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

[Trish2]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 7:12am

n/m

'Jesus' may cross border from Canada Updated On: 7/6/11 at 07:12 AM

[once a month]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 8:19am

Oh Lord!

I saw it with Yvonne Elliman way back when it toured initially and although some of the music really excites me, I think it's too soon to sit through again. I am loathe to admit that I was pretty darned bored throughout.

[madbrian]

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

'Jesus' may cross border from Canada

If he does, he better have his papers.

[broadwaybabytn]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 12:06pm

What affect will this have on Godspell?

[Johnnycantdecide]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 12:14pm

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

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 12:36pm

I don't think Godspell will last through the winter. Who will pay $100 to see it? It's not going to have some impressive design. The show doesn't really allow for any great "performances." It's just not going to do well.

But, back on topic, what makes this JCS so great? I've seen clips, and it didn't seem that impressive to me. The singing was okay. The staging looked kind of boring.

Also, doesn't this show play in rep with other shows? Would they be able to transfer it with the same cast to NYC or would that cause problems for the remainder of their season?

[karen24]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 12:54pm

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?

[Johnnycantdecide]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 12:56pm

Gosh I hope we can get Adam Lambert to come in as Judas...

[junkyard]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 1:37pm

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

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 1:42pm

In regards to Godspell I'm not saying it won't be a great production, but just saying why would someone spend $100 to see a show that's basically Veggie Tales set to music.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 1:50pm

There's already a thread.

Could Stratford JCS Transfer to Broadway?

[rougeduck]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 3:56pm

Is anyone else amazed that the hype generated on this board leads to action 90% of the time?

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 4:51pm

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?

[karen24]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 5:01pm

No, Judas is definitely still the bad guy in this production. I think the portrayal of Jesus is not much changed from the original production--confused, conflicted, somewhat enjoying the limelight/attention, not sure of his purpose--but not "bad." It's just a strange shot.
And in general, 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.

[darquegk]

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

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.

[thismyshow]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 5:23pm

@Rippedman your so wrong it makes my head spin, dont forget its original off broadway run + broadway run was over 2600 performances, so there are more then enough people who will see it especially since there hasnt been a revival in 40 years. Keep this in mind also there has probably been big group sales in advance because their initial ticket block is through september of next year.

[Keira]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 8:28pm

"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.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 12:17am

The initial run doesn't mean anything. That was in the 70s. Times have changed, and people are familiar with it. Look at the past seasons revivals that have done well. They were popular because of the people in them, not because of the source material. If anyone is trying to catch a production of Godspell, I'm sure they could see it elsewhere for cheaper.

[thismyshow]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 12:24am

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.........

[ABB2357]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 12:30am

Is it bad that I instantly knew who directed this without even looking at the article?

Good old Des McAnuff. Scaffolding? CHECK!

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 11:04am

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.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 12:01pm

Yeah, Godspell might get some overflow from Wicked for a bit, but it's not going to be some crazy big hit. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. I just think the show is pretty boring.

And I'm curious to know where JCS would go? We're already getting an Evita revival in the spring, so does Webber wanna compete against himself like that?

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 12:53pm

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.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 8:39pm

Is it a "big show?" Would it need a bigger theater or something on a more normal scale like the Jacobs or something.