NY POST: "Jesus Christ Superstar" to Bway in Spring ???

n/m

'Jesus' may cross border from Canada

Updated On: 7/6/11 at 07:12 AM

'Jesus' may cross border from Canada

If he does, he better have his papers.

---

I've always seen Godspell as Jesus Christ Superstars younger, less talented, cousin! hahahhaa!

I saw this last month in Stratford and really enjoyed it. The show is running until October 29th. I'm assuming that they would not be able to get a transfer completed before that time anyway, but after that date, the cast would presumably be free (unless they already have other commitments for the off season.) Many of them are also appearing in "Camelot" so you're right, it would be impossible for them to move to Broadway before then. (As it happens, the night we saw JCS, Paul Nolan was out, and we saw his understudy, Jonathan Winsby, who plays Lancelot in "Camelot." He was very good!)

I thought the show actually had a huge amount of energy and I liked most of the staging. I've only seen it on stage one other time, back when it was on Broadway in the 70s, so I don't remember a lot about that production. I thought the leads were all good, especially Brent Carver as Pilate and Josh Young as Judas. Chilina Kennedy was quite good as Mary.

What I'm really wondering is if they would keep the original cast intact for a transfer to Broadway. Do Equity rules apply for transfers from Canada? I would assume so? None of these performers have "star names" in this country although they are all big at the Festival. Would that be a problem? Do you think some of them would be replaced?

---

I have a hunch that GODSPELL may surprise the naysayers......

There's already a thread.

Could Stratford JCS Transfer to Broadway?

That press photo makes Jesus look like the bad guy. Is that just my jaded, TVtropes-influenced reading, or is that an active choice made by this production?

One of the most interesting "Superstar" productions I have experienced was one in which I played Annas, a production which wrestled mainly with the issue of the existence (or lack thereof) of free will. Much like the recent trend of the Ted Neeley tour and possibly the Stratford, the production leaned towards Jesus being the Son of God as he claimed, not towards ambiguity or skepticism. However, the interesting thing was the heavy emphasis it placed on the uncertainties that such a statement raises- if Jesus (in the show, at least, to avoid turning this into a different discussion) IS God, as he claims, what does that mean for the other characters? Is Judas the worst traitor in history, or an innocent puppet of God's plan, acting with no free will? Or, in choosing to do "the wrong thing," did he do "the right thing?" Similar questions applied to Pilate as well.

"I have to say that the video clips that Stratford has made available so far aren't too great and don't really capture the feeling of the show."

I felt the same way about the clips from last year's Evita, also starring Josh Young and Chilina Kennedy. But live it was fantastic.

Seeing this in a couple of weeks and can't wait.

Well I will bet you any amount of money it wont be gone before the end of winter it doesn't even open till November 7th.........

Don't worry about thismyshow, RippedMan, apparently they're a shill. That said, for those who followed the other Stratford JCS thread, it only took some careful reading of Riedel's column to figure out what Webber's angle is, and I'm surprised I didn't come to this conclusion sooner.

First of all, there's the obvious competition: he wants to butt heads with the Godspell revival, which is picking up steam. But the article says something a little different.

To start with, Webber has always favored having one definitive production of each of his works, and the 2000 revival seemed to be the one for JCS, what with the cast recording, the direct-to-video film version, the replica productions in the UK, Europe, the US, and even Korea, and Andrew's overly effusive praise on the DVD (talking about how he saw the show in Dublin and came on at curtain call to say, "I've waited thirty years for this"). But, with the passage of time, the 2000 version was not well-received by the vast majority of JCS fans, and Webber took a slating for it, which of course led to him leaking this opinion:

...a blaring, bloated 2000 Broadway revival that lasted only a few months. Lloyd Webber and Rice weren't crazy about that one either, I'm told.

If they weren't crazy about it, it doesn't explain why that version of JCS was promoted almost to over-exposure. They hated it, really? Took them a bloody long time to come to that conclusion, didn't it? Everything looks worse in hindsight, Andrew?

But these two paragraphs are the key:

Lloyd Webber caught the show in June, just before the Tonys, and has been raving about it ever since. He was planning to produce his own version in London next year and went to Stratford on a whim to see how the show holds up. Now he's so enamored of McAnuff's production that he wants it to come to New York, Stratford sources say.

Lloyd Webber could produce the show himself through his Really Useful Group, but I'm told he'd rather let some Broadway producers shoulder that responsibility. Dodger Productions, which produced "Jersey Boys" and has a longstanding relationship with McAnuff, is said to be circling. So, too, are the Mirvishes, a powerful theater family -- the Shuberts of Canada.

Let's break them down piece by piece.

1. He was planning to produce his own version in London next year and went to Stratford on a whim to see how the show holds up. Now he's so enamored of McAnuff's production that he wants it to come to New York, Stratford sources say.

Let's spell that "nail in the coffin." Webber was coming up empty on the arena tour, which doesn't really surprise me, as much as I think the proposed arena tour would have been a better production. Then he took notice of which way the wind was blowing in Stratford. People may not know this, but this is the only production of JCS in its history that has gotten across-the-board raves in the trades, even from people who don't like the show but liked this production. For better or worse, going with this one would be, to paraphrase one of Rice's lyrics for the show, "backing the right horse."

2. Lloyd Webber could produce the show himself through his Really Useful Group, but I'm told he'd rather let some Broadway producers shoulder that responsibility.

And here it comes out. Read between the lines, folks. He's figured out based on the backlash from the 2000 version that no one will buy it if it carries the "approved and manufactured by Webber" stamp. Webber's found the next big iteration of JCS, but he'll be damned if he'll put his own imprint on it. He'll give it his blessing, but not his cash or official support. He needs a show to make people equate "ALW" with "good" in theater again, if they ever did to begin with, but he's not going to risk aggrandizing himself.

But take a look at the point again. This could also point to greed. Let's say the arena tour somehow still happens. It's within the realm of possibility. If someone else brings it to Broadway, he can still do the arena tour without a conflict of interest or one production canceling out the other. If someone else moves the Stratford production, it's not his problem, the New York version doesn't get negative press from being associated with the RUG rubber-stamp, and he makes money from both.

Clever businessman, Mr. Lloyd Webber. But not clever enough. I've sussed you out.

---

Technically, it's not Webber competing against himself if he can get someone else to foot the bill. Somehow I see Dodger Productions picking this up, considering their Tony-winning history with McAnuff (The Who's TOMMY, Jersey Boys), in the States, and the Mirvishes having a piece of any future in Canada for the show like a potential regional tour.

---