Talk:Jesus Christ Superstar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Musical Theatre Portal Jesus Christ Superstar is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks: Help out with one of the WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks below. You may add your name to the Participants list to the right. edit this Open Tasks template Collaborate and work on the Collaboration of the Month Articles needing a content fork Mainly, these are articles on films and either their source or subsequent musicals. There are a couple where the musical needs to be "forked" from the source material. Feel free to add or remove as necessary. Important: If you split an article, please make sure that you move all the relevant links from the first article to the new one. To find which links to move, click on "What links here" at the old article and look through the list to see which links should be pointed to the film related link (for example, articles on actors in the film). Then, click on those links and update them to point to the film article. Thanks! Don't Play Us Cheap Roberta How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying I Married an Angel Lady in the Dark The Band Wagon - musical adaptation will to be forked after it opens in April.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

The songs hint at the idea espoused by Unificationists that Jesus did not come to die, but hoped to be accepted by enough people as the Messiah, that he would be able to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth during his lifetime. --Uncle Ed 23:17, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just want to clarify the info re: the U.S. premier of "Superstar"...before it opened on broadway there was a much publicized Robert Stigwood authorized original concert tour which opned the summer of 1971..Jeff Fenholt, Carl Anderson and Yvonne Elliman were the first (Jesus, Judas and Mary) to perform the piece in the U.S. I was also in the production, originating the role of King Herod here in the states. I'd very much like to find a copy of the review that appeared in Playboy of our opening in front of 12,000 people. (Alan Martin - muchachofeo@msn.com)

Removed:

More recently, Barbra Streisand has married Barry Dennen, an actor-singer who appeared in one of the first versions of the show. He's written a book about their relationship called My Life with Barbra. They are currently preparing to film another new version of "Superstar," set to star Dennen repeating his role as Pilate and Streisand as Mary Magdalene, which will be released to benefit an AIDS prevention organization.

Ellsworth 15:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Title 2 Judas 3 Independent performances 4 Race 5 Censorship 6 Moving the film to a separate section 7 Music 8 Reactions of the Church? 9 Could We Start Again Please 10 Original 1970 Album Cover 11 Please note new article created on film 12 Need NPOV 13 Backstabber vs traitor 14 Errors in the article 15 Biblical References? 16 Gethsemane 17 WikiProject class rating 18 Antichrist Superstar 19 Character list deleted; instrumentation list; background 20 Movie from 2000

[edit] Title

Shouldn't the title of this article be "Jesus Christ, Superstar"? There's a comma in there, isn't there? Graham 01:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Internet Broadway Database lists it as Jesus Christ Superstar. So does my copy of the cast recording. Cigarette 19:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, Jesus Christ Superstar is effectively Jesus of Nazareth's title throughout (ignoring the biblical tone and looking at Jesus as a character). In This Jesus Must Die, the "mob of blockheads in the street" sing: "Jesus Christ, Superstar!" If they had been addressing, say, Pilate, the lyrics would have been, "Pontius Pilate, Prefect (/Governor/Roman Puppet)!"

Even though Christ is Jesus' title, Superstar would appear to be a further amendment, for who has not heard the "Greatest Story Ever Told?" --Ixius 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judas

Cut from intro:

is told largely from Judas's irreverent point of view

There's nothing further down in the article to back this up. On the other hand, the first song in the opera is Heaven On Their Minds, in which Judas expresses fears that Jesus' campaign to gain followers could backfire. Nonetheless' I don't see how this constitutes an irreverent attitude. Uncle Ed 23:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I find this odd. Several numbers take place after Judas' Death, and several Judas nor any apostle was not present at (i.e. This Jesus Must Die, I Don't Know How to Love Him, Gethsemane etc.) --Ixius 21:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The movie portrays JEsus as mortal: a man with man-like faults. It is told from Judas' perspective in that it shows Jesus through his eyes: a mortal. Esentially the movie portrays charaters like Judas and Pilate in a subtly positive light, rather than the condeming picture usually given. --Kiran 90 03:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The show is most definitly from the point of view of Judas Iscariot. We must remember that, although he dies well before the finale, his big song, "Jesus Christ Superstar" comes only before the crucifixion. He ties up the story. It is irreverent because he has a different view then the other apostles and most modern christians. For example: "It seems to me a strange thing, mystifying/That a man like you can waste his time on women of her kind." That is irreverence. --IAmAwesome

I would disagree that Judas' attitude and viewpoint in the play are irreverent. Irreverence is the act of intentionally not showing due respect or veneration, the key word here being 'due'. Judas is torn between whether Jesus is divine or not, so he doesn't really know whether Jesus is due the respect one would show God. As he tries to figure that out, his actions swing from acting in faith towards Jesus, who he has sworn fealty to, or doing what he thinks is best for the common good. He is certainly confused, even up to the end, but I don't think any of this technically qualifies as irreverence. Davey1107 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The written concept for Jesus Christ Superstar claims that Jesus, while carrying his cross to be executed, recalls the voice of Judas asking him who or what have you sacrificed? So according to the play Judas is dead and gone, the song (and appearance of him in the movie) is symbolic and in the present-tense of Jesus remembering Judas' words; in this case presented in the form of the song Superstar. Judas isn't really there--metaphorically speaking he’s in a bubble-caption above Jesus’ head! An interesting point found in the written concept asserts the entire play is seen through the eyes of Judas, i.e. what we as the audience see is what Judas perceives in his own subjective mind. The character Judas obviously adopts a structural-functionalist view. By this profess he undertakes the status quo to preserve the movement and the peace between the Jews and Romans (an historical knowledge rather than a religious education is needed to better appreciate the opera, because, as we know, Judas’ fears came true in actuality several years later when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E.). The recent revision by Tim Rice defines it beautifully, 'Our conquerors object to another noisy sect and they'll crush us if we go too far'. In the 2000 production, Edwards illuminated the underlying political motif woven in the musical that Norman Jewison failed to deliver. The apostles, or better the Zealots, had a much deeper paradigm. Their conflict-theorem concerning the Romans and the deceptive Sanhedrin warranted a charismatic leader to guide the nation. Jesus fills this profile. Thus, 'What's the Buzz' wasn't enough to settle their impatience toward a revolution. They took it to the next level, 'Everyone of fifty thousand would do whatever you asked them to. Keep them yelling their devotion, but add a touch of hate at Rome. You will rise to a greater power. We will win ourselves a home'. Finally after witnessing Christ's failure to lead such a political revolt they eventually dissolve. Jesus, having a transcendental mission, rises above the power struggles battling around him only to be crucified for delivering a submissive philosophy. What this philosophy is, we don't know due to Rice's intentional omission. What we do see is the irony of a powerful leader losing his critical perspective when pitted against the dynamic culture and the imperialistic State.

Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.176 (talk) 19:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independent performances

Before the official play came out on Broadway, there were many unofficial versions trying to set the music to a play. I recently got to hear a firsthand account from one of the actors in the production. They had been sent repeated cease-and-desist letters and, up until the end of the production, they were never sure if they were going to be sued for their work. Does that fit in the context of the article? If so, I could track this guy down and get a more informative piece out of him. -Fuzzy 03:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

At Fort Carson, Colorado the Ft. Carson Little Theatre produced a version in August,1971. In order to get the copyrights at that time, it was to be produced only in a church, however, one of the high ranking chaplains came in and blessed the theatre. (At least that's how the story goes) There was no admission charge, and it ranks one of the best versions I have ever had the opportunity to see. All actors/actresses were either in the military, or were spouses/children of such. They had no librettos/music; all the music and lyrics were copied by by people sitting listening to the record with headphones. This musical played to SRO crowds for a week; would love to hear from someone who actually was in the production.

[edit] Race

Some years ago, when I lived in Dallas, I had a friend there, a lifelong resident, who had performed the role of Jesus in summer stock productions in San Antonio back in the mid-Seventies. Knowing how conservative many people in Texas are, I was surprised to hear this, and I asked my friend if there had been a big uproar. He replied that people indeed took offense, but not at the film's story or music--rather to the interracial cast. --bamjd3d

• When I was in Junior High School (early 90's) there was discussion about how people charged the movie version as being "racist" because Judas was played by a black man. Of course he was also portrayed sympathetically (Judas being a historically maligned figure), but still. This was part of a discussion we had over the "controversy" of the time such as the allegation by some that Mary Magdalane clearly was sexually attracted to Jesus (as if that was the only kind of "love" a person can have for another of the opposite gender). In later years it seems the controversies have been the portrayal of the Jewish leaders as caricatured villians (black clad "vultures") and Mary Magdalane as a former prostitute (a "sin" committed by nearly all Hollywood Jesus movies anyway).

[edit] Censorship

The text on the film had: When it was released on DVD, part of the lyrics was censored: When Jesus had originally said to a group of beggars overpowering him "Heal yourselves, leave me alone!", the DVD version had a voice-over of a female beggar saying "Heal me, Jesus!" although this is not present on the laserdisc version.

Several persons who own the original videos and the screenplay have denied that claim, so I deleted it. --85.187.203.123 10:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. "Leave me alone!" is the DVD line (I own the first DVD version of the 1973 musical). The album line is "Heal yourselves!"

• Ditto.

In the same movie, Judas' Death is sometimes cut just before he hangs himself. --Ixius 21:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Its just 'heal yourselves', not so horrible as saying, "Leave me alone".

Although Jesus never denied healing to any one in real life, and He still does not. Jesus is alive right now. Jesus loves everyone, no matter how sick or "sinful". This production also seems to forget the part where he came back to life three days later.

[edit] Moving the film to a separate section

The section hasn't grown that much yet, I think it reads best as part of an article. And what kind of summary would you leave here instead? --85.187.44.131 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music

I just watched the movie, and I found that a lot of the music was using 7/4 beat measurement. Does this signify something, considering seven is a 'divine' number? Meutia Chaerani 02:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The music is very interesting in that it employs several leitmotifs recurring throughtout the play.

Jeff

[edit] Reactions of the Church?

Aside from one half-sentence I cannot find anything related to what the response was to the play/film. I would be interested in what the standpoint of the Church was in connection with this film, and has it changed over time. I mostly interested because before the first screening of the film in Hungary where I live, there was a little bit of a scandal over it from Church circles, stating that the film is offensive to Christians (or something similar, this scandal happened quite a few years ago so I'm not sure in the contens). So if anyone has anything on that I'd be glad to hear it. AdamDobay 11:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• As I stated above, I too am curious about this. It seems the key issues as I understood them (though I admit I wasn't alive for the original screening of the film): Judas being portrayed as a black man, Mary Magdalane supposedly having "sexual feelings" for Jesus, Jesus being portrayed as a "Hippie", and the lack of a "resurrection" scene. Many years later the issues seem to have changed to charges of anti-semitism (over the top villianhood of the Jewish leaders) and insinuations that Judas is TOO sympathetic therefore the film is urging people to "doubt Jesus" (as a divine figure of Christian faith). Various complaints from more conservative or fundamentalist circles over the blasphemous nature of rock music or the "scanadlous outfits" of some of the dancers didn't reach the ears of a Catholic schoolkid, but apparently they were out there too.

• I do have the feeling that perhaps people overreacted before seeing the movie, however they COULD have gotten wind of some of the possible objectionable elements for people of faith from the broadway musical and the album. There have been many different versions, and I can see some of the controversy. The 2000 DVD edition of the stage remake portrays Judas as an ambigiously gay character who possibly is jealous of Mary Magdalane and Jesus. Additionally Jesus in that version was portrayed by a leader of the controversial (and allegedly hippy) Raelian cult (portraying Jesus as a "cult leader" would perhaps have been a subtly important element but to choose somebody like the Raelians, known for their socially edgy views on issues like sex probably would offend a lot more people). This version also shows the 39 lashes in an interesting and controversial way: instead of being whipped, every "lash" is a member of the (Jewish) crowd running forward and "slapping" fake blood from their palms onto Jesus' back. This was criticized in one review as explicitly blaming the Jews for Jesus' death (and the glee of many of the actors probably helped bring this message home to that reviewer). Of course Pontius Pilate is also portrayed wearing a Nazi SS hat (not so subtle choice for the Romans treatment of the Jews). In many ways it almost seemed as if this version was going out of its way to "shock" in some sense. Then there was that version with the Indigo girls and having Jesus portrayed by an openly gay woman (I didn't see it though). So of all the versions out there, perhaps the 1973 version is the "most reverant" to mainstream Christian sensibilities. But at the time it may have seemed controversial for various reasons. Anyway, sorry for the soapbox, but I thought I'd share my experiences. Definately more sources would be appreciated, both contemporary and modern. [Paraforce]

As far as I know, Christians have taken offense, to a lesser extent, at Judas being portrayed as a sympathetic figure who means well (contrary to the story of the Bible) and, above all, at Jesus being portrayed as a man and not as a God. This second aspect is much debated, as many of the Christian fans of the show feel that it is ambiguous about the divinity/humanity of Jesus. However, Rice and Webber had clearly stated that their purpose had been to portray Jesus as human (although they had emphasized that it wasn't their intention to either confirm or deny his divinity). The non-divine and non-Christian moments include the implied semi-romantic relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, his feelings of anger, sadness etc., (especially as expressed by Ian Gillan on the original recording and Jeff Fenholt on Broadway), his ignorance about his own fate ("there may be a kingdom for me somerwhere - if I only knew") and about the meaning of his sacrifice ("why should I die?"). And while the Christian Christ is, according to the Christian credo, redempting the sins of humanity, the Jesus of JCS seems to be dying mostly with the ambition to be remembered and influence the way people live. --85.187.44.131 18:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could We Start Again Please

I can't recall where, but I'm quite certain I read on the internet or heard (possibly on the DVD) the the soung "Could We Start Again Please" was written for the movie because the producers felt as though Mary and Peter needed more screen time. If I find the source I'll change it, but has anyone else heard this? --kubfann 15:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the song was added to the 1971 Broadway production. It appears on the cast recording. The one song that was added to the 1974 film was 'Then We Are Decided'.--Carlosmnash 01:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original 1970 Album Cover

I just added two scans for the original album cover. One is the UK version (Jcs_uk_cover.png) and the other is the US version (Jcs_us_cover.png). I own the LPs and decided to scan the covers. I felt that it would be beneficial to have the album art in the article, but I couldn't strongly decide which of the two to actually use. Currently the UK version is in the article. However, the US version features the logo that is typically used in subsequent productions. Comments. --Carlosmnash 03:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please note new article created on film

Some users are starting Jesus Christ Superstar (Film), I guess this is because the Jesus Christ Superstar (film) contains a redirect. If the split is in order, please notify someone in WP:RM#Uncontroversial proposals to help with the move. If not, please get in contact with the users creating the new article. Hoverfish 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing worth writing about concerning the split is the song entitled: 'Then we are decided'. This song is not found on the original concept album but is found in the 1973 film. The reason for this addition to the song list is for the movie to be eligible for an award. Andy and Tim received a Tony award for the Broadway play, and to win an award for the movie they had to add another song.

Jeff

[edit] Need NPOV

The following line: 'Jesus Christ, Superstar /who are you? / what have you sacrificed?' is a very strong statement that isn't even mentioned in this summary but expresses one of the main themes (that of a reasonably suspecting Judas). It gains even more importance sang by an already dead Judas. If we assume Judas went to an afterlife, heaven or hell, he still doesn't understand why Jesus did what he did. This is a strong statement against Christianity which doesn't question anything, and has been largely ignored in this review.

The rest of the review tries very hard but fails to present a summary of the story that is not pro-Christianity. We should have in mind this is an opera that anti-Christians also use as an argument against the alleged Jesus' movement. Depending on the POV taken, this can be used as clear proof that Jesus was crazy, valued suffering over justice, held himself more important than the poor, etc etc etc.

The beauty of this opera is that it presents very good arguments from both sides, leaving it to the listeners' interpretation what side to take on the matter. We must be able to reflect this in the article about it. --Arca 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You lost me when you asserted that this musical could be used as "clear proof" of something.... 66.65.43.42 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backstabber vs traitor

I changed the term backstabber to traitor in the synopsis (referring to Judas). Backstabber is very colloquial, and usually has the connotation of someone who commits betrayal for their own personal gain, typically in terms of money or power. In this play, Judas betrays Jesus for what he sees as the greater good (preserving the lives of Jesus' followers and pushing the religion in less of a supernatural direction). Therefore, traitor works better, since this is more commonly used to refer to someone who betrays for more complicated reasons than personal gain. Davey1107 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in the article

The article itself states "In 2047, the opera began its first U.S. national tour with a company managed by Laura Shapiro Kramer. The tour continued until 1980." Obviously this is impossible. Sadly, I do not know the actual date. --Drakkenfyre 09:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical References?

You know what would be great in this article? In the plot, somebody oughta reference the events of the play to actual verses in the Bible (since some of the stories in the Bible are out of order... cf. Jesus does not defend an adulterer from Judas in the Bible, he does so in the event of the high priests. You know what I mean? Then go through the entire article and notate the actual events in the Bible to the story points. OMG what a high remark, I'm sorry, but this sounds like a great idea.

k peace.

68.199.164.33 08:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with doing that is that the playwright created a story so loosely tied to the New Testament that it would not correlate the two. Jtpaladin 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Christ did defend an adulterer from Judas, in John 12. Korossyl 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the statement above is that the intent would be to use the Bible as some type of "authority" rather than just another source for the play. BTW, JCS isn't totally dependent upon the Bible as a source. Nowhere in the pages of the Bible do we find Mary as being a prostitute. This was a later creation of the Church (Pope Gregory 6th century). And, the Bible doesn't offer much discourse between Judas and Jesus to create such a dynamic song as "Heaven on their minds". JCS isn't intended to be a road sign pointing to the Bible, on the contrary, it refutes much of the New Testament. It is worth pointing out that the last part of the play is John 19:41 and the very last verse found in the Thomas Jefferson Bible is John 19:41.

Jeff

[edit] Gethsemane

I was browsing in the bookstore of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, when I noticed the music being played was familiar. It was, in fact, the melody of Gethsemane, with vocals in Italian. It never built into the faster-paced, angry parts. It repeated for several verses. All in all, I got the sense of hymn, and I'm assuming that the lyrics were completely written. Does anyone know what this could have been? Thanks! Korossyl 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know specifically, but the final tune of the show, "John 19:41" is that same melody, shorn of the "jazzy" sections. I've played this in church on Easter. It's possible that someone added some Italian lyrics to it somewhere along the line. —  MusicMaker 05:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antichrist Superstar

Most articles include parodies or alternatives. So shouldn't there be a section offering the sucessful parody Antichrist Superstar for reference or comparison? Just thought there should be some more choice.Mutlee 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character list deleted; instrumentation list; background

The Character list of this article was deleted (It bore the unfortunate heading "vocal ranges"). I notice that in some of our best articles, such as "Wicked (musical)" that character lists have been accepted. Can we restore it, perhaps with a brief description of each character? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the instrumentation list different from the album? At the end of the discussion of the album, there is a little analysis of the music. It seems like the instrumentation for the musical should be moved down and combined with the musical analysis. There could also be more analysis. There are too many stubby sections, and some could be combined into more narrative and analytical sections to help the flow of the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I MD'd JCS about 10 years ago and remember that instrumentation (transposing the bassoon part for bass clarinet was my first attempt at a transposition of any length...). Orchestras are frequently augmented for recordings, so they could be different. Also, that's the instrumentation for the rental materials from MTI; it could have been different for the actual production. —  MusicMaker5376 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't remember a piccolo being used.... —  MusicMaker5376 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also no "background" or "genesis" section, discussing how JCS came to be written, why it was released as an album first, and why it became a stage musical. Was the original idea to do a musical or an album? Was the album a marketing device for the musical, or was the musical only created after the album was a success. Lots of territory to cover.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, it was written as a musical, produced as an album, marketed, then produced as a musical. ALW and Tim Rice did the same thing for Evita. Of course, I don't have any sources for that. I did hear a rumor that they approached John Lennon to play Jesus, but he wanted Yoko to play Mary Magdelene, and ALW and TR were smart enough to say "no thanks". —  MusicMaker5376 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movie from 2000

I know there's a link to the 1973 version ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070239/ ) but shouldn't there be an article of reference to the 2000 version ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0275434/ ) ??

I think it doesn't have a page, and i liked it more than 1973 ^^

12:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)~