Could Stratford JCS Transfer to Broadway?- Page 3

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 6/24/11 at 11:51pm

That's another beef I have. Getting "rock voices" for this show does not mean sacrificing the acting side.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 6/25/11 at 4:38pm

Thank you for the links, nomdeplume

[Hest882]

Posted: 6/25/11 at 5:44pm

I'm going to assume the videos do indeed do a bad job of capturing the live performance, because not only were the clips unimpressive but I found the Judas particularly bland and his singing shaky.

[Timmerbo]

Posted: 6/25/11 at 10:15pm

I agree about Judas sounding shaky in the clip. I saw the third preview back in May and he was very good in the show. Only in the Superstar number did he seem rather lost. He sang and acted effectively as Judas up until his death, but when that song rolled around it became clear that he's not the rock and roll showman it demands. I hope he's gotten more comfortable since the piece was taped (sometime back in May, most likely). The part clearly sits very high in his range, but he never sounded as uneasy as he does in the posted clip. And I should note that 'Superstar' was the only point in the show where he used any of that awkward falsetto.

I got a better sense of Brent Carver's 'Pilate's Dream' here than I did watching the actual show. I spent most of that number telling kids on a field trip to shaddup. The trial sequence in this production is the best I've seen, in no small part due to Carver.

[Timmerbo]

Posted: 6/25/11 at 10:16pm

... double post, my apologies. Updated On: 6/25/11 at 10:16 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/26/11 at 1:51pm

I'm wondering what the difference would be in hearing the production with legit voices as opposed to rock voices. Would it be less tiring to hear legit voices, and save the rock for just some of certain songs like "Heaven on the Their Mind?"

Even if the actor could sing rock, I would still rather they had a legit background for quality of the sound throughout the performance.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/26/11 at 6:55pm

Am I the only one tired of these modernized, "edgy" productions of the show?

I dunno, from the videos this just feels like a retread of the Glenn Carter production. Then again, I haven't seen it.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/27/11 at 6:58pm

I don't mind if other lead characters have stylized costumes and I like the ones here, but I would rather see Jesus in traditional dress than the white blazer. I could see a mix of costumes. I'd like to see some traditional costumes and some take-offs on the olden dress.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 6/27/11 at 7:14pm

Am I the only one tired of these modernized, "edgy" productions of the show.

Wasn't the original London production modern? When they did the original in bell-bottoms and caftans, that was modern and edgy. I don't have a problem with it being continually updated. I would argue that it may have been the original intent.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/27/11 at 7:23pm

Certainly JCS as a rock opera brings the story of Christ to the modern world. Perhaps it would be good to see the show to see if I get over the strangeness of seeing Jesus in a white suit blazer. Other than the last Broadway production, one production I saw a few years ago had Jesus in a white tee shirt and white pants. I also saw the original Boston production but I can't remember if they wore traditional or modern dress.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 6/27/11 at 7:50pm

The modern thing, in my opinion, is the best way to do it; it's just poorly executed a lot.

Rice and Lloyd Webber wrote the show in the language they did in order to make the story live for us, to take Jesus and Judas out of the dusty language of the King James Bible and let us see them as real people with real triumphs and failures, with personalities and contradictions and personal demons. Judas says to Jesus in the title song that if he had come today, to our modern society, he could've reached so many more people through modern technology. It's an interesting moment conceptually because Judas has stepped out of the period; speaking from the "other world," he is out of time, existing neither in the 21st century nor in 33 A.D. But had Jesus come today, what else would've happened?

How would today's world react to Jesus Christ? Contemporary productions can address that question and all the baggage it carries with it by setting the show today. Would today's world react any differently from how the world reacted to him back in 33 A.D.?

* Some people would undoubtedly believe and follow him.
* Many would be skeptical, and would refuse to accept him as Jesus Christ.
* The Catholic Church would surely denounce him; he would pose an enormous threat to their power, their control over their parishioners. What need would there be for a Pope when the Son of God is on earth? Though all mainstream religions would feel threatened, none would be poised to lose as much as the Vatican.
* Today's religious and political leaders would probably react exactly as Caiaphas and Annas did.

Events in our contemporary world are already like events portrayed in JCS. Jesus was an activist, just like the activists in America today. Caiaphas claimed he was saving Israel by turning Jesus over to Pilate, just as today's Christian Coalition claims they are saving America from God's wrath by fighting gay rights, abortion, and the entertainment industry. Like Pat Robertson, Caiaphas is a savvy business man, with an understanding of PR and marketing.

The contemporary parallels are obvious:

* Jesus really was a superstar, for better or worse, enjoying a popularity equaled today only by rock and film stars. He was a celebrity of the highest order.
* The apostles are somewhat like contemporary fans of rock stars, new age philosophers, self-help gurus, and the like -- what we'd call today "the working poor," uneducated laborers, who want someone to give them The Answers, who want to know why their lives suck.
* The moneylenders are like some businessmen today, looking for any way to make a buck.
* The lepers and sick are like our contemporary homeless people, living on the streets, begging for the most basic human needs, yet being ignored by "polite society."
* The priests have their obvious modern counterparts in the Vatican, the most powerful religious institution on the planet today.
* The Pharisees are today's right-wing pseudo-intellectuals, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others. They'd have as much to lose as the Vatican from the masses hearing the real teachings of Jesus.
* Even the press arguably makes an appearance ("Tell me Christ how you feel tonight..." section of "The Arrest" is usually credited to "Reporters"). Today, Jesus would be a hotter story than even the various sensationalistic court cases being broadcast live on television.

With so many clear parallels to our modern world, it's easy to see why many directors set the show in the present. Not only does it retain its power and its point, it helps make the story accessible to a contemporary audience in a way that the more minimalist, event-driven style of the Bible cannot.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/27/11 at 8:36pm

The King James Bible is a work of great beauty and is written in elevated speech like the work of Milton and Shakespeare. It is very accessible to anyone who loves great literature.

I can also enjoy the story of Jesus in the vernacular, but Rice cuts a poetic swath through the lyrics of JCS. I can't really call it the vernacular though it may include more modern speech. Take "Pilate's Dream." "He had that look you very rarely find, the haunted hunted kind."

The person I see as playing the role most analogous to Christ today is the Dalai Lama, certainly not the fallible "Pope" (only a Bishop of Rome to Catholics who are not Roman Catholics). Books, the media and world travel have helped him spread Tibetan Buddhism.

With that analogy look how Communist China fears the Dalai Lama, especially given their brutal occupation of his country, Tibet.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 6/27/11 at 9:01pm

The King James Bible is a work of great beauty and is written in elevated speech like the work of Milton and Shakespeare. It is very accessible to anyone who loves great literature.

A group fast becoming a dying minority.

I can also enjoy the story of Jesus in the vernacular, but Rice cuts a poetic swath through the lyrics of JCS. I can't really call it the vernacular though it may include more modern speech.

This was written for a younger generation. The language of the King James Bible was as remote from their lives as it could be, full of thees and thous, strange grammar and sentence structure; sure, young people thought, this dusty old relic doesn't relate to my life in the tumultuous 1970s. Rice's intentionally slangy, often unpoetic language in JCS was a direct reaction to these feelings, to put blood and flesh back on these cardboard characters (much like the musical 1776 did for our Founding Fathers), to make them accessible to modern audiences.

By comparison to the KJV, JCS is on a different level, closer to the vernacular.

The person I see as playing the role most analogous to Christ today is the Dalai Lama, certainly not the fallible "Pope" (only a Bishop of Rome to Catholics who are not Roman Catholics).

You missed my point. The Pope would be threatened by the presence of Christ today because he represents himself in terms of Catholic faith as the Vicar of Christ, God's representative on earth. With the actual Jesus around, what need would there be for a Pope? And the Catholic Church would presumably respond the same way other threatened parties did 2,000 years ago.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/27/11 at 9:41pm

I did get your point about the Pope.

I was broadening the conversation to include the Dalai Lama. He may play a role today similar to the life of Jesus back when.

You did not mention a modern religious mystical figure so I extended the analogy, with the Chinese government playing a role similar to what you thought the Pope would, or the threatened bureaucrats.

(If you call me a dying minority I shall make certain to resurrect!) Updated On: 6/27/11 at 09:41 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/27/11 at 10:06pm

Interesting points about the modern portrayals. All of the community productions I've seen have been set in the Biblical era, the only production with modern staging that I've seen was the revival tour. I liked how the 1970s movie did it, mixing Biblical and modern themes.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 6/28/11 at 12:48am

You did not mention a modern religious mystical figure so I extended the analogy, with the Chinese government playing a role similar to what you thought the Pope would, or the threatened bureaucrats.

I didn't mention a modern religious mystical figure because there isn't anything mystical or religious about JCS. The last week of Jesus is treated as an allegory for the perils of celebrity. Except for whenever Ted Neeley crawls out of mothballs to do another revival that will sell to middle America, the religious viewpoint doesn't enter the equation.

In setting the story of Judas' betrayal of Jesus for the modern stage, Tim Rice approached the story as political history instead of revealed scripture, and Jesus as radical political activist (mirroring the times) rather than as the Son of God. This Jesus does not point the way to God half as much as he points the way toward living a moral, engaged life, and that's why politics takes center stage here instead of religion. After all, politics is how humans decide collective morality, questions of how to live morally in a community (of whatever size) and of which values will be shared by that community. Conversely, religion dictates those answers to humans, rather than allowing them to explore and form their own morality.

This is a story of deep and profound human emotion, filled with passion, politics, betrayal, death. That's universal. You don't need to be religious to feel (or form) a connection with this story.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/28/11 at 1:43am

Well, gvendo, I agree with your last comment, but not so much the earlier assertions though I find them a fascinating argument. Did Rice lecture or speak to the effect that he told the story as political history or is this your interpretation? Celebrity isn't necessarily political, though celebrities may choose to become political, in fact they are often requested to become so.

Realizing that ALW is, so far as I know, a lifelong Anglican (Episcopalian in the U.S.), son of a father also associated with the Church, I feel he tells the story in a religious context. I don't see it as a tale of the "perils of celebrity." Though a side story could be examined to see if as a separate and additional analogy it holds, it surely is not why ALW created JCS. I think it uses the concept of celebrity to draw a relation to how incredibly well-known Christ was in his time and after to give a framework or context to bring the story forward, retelling it in a modern context. If anything it makes present day celebrity look so weak and phony compared to Christ performing miracles of healing lepers, making the blind see.

"there isn't anything mystical or religious about JCS"

With this I strongly disagree. The main parables of Jesus resonate throughout the entire play. Taking the viewpoints of Judas or Pilate allows for a dimensional telling of the tale which puts it "in the moment" and makes it exciting, showing both of their torments from their interactions. If Christ could have his doubts about the unseen world and his faith, that gives room for inquiring Christians to question all the aspects of their faith without being seen as heretics.

Most, and probably all, of the miracles of Jesus are recounted, but sometimes in unexpected ways, like through Herod's song. "Prove to me that you're divine, change my water into wine." That is not there for a political reason. It's speaking of one of the miracles of Christ which, being divine, would not be recreated on such a demand. It brings up the miracles in a fun vaudevillian song, yet mockingly, which makes it so original.

When Mary Magdalene confronts Peter that he had denied Christ three times, she also says "it's what he told us you would do, I wonder how he knew" speaking of Christ's miracle of prophecy.

Jesus' life is explored in this way without having to stage every scene of every miracle. JCS isn't just about the last week of Christ's life. I think about everything the Bible tells of Jesus' life before the resurrection is tucked in carefully at some point. Stopping at the point of death is a convenience. It may also by happenstance avoid the "doubting Thomas" question of the Book of John that is not paralleled by the three synoptic gospels. Do you recall any mention of "doubting Thomas" in JCS? [Elaine Pagel's book Beyond Belief gives spark to a lot of question as to whether the allegation of a "doubting" Thomas should be accepted. The ramification for the religion is huge against a perspective that all the faith rests in the book of John.]

I think the sound foundation of JCS is they stuck very literally to the biblical tale, just jazzed it up in a rock context. They made it fun and come alive. Updated On: 6/29/11 at 01:43 AM

[Timmerbo]

Posted: 6/28/11 at 2:52am

"It happens that we don't see Christ as God. but as simply the right man at the right time in the right place. It is a great and inspiring story, though."

- Tim Rice in a 1970 Time Magazine article written a week after the release of the original JCS album. The article also says that both Rice and Webber were 'brought up in the Anglican Church but eventually rejected it'. I think it was this statement that began all the controversy surrounding the recording and subsequent productions.

Without spoiling too much (because who knows, it could someday arrive relatively intact in New York), the Stratford JCS does treat Jesus like the son of God. But aside from Jesus' prophecy regarding Peter's denial at the Last Supper, I don't see a lot of evidence of divinity in the libretto.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/28/11 at 12:18pm

ALW sometimes attends an Episcopal Church in New York that I also sometimes attend, although we have not attended on the same date.

Life explorations are not inconsistent with the faith; sometimes they can enhance it and give better knowledge and clarity.

The instances of Christ's miracles are throughout the musical. "Walk across my swimming pool" is a reference to Christ's power/gift of levitation when he walked on water. I am also sure there are references to healing lepers (power/gift to heal) and making the blind see, though they may be asides of the high priests or woven in the lyrics. Changing water into wine is a reference to miracle Jesus performed when there was not enough wine at the wedding he attended. These acts, without getting into a huge long discussion which wouldn't suit a message board, are supranormal powers which saints (and in Buddhism, arhats) may come to exhibit as a kind of aside to their, for lack of better words, divine level of devotion and faith. They can be related to the observed and ancient charisms of the catholic faith, which used to help determine a saint (though the present determination of saints from the Roman Catholic Church has instead become a more humanist or political process).

If we are all sons and daughters of God, we can be because we each possess a spark of the divine which is our soul. If you fixate on the Book of John, then Christ is the only son of God. It is not one of the synoptic (similar) gospels as it veers in this assertion.

To me it is fine to present Christ as a man or as the son of God. I also think if you can incarnate once, as Christ did through the Virgin Mary, your soul must go back somewhere, and if it could incarnate once, it is not such a big thing that it could incarnate another time, or reincarnate. Thus the ties between the Christian, Hindu and Buddhist faiths seem not so far apart as some may think.

"Buddha was he where it's at, is he where you are?"

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 1:48pm

Dodger Productions, Mirvishes? Who would produce?
NY Post article

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 3:18pm

NIce clip of ALW. He says the musical was intended to tell the story of the man (Christ) and also to ponder if there was a triangle between Christ, Judas and Mary Magdalene such that Judas betrayed Christ out of jealousy (of her admiration of him). He thinks the Stratford production conveys that question and offers praise.
ALW explains JSC

[karen24]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 5:11pm

Just to quickly respond to the comment about costumes; I saw the show last month. Jesus does wear a traditional long white robe and sandals for most of the show; the blazer only appears in the crucifixion scene (and when he is actually going on the cross he takes off everything but a loincloth.)

Judas also dresses traditionally until he appears post-death in a shiny blue outfit to sing "Superstar"(I had mixed feelings about this costuming--it was eye-catching, but a bit too Vegas for me.)

I actually can't remember about Mary but I think she retained the traditional long robe/slippers throughout the show.

[canmark]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 8:30pm

Some of the cast performed a selection of songs at an outdoor show in Toronto last month. They (and the band) sounded pretty darn good. I haven't seen the production, but am a fan of the show and hope to see it (and hope it gets the rumoured Broadway transfer).

The recent Brian Bedford Importance of Being Earnest was, of course, a Stratford transfer with Bedford and Sara Topham (Gwendolyn) reprising their roles.

Stratford's JCS cast includes stars who have had leads in their recent musical productions: Josh Young (Judas) and Chilina Kennedy (Mary M.) played Che and Eva in last year's Evita; Bruce Dow (Herod) played Pseudolus in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum; Paul Nolan (Jesus) played Tony in West Side Story.

One imagines that a Broadway transfer of JCS would only include some of the Stratford cast due to previous commitments, Equity requirements and the lack of "names" in the Stratford cast. I would think only Brent Carver (Pilate) has any name value on Broadway, having won the Tony for Kiss of the Spider Woman. Surely producers would want a name for least one of (if not all of) Jesus, Judas and Mary Magdalene.

Some photos I took:

Jonathan Winsby (understudy Jesus):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/canmark/5910070837/in/set-72157627009862271

Josh Young (Judas):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/canmark/5910634902/in/set-72157627009862271

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 11:46pm

Great pics, canmark!

I like the ones of Meow Meow, too. She looks funny!

[Timmerbo]

Posted: 7/12/11 at 3:14pm

Des McAnuff and Josh Young (Judas), Chilina Kennedy (Mary) and Paul Nolan (Jesus) were interviewed on CBC Radio this morning for the program 'Q'. They performed Heaven on their Minds, I Don't Know How to Love Him and Gethsemane with the core members of the band.

McAnuff tiptoes around the idea of the show transferring to Broadway, but he does say 'I'm pretty confident we'll find a way to take it somewhere'.

The performances are all good, especially the (unfortunately) truncated version of Gethsemane. Paul Nolan really sounds like a rock singer, even more so than he did when I saw the show back in previews. Sounds like Jeff Buckley may have been an influence.

Heaven on their Minds begins at 2:00, I Don't Know How to Love Him is at the 20 minute mark, and Gethsemane happens around 25:30.

Enjoy the Canadian accents.
Jesus Christ Superstar on Q