Now, as then, Jesus would be the loving, unselfish hero. The victor over sin, death, and hell.
Jesus Christ Superstar
- Thread starter Mendalla
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Now, as then, Jesus would be the loving, unselfish hero. The victor over sin, death, and hell.
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
So, what do you do with Jesus as revolutionary, rightfully executed by the State for advocating non-violent resistance? There's no doubt, that, factually, Jesus was one of a myriad of "Messiah-type" figures who tried very hard to disturb Pax Romana in 1st century Palestine. The agent of deliberately provocative acts to Rome, such as the "mirror" procession into Rome on a donkey, the cleansing of the temple?
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
No. It's telling a new story. That it incorporates many of the same elements of the familiar true story does not make it the same.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Jae, I come from the world of classical mythology where putting new spins on old stories was the norm going right back to Homer. There is no canon for classical mythology. The whole notion that a story has to be set in stone for all time is really a modern one and, dare I say, a Christian one. I stopped judging things by fidelity to source material a long time ago. If the writer of an adaptation shows some spark of creativity, I am in.
An important difference to note Mendalla, is that the biblical story of Jesus is no mere classical myth. Rather, it is God's truth. It is to be honored, not toyed with. Jesus Christ is the unselfish, humble, Son of God, not an egomaniac.
Redbaron
Pirate fan since the dark ages
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Jae, how do you deal with the fact that the four evangelists in the New Testament tell the story of the Resurrection in different ways? Are they, then, four different stories? All the different details of the four accounts cannot be reconciled into one event. How do you deal with that?
Seeler
Well-Known Member
This thread reminds me of the hoop-la around the movie "The Passion of Christ" (Mel Gibson). Some people loved it. They watched it over and over. They took Sunday School children to see it - even though it wasn't rated for children. And some people thought it a terrible presentation of the last week of Jesus life. I was in the latter camp. But at least I watched it, trying to figure out what it was all about and why it raised so much passion in people. Peerhaps entertaining for those who liked Mel Gibson, and watching blood and torture. I certainly woouldn't recommend it to aanyone and definitely wouldn't take children or tweens to see it.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Jesus is not portrayed as an egomaniac in Superstar and I'm not sure where you're getting that from. He struggles with the mission and the knowledge of how it will end, as anyone fully human would, but it is also quite clear he knows the importance of it and accepts it. Judas is the one who keeps pushing Jesus to take a more worldly approach. Essentially, he accepts his role of betraying Jesus because he is angry with Jesus' refusal to be a political revolutionary rather than a spiritual one. "Superstar", which is sung by the late Judas, asks the basic question of why God came to Earth in 1st century Palestine rather than in the late twentieth century when he would have had access to TV and radio so could have spread the message even more widely and quickly. This was written in 1970 so the Internet wasn't a thing, but the sentiment goes double in the era of social media.
As for "God's truth", that's a matter of faith and those of us who do not share your faith are not bound by it. As I said, don't like it, don't watch it. Those of us who like and enjoy it shall do so regardless of your opinions.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
With respect to Judas in the context of Jesus Christ Superstar and his posthumous solo "Superstar"
All the staging I have seen suggests that this is not a resurrection. If anything Judas is more "spirit" than human.
The timing of the piece (between the trial by Pilate and the Crucifixion) introduces some anachronistic references and elevate some of Judas' questions into a contemporary setting. Suggesting that like Judas, many contemporary individuals still wonder what was going through Jesus' mind and why things went down as they did.
Working back through "Judas Death" and "Damned For All Time/Blood Money" fleshes out Judas' character and more than a little scholarly effort to understand Judas' motives.
One of the things which plays heavily in much of the study of Judas is whether or not Judas undertook his actions willingly or whether determinism (the will of God) takes control over events including Judas' choice. Biblical texts (primarily the Gospel of John which figures heavily as the framework that Jesus Christ Superstar works with) suggest that Judas had ulterior motives (a love of money among others). It is also made clear in the Gospel of John that Jesus chose the twelve, even the one said to have a devil. That being the case does Pilate have a choice not to betray Jesus and if it is the devil within him that drives him to betray Jesus does Judas know and would Judas rebel against that demonic overpowering? Is Judas aware of the betrayal and unable to prevent it because at this point he is only an observer and if that is the case does Judas deserve condemnation?
The Musical suggests that Judas is remorseful but not always in control. Suggesting that his suicide may be similar to what happened when Jesus drove Legion out of the Gadarene Demoniac and the newly possessed herd of pigs rushed into the water drowning themselves.
"Superstar" by way of introducing the anachronistic references suggests that Judas is now aware of what is to happen (his knowledge now being complete) and the questions he asks interrupt the progress of events to have us consider just how powerful the plan in place was.
One other element which repeats at the end of "Damned For All Time/Blood Money" and "Judas' Death" is an angelic chorus which repeats the line, "Well done Judas." Suggesting that Judas has fulfilled the plan of God. Should God punish Judas if Judas, in fact, does what is required of him?
Sure the musical takes liberties. When does art not? That doesn't make it inherently anti-gospel. Given the theological conversations going on at the time Jesus Christ Supertar is theologically dated (to the 70's) but the questions raised then are not questions that have gone away
All the staging I have seen suggests that this is not a resurrection. If anything Judas is more "spirit" than human.
The timing of the piece (between the trial by Pilate and the Crucifixion) introduces some anachronistic references and elevate some of Judas' questions into a contemporary setting. Suggesting that like Judas, many contemporary individuals still wonder what was going through Jesus' mind and why things went down as they did.
Working back through "Judas Death" and "Damned For All Time/Blood Money" fleshes out Judas' character and more than a little scholarly effort to understand Judas' motives.
One of the things which plays heavily in much of the study of Judas is whether or not Judas undertook his actions willingly or whether determinism (the will of God) takes control over events including Judas' choice. Biblical texts (primarily the Gospel of John which figures heavily as the framework that Jesus Christ Superstar works with) suggest that Judas had ulterior motives (a love of money among others). It is also made clear in the Gospel of John that Jesus chose the twelve, even the one said to have a devil. That being the case does Pilate have a choice not to betray Jesus and if it is the devil within him that drives him to betray Jesus does Judas know and would Judas rebel against that demonic overpowering? Is Judas aware of the betrayal and unable to prevent it because at this point he is only an observer and if that is the case does Judas deserve condemnation?
The Musical suggests that Judas is remorseful but not always in control. Suggesting that his suicide may be similar to what happened when Jesus drove Legion out of the Gadarene Demoniac and the newly possessed herd of pigs rushed into the water drowning themselves.
"Superstar" by way of introducing the anachronistic references suggests that Judas is now aware of what is to happen (his knowledge now being complete) and the questions he asks interrupt the progress of events to have us consider just how powerful the plan in place was.
One other element which repeats at the end of "Damned For All Time/Blood Money" and "Judas' Death" is an angelic chorus which repeats the line, "Well done Judas." Suggesting that Judas has fulfilled the plan of God. Should God punish Judas if Judas, in fact, does what is required of him?
Sure the musical takes liberties. When does art not? That doesn't make it inherently anti-gospel. Given the theological conversations going on at the time Jesus Christ Supertar is theologically dated (to the 70's) but the questions raised then are not questions that have gone away
revsdd
Well-Known Member
As I said originally, I'm personally bothered by any presentation of the story of Jesus that leaves him dead rather than resurrected. Having said that -
I quite like Jesus Christ Superstar, and I understand that it's intended as entertainment and not evangelism so I have no real problem with Andrew Lloyd Webber taking some liberties with the story. (As does Mel Gibson with The Passion of the Christ, which is loved by a lot of fundamentalists/conservatives/evangelicals - as always, taking liberties is fine as long as the liberties leave us comfortable.)
Movie watching is one of my favourite past-times and for fun (because you have to have a hobby) I write online reviews on the Internet Movie Date Base. I have something like 1850 reviews up since the year 2000. I looked up my review of the 1973 movie version of Superstar. Thought I'd share it here:
Full Of Passion But It Leaves A Lot Of Questions
The obvious point of comparison for "Jesus Christ Superstar" is "Godspell." Both were released in 1973; both are musicals; both are portrayals of at least a part of the life of Jesus Christ. But for all the similarities, they're very different movies. Godspell is a fun and almost whimsical look at Christ's life, often going for laughs - and at times very touching. Jesus Christ Superstar, on the other hand, is a very dark and sometimes ominous movie. While it also sometimes goes for laughs (I think, for example, of its portrayal of King Herod) it could certainly never be described as whimsical, and where Godspell is often touching, Jesus Christ Superstar is actually very passionate most of the time as it portrays mostly the events of Jesus' life after he enters Jerusalem for the final time. So while the two can be compared, they're not at all the same movie.
A lot worked very well in Jesus Christ Superstar. As I mentioned above, the passion is keenly felt almost all the way through, both from Jesus' disciples and from his opponents - beginning with a very passionate song from Judas Iscariot, questioning why Jesus has allowed things to go this far. The sets worked very well. They were rather bare sets, skeletal in some ways. There was nothing expensive or ostentatious; the attention of the viewer remained on the story and wasn't distracted by glitter. The songs added to the passion. They were generally able to draw the viewer into whatever was being felt at any given moment, although - as in any musical - some songs were more effective than others. What I really liked were the portrayals of two of Jesus' relationships in particular - one with Judas Iscariot, the other with Mary Magdalene.
The Christian faith has always struggled a bit with Judas. On the one hand he's the quintessential traitor, betraying Jesus to the authorities and to a certain death; on the other hand, he plays his part in the unfolding drama, for without his actions where would come the climax of the gospel? Carl Anderson did well with this part. I felt the passion coursing through his songs and even through his body actions. I felt his torment as he struggled with his feeling that Jesus had blown it by letting himself be set up as a Messiah figure and on the other hand still possessing a loyalty to Jesus. I felt his torment as he came to terms after the fact with what he had done. A very good job by Anderson. Mary Magdalene was played by Yvonne Elliman. This was also a passionate performance - although more low key. There was none of the now trendy speculation about whether Jesus and Mary had a romantic relationship, or whether they were married or whether they had children. None of that. Mary also struggles with her feelings. She loves Jesus - but why? What is it about him? In what is probably the most moving song of the movie, she addresses that question. Elliman's performance wasn't as strong as Anderson's, but was still very good. Ted Neeley played the part of Jesus. As always, and as in any production, the role of Jesus is a terribly difficult one to play because of the connections that many in the audience will have with the figure of Jesus - some responses of faith, some of contempt, some of doubt, some of admiration. He did well. I don't think it's the best portrayal of Jesus I've ever seen on film. I'd give that nod to Willem Dafoe in "The Last Temptation Of Christ," but Neeley does well. I've no real complaint with him.
There are weaknesses here, though, that can't be overlooked. I was personally confused throughout by the setting of the movie. It opens with all of the players arriving in the Judean desert - in a bus! And the movie is full of obviously deliberate anachronisms - from something as simple as sunglasses to something as shocking as tanks rolling through the desert. What were we watching? A depiction of actors depicting the life of Christ, or a deliberately anachronistic version of the gospel? I wasn't really clear on that from the beginning. The story is a bit disjointed. At times I thought the flow was lacking. I was never entirely clear on how the movie was portraying Jesus - a teacher who got in over his head, a guy who had overly grandiose ideas about himself, or was he in fact the son of God and Messiah? The perspective of the film wasn't clear. That lasts right up to the very end. As with Godspell, while the movie is heavy on the crucifixion, it has no depiction of the resurrection? I wonder why both films shied away from that? Were the writers uncomfortable with the subject? Were they suggesting it never happened? Did they just want to leave it to the viewer to form their own opinions? I continue to find any portrayal of the gospel that lacks the resurrection (which is the whole point of the Gospels on which these movies are based) severely lacking. "Superstar" gives a hint. As the movie ends and the players get back on the bus, the camera moves to another shot of the cross - an empty cross. Had Jesus simply been taken down or was this an affirmation that his death was not his end? A hint, but not entirely clear.
As I said, you really can't not compare this to Godspell. On balance, I think I liked Godspell more, but only marginally so. Both do a decent job of tackling a difficult subject and neither get it perfect. Like Godspell, this earns a 7/10 from me.
I quite like Jesus Christ Superstar, and I understand that it's intended as entertainment and not evangelism so I have no real problem with Andrew Lloyd Webber taking some liberties with the story. (As does Mel Gibson with The Passion of the Christ, which is loved by a lot of fundamentalists/conservatives/evangelicals - as always, taking liberties is fine as long as the liberties leave us comfortable.)
Movie watching is one of my favourite past-times and for fun (because you have to have a hobby) I write online reviews on the Internet Movie Date Base. I have something like 1850 reviews up since the year 2000. I looked up my review of the 1973 movie version of Superstar. Thought I'd share it here:
Full Of Passion But It Leaves A Lot Of Questions
The obvious point of comparison for "Jesus Christ Superstar" is "Godspell." Both were released in 1973; both are musicals; both are portrayals of at least a part of the life of Jesus Christ. But for all the similarities, they're very different movies. Godspell is a fun and almost whimsical look at Christ's life, often going for laughs - and at times very touching. Jesus Christ Superstar, on the other hand, is a very dark and sometimes ominous movie. While it also sometimes goes for laughs (I think, for example, of its portrayal of King Herod) it could certainly never be described as whimsical, and where Godspell is often touching, Jesus Christ Superstar is actually very passionate most of the time as it portrays mostly the events of Jesus' life after he enters Jerusalem for the final time. So while the two can be compared, they're not at all the same movie.
A lot worked very well in Jesus Christ Superstar. As I mentioned above, the passion is keenly felt almost all the way through, both from Jesus' disciples and from his opponents - beginning with a very passionate song from Judas Iscariot, questioning why Jesus has allowed things to go this far. The sets worked very well. They were rather bare sets, skeletal in some ways. There was nothing expensive or ostentatious; the attention of the viewer remained on the story and wasn't distracted by glitter. The songs added to the passion. They were generally able to draw the viewer into whatever was being felt at any given moment, although - as in any musical - some songs were more effective than others. What I really liked were the portrayals of two of Jesus' relationships in particular - one with Judas Iscariot, the other with Mary Magdalene.
The Christian faith has always struggled a bit with Judas. On the one hand he's the quintessential traitor, betraying Jesus to the authorities and to a certain death; on the other hand, he plays his part in the unfolding drama, for without his actions where would come the climax of the gospel? Carl Anderson did well with this part. I felt the passion coursing through his songs and even through his body actions. I felt his torment as he struggled with his feeling that Jesus had blown it by letting himself be set up as a Messiah figure and on the other hand still possessing a loyalty to Jesus. I felt his torment as he came to terms after the fact with what he had done. A very good job by Anderson. Mary Magdalene was played by Yvonne Elliman. This was also a passionate performance - although more low key. There was none of the now trendy speculation about whether Jesus and Mary had a romantic relationship, or whether they were married or whether they had children. None of that. Mary also struggles with her feelings. She loves Jesus - but why? What is it about him? In what is probably the most moving song of the movie, she addresses that question. Elliman's performance wasn't as strong as Anderson's, but was still very good. Ted Neeley played the part of Jesus. As always, and as in any production, the role of Jesus is a terribly difficult one to play because of the connections that many in the audience will have with the figure of Jesus - some responses of faith, some of contempt, some of doubt, some of admiration. He did well. I don't think it's the best portrayal of Jesus I've ever seen on film. I'd give that nod to Willem Dafoe in "The Last Temptation Of Christ," but Neeley does well. I've no real complaint with him.
There are weaknesses here, though, that can't be overlooked. I was personally confused throughout by the setting of the movie. It opens with all of the players arriving in the Judean desert - in a bus! And the movie is full of obviously deliberate anachronisms - from something as simple as sunglasses to something as shocking as tanks rolling through the desert. What were we watching? A depiction of actors depicting the life of Christ, or a deliberately anachronistic version of the gospel? I wasn't really clear on that from the beginning. The story is a bit disjointed. At times I thought the flow was lacking. I was never entirely clear on how the movie was portraying Jesus - a teacher who got in over his head, a guy who had overly grandiose ideas about himself, or was he in fact the son of God and Messiah? The perspective of the film wasn't clear. That lasts right up to the very end. As with Godspell, while the movie is heavy on the crucifixion, it has no depiction of the resurrection? I wonder why both films shied away from that? Were the writers uncomfortable with the subject? Were they suggesting it never happened? Did they just want to leave it to the viewer to form their own opinions? I continue to find any portrayal of the gospel that lacks the resurrection (which is the whole point of the Gospels on which these movies are based) severely lacking. "Superstar" gives a hint. As the movie ends and the players get back on the bus, the camera moves to another shot of the cross - an empty cross. Had Jesus simply been taken down or was this an affirmation that his death was not his end? A hint, but not entirely clear.
As I said, you really can't not compare this to Godspell. On balance, I think I liked Godspell more, but only marginally so. Both do a decent job of tackling a difficult subject and neither get it perfect. Like Godspell, this earns a 7/10 from me.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
In this new version being broadcast on NBC, Jesus is portrayed by John Legend, a very fine African American singer, songwriter, musician and actor.
Tis like that with status quo (bull) ... especially the learn of all things ... being ignored in naïveté fashion!
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Jesus never said anything about profit on its own being wrong as I recall. At most, he didn't think people should be profiting from religion, as when he cleared the temple. I don't think he'd be out clearing shopping malls or anything, though he might shut down a few church garage sales.
Whether a musical that is clearly a secularized retelling of the story fits that, I am not sure.And I wouldn't say that Superstar promotes the idealization and adoration of Jesus any more than a lot of Christian doctrine about his divinity does. If anything, the musical humanizes him and plays down that idealization and adoration. The song Superstar talks about what Judas thinks Jesus did wrong as much as it idealizes and adores Jesus. It paints a picture of a more human, less divine, Jesus.
Last edited:
Myths are a problem for the status quo ...
crazyheart
Rest In Peace: tomorrow,tomorrow
Years back my kid's high school did a musical GodSpell. I was astonished at the talent,
and emotion they brought to the play.
and emotion they brought to the play.