What did people think about Godspell the movie?

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 2:33am

I love the movie but I wanted to know what fans of the show thought about it. I don't know if it was well received by theatre lovers or the public. Was it?

[NiteOwl]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 2:48am

I was too young to remember it when it was first released but I've seen it on cable and rented it on DVD a couple of years ago.

I'm not sure what changes were implemented for the movie version but it has some good songs.

The movie is clearly a product of it's time.

It's not an amazing movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not a bad one either.

Hey, and it has two things going for it: Lynn Thigpen and Victor Garber!

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 2:54am

Don't forget Jerry Sroka and David Haskell!

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 6:45am

I watched it recently because I was asked to design the show, and I was surprised at how uneven it is. Not that the play is great by any shake (it's okay, but nothing truly special), but it's almost like the director didnt have enough faith in the material to resist the siren call of "It's a movie! Open it up!"

I suppose the one thing that bothers me the most is the hard right turn it takes prior to the crucifixion; the tone goes from light to dark in about ten seconds, and what had been a light little morality play suddenly turns into a Greek tragedy. If the groundwork had been laid better for the Passion, it might have succeeded better as a film, but it almost felt like, "Okay, folks, this is where he dies."

[Princeton78]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 10:01am

I'm a huge fan of Godspell, and a bit of a junkie in collecting memorabilia and researching the original producion(s).

I actually think that the score never sounded better than it did in the movie and I loved that the entire cast was made up of people who had appeared in the show. Robin, Jeffrey, Joanne, Gilmer and David were from the NY (original)cast, Victor was from the (legendary) Toronto production, Merrill was from the Chicago company Jerry and Lynne were from D.C. and I *think* Katie was from Chicago also.

I think that staging the movie on a bare stage a la the stage production would have been strange, and think that opening it up to NYC was brilliant. I know it was mostly shot in the wee hours of the morning because if you watch the film, you never see anyone but the cast except during the opening and closing credits, and I think it's really fun to see such recognizable areas be so vacant. To me it always seemed as if the director's view was that once the diciples found and decided to follow Jesus, the rest of the world slipped away and when he dies and sends them forth, the world reappears.

Long way of saying, I really liked the film.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 10:03am

I can't stand the movie, and am of the firm belief that the show is only enjoyable for the performers.

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 10:14am

I like it, but I'm biased.

[pab]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 10:19am

"I can't stand the movie, and am of the firm belief that the show is only enjoyable for the performers.'

ditto and ditto

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 10:23am

Princeton78 pretty much summed up how I feel about the movie! haha.

Hey Princeton, if you know anything about the canadian cast starring Martin Short, Eugene Levy, Victor Garber, and Andrea Martin please PM me.

Posted: 1/10/07 at 10:25am

Rath I never realized that before but you are absolutely right!!!

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 10:29am

How does that explain the people on this thread who say they like it?

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 10:57am

Because the spirit is still there. The cast is great.

[tgrabon]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 11:12am

Boring and eerie to see the newly opened World Trade Center in this film.

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 11:21am

Gilda Radner was in the toronto production too NLS

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 11:29am

Awful awful awful. A couple of good performances, but that's it. One of the worst stage-to-screen transfers of a musical in American history.

[Jon]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 11:51am

And Paul Shaffer was musical director of the Toronto company AND the movie.

Basically, the folks from Second City in Chicago were planning to open a Toronto branch. They saw GODSPELL and made offers to Radner, Martin, Levy and Short to become the core of the Toronto Second City as soon as GODSPELL closed. Garber had already left the production and headedto New York.

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 4:02pm

Although Victor Garber is brilliant in this movie, and i think the cinematography is also brilliant, I feel like the movie is SO difficult to take seriously.

Giant robot = pharissee? whaaaaattt?

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 4:30pm

It's better than the A Chorus Line movie...


but that's not saying much...

[MimiLovesRoger]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 5:37pm

Scary. Very scary.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 10:05pm

I generally thought the performances were good to great, but the use of New York was uneven. I enjoyed the Soldiers/Sailors monument shots, the use of the Bethesda Fountain, and the (now eerie) WTC shots but agree that the Pharisee and crucifixtion scenes were painfully done. Love to watch Victor Garber and the late Lynn Thigpen, though.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 10:27pm

Thought the show was much ado about nothing & the film did nothing to dispel that feeling

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 11:01pm

I actually think the crucifixion scene is well done. I dunno...it's just...odd.

As much as i can understand the coolness of emptying all of new york and having them romp around it gets really weird to just see them romping around an *empty New York* making these weird clown noises and motions.

It just has this eerie creepiness about it, because it's so...i dunno...quiet? That is, until there's a musical number, and those numbers are uneven (Good: All For the Best, Prepare Ye, Bless the Lord). Bad: Turn Back O Man, Alas For You)

Not to mention, throughout the movie, the choreography looks like it was made up on the spot (whether this was a choice or not, i don't know, but it doesn't appeal to me.)

It's just very uneven. And uneven stuff frustrates me.

[cturtle]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 11:46pm

no, it's not a great movie, but GODSPELL on film is far better than no GODSPELL at all. it is one of my very favorite musicals, and it is fantastic on the stage if performed and directed well.

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 11:52pm

The choreography was meant to look like that, jerryherman.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 11:55pm

GODSPELL is a bore. Rath is absolutely right.

I have seen a million and a half productions of GODSPELL - and no matter how professional or how innovative the director, it was ALWAYS boring for almost the entire show, picking up only momentarily for a few numbers.

I actually musically directed the show 2 years ago, and while it was an incredible experience to be a part of something so tight, it was truly grueling at moments to watch the entire show from the pit every night.

And as far as the film goes, I own it, but never watched it. I have no desire.