Jesus Christ Superstar?

Who is the Superstar Jesus or Judas?

This 1973 film starring Ted Neely as Jesus is based on an earlier Broadway “rock opera” by Andrew Lloyd Webber, with lyrics by Tim Rice.

The film was filmed on location in Israel though the sets are ambiguous in nature and do not represent any true historical locations.

The cast is made up of a very stereotypical late 60’ early 70’s group of ragtag hippy style actors who are members of a fictitious acting troupe who comes upon this desert setting and immediately begins to set up for the production. Quickly the actors are in costume and the production begins. It is obvious from the very beginning that this film unlike others that have been reviewed earlier here will have a unique emphasis on Judas. The film follows the story of Christ through to his crucifixion and death from the viewpoint of Judas. As with other films of the era there is no resurrection scene and the film leaves the viewer to struggle with the questions of whom Christ was for themselves.

Key Characters-

Jesus Christ (Ted Neely)

- In Jesus Christ Superstar Nelly brings a new look and feel to the role of Jesus. Neely truly puts the rock into rock Opera with his strong vocals matching up with Weber’s and Rice’s music and lyrics. The Feel of Jesus in this film is different then others as Neely play him as more of an agnsty teen then the childlike or disconnected heavenly figures that viewers have experienced in other films. The role certainly was one that Neely found a connection with as he has continued on Broadway and many touring companies of the live production of the rock opera.

-

Judas Iscariot (Carl Anderson)

- In a departure from the stage actor role of Judas played by Ben Vereen we see Carl Anderson cast to take on what in this film is the lead role of Judas Iscariot. Anderson brings strong vocals and a commanding presence to the role of Judas. We see Judas in this film in a completely different light then other Jesus films as he is a key role and in many ways the main role in this film with his story even at many times eclipsing the story of Christ. Viewers see Judas as conflicted between his view of Jesus as a revolutionary come to change the structures of the day and his role as messiah. As Jesus comes closer to fulfilling his role as messiah Judas becomes angry with him and frustrated that he is deviating form “the plan.” Judas over and over again talks about what a great man Jesus is and all that he can do for the poor and the oppressed Jews of the day. Viewers find that the ultimate reason for his betrayal to be his belief that Jesus has completely lost touch with the reality of what Judas believes to be his mission and that he has become more dangerous to himself and his followers. The climax of this comes in Judas’ suicide and subsequent return with is reprise of the title song Jesus Christ Superstar.

Key Scenes-

There are many key scenes in which the viewer must struggle with if this is or is not the story of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ or rather the story of Judas Iscariot. SO the Question at hand is Who is the real Superstar of Jesus Christ Superstar?

The First major musical piece of the film is Jesus singing about his call and role as savior of the world but rather Judas critiquing Jesus work and how it is not in line with his vision of what “the plan” should be and the way Jesus should be acting.

Key scenes that illustrate Judas struggle and showing the focus of the film on Judas and his struggle include when Mary is Anointing Jesus with Oil, the Cleansing of the Temple, Judas Suicide, and the final Closing Scene that includes Judas reprise of the Title Song Jesus Christ Superstar.

- Judas struggles with the idea that Mary would lavish Jesus with expensive oil that he believes could feed many of the poor. Viewers must wrestle with Jesus response that the poor will always be with us. In this scene it is very easy for viewers to sympathize with Judas and become confused and annoyed by Jesus response.

- - In the Cleansing of the Temple we again see Jesus again deviate from “the plan” when he offends the Jewish and Roman authorities. Judas here is upset believing that Jesus has brought unwanted and dangerous attention to their mission. The scene certainly feels awkward and again viewers are forced to think about if Judas's point makes scene or not.

- - In this film Judas Suicide is more of a focus then other films we have reviewed so far. This clearly shows the filmmakers focus on Judas. In many ways some viewers could argue that Judas death is larger in this film the that of Jesus.

- - The final Reprise again puts Jesus and Judas toe to toe and places Judas as the central figure questioning why everything went so wrong and how they got to the place that Jesus had to die and how the entire plan fell apart.

Given that there is no resurrection scene and Judas reprise and Jesus death ends the films as viewers watch the actors silently load back up their sets and costumes onto their bus and leave without Neely the ending focus remains Judas’s questions. Viewers must ask why such a focus on Judas? Is it the historical Judas that the filmmakers so wanted viewers to focus on or is it that in some ways Judas and his questions simply represent the questions that viewers today continue to ask about who Jesus was and what his life and mission was for the world?

GodSpell

Godspell or God-awful? 
The original movie was released in 1973 and was adapted from an off-Broadway play created by John-Michael Tebelak. The movie takes place in modern day New York City with a motley crew of ten troubadours traipsing around the cities famous land marks dancing, singing, and acting out skits of the parables from the book of Matthew. When it was originally released, it received good reviews and relatively more acclaim than the similarly biblilically-insired the musical Jesus Christ Superstar. It has also been reenacted more often by churches and youth groups, who use it for evangelism and teaching purposes.

The film begins with the hustle and bustle of the normal city life, highlighting the main characters as they go about their worldly pursuits. Then here comes over the middle of the Brooklyn Bridge a colorfully clad man pulling a cart full of junk. Is this man homeless? Here he is singing and happily smiling, enjoying his leisurely walk, as he passes and you see his coat of many colors. As he passes, one sees a fish embroidered on the back of it. It made me think, this must be Jesus. It is a movie about Jesus, isn’t it? But no, this character ends up being as psychedelic as his coat, and maybe a little schizophrenic since he ends up playing more than one part in the movie.

His first character is John the Baptist, calling the disciples from their mundane existence in the big city to the fountain in Central Park to be baptized by him. These new additions to the play come skipping to the park by the sound of a ram’s horn being blown by our John that only they hear. As they traverse toward the park they throw off their conservative attire and implements of their previous life. All inhibitions are washed away as they play in the water fountain not only to be baptized by John but by one another. It is as if they are no longer the responsible adults of their previous existence but are regressing to a more youthful, carefree existence of children.

At first I had hope for this film, especially since I am a fan of musicals and especially Jesus Christ Superstar, but it seemed that from this point forward except for some good musical numbers I could not shake the idea that I was watching a rendition of Jesus’ life by the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey’s Circus.

Jesus pops in on John and these unsuspecting disciples across from the fountain. He is made-up as either a clown or a mime. He has John baptize him and as he come up out of the water he is now dressed more as a clown with a big ‘S’ on his shirt. Is this Super Jesus?

All the disciples now too are clothed as multi-colorful clowns. They now skip off with one another following Jesus as one maybe watching Sesame Street, till they come to a junkyard were they begin to play and act out parables. They end up cleaning up and painting the junkyard as if it is some type of play house for their group; still reminding me of Sesame Street. They eventually skip out all over the city acting out parables and singing songs as they move around a people-less New York.

My confusion increases as they not only sing and perform, but enact teachings from scripture. Who is actually doing the teaching, Jesus or these troubadour disciples? They teach each other as much as he does.

At the end of the movie, John, who has now somehow magically changed into Judas has turned Jesus in to the authorities, who are never seen. This is maybe the only moving moment of the movie: as Judas comes with the authorities, he shows reluctance in coming to Jesus. Jesus beckons him forward and Judas through himself at Jesus as to say he is sorry. It is Jesus who kisses Judas’ checks not the other way around. It is then Judas who ties Jesus to the fence of their play yard to be hanged. All the other players cry and wail as they grab hold of the fence and convulse with Jesus as he dies. When dawn come they all take down their Jesus and carry him to through the streets of the people-less city, until they turn the corner and are lost in the crowd as the people again reappear.

Theology 
The movie is based on the gospel of Matthew. The most theological part is the use of the most parables and teachings in a film that we have seen so far. As for how true to the text the movie portrays, I would have to say this is not one to watch if looking for particular insight into the historical life of Jesus or a Biblical reneactment. In a little more depth one could see a hint of Liberation Theology as the disciples are called out of the world, changed through their relationship with Jesus, and then sent back into the world to carry the good news of Christ with them. I really hate that the passion and the resurrection are not portrayed in this story well or at all, since this is one of the most theologically relevant themes in Christianity. This can leave many wondering if Jesus was just a great teacher, a flash-in–the-pan or even relevant in the world today.


Final Thoughts
Personally, I see this movie aimed at a young audience. The fun attitude of the troubadours, the short skits of the parables, and the songs would appeal to this group. For those seeking a more deep theology, textual portrayal of the life of Jesus, I would look elsewhere. However, one may find use of particular clips of the movie helpful that could be used in a teaching lesson or during a sermon . As a minister, I can imagine that it may have entertainment value but this movie was one of only two movies in my life that I could have fallen asleep in. Even though I did enjoy some of the songs, those I could have watched on YouTube;. the film as a whole is not engaging. In the end, it is probably not worth your movie-watching time.

Jesus the Revolutionary

The Italian filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini seemed on the surface an unlikely suspect to make a Jesus film. Marxist, atheist, and openly gay, at the time Pasolini decided to make a film based on the Book of Matthew, he was considered a controversial and even dangerous filmmaker by Italian authorities.

Enrique Irazoqui as Jesus, 1964

Yet this 1964 film, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo), is often cited as one of the most beloved films about Jesus by believers and non-believers alike. Without question the 1960s Jesus film that is most faithful to scripture, nearly all of its dialogue comes straight from the New Testament. When other films dress up their dramatic moments through bombastic score or saccharine lighting, this film is understated, simple, reverent. 

Miracles happen with no fanfare at all; they simply happen, so quickly that it is startling and effective. Likely because Pasolini was limiting himself to dialogue included in scripture, there are often long stretches of onscreen silence, which play beautifully.

My favorite use of silence is in the exquisite opening scene. An anguished Joseph stares at an unhappy and mute teenaged Mary in a grotto, trying to fathom how she could betray him. He finally stumbles away from her house and, in confusion, falls asleep, his brow furrowed. The first audible dialogue of the entire film is that of the angel appearing to him.

The film has a distinct Marxian sympathy for the poor, and much screen time is devoted to the quiet faces of those everyday people who encounter Jesus in his ministry. Even the most unlikely characters -- the uneasy soldiers sent by Herod to massacre the innocent male children of Bethlehem, for example -- are shot by Pasolini with compassion and tenderness. Children and the elderly are in nearly every scene. This, Pasolini wants to emphasize, is the story of the poor, and of Jesus's dedication to them.  Most of Pasolini's actors were nonprofessionals; many were laborers themselves. His own elderly mother plays the role of Jesus's mother as an older woman.

Pasolini's Jesus (played by a Spanish graduate student, Enrique Irazoqui) is unflinchingly passionate, angry, and insistent upon justice. We see stories from scripture rarely enacted in other Jesus films. Pasolini includes the cinematically-unloved cursing of the fig tree, for example. In strident tones, Jesus also announces he comes not in peace, but to bring a sword -- a controversial line from scripture that bucks against the interpretation of Jesus as a placid peacemaker in films like King of Kings. 


Jesus also appears to turn his back on his saintly mother and family, a scene derived from scripture (Matthew 12:46-50) to which Pasolini gives particular emphasis. For American Christian audiences, a Jesus who doesn't seem to care much about his own family probably raises hackles. But it might provoke interesting questions about the way biological families are depicted in scripture. 

Margherita Caruso as Mary at sixteen

And indeed, for church discussion groups or academic classrooms, this film presents many fascinating questions. As a film with a decidedly Marxist agenda, what are we to make of its relative fidelity to scripture? Does it distort scripture? Or does it remind us of aspects of scripture American Christians often conveniently ignore? It can be fun to watch the film with the New Testament open, to see where changes in emphasis and order have arisen.

There is also the matter of the film's cryptic dedication to Pope John XXIII, which has been interpreted as tongue-in-cheek, sincerely reverent, or a nose-thumbing to Pasolini's Communist friends, many of whom argued Jesus was a sell-out subject for a supposedly revolutionary filmmaker.

The film is in Italian, although available with English subtitles, and it is in black and white, shot in a neorealist, documentary style. Of special note is its musical score, which includes Bach, the "Gloria" from a Congolese Mass, and Odetta's "Sometimes I Feel Like A Motherless Child."

All in all, this is a highly, highly recommended film -- in fact, an absolute must -- for anyone seriously interested in films or retellings of the life of Jesus.

Great Story, Boring Movie

The title of this film says it all. George Stevens intended his 1965 epic The Greatest Story Ever Told to be as majestic as its subject matter. Accordingly, every aspect of its production was taken to the extreme. The enterprise cost $20 million – more than any other film made in the U.S. to that point – with extensive pre-production, a star-studded cast, massive sets, and meticulous editing. Stevens wanted everything to be perfect, the greatest telling of the greatest story. His ambitious title also suggests an intention to tell a story with universal significance, in an increasingly pluralistic world. Yet, in spite of all the hype, The Greatest Story was a box-office flop, recovering only 17% of its production costs. Although contemporary reviews were mixed, later critics have generally seen it as a failure of Titanic proportions, which warned future filmmakers to steer clear of biblical epics. I will first examine what the film attempted, then consider why it failed.

“The Light Shines in the Darkness”

Stevens draws heavily from the Gospel of John. The film opens with a painting in a cathedral, accompanied by the beloved prologue: “In the beginning was the Word...” We see a dark screen, and gradually a light appears - first the star of Bethlehem, then a candle in the stable. Lest we miss the obvious, the narrator continues, “The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness grasped it not.” Greatest Story follows this “light” through his ministry, emphasizing Jesus' teachings and his spirituality. Likewise, we see the division between those “in the light,” who recognize Jesus as the Christ, and those “in the dark,” who do not “grasp” Jesus' true identity. The lighting in this film is very strategic. Jesus is always lit, while his opponents appear in the dark. Jesus and the receptive crowds (whom John the Baptist calls “decent sinners”) are clothed in shades of white, while his opponents wear dark colors. Often Von Sydow appears to be the source of light, as at the Last Supper, where the disciples on either side are lit from different directions, centering on Jesus, and a backlit window provides a halo effect.

Stern et. al. rightly note that Stevens's primary interest is the “Christ of faith,” rather than the “Jesus of history.” Perhaps this Jesus film, which premiered only four years after the very successful (and very historical) King of Kings, is partly a reaction against the excesses of the “quest for the historical Jesus.” Though in general the film attempts historical accuracy, there are obvious exceptions. Most strikingly, it is set not in Palestine, but in the American southwest! Beyond aesthetics, the decision to transplant the Jesus story suggests that its significance lies not in historical particularity but in a universal ideal.

“Seeing,” “Knowing,” and Defamiliarization

The film closes as it began, with a painting of the exalted Christ in a cathedral. This framing device (though cheesy) conveys a significant message about the film's purpose: Stevens defamiliarizes Jesus, challenging us to rethink the “great story” we thought we knew. Stern's claim that “no change has taken place from beginning to end” (143-144) is true only in terms of the film's narrative. The “change” Stevens intends is within the audience (“the kingdom of God is within you”).

Toward this end, Stevens employs the related Johannine tropes of “seeing” and “knowing.” “Old Aram,” who illustrates two different kinds of sight – physical and spiritual - comes from John 9. Stevens adds ambiguity about the precise moment Aram can see – is it in Nazareth or at Bethany? The latter seems more likely; the resurrection of Lazarus “opens his eyes” to Jesus' identity. Aram's testimony - "I was blind and now I see!” - receives an emphatic place, as the “last word” of the first half of the film. Similarly, “knowing” does not equal perceiving. The people of Nazareth fail to understand Jesus because they think they know him (c. Jn. 6:42; 1:12). At Jesus' trial, Caiaphas responds to Aram, “We know where he comes from!” This exchange evokes John 9 (c. 6:42; 7:27-29; 8:14). Only those who are in the light know Jesus. For those who reject the truth, “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not” (Jn. 1:5, quoted in opening scene).

The film's portrayal of miracles reflects the same idea - seeing (physical sight) is not believing (spiritual insight). On the two occasions when unbelievers demand a miracle, Jesus refuses (Nazareth and Herod's palace). Stevens similarly denies the audience direct sight of the miraculous. We see only four miracles (crippled man, bleeding woman, Aram, Lazarus), yet we hardly see even these. Most intriguing is the portrayal of Lazarus's resurrection; at no point does the audience see Lazarus! We must accept the testimony of witnesses. Likewise, even the resurrection of Jesus is not directly portrayed. Nor are there angels at the tomb, but only the “young man” of Mark's account. Nevertheless, all of the faithful believe immediately, even though they have not seen the resurrected Christ (c. Jn. 20:8). We cannot help but recall John 20:29: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” The message would not have been lost on Stevens's (intended) audience.

Christology

I suggest that the ultimate failure of Stevens's film arises from its christology. By exacerbating the gnostic tendencies in John, Stevens has given us an Apollinarian Jesus, who has a human body but not a human mind. His bourgeois European accent separates him from those around him, and his measured, sonorous voice seems more Sinai than Nazareth. The camera often points up at him, and we frequently see him elevated above the crowds (as, for example, at the Sermon on the Mount and the triumphal entry). James the Younger (Anderson) introduces a little refreshing levity, but his attempts to engage Jesus on a human level utterly fail. Similar exchanges with Peter, Matthew, and Martha fall flat, because Von Sydow's Jesus is more like an embodied doctrine (“Word”) than a human being.

He is also repellingly sanctimonious. His central message - “don't judge,” “don't worry,” “love one another” - contrasts with a holier-than-thou teacher who demands what humans cannot give. He judges Lazarus unworthy to be a disciple, because he will not give up everything he has and adopt Jesus' ascetic lifestyle. Lazarus looks to his sisters, who rely on him for support, and replies dejectedly, “What man can do that?” Then the holy posse leaves, and we see them walking by the sea barefooted, free of worldly obligations. Jesus' stoic disregard for external troubles seems at odds with his love commandment. While Jesus is teaching his little circle under a bridge, we see Roman soldiers passing overhead. The inside-outside dichotomy also works against Stevens; this Jesus seems to inhabit an ideal realm, separate from the “real world” within the stone confines of city buildings. Von Sydow preaches an impossible (and probably irresponsible) quietism.

If this Jesus is not very human, is he divine? Not necessarily. The question of Jesus-as-God versus Jesus-as-universal-ideal is left open, a prudent choice for the increasingly diverse theological climate of the 1960s. The quotation of John 12 (“unless a grain of wheat...”) suggests that the importance of Christ's passion is that it inspires an enduring movement. Significantly, we do not see the resurrected Christ until the ascension; a viewer may understand the resurrection literally, symbolically, or both. The important thing is the “Christ of faith,” the idea of Christ, not the historical person Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately for Stevens, an idea makes a boring protagonist!

What (Else) Went Wrong?

It seems that Stevens tries too hard to make his story the “greatest;” the excess squelches the film's merits. The epic is simply too long, with painfully slow pacing. Slow dialogue, long pauses, gradual fade-in transitions, and very traditional camera pans provide no relief from hours of Von Sydow's tedious messiahship. Stevens's over-the-top attempt at reverence sometimes backfires. Glaring examples are the “Hallelujah Chorus” and Jesus' Monty Python-esque ascent into the clouds.

Another failure-by-excess is the high-profile cast, which the original audiences found distracting. Nearly every important star in 1960s Hollywood makes an appearance, sometimes in only a brief cameo. The worst blunder of the entire film is John Wayne's drawling, “Surely, this man was the Son of God!”

Finally, this film had the misfortune of premiering at precisely the wrong time. Stevens appealed to the same traditional Christian audience which had flocked to the two King of Kings features (1927 and 1961). By the mid-sixties, the religious climate had changed. Almost contemporaneously with Greatest Story's premier, the cover of Time featured Altizer and the “death of God.” Postmodern Americans were growing weary of traditional religion, and suspicious of meta-narratives. “The Greatest Story Ever Told” proclaims “meta-narrative” in neon lights.

“The Medium is the Message"

If we examine this film according the Marshall McCluhan's famous insight, we may find another reason for its failure. For one thing, this is the first of our class films based on a novel; perhaps what translates to slow pacing on the silver screen would have captivated our imaginations between lines of print. More fundamentally, “medium” and (intended) “message” contradict one another. The film's central metaphor involves perspective; those in the light see Jesus for who he really is, while those in the dark cannot. The difference is not physical sight but spiritual insight. The message is faith, but the medium is spectacle. Stevens has tried to make the Christ of faith relevant by arraying him in worldly splendor. Instead, the effect is a parodic contradiction, like Herod's scarlet cloak.