JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR LA JOLLA

Had the chance to catch the show - never saw it before - and didnt really know the music, Totally enjoyed it - thought the production was top notch and the actor that played Judas ( Josh Young) was a total showstopper. What a talent - it really is Judas' show which surprised me - its not called Judas Superstar afterall. Actually thought that was a good thing as the Understudy for Jesus was on when I caught the show - he was servicable.

Production design, direction, costume (hello Rick Owens) lighting - the use of the show being an actual "rock opera' with one song flowing into the next, all very cool

Curious to hear what others think

I wouldn't be too hard on the Jesus understudy. The success of Ted Neeley notwithstanding, I think the play has always belonged to Judas.

It shouldn't be the "Judas Show." It should be balanced at least, and more Jesus's show. Obviously, the guy you saw playing Jesus wasn't up for the part enough to match the quality of Judas. That's unfortunate, but it's no reflection of how the show is written. That has to do with the cast and production you saw.

---

Updated On: 11/24/11 at 05:01 PM

When not too highly conceptualized, it's really a remarkable show. The Neeley tour of the 90s was hideous and the Broadway revival was ok, but WAY over the top. Webber and Rice's work is strong enough to be highly effective without any need for spectacle.

---

I saw a production that was more "traditional" or "authentic" in its costuming and minimally staged and it was still the best production I've seen. The story and the score are already a two-layer dichotomy. Adding more conceptual layers just muddies the production and dilutes the story. I think that's why the original recording on its own was so successful.

---

The question that the title song begs is, 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 AD? 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.

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.

Events in our contemporary world are already like events portrayed in JCS:

* 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. The apostles are 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 is arguably present, with the "press conference" style questions in "The Arrest." 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.

---

I'm coming down on the side of MR. CAPS, as you call him. Rice and Lloyd Webber began with the idea of writing a musical about Judas, in which Jesus was only a minor character. Though that's not exactly what they ended up with, Judas still emerged as the protagonist, more important and complex than Jesus. The show's title is Judas' own words, Judas' point of view, Judas' criticism of Jesus. More to the point, Judas is the most fully drawn character in the show, certainly more so than Jesus.

---

You can play that game all you want, choosing only the parts of the argument that suit yourself just like everyone else on BWW, but you can't deny that Judas still emerged as the protagonist, more important and complex than Jesus. The show's title is Judas' own words, Judas' point of view, Judas' criticism of Jesus. More to the point, Judas is the most fully drawn character in the show, certainly more so than Jesus.

And if I have to repeat it til I'm blue in the face, then I shall, darling.

---

No, I think Evita is Eva's show because she's a more fully drawn character in the show than Jesus is in JCS, which is bloody hard going considering the Eva of the show is a caricature derived from a biased biography.

---

It's a Kristin-Idina situation, er I mean Glinda-Elphaba story in which there are two leads whose story and character arc are completely wedded to the experience each has with the other. Jesus's moral character is that catalyst for Judas's conflict and his judgement and actions (betrayal) become the catalyst for the events that unfold in Jesus's experience. Both are spiritual men wrestling with human emotions and persuit of divinity.

The comparisons to Che in Evita aren't really apt- Both characters provide perspective on the validity of the main charaters' behavior but Che's action doesn't directly affect Eva's journey.

Sorry, b12b, but concert album, stage production or film, Judas always seems the protagonist to me. Probably because, as written, his conflict seems the greater struggle. (I realize Jesus has his brief moments of rebellion, but by and large his journey seems an inevitable march toward his destiny. By contrast, Judas actually seems genuinely and deeply conflicted).

The comparison to Evita/Che doesn't work because Che isn't nearly as central to the story. He serves to comment and fill in the narrative blanks, but he doesn't actually affect the plot much. We would miss him if he were deleted, but it wouldn't actually change Evita's story.

Judas, on the other hand, is absolutely central to the plot of JCS.

Che is more like the narrator in Joseph- the role in that situation is that she sings perhaps the majority of the show and has a perspective on the actions but the evening is obviously joseph's story.

JCS is a joint protagonist structure. I'm not kidding with the Wicked reference. And this is as silly as debating If that show is Glinda's story or Elphabas-- the answer is they are one and the same and neither's journey could exist without the actions of the other.

Updated On: 11/25/11 at 07:10 AM

But Judas has a decision to make that determines Jesus' fate. The same cannot be said of Che or the Narrator in JOSEPH. Dramatically, that's a big difference regardless of stage time.

b12b, I deliberately used the word "feel", as in "Judas feels like the protagonist", rather than insisting "Judas IS the protagonist". I realize that neither Judas nor Jesus is perfectly described by the dictionary definition of "protagonist".