That said, I don't have any deep criticisms of this production as such. My biggest negative observation has to do with the incessant commercial interruptions. What ever you think of JCSS, this isn't a light comedic operetta. It's not the whimsical Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. It's heavy stuff, and having it interrupted every five minutes to sell yogurt and laundry detergent breaks the mood, to put it mildly. It's too bad that the producers couldn't have been more creative in terms of sponsorship - like having one main patron who's brand could have been incorporated into the title - that may have allowed them to cut down on the breaks in the action.
The program was billed as a concert, but that's not really the case. While the sets are minimal (somewhat reminiscent of the 1973 film version), the action was clearly staged and choreographed for dramatic effect. Pop star John Legend (Jesus), singer songwriter Sara Bareillas (Mary Magdalene) Broadway vet Brandon Victor Dixon (Judas) and, the rest of the cast are in fine voice and display the proper emotion. Rock god Alice Cooper hams it up just enough, showing a bit of menace, but not too much, in an over glorified cameo as Herod; a bit of stunt casting I'm sure designed to keep the old fogies interested.
The program was billed as a concert, but that's not really the case. While the sets are minimal (somewhat reminiscent of the 1973 film version), the action was clearly staged and choreographed for dramatic effect. Pop star John Legend (Jesus), singer songwriter Sara Bareillas (Mary Magdalene) Broadway vet Brandon Victor Dixon (Judas) and, the rest of the cast are in fine voice and display the proper emotion. Rock god Alice Cooper hams it up just enough, showing a bit of menace, but not too much, in an over glorified cameo as Herod; a bit of stunt casting I'm sure designed to keep the old fogies interested.
Not that selling JCSS to the the Baby Boom set should be hard, since it was a hallmark of early '70's pop culture. What struck me most, to tell the truth, was just how well the material translated in spite of being written by Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice in what we would call today a Classic Rock style. It's ethos is pure late 1960's flower power, but the '73 film came along just as the hippie counter culture was running on fumes, making it dated pretty much the moment it hit cinemas. Here the flowers and tie-dye are replaced with chains and leather. Long hair and beards give way to Mohawks, tattoos and facial hair of varied styles. Smart phone cameras serve as props in place of drug paraphernalia from an earlier time.
But good music overcomes passing fades, and JCSS boasts a solid score and provocative lyrics that still has something to say about the nature of love, faith, fame and power, even if the accessories change. What it still doesn't have is any great insight into the person of Jesus Christ, and no amount of stage craft or celebrity casting can change that.
But good music overcomes passing fades, and JCSS boasts a solid score and provocative lyrics that still has something to say about the nature of love, faith, fame and power, even if the accessories change. What it still doesn't have is any great insight into the person of Jesus Christ, and no amount of stage craft or celebrity casting can change that.
The Jesus of JCSS is a man, no more, no less. Lyricist Tim Rice has said as much. It's no mistake then that in the opening credits John Legend is billed as "Jesus" in scare quotes. This "Jesus" is gifted and charismatic, but with no pretensions to divinity. Judas serves as a semi-detached witness, much like Che does in Webber and Rice's later musical Evita. He observes that "Jesus" has gone off the rails a bit, losing his early focus, believing in the "hype" that people are saying about him. Rather than fighting for justice and equality, "Jesus" is happy to receive the adulation of the crowd and the fawning devotion of Mary Magdalene. Judas accuses him of losing his ideals, giving in to a star trip that will lead him, and possibly all of the Apostles, to destruction. His death isn't an act of redemption but rather of ego gone wild.
While the play itself doesn't necessarily take Judas' observations as being the correct ones, "Jesus" is clearly a divided man. He doesn't know if he's really made a difference or if he will be remembered after he dies. He's overwhelmed by the crowds who want to touch him and be healed (and in JCSS, none are). Though Judas accuses the crowds of twisting "Jesus'" words, it's actually Tim Rice who does this by quoting Scripture, particularly during the trial scene, in a way that makes it look like "Jesus" really doesn't believe that he's the Son of God. It's all a part of the myth built up around him by the crowds, bought into to by the authorities, and possibly embraced cynically by "Jesus" himself. What we see at the end is an almost total inversion: it's Judas who seemingly resurrects, while the crucified "Jesus" floats away into the light, never to be seen again.
A great deal is always made about how the Mary Magdalene, Jesus relationship is treated here. Yes, Mary still has a crush she can't understand. It's not the idea that a woman could have been attracted to Jesus romantically that's so frustrating. The Letter to the Hebrews tells us that our Lord was tempted like us in all things, but didn't sin. So it's very likely Jesus had to rebuff at least a couple of overly enthusiastic "fans." It's that we pin this on Mary Magdalene that's the problem. The Jesus, Magdalene romance, that gets rehashed repeatedly, is based on at least one bad assumption: that Mary had been a prostitute. Most scholars for quite awhile now have rejected the idea that Mary is the self same woman caught in adultery, as was assumed for many centuries. Scripture attests that she was freed from bondage to seven demons, which I pretty much take at face value. Even if you want to read this passage metaphorically, those "demons" could be almost any physical or emotional affliction a person could suffer from. It doesn't mean she was necessarily a prostitute.
JCSS, like most contemporary works, tries to take a psychological approach to it's characters. If "Jesus" is only a man and Mary a woman, why wouldn't there be erotic tension between them? Obviously, I don't accept the play's premise that Jesus is only a man. How his divine and human natures would have interacted on this point is beyond my abilities to reckon. But what I can say is that the Jesus of the four gospel accounts was a man who knew who he was, where he was going and why. Unlike the "Jesus" of Webber and Rice, who accuses God in the garden of keeping from him the purpose of His plan, the Son and the Father are always united. Jesus asks for the cup to be taken away because he knew what was going to happen, but he accepts it because he knew very clearly why he was going to drink from it. It’s this purely human “Jesus” whose motivations are unclear, and whose acceptance of the cross makes no sense psychologically. That "Jesus" would forgo a romantic relationship, marriage and family life makes sense in the context of the Jesus who actually walked the earth, from Nazareth to Jerusalem.
As for Mary Magdalene, there are women who are touched by God in a particular way. They've had some conversion experience and their lives are changed forever. They become devoted to their faith in an extraordinary way. These are women who today make their parishes run, and keep their pastors busy. They are motivated by faith and love. They are often devoted to the clergy, true. Are there women who fall in love with priests? Sure there are, and visa versa. But the vast majority of the women I'm talking about are not driven by some pseudo-Freudian "Thorn Birds" complex. They are tapping into a spiritual center, motivated by a desire to touch the transcendent. Maybe they were ensnared by demons, literal and metaphorical, and want to give continued thanks thanks for their liberation. My guess is that Mary was such a soul.
But ours is a carnal age, and we have a difficult time imagining love separated from eroticism. It's not so much that JCSS's psychology is wrong, as far more limited and unsophisticated than its authors understand.
What saves JCSS from being a relic from an earlier age is its perpetual doubts, desires to domesticate Jesus, to make him one of us, or maybe another self destructive celebrity. All this fits in very well in our postmodern times, and can appeal to both the aging hippies and young hipsters. Needless to say, I don't see this as progress. I hoped in vain that the ending would have been reworked to allow for the Resurrection. Then the story would have made sense, the motivations made psychologically clear, and the scare quotes could have been taken off the name Jesus.
While the play itself doesn't necessarily take Judas' observations as being the correct ones, "Jesus" is clearly a divided man. He doesn't know if he's really made a difference or if he will be remembered after he dies. He's overwhelmed by the crowds who want to touch him and be healed (and in JCSS, none are). Though Judas accuses the crowds of twisting "Jesus'" words, it's actually Tim Rice who does this by quoting Scripture, particularly during the trial scene, in a way that makes it look like "Jesus" really doesn't believe that he's the Son of God. It's all a part of the myth built up around him by the crowds, bought into to by the authorities, and possibly embraced cynically by "Jesus" himself. What we see at the end is an almost total inversion: it's Judas who seemingly resurrects, while the crucified "Jesus" floats away into the light, never to be seen again.
A great deal is always made about how the Mary Magdalene, Jesus relationship is treated here. Yes, Mary still has a crush she can't understand. It's not the idea that a woman could have been attracted to Jesus romantically that's so frustrating. The Letter to the Hebrews tells us that our Lord was tempted like us in all things, but didn't sin. So it's very likely Jesus had to rebuff at least a couple of overly enthusiastic "fans." It's that we pin this on Mary Magdalene that's the problem. The Jesus, Magdalene romance, that gets rehashed repeatedly, is based on at least one bad assumption: that Mary had been a prostitute. Most scholars for quite awhile now have rejected the idea that Mary is the self same woman caught in adultery, as was assumed for many centuries. Scripture attests that she was freed from bondage to seven demons, which I pretty much take at face value. Even if you want to read this passage metaphorically, those "demons" could be almost any physical or emotional affliction a person could suffer from. It doesn't mean she was necessarily a prostitute.
JCSS, like most contemporary works, tries to take a psychological approach to it's characters. If "Jesus" is only a man and Mary a woman, why wouldn't there be erotic tension between them? Obviously, I don't accept the play's premise that Jesus is only a man. How his divine and human natures would have interacted on this point is beyond my abilities to reckon. But what I can say is that the Jesus of the four gospel accounts was a man who knew who he was, where he was going and why. Unlike the "Jesus" of Webber and Rice, who accuses God in the garden of keeping from him the purpose of His plan, the Son and the Father are always united. Jesus asks for the cup to be taken away because he knew what was going to happen, but he accepts it because he knew very clearly why he was going to drink from it. It’s this purely human “Jesus” whose motivations are unclear, and whose acceptance of the cross makes no sense psychologically. That "Jesus" would forgo a romantic relationship, marriage and family life makes sense in the context of the Jesus who actually walked the earth, from Nazareth to Jerusalem.
As for Mary Magdalene, there are women who are touched by God in a particular way. They've had some conversion experience and their lives are changed forever. They become devoted to their faith in an extraordinary way. These are women who today make their parishes run, and keep their pastors busy. They are motivated by faith and love. They are often devoted to the clergy, true. Are there women who fall in love with priests? Sure there are, and visa versa. But the vast majority of the women I'm talking about are not driven by some pseudo-Freudian "Thorn Birds" complex. They are tapping into a spiritual center, motivated by a desire to touch the transcendent. Maybe they were ensnared by demons, literal and metaphorical, and want to give continued thanks thanks for their liberation. My guess is that Mary was such a soul.
But ours is a carnal age, and we have a difficult time imagining love separated from eroticism. It's not so much that JCSS's psychology is wrong, as far more limited and unsophisticated than its authors understand.
What saves JCSS from being a relic from an earlier age is its perpetual doubts, desires to domesticate Jesus, to make him one of us, or maybe another self destructive celebrity. All this fits in very well in our postmodern times, and can appeal to both the aging hippies and young hipsters. Needless to say, I don't see this as progress. I hoped in vain that the ending would have been reworked to allow for the Resurrection. Then the story would have made sense, the motivations made psychologically clear, and the scare quotes could have been taken off the name Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment