instead of action and principles. also, if you took your time to read this you are so awesome, have a great day!
I love JCS & have since it came out in 1970 (I'm old), but I see your points. Now, I'm going to suggest something I love but would like your thought.... GODSPELL
Hi. As a matter of opinion (and some who grew up in the 60s) I love JCS music. However, I would like to bring up what the musical brings. In the second movie (same score and lyrics) it emphasizes how Jesus totally destroys his support base. He gets in a fight at the Temple. He disses his followers on Palm Sunday, he could heal the lepers but doesn't, he finally tells his disciples they are all idiots. Basically it is the tale of him as a bitter man at the end after being worn down by the will of God... and everyone's reaction.
I just imagine Jesus's followers running around shouting "OMG, Jesus died and then TOTALLY CAME BACK Y'ALL" And someone say "Oh, great! When will he give his next sermon? I'd like to go!" And the followers being like "oh, no, he... he left. We'll do the sermons instead. BUT HE TOTALLY AROSE FROM THE DEAD YALL"
It might be because my family watched it every year on Easter, but I really like the show (and so do my brothers who are not fans of musicals at all). But hey, if you don't like the music you just aren't gonna enjoy the show. That's just how musicals go.
The bit about "wanting to punch a hippie", first of all LOL and second, yeah, though I *like* JCSS as a musical work, well, *yes* , I grant that (especially in this staging), it does have a certain vibe of putting the "how" in front of the "what", and even maybe choosing the wrong "what". (The other "Jesus Musical", Godspell, takes the path of just using actual Bible quotes as the connecting tissue. But its film version is also a headscratcher.) And in general "hippie musicals" and Rock Operas have not aged well, and even the better of them like those mentioned, or Hair or Tommy, did not really get great film versions (or even got quite mangled on the way to the screen). As to the thing about Jesus' identity in the film, ISTM he is cast/presented as someone who *was* a healer and seer, but in his human condition had limits; the question as to whether there is more than that is posed in the final big number, but is deliberately left unanswered (the idea being of course whether there was or not, his world-changing comes out of what *others* made of him and it's up to us to decide to follow or not).
A lot of good points here. I appreciate the non-partisan perspective! Being Christian, I don't particularly love the musical's take on the religious aspect of the Gospels, but it also has a lot of flaws from a storytelling standpoint. Webber himself stated in an interview that he believes Jesus was just a man who was "in the right place at the right time," so I wouldn't expect him to do a particularly glorifying work. But JCSS is neither respectful of the religious source material nor historically accurate (even excluding the hippie vibes) and gives zero account as to why. It's like it can't decide on what it wants to be, like it's afraid to go fully in one direction or the other and just straddles the middle. And it doesn't even do that well, because there's a very evident (yet, unexplained) bias. I personally like Joseph, it's a musical that I grew up with and the material is both far more accurate and respectful of the original text. But this? No thanks. Webber could learn a thing or two from Stephen Schwartz and the creative team of the Prince of Egypt when it comes to translating Biblical content in a way that's; accurate, respectful, and simultaneously, very entertaining and well-written.
A friend of my family bought us a copy of the album when it came out. I was born in 1961... do the math. I agree with almost everything Ursa says here.
So, first on the point of the social context and why you don't like it: in 1970, the Hippie movement was in full swing, and things didn't have to make sense to be popular. They just needed to have rock music and defy the accepted social order. For an excellent example, see the contemporary movie "Billie Jack" which had exactly two points going for it, and which was otherwise incoherent. The two points going for it were that it had a really catchy theme song ("One Tin Soldier" / "Billy Jack Theme") and a single "bad-ass" fight scene in which Billie Jack tells a Policeman who is harassing the mixed-race children, "I'm going to use this foot to kick you on that cheek, and there's nothing you can do about it." Yeah, not as good as "I'll be back" or "Come with me if you want to live" but it's the best the movie offers. Nonetheless, the film was insanely popular as a Hippie anti-establishment feel-good save-the-children-and-they-will-lead-us-to-eden kind of a movie. This same sort of pseudo-profundity is what JCS was going for. Lots of Rock and Roll songs, people dancing in scanty outfits, a young, Hippie feel, a challenge to society, and a couple of sops to the movements of the day, namely, social equity and the Jesus People. Jesus is a Hippie, and an anti-establishmentarian, and possibly having a relationship with Mary of Migdal because that's what Hippies wanted to see. He is portrayed as psuedo-messianic, a healer, and a prophet because that's a watered-down version of what the Jesus People wanted to see. The key figures who really understand the times and seasons are both black, namely, Judas and satan, because that's what the social equity people wanted to see. And it's deliberately ambiguous because embracing any kind of certainty about who Jesus was would certainly annoy one of those three groups, and possibly all of them. It's a movie crafted to be a commercial success without actually doing anything successful, and that's based entirely on exploitation of social movements popular in the 1970s. Today, all of these movements have moved on ... no one in Christianity proper today sees Jesus as a wise man who said good things and taught peace and got tagged with being God, and/or started believing his own press releases. It's a pretty Good consensus among that group that He really did rise from the dead, and really was God incarnate. The social equity movement is no longer about getting Blacks into mainstream movies and opening doors; now it's about establishing the proper places of all races within the social construct, whatever places those may be. The Hippie movement is no longer willing to glom onto Jesus to break down doors into society proper; those doors have long since been de-hinged. So the movie doesn't speak to any real groups of people extant today, and that's why it feels flat and plastic. Now, one would be remiss not to comment on your statement in 6:30 ff that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then the entire birth-of-the-church thing makes no sense, so you can't really just imply that He was a nice guy who said nice things. Well-said. Even though I suspect that we may differ in opinion on whether he factually did or did-not, the significance of the claim that he did is, in fact, an important historical point, and thank you very much for seeing that. The Apostle Paul points out in 1 Cor 15 that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christians are the most pathetic (he says "wretched" in most translation) people on the planet. And this is immediately following Paul's claim, earlier in that chapter, to have seen the risen Christ. I would invite you, and anyone curious, to read what G.K. Chesterton said about the fact Jesus went round saying he was God, in _The Everlasting Man_ , and what C.S. Lewis elaborated on that in _Mere Christianity_ .
I liked the music of "Godspell" much better than "JC SUPERSTAR". Superstar is annoyingly slick. Godspell is easy to sing along with. (I have no theological comments - I'm Wiccan), and the way Godspell handles the Crucifixion and Resurrection is dramatically brilliant.
I actually like the music, even had piano sheet music at one time. Hey, Holst isn’t the only one who can use 5/4! But yeah, the logic is weak. Please be gentle if you choose to punch a hippie-it might be me!
I always thought that JCS was very much a product of its time, and that was the reason it didn’t have enduring appeal. I feel, as the title implies, it is about the analogy between religious leaders and 60s pop stars. In 1971 when it was made, youth culture created by the enormous Boomer generation was making young rock singers into the first pop superstars, attracting crowds of hundreds of thousands of teens to events like Woodstock. This was confusing for this generation, because the original attraction of rock bands was that they were rebels and outcasts, alienated, antiestablishment. To see them achieving success and becoming brands and huge businesses making millions of dollars raised the question of whether they had sold out. In JCS this issue permeates the entire show; Jesus is constantly explicitly compared to a pop star, the conflict between his lonely mission to do his father's will and the crowds and popularity he is gathering is the main theme of the musical. Events like Altamont, the 1970 Kent State massacre, the brutal US Civil Rights marches, the huge Vietnam War protests and the 1968 Democratic Convention riot, in which large gatherings of young people degenerated into violence, made society question whether youth protests, even for good causes like peace and freedom, didn’t cause violent police reaction. In JCS this is echoed by the Pharisees fear of Roman repression. Today we are accustomed to superstars, and the issues of the 60s and 70s are long behind us.
"I want to punch a hippie." I am so very fond of you. And, you're right; Life of Brian is really quite respectful of Christ, but scornful of what gets called, "Christianity." Follow the gourd, follow the shoe... what about following teachings.
A episode of "Stuff You Like" centered on something you honestly don't seems antithetical to the name of the series. I know you want to reward your Patrons, but I don't think you have to let your audience dictate your subject matter to do that. You have an audience from talking about stuff you like, and that's awesome! Please continue more of that. Not enough channels celebrating good media around here...
Literally the only hint this movie has about Jesus having any powers is his prediction that Simon would betray him - everything else, from the healing cripples to water walking is deliberately and SENSIBLY kept ambiguous, Herod saying he's heard rumors about the fantastic feats that Jesus has done is not evidence that he's done them (Nor evidence this Jesus has presented himself that way) it is set up that it COULD all just be a product of sensational rumors and crowds going crazy with the phenomenon of the new messiah, AKA just like how superstars have crazy rumors made up about them. I don't think I could come up with worse arguments against the content of this film, like you not understanding Judas' motivation? Its damn hammered into us again and again and again, the Romans are huge unstoppable killing machine and they WILL kill all of Judas' family, friends and society if they actually try to make him king. Which makes sense because despite them all looking like modern hippies, it IS still set in the barbaric past. Judas knows that handing over Jesus will be his death, but A) he's angry and hurt by him, B) trying to think logically, the death of one guy, even his longtime friend, is better than the death of thousands And frankly getting caught up in some details about Judas not embezzling money and giving it to charity really is the worst argument you could make. This is not the bible. Why on earth would the movie "address" Judas not doing something he's never done in the movie universe. Did you want some terrible scene where someone accuses him of stealing and then they awkwardly explain it was a mistake?? That is not necessary because anyone watching can understand this movie showing its own version of events.
have you heard the Laibach version of "Jesus Christ Superstar"? its hilarious it sounds like the guy playing Caiaphas singing Judas's lines. Also the Album version is 100% better then the movie version and has Ian Gillan (Deep purple) playing jesus, and Murry Head is such a better Judas.
Ben Rush I'm with you on the Album version. Ian Gillan is terrific. Plus you have Mike D'Abo who was in Manfred Mann. The album is more haunting and deeper. This is just an opinion: This had more of a lasting effect on me than a Eucharistic Service ever had.
My favourite is the studio album version of the 1992 Australian Cast JCSS. I prefer John Farnham as Jesus, because I just like his voice better, and I think he’s so damn good at putting a hell of a lot of emotion into his voice. I also really dislike the movie, I think it’s campy and awful, and I much prefer the rockier interpretations (including the 92 Aussie version).
I was a big fan of Jesus Christ Superstar when the record first came out. In fact, it was my first opera. But I was a fan of the record and my own imagined staging of it, which was austere rather than flamboyant. I have not liked any of the actual stagings. I had no problem with Judas and his emotional/political crises being the focus of the work. Jesus was a bore by comparison. Also, I had not yet morphed into a Neo-pagan but I was heading in that direction, so the religious unorthodoxy didn’t bother me at all. Fifty years later, having moved through Neo-paganism into atheism and become a devotee of REAL opera, I have a nostalgic fondness for it, but I am much less impressed than I was in high school. You are absolutely right that Life of Brian has it beat all hollow.
I grew up listening to the 1992 Australian Studio version, with John Farnham (best Jesus ever), and Jon Stevens (best Judas ever). It’s more rocky than the original, and the vocals were so bloody amazing. I also just like the story as a story. It’s an interesting plot. Maybe I can remove myself from it and enjoy it as a story because I’m not religious at all. But I love the humanisation of Jesus and Judas. I like the extra characterisation. Not a huge fan of Mary Magdalene, but at least Kate Ceberano is a vocal powerhouse (much like pretty much everyone else in the Aussie cast). And the songs are catchy. I dislike the movie though. Way too campy. I can’t watch it.
I feel like JCSS suffered the same flaw that most "life of Christ" religious movies at the time did: that Jesus isn't a character in his own story. He has no agency, no action, and almost no personality. It seems like everything happens TO him and he barely reacts to it. He's bloodless, and that sucks the life out of the story. Whether your narrative casts him as the son of god or just a dude, he has to be a person first.
JCSS, OK, i really liked the music, ive always thought judas was born to betray jesus so he could be reborn. i dont remember anything about judas stealing money from my church experience. the play version i saw was much different, more fit for the times, than the hippie version you saw. the version i saw seemed to focus on judas and on peter, the first pope, denying jesus 3 times. i cant decide if they were saying jesus is the son of god, may be the son of god, isnt the son of god. also couldnt decide if the play ending with jesus death saying that he didnt rise from the dead; or if they just didnt want to say one way or another. overall, i just liked the music. thought the plot pretty much followed the bible up to the point where they ended the play, without the bible climax.
OK, watched the video. FIrst, I know you have one on Mary Magdalen, which I have not watched. But I know, she is not a prostitute (much better respresenation of her is in "The Miracle Maker" which is available on Amazone Prime (love that movie)). As mentioned before, the 70s movie was not good (the orginal Broadway soundtrack was better). The one thing that made this good was it made folks think outside of the box of their faith. Back in college, I had a Theater proff who mentioned that that JC Superstar was the one thing that Mr. Weber did that was remotely interesting. It certainly is not perfect, but it does knock a few believers out of their comfortable boxes.
Interesting take, though I respectfully disagree on JCS, or at least the movie. I really like the meta/hippie vibes of the movie. They're a reminder that the "original" Jesus Movement was pretty rebellious, and that the Jesus we see in the Gospels was hardly a stick-in-the-mud traditionalist. As to the downbeat, resurrection-less ending, it's very much in the spirit of the Gospel of Mark, which is thought to be the earliest-written gospel, and doesn't include the resurrection, either. Indeed, the emphasis on the suffering and persecution of Christ in the film overall is very Mark-esque. The film's ambiguity about Jesus is something I quite like, because Christianity is more ambiguous than a lot of people like to admit. We can learn a lot by directly confronting our doubts and questions. People who want to stage the musical can tweak some things in order to signal a more definite stance. That said, the film, in its stripped-down aesthetic and faster, wilder rock arrangements, is more exciting than a lot of stage performances that Webber had more control over. The latter tend to be more bloated and pompous, because Webber, I guess. Will check out Joseph at some point, based on your comments.
Definitely take your point about the rebellious nature of Christianity tying into the hippie aesthetic (you'll never persuade me to like the music, it just...pains me melodically) But the earliest ending of the Gospel of Mark *does* have the resurrection, it just doesn't have Jesus appearing to the women. It has an angel instead, IIRC. 'You're looking for Jesus but...well, as you can see from this giant stone being where it shouldn't, he's not here, he has risen!'
@@JillBearup Well-spotted on the "original" ending of Mark. My understanding of it, however, is a bit different from yours, maybe because Mark's ending contrasts so much with the dramatic post-resurrection encounters with Jesus one finds in the other Gospels. The women are told that Jesus is risen, but don't get any other confirmation or encouragement and run away, scared. They have to take it on faith and make sense of it on their own. So I'm with those who say this doesn't quite count as a resurrection scene. And to be a bit nerdy about the movie, the very last shot of the cross doesn't show the Jesus actor/Teed Neeley on them, and he's not among the people getting back on the vehicles. You can take it as an implied resurrection in the spirit of Mark's disquieting ending. I like the sidelining/erasure of the Resurrection because the audience's attention is redirected to what Jesus is said to have done while alive. Leave aside the strictly spiritual aspects for a little while, and think about the socio-political meaning. And as we see here, that meaning might not be so clear-cut, because Jesus might not have known, either. Will be watching more of your videos in this series in the coming days!
Dear Ms. Bearup: I love the musical, but hate, hate, hate the 1973 film. If you're basing your review on that movie, then yes, I agree with you. The musical is written through the eyes of Judas. Which might explain the ambiguity in the way the story is presented. Judas is a conflicted and flawed character. The two additions to the film that are an improvement on the stage musical are the songs,, "Then We are Decided," and "Could We Start Again, Please." Those were not in the original musical. As an aside, I agree with you on Andrew Lloyd Webber's work. "Jesus Christ Superstar" is the only one of his musicals I think is good. I never understood the general appeal of "Phantom." The less said about "Cats" the better. On the flip side, "Life of Brian" is one of my all-time favorite comedies. btw.... I enjoy your videos.
It's been a very long time since I've watched this, but I seem to remember liking the scene with Herod. Yep, it's fun ua-cam.com/video/Z9ALiADrJro/v-deo.html
Whenever someone talks about JCS like it's pro-Christianity (including its bizarre appearance in the movie SAVED!), I have to wonder if they've ever actually listened to the lyrics. To me, every character exists along a continuum of ego and self-interest, with Jesus as the most egotistical. Almost every line of his is about how special he is, or how clueless everyone else is, or how hard done by he is. And sure, you can get all that from a surface reading of the gospels if you cherry-pick verses and excise the parts about Jesus' actual ministry and miracles. Now, back in my more militant-atheist youth all this was a feature, not a bug, and I actually do like most of the music. But JCS is far from any sort of coherent or articulate argument against Christianity, and it's definitely not pro-Christianity. It's really just the story of a jaded rock star's self-immolation mapped onto the characters and events of The Passion. The whole musical is Judas crying, "it used to be about the MUSIC, man!" and treating Mary like Yoko Ono, while Jesus tells him to "slag off!" and retreats more and more into his egotism and Byronic self-loathing until he lets the cynical moral panic witch-hunters destroy him.
i've only seen the movie but i found it pretty inaccessible to be honest because jesus seems to be a pretty hard role to get down and the guy they got just can't act, bless him. he can sing with the best of them, good grief could he ever sing, but singing well while looking like a block of wood does not a fantastic movie make.
I couldn’t disagree more. Judas shows several motives throughout the show. In his lyrics toward the priests- “Don’t say I’m damned for all time,” we see spiritual fear. He mentions his fear of the Romans early on, but then Jealousy implied in his second accusation of Mary. His whole character is extrapolated from only a few verses, so we don’t know his exact motives; they do a good job showing probable motives for what seems like a nutso decision. (Could imagine seeing miracles and still betraying Jesus?) Also, as for your criticism of them leaving out his stealing- 3 out 4 Gospels leave that out. AS for not showing the miracles- I think it’s brilliant. You’re right that doesn’t come out and say He’s the real deal OR a faker, it leaves us to us determine from limited information- just like the first-century people. Still, I enjoyed the video, good work.
ALW is... lets go with over-rated. The 1973 JCSS movie really suffers from being an early 70's movie. The Stadium production staring Tim Minchin is ever so much better. Remember though, it's Judas's story. In the musical, Judas betrays Jesus because he believes that Jesus is allowing a cult of personality to displace their political message. On the other hand, I think the best song is Heaven on their Mind, and that's the first song in the play, so it does sort of meander downhill.
I wonder if it would have worked better being made in this day and age post-Richard Dawkins, the Brights/A+ movement etc. because then Webber could have gone full Pullman (Jesus the man vs Christ the charlatan), thus potentially creating something that would have made more sense as a counter narrative to Jesus' backstory and the birth of Christianity (and also probably had better music to fit much darker/intriguing lyrics)
Best quote "I wanna punch a hippie"
FWIW, the ambiguity has always been one of the things that I like best about JCS. I feel like it's really about the different "boxes" people tried to put Jesus in--deluded lunatic, trouble-making revolutionary, he who will smite the wicked (ie. anyone who we don't like at the moment)--and that tendency is reflected in our modern attitudes toward Jesus and Christianity as well. The reason why Judas' questions in the title song go unanswered--Who are you? What have you sacrificed? Did you mean for all this to happen?--is because those are questions we still have not answered, two thousand years later.
Also, as you like Phantom I would recommend you give Sunset Boulevard a listen. Not quite as good but a lot of that same sweeping, melodic style--in my opinion the last truly good thing Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote.
Definitely a fan of yours, now.
Would definitely agree - the musical doesn't seem to seek to answer the questions, merely to posit them. I do think Jill's right tho re Judas' character setup...?
yes, they are answered, in the Bible. a pity no one actually reads it.
@@marieindia8116 Which bible? did you mean the one King James of England commissioned when he decided he wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't give him one? The Apocrypha has many of the texts written by Apostles and saints that James's editors felt didn't help their king's position as the new head of the Church of England. You might wanna give it a read. Unless you think Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were just better than the other eight apostles?
It's not respectful of Christ and Christianity, but then again, it is not and has never been a Christian play. It's always weird to me when I see Christians who consume it (and even enjoy it) as if it were a Christian play. If anything, it's the ultimate agnostic play. It's framing leans really heavily towards doubt and agnosticism. We don't know if Jesus was Jesus or not. The musical doesn't either.
I love the hell out of the show, and I consider myself a very devout Christian. And I think the thing about the show that really rings with me is how it might not be especially faithful to the Gospels or even history, but it's incredibly humanist. It's all about complete, flawed people trying to do what they think is best. Judas, Jesus, Caiaphas, Peter, Mary, Pilate--they all feel like genuine people who might have actually existed rather than stiff paintings in church windows. And the core conceit of the show--that people are twisting what was once a message of peace and compassion into whatever the hell suits them best, and that people are more caught up with Christ performing miracuous parlor tricks than what He had to say--is something Christians still struggle with on an individual level.
I agree. It sets up Judas as the first impression. And part of the reason I think Heaven on their minds is a great song despite the rest of the show is because it questions the blind faith of his followers.
So... The piece of culture don't have to be in Christians point of view to have messages important to Christians. Take O. S. Card's book - lot of messages that Christians agree with and lot of reflections about close to Christian view spirituality in book where main (and The Rightful) character is atheist and disagree with Christians.
I don't even like the title itself (....
... Superstar) yet I have not watch it .
First a serious comment(a silly one will follow)
I always felt the JCSS Judas was motivated by Jesus's Social Justice message, and he saw the idolisation of Jesus as overpowering that message. People weren't gathering to hear Jesus speak, but to see a miracle worker perform. Judas saw Jesus in danger of becoming more a circus act than a reforming preacher.
The story of Jesus in the other hand is one of doubt and weariness. Yes, he really could and did do miracles, but the constant want, want, want from everyone around him was getting to him. I like the JCSS Jesus, because it emphasises his humanity, that I have always thought an important aspect of him.
+Jill Bearup
Being old enough to have seen this move when it first came out and also having seen it a hundred times I think I can help you.
First off you and I are opposites here since Jesus Christ Superstar is the only Webber musical I really like. And I actually only like the 60's movie version. I've never seen a stage version of this I liked much. But as with any musical if you don't like the music you're not going to like the play.
As for the play itself I always felt like in Jesus Christ Superstar Webber was asking two questions. First, Was Jesus a god? And second, did Jesus think he was a god? In the play Judas seems to think the answer to the first question is no and the second one yes. In short Judas was not trying to save Jesus he was abandoning him because he thought Jesus had "gone too far" (as Judas says several times) and begun to believe that he (Jesus) himself was a god. Webber also choses to focus on the scene where Mary had bought perfumes and Judas posits that the money would have been better spent on the poor. All of this adds up to Judas's disillusionment in the play.
Later Judas feels bad when Jesus is tortured and perhaps even questions that disillusionment. This drives him to suicide.
Then later in the final song Webber has Judas also ask "Who else is a god?"
"Is Buddha where it's at is here where you are? Did Mohammed move that mountain or was that just PR?"
As for Jesus I agree that Webber doesn't really know what to do with him since he exists mainly as the question, the enigma at the center of it all.
Anyway how any of this ties into the bible is questionable. Also the no resurrection part was the big controversy when it first came out. But in the end I think Webber wanted to ask the questions I mentioned above without ever answering them. Having Jesus be resurrected would have run counter to that.
You might call the whole thing an agnostics view of the new testament.
I’m just a fan of the original test album tbh. It took several listens for me to really get in to it though.
I also don’t like really any other ALW (PoT is alright when the mood is right).
There are some songs that are okay from other shows, but that’s about it imo.
Oh yeah. Life of Brian is downright reverential in its portrayal of Jesus. It's literally every other human being it has an issue with.
Musically I can see why you would find it frustrating. As someone who loves the musical, I'm mostly a fan of the Ben Forster and Tim Minchin version. The older versions have a different vibe and odd style that feels off at times. In terms of "strip away the myth from the man", I think Judas meant to remove the idolisation and see him as a human. He says Jesus is starting to believe his own hype and as such is becoming a symbol instead of a proper leader. I think the aim (whether successful or not) was to humanise Bible figures more and blur the lines of the morals.
I do think the unclearness if whether Jesus is actually supposed to be the son of God in the musical is a feature, not a bug. Judas wants to believe it, but is unsure and since we see the play through his eyes we share his confusion. The musical does not go for a clear "The Christians are right" or 'The Christians are wrong", because it wants to challenge the audience, both believers and non-believers, to question their preconceiced notions about Christianity. However I don't think the play fully succeeds at that.
That said: Why do you like Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat BETTER? It started out as bearly tolerable, but since it has grown into a full length musical it's a pure waste of time that has the audacity to claim it has a point. Any Dream Will Do has to be the worst addition to a musical ever
Edit: I since changed my opinion to Kein Kommen ohne Gehen being the worst addition to any musical ever
Julia Mavroidi let's just say your right, in an overly Broadway like play Superstar is what you'd expect. However Joseph is more upbeat and do I dare say hopeful than the bleakness of Superstar. The songs albeit simple and somewhat corny are made for the audience it was intended for, which was kids if you look into it. All in all it is all in your preference which one you like. Me myself I like Joseph and Superstar for it's music however when it comes to a better story I'll have to give it to Joseph.
Ok, my whole argument was that JCSS is tonally consistent, while Joseph tries to both be a silly, risque comedy and a show with a message, but it all came crackling down when I remembered the Pontius Pilate scene.Still imho a serious show interrupted by a silly scene holds up better than a silly show framed by "serious" (I'd say sappy) narrative. With JCSS, I believe that Webber had something important to say, in JATCDC the message feels tacked on (because it is) and the whole show gives the impression of disjointedness. However I give you that the version of JATCCD before it was extended into a 2 hour show IS superior to JCSS.
Jill, ever thought that Judas turned in Jesus in JCS because he had the gay hots for Jesus, when he repeats MM's line "I don't know how to love him/..he's a man, he's just a man" AND THEN STOPS right before MM's "and I've had so many men before, in many different ways, he's just one more"
PS. I met Ted Neeley recently. A very, very interesting and nice man whose had what looks to be a wonderful life. He met his wife on set, she was one of the dancers.
Also, any chance of Fiddler On The Roof?
Jill will you please do a followup to this by reviewing Godspell and/or Life of Brian?
I walked in last night as family was watching it, and reacted, "so why did they hop back into their hippy bus and not put down the crucified actors? Did they actually perform a production to crucify an actor?" A question that plagued me since I was 6.
crithon if I remember it correctly, Jesus wasn't shown arriving on the bus with them. He just sort of appears among them then they all got ready for the perfomance, like he was summoned.
yeah, but like it made me feel like I was 6 and reminded of the same question I asked 30 some odd years ago
You are very forgiving of your patrons Jill, I can't say I would have been as benevolent.
Lloyd Webber has said he was inspired by the Dylan song With God On Our Side, which has the lines 'I can't think for you, you'll have to decide / whether Judas Iscariot had God on his side.'
Speaking of hippies, I was listening to JCSS today and the line that Judas sings, “it was beautiful but now it’s our “. That line jumped out at me like in 1967 supposedly, the summer of love, everybody was expanding their minds on LSD and eastern mysticism and I’ll kinds of neat psychedelic rock ‘n’ roll but by 19 7172 the dream was over. And I’m just thinking in fact I can’t help but think that that feeling crept into this musical. And it doesn’t do Jesus any justice. I happen to believe he is the son of God for several reasons. One of them being that the same disciples who denied him and ran away from him because they were scared spotless when Jesus was arrested, were later willing to die horrible death rather than say Caesar as Lord. I mean they wouldn’t even say it like I’ll just say it Cesar is Lord without believing it I’ll just say it to save my skin. They wouldn’t say Caesar as Lord. They were willing to die. Not to mention, how is it that of all the Jewish itinerant rabbis back in the first century, how come we know so much about this one? How come there’s so much history, even outside the Bible, about this one particular Jewish rabbi? I’m thinking if he wasn’t who he said he was and if he didn’t do all those things that the gospel says he did, we wouldn’t even know his name. I mean, even in our modern day with technology and video and UA-cam and newspapers and TV and radio and all that, how many Jewish rabbis do you know by name? And their biography? And how many followers they have? Maybe you won’t consider that incontrovertible evidence, but it does bear looking into, doesn’t it?
I have to laugh when Judas sings “he is not a king, he is just the same as any man I know “. I’m like, Judas, dude, how many guys do you know who can raise the dead open the eyes of the blind, etc.“ I’m blind myself and I have some other maladies so please introduced me. If you know so many guys that can do all that, where are your manners chum?
By the way, they still haven’t found the bones of Jesus yet. They’ve done all kinds of archeology over there and haven’t found them. I’m guessing he took his whole body, including said bones, with him when he went back to heaven after his resurrection.
JCSS is about the ambiguity in the gospel. It's about the differing accounts of key events, the weird political mess, and the implausibility of Jesus' differing messages and public persona. Mostly it's about the common thread of Judas trying to save himself and his people from a horrifying, near-genocidal backlash. It's his story. JCSS embraces the jumbled mess and tries to deconstruct it rather than embellish it. It doesn't require any more knowledge of the source material than anybody with a 1960s British religious education wouldn't have.
Also yeah ALW is garbage. It's lucky then that he didn't write the lyrics.
Also the songs are amazing (except for the shitty Herod one) and you are so wrong about that
where did you get your Bible knowledge? atheist Bible college professors? the gospel is not a jumbled mess at all but 4 interlocking jigsaw puzzle viewpoints that round out the real story. and Judas wasn't trying to save himself at all, only in the script writers' imagination.
Just as you have a visceral negative reaction to this musical I have a positive one (is not logical, I just like it), so I admit that my opinion can be biased, but as I understand it, JCS is not negating the divinity of Jesus but it chose to focus on his humanity; it is supposed that Jesus was god made man, but almost all representation prefer the god in him over the man he supposedly was (I admit is not that of an original idea, as exists also "the last temptation" among others). The point of the musical is for the viewer to empathise with the struggle of the man who has to stand against his fate and faith
Jill, I have enjoyed your content on stage fighting, but I did not realize that I would LOVE your reviews! This is awesome, and I am now a subscriber!
Life of Brian is more respectful of Christ and Christianity than Jesus Christ Superstar is a scalding hot take that I did not know I needed until right now
I'm a fan of Jesus Christ Super Star, but I it has flaws and on a different note what is your opinion on GodSpell and do you like Sondehiem?‼️
I think the way the last temptation of Christ Handles Judas's betrayal is honestly the best part of the movie (and novel)
"every time I hear it, I want to punch a hippy" I had to pause the video to write this. That's to most beautiful thing I've heard! (I won't go into why I think that. You're welcome)
I don't know if you take musical cast album suggestions, but if you do, I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on Frank Wildhorn's Bonnie & Clyde! A lot of historical research was put into that show and the songs/vocals themselves are just incredible.
Bible accuracy level
Joseph: 10/10
JC superstar: 3/10
I love some of the songs though. The Trial, Heaven on Their Minds, This Jesus Must Die. Best songs of the musical IMHO.
Pilot's Dream. Man, every song from the movie version was great.
Wow. I think you're taking this much too seriously, especially in criticizing how the show does not conform to the stories from the Christian Bible. It *is* an alternate take, but as such can set its own ground rules. Judas is motivated, as you note, by his fear that their movement will spark violence if they get above themselves. Betraying Jesus may have been, in his eyes, the only way to save the rest of the gang, after their leader turned it into a cult of personality. Or maybe it was just a bad decision. Those are both believable. I also don't think the show ever states explicitly that Jesus *does* perform miracles; only that there are rumors he does. One of the most moving things about the Jesus figure is that he is truly human, subject to fear, hesitation, and exhaustion, and he gets overwhelmed by what he himself has created. By the time he realizes that he "let the things [he] did get so out of hand," it's too late and he is a prisoner of larger forces. That's understandable, relatable, and very human. The main theme of the show is that the whole mishegas was an ordinary event of ordinary people, driven by public reaction and official response. It explicitly uses the term "PR," and that's what is driving events. The show puts them in that context: what they claimed, how people reacted, and how the authorities responded. That's brilliant! And that makes leaving "the Resurrection" out of it also brilliant: because it's the story of ordinary events in ordinary lives, that got out of hand. (Note also that the original stage production was not as crazy and circus-like as the movie version, though I love both.)
Finally, do not punch hippies! The music is fantastic: I love it all (though I am also no Lloyd Webber stan, and nobody likes "Cats")! This is a really lovely, heartfelt, and fun rocking show that brings a crazy story down to Earth with a moving take on the price of your reach exceeding your grasp, and the loss of love and community that results.
And from a lyrics not getting the story across:
Judas Motive:
Judas feels that if Jesus' cult is twisted from what it was "You've begun to matter more
Than the things you say." and "You have set them all on fire.They think they've found the new Messiah.And they'll hurt you when they find they're wrong." So Judas definitely sees Jesus not being the son of god and the whole thing spiraling into it as dangerous because the Romans will come down and smite them. "Listen, Jesus, to the warning I give. Please remember that I want us to live." All from Heaven on Their Minds
Judas feels that if Jesus is arrested the cult will stop and the punishment will be less severe than if the Romans come cracking down on it at full force. "Jesus can't control it like he did before.. And furthermore I know that Jesus thinks so too.Jesus wouldn't mind that I was here with you." And he knows Jesus might die from it, but he thinks it'll save the people "...see the sad solution - know what must be done?"
And on Jesus being or not being capable of miracles. I'm inclined to believe he is indeed just a man in over his head here. And that's sort of the point. He dies, no resurrection, but he becomes the Superstar and a hero of major world religion. I think actually one of the criticisms for the film was that it showed Jesus as "just a man in the right place at the right time"
I always saw it as he could perform miracles but he became overwhelmed as people relied too much on him to solve all their problems. His denial during the trials was simply to serve the "fate" he had finally accepted.
I'm not an ALW fan either. He is the Steven Spielberg of the stage, trite, simplistic and manipulative. This movie, however, having two of the greatest singers ever captured on film, Ted Neely and Carl Anderson, is my exception. And the overall 70's Funk sound is almost perfect. So really for me the story is irrelevant, its the music that I love.
Nah mate, Spielberg has Munich and Schindler's List. He's great.
Please don't get me started on the manipulative nature of Steven Spielberg. I'm not saying he's never made a good movie, but once he discovered the emotional effect of children in peril that all he did.@@TheUnmitigatedDawn
Skipper of the penguins approves this critique, especially the punching hippies part 😂
I will say that your ability to articulate your arguments and criticism continue to be absolutely first rate!
A shocking lack of evidence... in a story about Jesus... you don't say.
OK, haven't watched the video yet, but I "grew up" with JC Superstar - the Broadway sountrack. The 70s movie was not quite "up to snuff". A theology proff used the movie in his class. There was a 90s/early 20K Brit version on PBS that was an interesting take where Judas was a leather-jacketed punk guy. A friend who was in the Theology grad school while I was an undergrad in college and I spent a good chunk of the afternoon listeneing to the Broadway soundtrack. Ah, those were the days.
I do love this musical, because I've made a different interpretation of the elements than you have. That being said, your points about it being just silly and incoherent... You're right. It's almoat campy and that's one of the reasons why I like it
I was ten when the theatrical movie was released, and was very aware of it, although I never saw it.
But I watched the 2018 live (i.e. not recorded) TV version with John Legend (and Alice Cooper as Herod). And I was moved. Moved by the utter commitment of the entire cast, crew, and orchestra. It had weaknesses, but effort was not one of them. Unclear motivations, deviation from the source material, muddled messages and Norm Lewis's vocal shortcomings were all overwhelmed but the commitment. And Norm Lewis _was_ trying his damnedest.
I recommend it. Seems to stream on Roku, depending on your location.
This was one of my exes favorite movies and he dragged me to a stage production of it. I never really got what he saw in it because it all felt really superficial and not that deep to me. Then again, he also thought blue people Avatar was a masterpiece for its story as well as its visual effects, so there you go. Thanks for validating my teenage self's opinion in a slightly more eloquent way than just asking "yeah, so what?" a whole bunch.
BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!! IS he God? IS he just a man? HAS he performed these miracles? DID he and Mary have "a thing?" It's all left up to the viewer/listener! The show doesn't state one way or the other, it caters to both Christians and non-Christians by not taking a firm stance but rather asking questions! It's not a "Christian" show, it just presents Jesus and lets you decide what was and wasn't true!
Also they have yet to make a good movie version
Problem: A character who's character is left THAT ambiguous in terms of his nature, motive and drive is not really appealing. At least not to many.
A character that might be the messiah, but might also not be (which are two VERY different and mutually exclusive characters) is not a character, but a mistery box.
Which can work, but only if the mistery box is ultimately opened (and the mistery turns back into character).
If you give me a piece of art that takes a stance on wether Jesus was God or not, I can respect that, even if I disagree with the statement.
I mean, I find the stories of both the "His Dark Materials" and "Narnia" series well-written stories that I can get invested in and have intellectual discourse about.
Even though I thoroughly disagree with the philosophical implications of one of them.
But what am I supposed to do with a piece of art that tries to eat it's cake and have it?
I LOVE THE MUSIC
same here
I think the answer to the music aspect might be answerable by listening to the 2012 version, possibly. The looseness of the original album and film are very of the time but some recent versions have modernised it without really changing the composition itself. The only setback is that every so often a vocal note is adjusted for seemingly no reason (especially on Tim Minchin's voice). It also gave me a different understanding of Judas' motivation. While his actual plan still makes no sense, the "myth from the man" part is stated by a questionable narrator. Whether he is right about the hype being false is seemingly left for the audience to decide in order to please all potential markets. The definitive aspect of this seems to come from Jesus being overwhelmed multiple times which humanises him more.
Here's some ambiguity for you - pay attention to the last few minutes. It shows the cast reloading the busses and driving away. The last shot is the bus pulling out with Judas hanging on the door, looking back up the hill - to where the crosses are still standing. And you never see Jesus get back on any of the busses. Hmm . . .
All your video clips reference the movie version. The only one I think worth listening to is the original album, not the movie nor the Broadway show.
Judas' motives are fairly clear, but then I followed the original album. He starts out worried that the Jesus movement has snowballed out of control, and when they're found out the crowd will tear them apart. He betrays Jesus to what he might have considered "protective custody," although he seems conflicted about taking the reward.
... The ambiguity about Jesus steams from the fact that different songs reflect different points of view, most of them skeptical. Judas, for example, loves the man but doesn't seem to believe any claims to divinity. Herod mocks him, and Pilate tries (by his own lights) to be merciful. He doesn't care about divinity, but legality.
But, as I said, I listen only to the original album, which was a who's who of contemporary music at the time.
About Judas reason... This is actually pretty close to one of assumed reasons he did this. Close to one of my favourite explanations: that Judas wanted to kinda force Jesus to go into his Messiah Mode (something what Jews actually believed Messiah will be - The powerful warrior who will kill all his opponents), he just didn't understand there's not such a thing and saving the world and Israel is not about defeating Romans and be super warrior.
I normally love and agree with most of your opinions, but I love JCS. I love almost everything about it. I grew up with this and it informed most of my opinions on how I feel about Jesus's impact, humanity and divinity. Yes, they got the whole Mary of Magdala thing all wrong, but everything else really resonated for me. I'm an old rock and roller and I love the music, although I will say the album is better, and I love most of the innovative imagery and cinematography.
My mom isn't such a big fan of JCS either; she's more of a "Godspell" fan.
Also, I think NBC is planning to do JCS for their next LIVE! musical production next year.
Kimani Wilson-Hunte Theyre doing it this Easter. Their next one will be Bye Bye Birdie in December.
The reason the Resurrection was not shown is that Lloyd Webber and Rice were following the tradition of the "passion play", a form of theater that began in the Middle Ages, and heavily influenced the passion oratorios of J.S. Bach and other composers, as well as modern fare like _Godspell_ and Mel Gibson's _The Passion of the Christ._ The idea of the passion play was to follow the last week of Christ's life, with the main emphasis being on the Last Supper and what followed. Because passion plays would be performed on Good Friday, they always ended with Christ's death and burial. (The Resurrection stuff was for Easter Sunday services.)
Judas thinks Jesus has gone to far and has lost his way. On top of that he thinks that he's egotistical and that him claiming to be a god will only piss the Romans off and destroy not only their cuase, but their nation. Judas thinks that he's saving his people by turning over Jesus.
That was cool. You should do Godspell too.
whut bbout the 2000 version? with the sexy devils/angels?
Judas embezzling money was just a big understanding...
The money was just resting in his account!
If one were to take the need to punch a hippie seriously, where does one obtain a hippie, please?
imo, JCS is about Judas killing Jesus because "[he's] begun to matter more, than the things [he] says". The tradegy is his followers only care about feeling good by being a follower rather than being good by following his values. Judas was trying to save the Jesus movement by removing the messiah worship so his followers could focus on ideas and actions. but, Rather than forget the mesiah worship and focus on doing good, they fully disgarded his message to worship his corpse and use him to justify doing whatever they wanted instead.
Its a tragic story disturbingly downed out by an upbeat soundtrack, like Outcast's 'hey yeah'. Mirroring how his followers care only about validation and catharsis instead of action and principles.
also, if you took your time to read this you are so awesome, have a great day!
What do you think of Godspel?
It's ok, Jill (may I call you Jill?); nobody likes "Love Never Dies".
missed the Easter Egg + you don't need an excuse to punch hippies
I love JCS & have since it came out in 1970 (I'm old), but I see your points.
Now, I'm going to suggest something I love but would like your thought.... GODSPELL
Lol yikes, the music of JCS is fantastic
Jesus Christ Super Star is an analysis of the hippy culture of the 60s in reference to antiquity beliefs of a messianic age being right upon us.
Wow I thought it was just me. When I saw the high priests hats I was like , Monty Python's would be like you should tone that down
Hi. As a matter of opinion (and some who grew up in the 60s) I love JCS music. However, I would like to bring up what the musical brings. In the second movie (same score and lyrics) it emphasizes how Jesus totally destroys his support base. He gets in a fight at the Temple. He disses his followers on Palm Sunday, he could heal the lepers but doesn't, he finally tells his disciples they are all idiots. Basically it is the tale of him as a bitter man at the end after being worn down by the will of God... and everyone's reaction.
I just imagine Jesus's followers running around shouting "OMG, Jesus died and then TOTALLY CAME BACK Y'ALL"
And someone say "Oh, great! When will he give his next sermon? I'd like to go!"
And the followers being like "oh, no, he... he left. We'll do the sermons instead. BUT HE TOTALLY AROSE FROM THE DEAD YALL"
It might be because my family watched it every year on Easter, but I really like the show (and so do my brothers who are not fans of musicals at all). But hey, if you don't like the music you just aren't gonna enjoy the show. That's just how musicals go.
👍🏼👍🏼Missed the Tampa tour stop of LND, POTO was my fav even as a kid. It’s more my 2nd, 2.5th or 3rd now lol.
I know it's not the closest exmple but I loved the way the biblical anti-hero thing was done in the movie Barabbas.
The bit about "wanting to punch a hippie", first of all LOL and second, yeah, though I *like* JCSS as a musical work, well, *yes* , I grant that (especially in this staging), it does have a certain vibe of putting the "how" in front of the "what", and even maybe choosing the wrong "what". (The other "Jesus Musical", Godspell, takes the path of just using actual Bible quotes as the connecting tissue. But its film version is also a headscratcher.) And in general "hippie musicals" and Rock Operas have not aged well, and even the better of them like those mentioned, or Hair or Tommy, did not really get great film versions (or even got quite mangled on the way to the screen).
As to the thing about Jesus' identity in the film, ISTM he is cast/presented as someone who *was* a healer and seer, but in his human condition had limits; the question as to whether there is more than that is posed in the final big number, but is deliberately left unanswered (the idea being of course whether there was or not, his world-changing comes out of what *others* made of him and it's up to us to decide to follow or not).
A lot of good points here. I appreciate the non-partisan perspective!
Being Christian, I don't particularly love the musical's take on the religious aspect of the Gospels, but it also has a lot of flaws from a storytelling standpoint. Webber himself stated in an interview that he believes Jesus was just a man who was "in the right place at the right time," so I wouldn't expect him to do a particularly glorifying work. But JCSS is neither respectful of the religious source material nor historically accurate (even excluding the hippie vibes) and gives zero account as to why.
It's like it can't decide on what it wants to be, like it's afraid to go fully in one direction or the other and just straddles the middle. And it doesn't even do that well, because there's a very evident (yet, unexplained) bias.
I personally like Joseph, it's a musical that I grew up with and the material is both far more accurate and respectful of the original text.
But this? No thanks.
Webber could learn a thing or two from Stephen Schwartz and the creative team of the Prince of Egypt when it comes to translating Biblical content in a way that's; accurate, respectful, and simultaneously, very entertaining and well-written.
Never saw this version.
I rather like Everything's Alright. It was "my song" when I was very little (like 3 or 4) as I thought it was rather sweet.
A friend of my family bought us a copy of the album when it came out. I was born in 1961... do the math. I agree with almost everything Ursa says here.
What did hippies ever do to you?
So, first on the point of the social context and why you don't like it: in 1970, the Hippie movement was in full swing, and things didn't have to make sense to be popular. They just needed to have rock music and defy the accepted social order. For an excellent example, see the contemporary movie "Billie Jack" which had exactly two points going for it, and which was otherwise incoherent. The two points going for it were that it had a really catchy theme song ("One Tin Soldier" / "Billy Jack Theme") and a single "bad-ass" fight scene in which Billie Jack tells a Policeman who is harassing the mixed-race children, "I'm going to use this foot to kick you on that cheek, and there's nothing you can do about it." Yeah, not as good as "I'll be back" or "Come with me if you want to live" but it's the best the movie offers. Nonetheless, the film was insanely popular as a Hippie anti-establishment feel-good save-the-children-and-they-will-lead-us-to-eden kind of a movie.
This same sort of pseudo-profundity is what JCS was going for. Lots of Rock and Roll songs, people dancing in scanty outfits, a young, Hippie feel, a challenge to society, and a couple of sops to the movements of the day, namely, social equity and the Jesus People.
Jesus is a Hippie, and an anti-establishmentarian, and possibly having a relationship with Mary of Migdal because that's what Hippies wanted to see. He is portrayed as psuedo-messianic, a healer, and a prophet because that's a watered-down version of what the Jesus People wanted to see. The key figures who really understand the times and seasons are both black, namely, Judas and satan, because that's what the social equity people wanted to see. And it's deliberately ambiguous because embracing any kind of certainty about who Jesus was would certainly annoy one of those three groups, and possibly all of them.
It's a movie crafted to be a commercial success without actually doing anything successful, and that's based entirely on exploitation of social movements popular in the 1970s. Today, all of these movements have moved on ... no one in Christianity proper today sees Jesus as a wise man who said good things and taught peace and got tagged with being God, and/or started believing his own press releases. It's a pretty Good consensus among that group that He really did rise from the dead, and really was God incarnate. The social equity movement is no longer about getting Blacks into mainstream movies and opening doors; now it's about establishing the proper places of all races within the social construct, whatever places those may be. The Hippie movement is no longer willing to glom onto Jesus to break down doors into society proper; those doors have long since been de-hinged. So the movie doesn't speak to any real groups of people extant today, and that's why it feels flat and plastic.
Now, one would be remiss not to comment on your statement in 6:30 ff that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then the entire birth-of-the-church thing makes no sense, so you can't really just imply that He was a nice guy who said nice things. Well-said. Even though I suspect that we may differ in opinion on whether he factually did or did-not, the significance of the claim that he did is, in fact, an important historical point, and thank you very much for seeing that. The Apostle Paul points out in 1 Cor 15 that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christians are the most pathetic (he says "wretched" in most translation) people on the planet. And this is immediately following Paul's claim, earlier in that chapter, to have seen the risen Christ. I would invite you, and anyone curious, to read what G.K. Chesterton said about the fact Jesus went round saying he was God, in _The Everlasting Man_ , and what C.S. Lewis elaborated on that in _Mere Christianity_ .
I liked the music of "Godspell" much better than "JC SUPERSTAR". Superstar is annoyingly slick. Godspell is easy to sing along with. (I have no theological comments - I'm Wiccan), and the way Godspell handles the Crucifixion and Resurrection is dramatically brilliant.
I actually like the music, even had piano sheet music at one time. Hey, Holst isn’t the only one who can use 5/4! But yeah, the logic is weak. Please be gentle if you choose to punch a hippie-it might be me!
I always thought that JCS was very much a product of its time, and that was the reason it didn’t have enduring appeal. I feel, as the title implies, it is about the analogy between religious leaders and 60s pop stars.
In 1971 when it was made, youth culture created by the enormous Boomer generation was making young rock singers into the first pop superstars, attracting crowds of hundreds of thousands of teens to events like Woodstock. This was confusing for this generation, because the original attraction of rock bands was that they were rebels and outcasts, alienated, antiestablishment. To see them achieving success and becoming brands and huge businesses making millions of dollars raised the question of whether they had sold out. In JCS this issue permeates the entire show; Jesus is constantly explicitly compared to a pop star, the conflict between his lonely mission to do his father's will and the crowds and popularity he is gathering is the main theme of the musical.
Events like Altamont, the 1970 Kent State massacre, the brutal US Civil Rights marches, the huge Vietnam War protests and the 1968 Democratic Convention riot, in which large gatherings of young people degenerated into violence, made society question whether youth protests, even for good causes like peace and freedom, didn’t cause violent police reaction. In JCS this is echoed by the Pharisees fear of Roman repression.
Today we are accustomed to superstars, and the issues of the 60s and 70s are long behind us.
You went with Jesus Christ, Superstar and not Godspell?
"I want to punch a hippie." I am so very fond of you. And, you're right; Life of Brian is really quite respectful of Christ, but scornful of what gets called, "Christianity." Follow the gourd, follow the shoe... what about following teachings.
A episode of "Stuff You Like" centered on something you honestly don't seems antithetical to the name of the series. I know you want to reward your Patrons, but I don't think you have to let your audience dictate your subject matter to do that. You have an audience from talking about stuff you like, and that's awesome! Please continue more of that. Not enough channels celebrating good media around here...
It's stuff you like, not stuff she likes.
Literally the only hint this movie has about Jesus having any powers is his prediction that Simon would betray him - everything else, from the healing cripples to water walking is deliberately and SENSIBLY kept ambiguous, Herod saying he's heard rumors about the fantastic feats that Jesus has done is not evidence that he's done them (Nor evidence this Jesus has presented himself that way) it is set up that it COULD all just be a product of sensational rumors and crowds going crazy with the phenomenon of the new messiah, AKA just like how superstars have crazy rumors made up about them.
I don't think I could come up with worse arguments against the content of this film, like you not understanding Judas' motivation? Its damn hammered into us again and again and again, the Romans are huge unstoppable killing machine and they WILL kill all of Judas' family, friends and society if they actually try to make him king. Which makes sense because despite them all looking like modern hippies, it IS still set in the barbaric past. Judas knows that handing over Jesus will be his death, but A) he's angry and hurt by him, B) trying to think logically, the death of one guy, even his longtime friend, is better than the death of thousands
And frankly getting caught up in some details about Judas not embezzling money and giving it to charity really is the worst argument you could make. This is not the bible. Why on earth would the movie "address" Judas not doing something he's never done in the movie universe. Did you want some terrible scene where someone accuses him of stealing and then they awkwardly explain it was a mistake?? That is not necessary because anyone watching can understand this movie showing its own version of events.
I like that there’s a movie that tries to discredit Jesus and that it failed so hard!
have you heard the Laibach version of "Jesus Christ Superstar"? its hilarious it sounds like the guy playing Caiaphas singing Judas's lines.
Also the Album version is 100% better then the movie version and has Ian Gillan (Deep purple) playing jesus, and Murry Head is such a better Judas.
Ben Rush I'm with you on the Album version. Ian Gillan is terrific. Plus you have Mike D'Abo who was in Manfred Mann. The album is more haunting and deeper. This is just an opinion: This had more of a lasting effect on me than a Eucharistic Service ever had.
My favourite is the studio album version of the 1992 Australian Cast JCSS. I prefer John Farnham as Jesus, because I just like his voice better, and I think he’s so damn good at putting a hell of a lot of emotion into his voice.
I also really dislike the movie, I think it’s campy and awful, and I much prefer the rockier interpretations (including the 92 Aussie version).
Why must you upload in the middle of the night for us Americans? I was about to go to sleep but not anymore!
Punch a Hippy!! lol
I was a big fan of Jesus Christ Superstar when the record first came out. In fact, it was my first opera. But I was a fan of the record and my own imagined staging of it, which was austere rather than flamboyant. I have not liked any of the actual stagings.
I had no problem with Judas and his emotional/political crises being the focus of the work. Jesus was a bore by comparison. Also, I had not yet morphed into a Neo-pagan but I was heading in that direction, so the religious unorthodoxy didn’t bother me at all.
Fifty years later, having moved through Neo-paganism into atheism and become a devotee of REAL opera, I have a nostalgic fondness for it, but I am much less impressed than I was in high school.
You are absolutely right that Life of Brian has it beat all hollow.
I watched this in youth group and we all found it just too weird
"JEZUS:
TO THE EXTREME"
-superior title.
I grew up listening to the 1992 Australian Studio version, with John Farnham (best Jesus ever), and Jon Stevens (best Judas ever). It’s more rocky than the original, and the vocals were so bloody amazing.
I also just like the story as a story. It’s an interesting plot. Maybe I can remove myself from it and enjoy it as a story because I’m not religious at all. But I love the humanisation of Jesus and Judas. I like the extra characterisation. Not a huge fan of Mary Magdalene, but at least Kate Ceberano is a vocal powerhouse (much like pretty much everyone else in the Aussie cast).
And the songs are catchy.
I dislike the movie though. Way too campy. I can’t watch it.
I feel like JCSS suffered the same flaw that most "life of Christ" religious movies at the time did: that Jesus isn't a character in his own story. He has no agency, no action, and almost no personality. It seems like everything happens TO him and he barely reacts to it. He's bloodless, and that sucks the life out of the story. Whether your narrative casts him as the son of god or just a dude, he has to be a person first.
JCSS, OK, i really liked the music, ive always thought judas was born to betray jesus so he could be reborn. i dont remember anything about judas stealing money from my church experience.
the play version i saw was much different, more fit for the times, than the hippie version you saw. the version i saw seemed to focus on judas and on peter, the first pope, denying jesus 3 times.
i cant decide if they were saying jesus is the son of god, may be the son of god, isnt the son of god. also couldnt decide if the play ending with jesus death saying that he didnt rise from the dead; or if they just didnt want to say one way or another.
overall, i just liked the music. thought the plot pretty much followed the bible up to the point where they ended the play, without the bible climax.
Stuff you like: Sondheim!
OK, watched the video. FIrst, I know you have one on Mary Magdalen, which I have not watched. But I know, she is not a prostitute (much better respresenation of her is in "The Miracle Maker" which is available on Amazone Prime (love that movie)). As mentioned before, the 70s movie was not good (the orginal Broadway soundtrack was better). The one thing that made this good was it made folks think outside of the box of their faith. Back in college, I had a Theater proff who mentioned that that JC Superstar was the one thing that Mr. Weber did that was remotely interesting. It certainly is not perfect, but it does knock a few believers out of their comfortable boxes.
Interesting take, though I respectfully disagree on JCS, or at least the movie. I really like the meta/hippie vibes of the movie. They're a reminder that the "original" Jesus Movement was pretty rebellious, and that the Jesus we see in the Gospels was hardly a stick-in-the-mud traditionalist. As to the downbeat, resurrection-less ending, it's very much in the spirit of the Gospel of Mark, which is thought to be the earliest-written gospel, and doesn't include the resurrection, either. Indeed, the emphasis on the suffering and persecution of Christ in the film overall is very Mark-esque.
The film's ambiguity about Jesus is something I quite like, because Christianity is more ambiguous than a lot of people like to admit. We can learn a lot by directly confronting our doubts and questions. People who want to stage the musical can tweak some things in order to signal a more definite stance.
That said, the film, in its stripped-down aesthetic and faster, wilder rock arrangements, is more exciting than a lot of stage performances that Webber had more control over. The latter tend to be more bloated and pompous, because Webber, I guess.
Will check out Joseph at some point, based on your comments.
Definitely take your point about the rebellious nature of Christianity tying into the hippie aesthetic (you'll never persuade me to like the music, it just...pains me melodically)
But the earliest ending of the Gospel of Mark *does* have the resurrection, it just doesn't have Jesus appearing to the women. It has an angel instead, IIRC. 'You're looking for Jesus but...well, as you can see from this giant stone being where it shouldn't, he's not here, he has risen!'
@@JillBearup Well-spotted on the "original" ending of Mark. My understanding of it, however, is a bit different from yours, maybe because Mark's ending contrasts so much with the dramatic post-resurrection encounters with Jesus one finds in the other Gospels. The women are told that Jesus is risen, but don't get any other confirmation or encouragement and run away, scared. They have to take it on faith and make sense of it on their own. So I'm with those who say this doesn't quite count as a resurrection scene.
And to be a bit nerdy about the movie, the very last shot of the cross doesn't show the Jesus actor/Teed Neeley on them, and he's not among the people getting back on the vehicles. You can take it as an implied resurrection in the spirit of Mark's disquieting ending.
I like the sidelining/erasure of the Resurrection because the audience's attention is redirected to what Jesus is said to have done while alive. Leave aside the strictly spiritual aspects for a little while, and think about the socio-political meaning. And as we see here, that meaning might not be so clear-cut, because Jesus might not have known, either.
Will be watching more of your videos in this series in the coming days!
Dear Ms. Bearup: I love the musical, but hate, hate, hate the 1973 film. If you're basing your review on that movie, then yes, I agree with you. The musical is written through the eyes of Judas. Which might explain the ambiguity in the way the story is presented. Judas is a conflicted and flawed character. The two additions to the film that are an improvement on the stage musical are the songs,, "Then We are Decided," and "Could We Start Again, Please." Those were not in the original musical. As an aside, I agree with you on Andrew Lloyd Webber's work. "Jesus Christ Superstar" is the only one of his musicals I think is good. I never understood the general appeal of "Phantom." The less said about "Cats" the better. On the flip side, "Life of Brian" is one of my all-time favorite comedies. btw.... I enjoy your videos.
It's been a very long time since I've watched this, but I seem to remember liking the scene with Herod.
Yep, it's fun ua-cam.com/video/Z9ALiADrJro/v-deo.html
Now the silly.
🎶Jesus Christ Super Star
Roaring around in a muscle car
Cops catch up; he don't care.
He's wearing supersonic underwear.🎶
Whenever someone talks about JCS like it's pro-Christianity (including its bizarre appearance in the movie SAVED!), I have to wonder if they've ever actually listened to the lyrics. To me, every character exists along a continuum of ego and self-interest, with Jesus as the most egotistical. Almost every line of his is about how special he is, or how clueless everyone else is, or how hard done by he is. And sure, you can get all that from a surface reading of the gospels if you cherry-pick verses and excise the parts about Jesus' actual ministry and miracles.
Now, back in my more militant-atheist youth all this was a feature, not a bug, and I actually do like most of the music. But JCS is far from any sort of coherent or articulate argument against Christianity, and it's definitely not pro-Christianity. It's really just the story of a jaded rock star's self-immolation mapped onto the characters and events of The Passion. The whole musical is Judas crying, "it used to be about the MUSIC, man!" and treating Mary like Yoko Ono, while Jesus tells him to "slag off!" and retreats more and more into his egotism and Byronic self-loathing until he lets the cynical moral panic witch-hunters destroy him.
i've only seen the movie but i found it pretty inaccessible to be honest because jesus seems to be a pretty hard role to get down and the guy they got just can't act, bless him. he can sing with the best of them, good grief could he ever sing, but singing well while looking like a block of wood does not a fantastic movie make.
I couldn’t disagree more.
Judas shows several motives throughout the show. In his lyrics toward the priests- “Don’t say I’m damned for all time,” we see spiritual fear. He mentions his fear of the Romans early on, but then Jealousy implied in his second accusation of Mary. His whole character is extrapolated from only a few verses, so we don’t know his exact motives; they do a good job showing probable motives for what seems like a nutso decision. (Could imagine seeing miracles and still betraying Jesus?)
Also, as for your criticism of them leaving out his stealing- 3 out 4 Gospels leave that out.
AS for not showing the miracles- I think it’s brilliant. You’re right that doesn’t come out and say He’s the real deal OR a faker, it leaves us to us determine from limited information- just like the first-century people.
Still, I enjoyed the video, good work.
hoping people vote for life of brian or phantom of the opera for future episodes! they have my cheap-ass, pointless vote!
just realized that TPOTO is SYL #75! but monty pyhon vids would be great one day :D
ALW is... lets go with over-rated. The 1973 JCSS movie really suffers from being an early 70's movie. The Stadium production staring Tim Minchin is ever so much better.
Remember though, it's Judas's story. In the musical, Judas betrays Jesus because he believes that Jesus is allowing a cult of personality to displace their political message. On the other hand, I think the best song is Heaven on their Mind, and that's the first song in the play, so it does sort of meander downhill.
I wonder if it would have worked better being made in this day and age post-Richard Dawkins, the Brights/A+ movement etc. because then Webber could have gone full Pullman (Jesus the man vs Christ the charlatan), thus potentially creating something that would have made more sense as a counter narrative to Jesus' backstory and the birth of Christianity (and also probably had better music to fit much darker/intriguing lyrics)
I think maybe "making you want to punch a hippie" might be an acceptable aesthetic for this particular musical in Webber's eyes?