The songs hint at the idea espoused by Unificationists that Jesus did not come to die, but hoped to be accepted by enough people as the Messiah, that he would be able to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth during his lifetime. -- Uncle Ed 23:17, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Just want to clarify the info re: the U.S. premier of "Superstar"...before it opened on broadway there was a much publicized Robert Stigwood authorized original concert tour which opned the summer of 1971..Jeff Fenholt, Carl Anderson and Yvonne Elliman were the first (Jesus, Judas and Mary) to perform the piece in the U.S. I was also in the production, originating the role of King Herod here in the states. I'd very much like to find a copy of the review that appeared in Playboy of our opening in front of 12,000 people. (Alan Martin - muchachofeo@msn.com)
Removed:
Ellsworth 15:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title of this article be "Jesus Christ, Superstar"? There's a comma in there, isn't there? Graham 01:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Internet Broadway Database lists it as Jesus Christ Superstar. So does my copy of the cast recording. Cigarette 19:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, Jesus Christ Superstar is effectively Jesus of Nazareth's title throughout (ignoring the biblical tone and looking at Jesus as a character). In This Jesus Must Die, the "mob of blockheads in the street" sing: "Jesus Christ, Superstar!" If they had been addressing, say, Pilate, the lyrics would have been, "Pontius Pilate, Prefect (/Governor/Roman Puppet)!"
Even though Christ is Jesus' title, Superstar would appear to be a further amendment, for who has not heard the "Greatest Story Ever Told?" -- Ixius 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Cut from intro:
There's nothing further down in the article to back this up. On the other hand, the first song in the opera is Heaven On Their Minds, in which Judas expresses fears that Jesus' campaign to gain followers could backfire. Nonetheless' I don't see how this constitutes an irreverent attitude. Uncle Ed 23:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I find this odd. Several numbers take place after Judas' Death, and several Judas nor any apostle was not present at (i.e. This Jesus Must Die, I Don't Know How to Love Him, Gethsemane etc.) -- Ixius 21:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The movie portrays JEsus as mortal: a man with man-like faults. It is told from Judas' perspective in that it shows Jesus through his eyes: a mortal. Esentially the movie portrays charaters like Judas and Pilate in a subtly positive light, rather than the condeming picture usually given. -- Kiran 90 03:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The show is most definitly from the point of view of Judas Iscariot. We must remember that, although he dies well before the finale, his big song, "Jesus Christ Superstar" comes only before the crucifixion. He ties up the story. It is irreverent because he has a different view then the other apostles and most modern christians. For example: "It seems to me a strange thing, mystifying/That a man like you can waste his time on women of her kind." That is irreverence. -- IAmAwesome
I would disagree that Judas' attitude and viewpoint in the play are irreverent. Irreverence is the act of intentionally not showing due respect or veneration, the key word here being 'due'. Judas is torn between whether Jesus is divine or not, so he doesn't really know whether Jesus is due the respect one would show God. As he tries to figure that out, his actions swing from acting in faith towards Jesus, who he has sworn fealty to, or doing what he thinks is best for the common good. He is certainly confused, even up to the end, but I don't think any of this technically qualifies as irreverence. Davey1107 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The written concept for Jesus Christ Superstar claims that Jesus, while carrying his cross to be executed, recalls the voice of Judas asking him who or what have you sacrificed? So according to the play Judas is dead and gone, the song (and appearance of him in the movie) is symbolic and in the present-tense of Jesus remembering Judas' words; in this case presented in the form of the song Superstar. Judas isn't really there--metaphorically speaking he’s in a bubble-caption above Jesus’ head! An interesting point found in the written concept asserts the entire play is seen through the eyes of Judas, i.e. what we as the audience see is what Judas perceives in his own subjective mind. The character Judas obviously adopts a structural-functionalist view. By this profess he undertakes the status quo to preserve the movement and the peace between the Jews and Romans (an historical knowledge rather than a religious education is needed to better appreciate the opera, because, as we know, Judas’ fears came true in actuality several years later when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E.). The recent revision by Tim Rice defines it beautifully, 'Our conquerors object to another noisy sect and they'll crush us if we go too far'. In the 2000 production, Edwards illuminated the underlying political motif woven in the musical that Norman Jewison failed to deliver. The apostles, or better the Zealots, had a much deeper paradigm. Their conflict-theorem concerning the Romans and the deceptive Sanhedrin warranted a charismatic leader to guide the nation. Jesus fills this profile. Thus, 'What's the Buzz' wasn't enough to settle their impatience toward a revolution. They took it to the next level, 'Everyone of fifty thousand would do whatever you asked them to. Keep them yelling their devotion, but add a touch of hate at Rome. You will rise to a greater power. We will win ourselves a home'. Finally after witnessing Christ's failure to lead such a political revolt they eventually dissolve. Jesus, having a transcendental mission, rises above the power struggles battling around him only to be crucified for delivering a submissive philosophy. What this philosophy is, we don't know due to Rice's intentional omission. What we do see is the irony of a powerful leader losing his critical perspective when pitted against the dynamic culture and the imperialistic State.
Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.176 ( talk) 19:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Before the official play came out on Broadway, there were many unofficial versions trying to set the music to a play. I recently got to hear a firsthand account from one of the actors in the production. They had been sent repeated cease-and-desist letters and, up until the end of the production, they were never sure if they were going to be sued for their work. Does that fit in the context of the article? If so, I could track this guy down and get a more informative piece out of him. - Fuzzy 03:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
[to be included in official production history] The launching production that preceded the Oct., 1971 official Broadway opening starred Chris Brown as Jesus. This version caught public attention, catapulting JC Superstar toward Broadway, in part due to the May, 1971 Life Magazine cover story featuring Chris as Jesus. The ensuing July Pittsburgh (first authorized) concert production featured Jeff Fenholt, who then opened the October, 1971 Broadway run. Christopher Brown went on to become a premier symphony bass player at Pittsburgh and Detroit, recently concluding a 31 year gig as Principal Bass of the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra. [jimmillion@comcast.net <spco.org>, August 1, 2013] 76.17.129.81 ( talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
At Fort Carson, Colorado the Ft. Carson Little Theatre produced a version in August,1971. In order to get the copyrights at that time, it was to be produced only in a church, however, one of the high ranking chaplains came in and blessed the theatre. (At least that's how the story goes) There was no admission charge, and it ranks one of the best versions I have ever had the opportunity to see. All actors/actresses were either in the military, or were spouses/children of such. They had no librettos/music; all the music and lyrics were copied by by people sitting listening to the record with headphones. This musical played to SRO crowds for a week; would love to hear from someone who actually was in the production.
Some years ago, when I lived in Dallas, I had a friend there, a lifelong resident, who had performed the role of Jesus in summer stock productions in San Antonio back in the mid-Seventies. Knowing how conservative many people in Texas are, I was surprised to hear this, and I asked my friend if there had been a big uproar. He replied that people indeed took offense, but not at the film's story or music--rather to the interracial cast. -- bamjd3d
The text on the film had: When it was released on DVD, part of the lyrics was censored: When Jesus had originally said to a group of beggars overpowering him "Heal yourselves, leave me alone!", the DVD version had a voice-over of a female beggar saying "Heal me, Jesus!" although this is not present on the laserdisc version.
Several persons who own the original videos and the screenplay have denied that claim, so I deleted it. -- 85.187.203.123 10:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
In the same movie, Judas' Death is sometimes cut just before he hangs himself. -- Ixius 21:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Its just 'heal yourselves', not so horrible as saying, "Leave me alone".
Although Jesus never denied healing to any one in real life, and He still does not. Jesus is alive right now. Jesus loves everyone, no matter how sick or "sinful". This production also seems to forget the part where he came back to life three days later.
There's a bit of a difference between 'forgetting' the part where he came back to life three days later and making the stylistic choice neither to confirm or deny the divinity of the main character, as showing him rising from the dead would certainly have done. Davidnowlin ( talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The section hasn't grown that much yet, I think it reads best as part of an article. And what kind of summary would you leave here instead? -- 85.187.44.131 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I just watched the movie, and I found that a lot of the music was using 7/4 beat measurement. Does this signify something, considering seven is a 'divine' number? Meutia Chaerani 02:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The music is very interesting in that it employs several leitmotifs recurring throughtout the play.
Aside from one half-sentence I cannot find anything related to what the response was to the play/film. I would be interested in what the standpoint of the Church was in connection with this film, and has it changed over time. I mostly interested because before the first screening of the film in Hungary where I live, there was a little bit of a scandal over it from Church circles, stating that the film is offensive to Christians (or something similar, this scandal happened quite a few years ago so I'm not sure in the contens). So if anyone has anything on that I'd be glad to hear it. AdamDobay 11:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Which church? There are thousands of them. Be specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 ( talk) 03:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
"The Church" is usually a reference to the Roman Catholic church. 74.100.60.53 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC).
I can't point to any source, but I seem to remember that the Catholic Church did look into the matter at the time that the film was shown in Rome. The movie made a huge splash in Italy and there was the usual controversy, and people were explicitly asking the Church for an opinion and guidance on the matter. I don't know how far up the ladder it went, but "the Vatican" arranged to have a screening, and their conclusion after viewing it was that it was NOT offensive to Catholic beliefs, did have a positive spiritual message and that there was no reason to discourage people from seeing it. Although I don't think they went so far as to give it an actual endorsement. I presume that if someone could dig up Italian newspapers from the time, that there would be articles discussing the matter. But I somehow doubt that any of that is online. 70.113.32.162 ( talk) 16:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't recall where, but I'm quite certain I read on the internet or heard (possibly on the DVD) the the soung "Could We Start Again Please" was written for the movie because the producers felt as though Mary and Peter needed more screen time. If I find the source I'll change it, but has anyone else heard this? -- kubfann 15:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the song was added to the 1971 Broadway production. It appears on the cast recording. The one song that was added to the 1974 film was 'Then We Are Decided'.-- Carlosmnash 01:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Was there a new version of the song done for the 20th anniversary? I have a vague memory seeing a recording that said new lyrics by Tim Rice. 144.53.226.17 ( talk) 04:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I just added two scans for the original album cover. One is the UK version (Jcs_uk_cover.png) and the other is the US version (Jcs_us_cover.png). I own the LPs and decided to scan the covers. I felt that it would be beneficial to have the album art in the article, but I couldn't strongly decide which of the two to actually use. Currently the UK version is in the article. However, the US version features the logo that is typically used in subsequent productions. Comments. -- Carlosmnash 03:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Some users are starting Jesus Christ Superstar (Film), I guess this is because the Jesus Christ Superstar (film) contains a redirect. If the split is in order, please notify someone in WP:RM#Uncontroversial proposals to help with the move. If not, please get in contact with the users creating the new article. Hoverfish 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
One thing worth writing about concerning the split is the song entitled: 'Then we are decided'. This song is not found on the original concept album but is found in the 1973 film. The reason for this addition to the song list is for the movie to be eligible for an award. Andy and Tim received a Tony award for the Broadway play, and to win an award for the movie they had to add another song.
The following line: 'Jesus Christ, Superstar /who are you? / what have you sacrificed?' is a very strong statement that isn't even mentioned in this summary but expresses one of the main themes (that of a reasonably suspecting Judas). It gains even more importance sang by an already dead Judas. If we assume Judas went to an afterlife, heaven or hell, he still doesn't understand why Jesus did what he did. This is a strong statement against Christianity which doesn't question anything, and has been largely ignored in this review.
The rest of the review tries very hard but fails to present a summary of the story that is not pro-Christianity. We should have in mind this is an opera that anti-Christians also use as an argument against the alleged Jesus' movement. Depending on the POV taken, this can be used as clear proof that Jesus was crazy, valued suffering over justice, held himself more important than the poor, etc etc etc.
The beauty of this opera is that it presents very good arguments from both sides, leaving it to the listeners' interpretation what side to take on the matter. We must be able to reflect this in the article about it. -- Arca 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed the term backstabber to traitor in the synopsis (referring to Judas). Backstabber is very colloquial, and usually has the connotation of someone who commits betrayal for their own personal gain, typically in terms of money or power. In this play, Judas betrays Jesus for what he sees as the greater good (preserving the lives of Jesus' followers and pushing the religion in less of a supernatural direction). Therefore, traitor works better, since this is more commonly used to refer to someone who betrays for more complicated reasons than personal gain. Davey1107 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The article itself states "In 2047, the opera began its first U.S. national tour with a company managed by Laura Shapiro Kramer. The tour continued until 1980." Obviously this is impossible. Sadly, I do not know the actual date. -- Drakkenfyre 09:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think 1976 is correct, either. I saw a touring company production in the summer of `1971 or 72. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnPanAle ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Can someone clarify why the article states weapons, drugs and prostitutes were being sold on the Temple steps. I never saw these in either the film or mid 70's stage version. Is this in a recent stage version? I think many Jewish people would find this highly offensive. Historically money changers would convert Roman coins into the local currency to be given as alms at the Temple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 ( talk) 00:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You know what would be great in this article? In the plot, somebody oughta reference the events of the play to actual verses in the Bible (since some of the stories in the Bible are out of order... cf. Jesus does not defend an adulterer from Judas in the Bible, he does so in the event of the high priests. You know what I mean? Then go through the entire article and notate the actual events in the Bible to the story points. OMG what a high remark, I'm sorry, but this sounds like a great idea.
k peace.
68.199.164.33 08:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Christ did defend an adulterer from Judas, in John 12. Korossyl 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the statement above is that the intent would be to use the Bible as some type of "authority" rather than just another source for the play. BTW, JCS isn't totally dependent upon the Bible as a source. Nowhere in the pages of the Bible do we find Mary as being a prostitute. This was a later creation of the Church (Pope Gregory 6th century). And, the Bible doesn't offer much discourse between Judas and Jesus to create such a dynamic song as "Heaven on their minds". JCS isn't intended to be a road sign pointing to the Bible, on the contrary, it refutes much of the New Testament. It is worth pointing out that the last part of the play is John 19:41 and the very last verse found in the Thomas Jefferson Bible is John 19:41.
(chuckle).... the New Testament has four different gospels with four different stories, and they're not consistent. Still, a little biblical backstory wouldn't hurt.
70.55.58.252 (
talk)
16:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like it might be interesting as another article. A comparison of JCS to the New Testament, but I'm with Jeff. I don't think it would be appropriate to cite the Bible as an authoritative source if the purpose is to say 'This bit is true cause it's in John and this bit is not true cause it's totally made up.' JCS is a work of fiction. It's an interpretation of the Bible on one level but it isn't intended to be a 1:1 reference. Its main goal, I've always thought, was explore issues of faith and divinity with a critical eye, not to set the Gospel to some rad 60's tunes.
Davidnowlin (
talk)
02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I was browsing in the bookstore of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, when I noticed the music being played was familiar. It was, in fact, the melody of Gethsemane, with vocals in Italian. It never built into the faster-paced, angry parts. It repeated for several verses. All in all, I got the sense of hymn, and I'm assuming that the lyrics were completely written. Does anyone know what this could have been? Thanks! Korossyl 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the music is very interesting in that it employs several leitmotifs recurring throughtout the play. Gethsemane and John 19:41 are the same music.
Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.194.160 ( talk) 02:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Most articles include parodies or alternatives. So shouldn't there be a section offering the sucessful parody Antichrist Superstar for reference or comparison? Just thought there should be some more choice.Mutlee 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're joking, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.194.160 ( talk) 02:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The Character list of this article was deleted (It bore the unfortunate heading "vocal ranges"). I notice that in some of our best articles, such as "Wicked (musical)" that character lists have been accepted. Can we restore it, perhaps with a brief description of each character? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There is also no "background" or "genesis" section, discussing how JCS came to be written, why it was released as an album first, and why it became a stage musical. Was the original idea to do a musical or an album? Was the album a marketing device for the musical, or was the musical only created after the album was a success. Lots of territory to cover.... -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I know there's a link to the 1973 version ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070239/ ) but shouldn't there be an article of reference to the 2000 version ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0275434/ ) ??
I think it doesn't have a page, and i liked it more than 1973 ^^
12:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)~
There are two important lines that should also been mentioned.
"And furthermore I know that Jesus thinks so too. Jesus wouldn't mind that I was here with you."
So in the play, Judas thought that Jesus would agree with his "betrayal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.205.45 ( talk) 15:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this was Judas trying to soothe his own feelings a little. Aside from that, there is a certain truth in it...Jesus could have stopped his betrayal, but he didn't. If Jesus hadn't been betrayed, then he probably wouldn't have died on the cross. I can't imagine how it would have went, if Christ hadn't sacrificed himself! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.169.240.210 (
talk)
02:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, the problem with the statement above is entirely a religious view and not relevant to the "play".
Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.33.241 ( talk) 01:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think both posters have excellent points that are not in conflict. I think the quoted lines are intended to show the beginning of Judas's understanding of Jesus's purpose that culminates in the lines in the reprise: "God, I've been used, and you knew all the time. God I will never understand why you chose me for your crime." However, because it is early in that transformative realization, I think there was a fair amount of rationalization involved as well. Judas understands that Jesus had no intention of stopping him from going to Annas and Caiaphas, but he fails to understand (until later) that the fact that it was necessary (from the point of view of Christianity anyway) that Jesus be betrayed does not wash the blood from the hands of the betrayer.
Also interesting to consider is the line: "I don't believe he knows I acted for our good." Does this line indicate that Judas believes he acted 'for our good' in that he has stopped Jesus from causing Rome to crush Israel, or because he does finally understand that he was meant to betray Jesus for Jesus's sake? Can the second reading be reconciled with Judas's belief that Jesus doesn't know his motives? If God intended Judas to sacrifice Jesus so that he could be martyred and begin the Christian church, surely that means Jesus is divine, and if Jesus is divine, surely that means he's aware of Judas's motives. Right? On the other hand, if Judas believes that it was necessary to sacrifice Jesus to save Israel's very existence (from an ever-more-suspicious and hostile Rome), then why does Judas accuse God of choosing him for his 'foul, bloody crime?'
I find these questions to be fascinating. Davidnowlin ( talk) 02:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
And, that's just to start...
Viriditas ( talk) 20:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe the so-called concept album was in fact intended as a concept for a musical (not a "
concept album" in the usual sense, like Tommy). I can't find a reliable source for this, but I do believe I've seen it in one; and the careers of the authors speak for themselves. I'm not partial here - personally, I think the concept album remains the best version of the thing that's ever been done, but it wasn't meant to be.
Also, I dare say that "modern" and "20th century" are clear enough to most people, without nitpicking. Despite the acceleration of history, the differences between the overall intellectual worlds of the 20s and the 70s do pale in comparison with those between the 20th century AD as a whole and the 1st century AD.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 16:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
These edits to the article introduced some material that is not supported by the primary source. There is certainly nothing in the musical to identify Judas Iscariot as a "Roman rebel", or to sustain a reading that "It's exactly this lack of understanding of Christ's purpose to die as a sacrafice for mankind that motivates Judas' drive toward the betrayal of God (in the person of the Christ, the Son of God). Judas betrays Christ because he cannot force Him to conform to the worldly view of humanism." -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It is my belief that Moonriddengirl made the changes she made at my request. New to the discussion side of WP, I posted some concerns I had about the neutrality of this article on the Neutrality bboard. I wanted to list those concerns here as a defense of the changes that were just made. The following is my original post.
I have serious issues with the main header paragraph on the Jesus Christ Superstar article. It reads as follows:
The plot focuses on the character of Judas who is depicted as a tragic figure who is dissatisfied with what he views as Jesus' lack of planning. However, as the crooked treasurer of the twelve disciples, he suddenly becomes alarmed by the claims of Christ's divinity when the Lord reveals His purpose of dying for the lost. Judas is of the belief that the the only pupose for the Messiah is to lead his people (the Jews) in political revolt against the Romans, who have oppressed the Jews for centuries. Judas fears that Jesus will doom the Jewish people to destruction at the hands of the Romans without ever understanding Christ's true purpose. It's exactly this lack of understanding of Christ's purpose to die as a sacrafice for mankind that motivates Judas' drive toward the betrayal of God (in the person of the Christ, the Son of God). Judas betrays Christ because he cannot force Him to conform to the worldly view of humanism.
Aside from the first sentence, virtually everything in here is either a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the text.
1. The article refers to Judas as a 'crooked' treasurer.
While it's true that the text portrays Judas as being concerned with the group's money, and against its waste, nothing depicts him a treasurer or even hints at his corruption (in that capacity).
2. "He suddenly becomes alarmed by the claims of Christ's divinity when the Lord reveals His purpose of dying for the lost."
The text certainly depicts Judas as becoming alarmed by Christ's claim to divinity. [JUDAS: I remember when this whole thing began. No talk of God then, we called you a man.] However, there's nothing in the text about Jesus's revealing his purpose of dying for the lost. Indeed for about 60% of the play, Jesus's purpose appears to be to avoid dying at all. [JESUS: I only want to say, if there is a way, take this cup away from me. I don't want to taste its poison.]
If for no other reason, this characterization is faulty for its timing alone, as Judas expresses his alarm at the beginning of the first Act and Jesus does not consent to be sacrificed until the beginning of the second Act. [JESUS: God, thy will is hard, but you hold every card. I will drink your cup of poison.]
Additionally, portraying the Jesus depicted in the play as having a purpose of dying for the lost betrays a very Christianity-centered bias that is in direct opposition to the theme and tone of the work. The central theme of the work is Jesus's human struggle with his perceived divine obligations, as well as Judas's struggle with the same issues.
3. "Judas is of the belief that the only pupose for the Messiah is to lead his people (the Jews) in political revolt against the Romans..."
First: 'purpose' is misspelled. Second: this is entirely false. It is Simon Zealotes who argues that Jesus should lead the people in political revolt, not Judas. [SIMON: "Keep them yelling their devotion, but add a touch of hate at Rome. You will rise to a greater power, and we will win ourselves a home."]
Judas's main concern throughout the work (aside from his doubts about Jesus's divinity) stems from his belief that their primary goal should be raising money for, caring for and providing for the poor. [JUDAS: Woman, your fine ointments, brand new and expensive, should have been saved for the poor. Why has it been wasted? We could have raised maybe 300 silver pieces or more.]
Further, according to the text, Judas doesn't think the purpose of the Messiah is different from what Jesus thinks it is. Rather, he believes Jesus is not the Messiah. [JUDAS: They think they've found the new Messiah, and they'll hurt you when they find they're wrong.]
4. "Judas fears that Jesus will doom the Jewish people to destruction at the hands of the Romans without ever understanding Christ's true purpose."
I have no problem with this sentence, except for the word 'true.' It's true that Judas thinks Jesus's actions will have negative effects on the Jews as a people. It's true that he doesn't understand what Jesus is trying to do. But nowhere in the text is it conceded that Jesus's true purpose is to die for sinners and redeem them through his sacrifice. Indeed, the resurrection was left out of the play, presumably precisely because the play was never intended to take definitive side in this debate. Clearly there is tension between Judas's belief that Jesus was not divine and Jesus's (never stated) belief that he was. That conflict was not resolved in the play and I have to believe that lack of resolution was intentional.
The truly ironic thing about this claim is that the closest the issue comes to being resolved is when Judas flirts with the idea of becoming a believer. [JUDAS: God, I'm sick. I've been used and you knew all the time. I will never understand why you chose me for your crime.] At his death, Judas laments his role in Jesus's capture and torture and admits, if only to God, that he understands that both Jesus and God intended for him to betray Jesus. He doesn't say it, but the logical conclusion of the admission is that God intended for Jesus to die and be martyred. The next logical step leads to the conclusion that Jesus actually was divine. Either the play takes no stand on the issue of Christ's divinity, or it only hints at taking a stand and does so from Judas's point of view, which Judas, of course, necessarily understands.
However, Judas's near-conversion aside, throwing around terms like 'Christ's true purpose' in an article that is supposed to remain neutral shows a deep misunderstanding of Jesus Christ Superstar's true purpose.
5. "It's exactly this lack of understanding of Christ's purpose to die as a sacrafice for mankind that motivates Judas' drive toward the betrayal of God (in the person of the Christ, the Son of God). Judas betrays Christ because he cannot force Him to conform to the worldly view of humanism."
I'm… just at a loss. First, 'sacrifice' is misspelled and the proper possessive form of 'Judas' is 'Judas's'. Second, there's no part of this that is about Jesus Christ Superstar. This is, start to finish, religious pontification that has nothing to do with the play, the characters it portrays, the doubts they express, the struggles they go through or the conclusions they reach. This belongs in an opinion piece in a Christian magazine, not in a neutral article about an artistic endeavor even though that artistic endeavor focuses on religious and Christian subject matter.
I'd have had no problem with this paragraph if it had at least pretended to be discussing how the play deals with faith, spirituality and examination of the veracity of the claims made by Christians about Christ's divinity, but it doesn't. It has nothing to do with those things. It's merely a mini-sermon masquerading as a summary and it should be removed. Davidnowlin ( talk) 02:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
An unregistered edit was made to the lead section of this article this morning; it was a clumsy attempt to explain that the depiction of Jesus in Superstar is different from the Christian belief. I think it's worthwhile to mention that they are quite different; people interested in the musical might want to know how this depiction of Jesus (a pretty important historical figure, to say the least) compares to views throughout history, so I added a couple sentences and cross links to articles about Christian beliefs. I tried to keep it as neutral as possible while still explaining the fundamental differences between the opera and the Biblical Jesus. I just thought I'd let everybody know what I was doing and hopefully stave off any potential controversy. :) MarianKroy ( talk) 15:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
on 3/29/10, I added a passage to the text noting that some of the ostensibly Roman sentries carried machine guns during the film. I would have added (had I remembered) that tanks and fighter jets are used as props as well during various scenes. I inserted a conclusion that the movie makers were posing a separate question about what would happen if Jesus arrived in modern times rather than in ancient times.
This is also interesting in that if Jesus is to return, it would be interesting to know how he will be received.
Can the editor explain the deletion? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.105.42 ( talk) 23:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the props were meant to be a symbolic demonstration of Rome's tremendous power over those they had conquered. The scene where Judas is running in front of the tanks is compelling. One frail human against the might of Rome, or really, any conquerer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 ( talk) 06:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
An Opinon: There are a fair number of errors here (Helen Reddy didn't have a hit with "I Don't Know How To Love Him; Anne Murray did). And a lot of opinions stated as facts. For example, while the work never states definitively whether Christ is divine and will rise from the dead, there are a few statements here claiming that the work itself depicts Christ as human, not divine. It does no such thing. It is therefore possible to interpret this work both ways. A great hint toward a divine interpretation can be found in the final notes of the final piece, John 19:41. A mystical-sounding turn occurs, a floating, ethereal presence -- or so it can be interpreted. Opinions are fine if stated as such: mine is that JCS holds up BEAUTIFULLY (I refer to the orignal cast 1970 recording; the movie isn't much good). Many of the beats sound utterly contemporary. The emotional impact is undeniable. Easily the rock opera of all rock operas -- "Tommy," by the Who, doesn't even come close. Little else in pop music can touch it for sheer scope and simply great, great songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.189.142.146 ( talk) 21:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Helen Reddy did indeed record and have a hit version of "I Don't Know How To Love Him. Not sure if Anne Murray even recorded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 ( talk) 00:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
That the show does not depict Jesus making 'high Christological claims' is something of an understatement, surely. The Jesus of the libretto is a weary, confused, often anguished figure. We do not see him teaching, not directly anyway, nor learn much about what his teaching contains. Nor why he is so famous. Others seem to be making, or have made, supernatural claims for him, but in person he tends to turn them aside. 'Christ' is used throughout Superstar as a kind of surname, and Herod for instance seems already familiar with the formula 'Jesus Christ'.
Mary, who here is presumably Jesus's lover, seems unaware of any supernatural element, singing "He's a man, he's just a man", and later "I wonder how he knew [Peter would deny knowing him]."
The libretto is not just based on the Fourth Gospel, as it puts the Cleansing of the Temple in Easter Week as the synoptic gospel do, where John's has it early in Jesus's ministry.
It is very difficult to draw conclusions about characters and events when the libretto is sometimes as tongue-in-cheek (or out-of-time) as
"Always hoped that I'd be an apostle Knew that I would make it if I tried Then when we retire we can write the gospels So they'll still talk about us when we've died".
Rogersansom ( talk) 18:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree about Mary not being his lover. I think this is a naive assumption by those who take a modern interpretation of the lyrics of "I Don't Know How To Love Him". I see the song as Mary not knowing how to have faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 ( talk) 00:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Please provide references for the edits of 24 Dec 2010 by User 68.167.200.163. There are no citations for verification of the added information, and it appears to be original research. Please provide third-party citations or it will be removed. Thank you. JMax555 ( talk) 09:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I saw JCSS in Boston (Wang Theater) - late 1994 or early 1995. It was advertised as having some of the original stars (JC and MM? were original stars?). I have to say it was very, very good - I was moved almost to tears; so I'm surprised that production series doesn't seem to be mentioned. Anyone know of this production? Tweedledee2011 ( talk) 05:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There are some many different recordings available, it's hard to know what recording to take. It would be nice if we had something like:
Recording | Production | EAN | Re-Mastered on | Technology | Listed Price | etc. |
Original London Concept Recording | ? | ? | September 24, 1996 | Audo CD (remastered? I'm unclear on this) | $24 | |
Cast Recording | 1990 (unique?) | ? | ? | ? | $170 |
One problem is, I don't know if the following terms are unique or meaningful:
The picture of Peter with a sword striking Malchus is bogus. It falsely shows Peter about to strike his left ear. Both Luke 22:50 and John 18:10 say he "cut off his right ear". A downward stroke would continue into his neck or shoulder.
—
Telpardec (
talk)
18:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." CaptainPedge | Talk 14:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Softlavender. I was unaware that the "rules" on possessives had changed. In the words of Paul Simon: "Who am I to blow against the wind?". There was one which was already without the "s" so I just conformed the others to that one. No worries. THX1136 ( talk) 01:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
We need something more serious than a brief flippant offhand metaphor/analogy in a 2011 review of the Ontario Stratford Shakespeare Festival production to substantiate that the musical (which began as a concept album) is either consciously and deliberately based on the Passion of Christ or is or resembles a passion play. To have Passion of Christ be in the infobox as a "Based on" needs to come from a statement by either Rice or Webber, not from speculation. To substantiate that it resembles or follows a passion play needs to come from either Rice or Webber or a reliable in-depth analysis in a serious exegesis (preferably from the era in which it was written). Otherwise, all of this is original research, making inferences after the fact. Softlavender ( talk) 12:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The songs hint at the idea espoused by Unificationists that Jesus did not come to die, but hoped to be accepted by enough people as the Messiah, that he would be able to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth during his lifetime. -- Uncle Ed 23:17, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Just want to clarify the info re: the U.S. premier of "Superstar"...before it opened on broadway there was a much publicized Robert Stigwood authorized original concert tour which opned the summer of 1971..Jeff Fenholt, Carl Anderson and Yvonne Elliman were the first (Jesus, Judas and Mary) to perform the piece in the U.S. I was also in the production, originating the role of King Herod here in the states. I'd very much like to find a copy of the review that appeared in Playboy of our opening in front of 12,000 people. (Alan Martin - muchachofeo@msn.com)
Removed:
Ellsworth 15:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title of this article be "Jesus Christ, Superstar"? There's a comma in there, isn't there? Graham 01:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Internet Broadway Database lists it as Jesus Christ Superstar. So does my copy of the cast recording. Cigarette 19:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, Jesus Christ Superstar is effectively Jesus of Nazareth's title throughout (ignoring the biblical tone and looking at Jesus as a character). In This Jesus Must Die, the "mob of blockheads in the street" sing: "Jesus Christ, Superstar!" If they had been addressing, say, Pilate, the lyrics would have been, "Pontius Pilate, Prefect (/Governor/Roman Puppet)!"
Even though Christ is Jesus' title, Superstar would appear to be a further amendment, for who has not heard the "Greatest Story Ever Told?" -- Ixius 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Cut from intro:
There's nothing further down in the article to back this up. On the other hand, the first song in the opera is Heaven On Their Minds, in which Judas expresses fears that Jesus' campaign to gain followers could backfire. Nonetheless' I don't see how this constitutes an irreverent attitude. Uncle Ed 23:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I find this odd. Several numbers take place after Judas' Death, and several Judas nor any apostle was not present at (i.e. This Jesus Must Die, I Don't Know How to Love Him, Gethsemane etc.) -- Ixius 21:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The movie portrays JEsus as mortal: a man with man-like faults. It is told from Judas' perspective in that it shows Jesus through his eyes: a mortal. Esentially the movie portrays charaters like Judas and Pilate in a subtly positive light, rather than the condeming picture usually given. -- Kiran 90 03:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The show is most definitly from the point of view of Judas Iscariot. We must remember that, although he dies well before the finale, his big song, "Jesus Christ Superstar" comes only before the crucifixion. He ties up the story. It is irreverent because he has a different view then the other apostles and most modern christians. For example: "It seems to me a strange thing, mystifying/That a man like you can waste his time on women of her kind." That is irreverence. -- IAmAwesome
I would disagree that Judas' attitude and viewpoint in the play are irreverent. Irreverence is the act of intentionally not showing due respect or veneration, the key word here being 'due'. Judas is torn between whether Jesus is divine or not, so he doesn't really know whether Jesus is due the respect one would show God. As he tries to figure that out, his actions swing from acting in faith towards Jesus, who he has sworn fealty to, or doing what he thinks is best for the common good. He is certainly confused, even up to the end, but I don't think any of this technically qualifies as irreverence. Davey1107 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The written concept for Jesus Christ Superstar claims that Jesus, while carrying his cross to be executed, recalls the voice of Judas asking him who or what have you sacrificed? So according to the play Judas is dead and gone, the song (and appearance of him in the movie) is symbolic and in the present-tense of Jesus remembering Judas' words; in this case presented in the form of the song Superstar. Judas isn't really there--metaphorically speaking he’s in a bubble-caption above Jesus’ head! An interesting point found in the written concept asserts the entire play is seen through the eyes of Judas, i.e. what we as the audience see is what Judas perceives in his own subjective mind. The character Judas obviously adopts a structural-functionalist view. By this profess he undertakes the status quo to preserve the movement and the peace between the Jews and Romans (an historical knowledge rather than a religious education is needed to better appreciate the opera, because, as we know, Judas’ fears came true in actuality several years later when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E.). The recent revision by Tim Rice defines it beautifully, 'Our conquerors object to another noisy sect and they'll crush us if we go too far'. In the 2000 production, Edwards illuminated the underlying political motif woven in the musical that Norman Jewison failed to deliver. The apostles, or better the Zealots, had a much deeper paradigm. Their conflict-theorem concerning the Romans and the deceptive Sanhedrin warranted a charismatic leader to guide the nation. Jesus fills this profile. Thus, 'What's the Buzz' wasn't enough to settle their impatience toward a revolution. They took it to the next level, 'Everyone of fifty thousand would do whatever you asked them to. Keep them yelling their devotion, but add a touch of hate at Rome. You will rise to a greater power. We will win ourselves a home'. Finally after witnessing Christ's failure to lead such a political revolt they eventually dissolve. Jesus, having a transcendental mission, rises above the power struggles battling around him only to be crucified for delivering a submissive philosophy. What this philosophy is, we don't know due to Rice's intentional omission. What we do see is the irony of a powerful leader losing his critical perspective when pitted against the dynamic culture and the imperialistic State.
Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.176 ( talk) 19:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Before the official play came out on Broadway, there were many unofficial versions trying to set the music to a play. I recently got to hear a firsthand account from one of the actors in the production. They had been sent repeated cease-and-desist letters and, up until the end of the production, they were never sure if they were going to be sued for their work. Does that fit in the context of the article? If so, I could track this guy down and get a more informative piece out of him. - Fuzzy 03:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
[to be included in official production history] The launching production that preceded the Oct., 1971 official Broadway opening starred Chris Brown as Jesus. This version caught public attention, catapulting JC Superstar toward Broadway, in part due to the May, 1971 Life Magazine cover story featuring Chris as Jesus. The ensuing July Pittsburgh (first authorized) concert production featured Jeff Fenholt, who then opened the October, 1971 Broadway run. Christopher Brown went on to become a premier symphony bass player at Pittsburgh and Detroit, recently concluding a 31 year gig as Principal Bass of the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra. [jimmillion@comcast.net <spco.org>, August 1, 2013] 76.17.129.81 ( talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
At Fort Carson, Colorado the Ft. Carson Little Theatre produced a version in August,1971. In order to get the copyrights at that time, it was to be produced only in a church, however, one of the high ranking chaplains came in and blessed the theatre. (At least that's how the story goes) There was no admission charge, and it ranks one of the best versions I have ever had the opportunity to see. All actors/actresses were either in the military, or were spouses/children of such. They had no librettos/music; all the music and lyrics were copied by by people sitting listening to the record with headphones. This musical played to SRO crowds for a week; would love to hear from someone who actually was in the production.
Some years ago, when I lived in Dallas, I had a friend there, a lifelong resident, who had performed the role of Jesus in summer stock productions in San Antonio back in the mid-Seventies. Knowing how conservative many people in Texas are, I was surprised to hear this, and I asked my friend if there had been a big uproar. He replied that people indeed took offense, but not at the film's story or music--rather to the interracial cast. -- bamjd3d
The text on the film had: When it was released on DVD, part of the lyrics was censored: When Jesus had originally said to a group of beggars overpowering him "Heal yourselves, leave me alone!", the DVD version had a voice-over of a female beggar saying "Heal me, Jesus!" although this is not present on the laserdisc version.
Several persons who own the original videos and the screenplay have denied that claim, so I deleted it. -- 85.187.203.123 10:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
In the same movie, Judas' Death is sometimes cut just before he hangs himself. -- Ixius 21:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Its just 'heal yourselves', not so horrible as saying, "Leave me alone".
Although Jesus never denied healing to any one in real life, and He still does not. Jesus is alive right now. Jesus loves everyone, no matter how sick or "sinful". This production also seems to forget the part where he came back to life three days later.
There's a bit of a difference between 'forgetting' the part where he came back to life three days later and making the stylistic choice neither to confirm or deny the divinity of the main character, as showing him rising from the dead would certainly have done. Davidnowlin ( talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The section hasn't grown that much yet, I think it reads best as part of an article. And what kind of summary would you leave here instead? -- 85.187.44.131 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I just watched the movie, and I found that a lot of the music was using 7/4 beat measurement. Does this signify something, considering seven is a 'divine' number? Meutia Chaerani 02:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The music is very interesting in that it employs several leitmotifs recurring throughtout the play.
Aside from one half-sentence I cannot find anything related to what the response was to the play/film. I would be interested in what the standpoint of the Church was in connection with this film, and has it changed over time. I mostly interested because before the first screening of the film in Hungary where I live, there was a little bit of a scandal over it from Church circles, stating that the film is offensive to Christians (or something similar, this scandal happened quite a few years ago so I'm not sure in the contens). So if anyone has anything on that I'd be glad to hear it. AdamDobay 11:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Which church? There are thousands of them. Be specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 ( talk) 03:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
"The Church" is usually a reference to the Roman Catholic church. 74.100.60.53 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC).
I can't point to any source, but I seem to remember that the Catholic Church did look into the matter at the time that the film was shown in Rome. The movie made a huge splash in Italy and there was the usual controversy, and people were explicitly asking the Church for an opinion and guidance on the matter. I don't know how far up the ladder it went, but "the Vatican" arranged to have a screening, and their conclusion after viewing it was that it was NOT offensive to Catholic beliefs, did have a positive spiritual message and that there was no reason to discourage people from seeing it. Although I don't think they went so far as to give it an actual endorsement. I presume that if someone could dig up Italian newspapers from the time, that there would be articles discussing the matter. But I somehow doubt that any of that is online. 70.113.32.162 ( talk) 16:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't recall where, but I'm quite certain I read on the internet or heard (possibly on the DVD) the the soung "Could We Start Again Please" was written for the movie because the producers felt as though Mary and Peter needed more screen time. If I find the source I'll change it, but has anyone else heard this? -- kubfann 15:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the song was added to the 1971 Broadway production. It appears on the cast recording. The one song that was added to the 1974 film was 'Then We Are Decided'.-- Carlosmnash 01:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Was there a new version of the song done for the 20th anniversary? I have a vague memory seeing a recording that said new lyrics by Tim Rice. 144.53.226.17 ( talk) 04:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I just added two scans for the original album cover. One is the UK version (Jcs_uk_cover.png) and the other is the US version (Jcs_us_cover.png). I own the LPs and decided to scan the covers. I felt that it would be beneficial to have the album art in the article, but I couldn't strongly decide which of the two to actually use. Currently the UK version is in the article. However, the US version features the logo that is typically used in subsequent productions. Comments. -- Carlosmnash 03:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Some users are starting Jesus Christ Superstar (Film), I guess this is because the Jesus Christ Superstar (film) contains a redirect. If the split is in order, please notify someone in WP:RM#Uncontroversial proposals to help with the move. If not, please get in contact with the users creating the new article. Hoverfish 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
One thing worth writing about concerning the split is the song entitled: 'Then we are decided'. This song is not found on the original concept album but is found in the 1973 film. The reason for this addition to the song list is for the movie to be eligible for an award. Andy and Tim received a Tony award for the Broadway play, and to win an award for the movie they had to add another song.
The following line: 'Jesus Christ, Superstar /who are you? / what have you sacrificed?' is a very strong statement that isn't even mentioned in this summary but expresses one of the main themes (that of a reasonably suspecting Judas). It gains even more importance sang by an already dead Judas. If we assume Judas went to an afterlife, heaven or hell, he still doesn't understand why Jesus did what he did. This is a strong statement against Christianity which doesn't question anything, and has been largely ignored in this review.
The rest of the review tries very hard but fails to present a summary of the story that is not pro-Christianity. We should have in mind this is an opera that anti-Christians also use as an argument against the alleged Jesus' movement. Depending on the POV taken, this can be used as clear proof that Jesus was crazy, valued suffering over justice, held himself more important than the poor, etc etc etc.
The beauty of this opera is that it presents very good arguments from both sides, leaving it to the listeners' interpretation what side to take on the matter. We must be able to reflect this in the article about it. -- Arca 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed the term backstabber to traitor in the synopsis (referring to Judas). Backstabber is very colloquial, and usually has the connotation of someone who commits betrayal for their own personal gain, typically in terms of money or power. In this play, Judas betrays Jesus for what he sees as the greater good (preserving the lives of Jesus' followers and pushing the religion in less of a supernatural direction). Therefore, traitor works better, since this is more commonly used to refer to someone who betrays for more complicated reasons than personal gain. Davey1107 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The article itself states "In 2047, the opera began its first U.S. national tour with a company managed by Laura Shapiro Kramer. The tour continued until 1980." Obviously this is impossible. Sadly, I do not know the actual date. -- Drakkenfyre 09:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think 1976 is correct, either. I saw a touring company production in the summer of `1971 or 72. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnPanAle ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Can someone clarify why the article states weapons, drugs and prostitutes were being sold on the Temple steps. I never saw these in either the film or mid 70's stage version. Is this in a recent stage version? I think many Jewish people would find this highly offensive. Historically money changers would convert Roman coins into the local currency to be given as alms at the Temple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 ( talk) 00:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You know what would be great in this article? In the plot, somebody oughta reference the events of the play to actual verses in the Bible (since some of the stories in the Bible are out of order... cf. Jesus does not defend an adulterer from Judas in the Bible, he does so in the event of the high priests. You know what I mean? Then go through the entire article and notate the actual events in the Bible to the story points. OMG what a high remark, I'm sorry, but this sounds like a great idea.
k peace.
68.199.164.33 08:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Christ did defend an adulterer from Judas, in John 12. Korossyl 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the statement above is that the intent would be to use the Bible as some type of "authority" rather than just another source for the play. BTW, JCS isn't totally dependent upon the Bible as a source. Nowhere in the pages of the Bible do we find Mary as being a prostitute. This was a later creation of the Church (Pope Gregory 6th century). And, the Bible doesn't offer much discourse between Judas and Jesus to create such a dynamic song as "Heaven on their minds". JCS isn't intended to be a road sign pointing to the Bible, on the contrary, it refutes much of the New Testament. It is worth pointing out that the last part of the play is John 19:41 and the very last verse found in the Thomas Jefferson Bible is John 19:41.
(chuckle).... the New Testament has four different gospels with four different stories, and they're not consistent. Still, a little biblical backstory wouldn't hurt.
70.55.58.252 (
talk)
16:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like it might be interesting as another article. A comparison of JCS to the New Testament, but I'm with Jeff. I don't think it would be appropriate to cite the Bible as an authoritative source if the purpose is to say 'This bit is true cause it's in John and this bit is not true cause it's totally made up.' JCS is a work of fiction. It's an interpretation of the Bible on one level but it isn't intended to be a 1:1 reference. Its main goal, I've always thought, was explore issues of faith and divinity with a critical eye, not to set the Gospel to some rad 60's tunes.
Davidnowlin (
talk)
02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I was browsing in the bookstore of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, when I noticed the music being played was familiar. It was, in fact, the melody of Gethsemane, with vocals in Italian. It never built into the faster-paced, angry parts. It repeated for several verses. All in all, I got the sense of hymn, and I'm assuming that the lyrics were completely written. Does anyone know what this could have been? Thanks! Korossyl 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the music is very interesting in that it employs several leitmotifs recurring throughtout the play. Gethsemane and John 19:41 are the same music.
Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.194.160 ( talk) 02:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Most articles include parodies or alternatives. So shouldn't there be a section offering the sucessful parody Antichrist Superstar for reference or comparison? Just thought there should be some more choice.Mutlee 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're joking, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.194.160 ( talk) 02:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The Character list of this article was deleted (It bore the unfortunate heading "vocal ranges"). I notice that in some of our best articles, such as "Wicked (musical)" that character lists have been accepted. Can we restore it, perhaps with a brief description of each character? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There is also no "background" or "genesis" section, discussing how JCS came to be written, why it was released as an album first, and why it became a stage musical. Was the original idea to do a musical or an album? Was the album a marketing device for the musical, or was the musical only created after the album was a success. Lots of territory to cover.... -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I know there's a link to the 1973 version ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070239/ ) but shouldn't there be an article of reference to the 2000 version ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0275434/ ) ??
I think it doesn't have a page, and i liked it more than 1973 ^^
12:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)~
There are two important lines that should also been mentioned.
"And furthermore I know that Jesus thinks so too. Jesus wouldn't mind that I was here with you."
So in the play, Judas thought that Jesus would agree with his "betrayal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.205.45 ( talk) 15:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this was Judas trying to soothe his own feelings a little. Aside from that, there is a certain truth in it...Jesus could have stopped his betrayal, but he didn't. If Jesus hadn't been betrayed, then he probably wouldn't have died on the cross. I can't imagine how it would have went, if Christ hadn't sacrificed himself! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.169.240.210 (
talk)
02:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, the problem with the statement above is entirely a religious view and not relevant to the "play".
Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.33.241 ( talk) 01:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think both posters have excellent points that are not in conflict. I think the quoted lines are intended to show the beginning of Judas's understanding of Jesus's purpose that culminates in the lines in the reprise: "God, I've been used, and you knew all the time. God I will never understand why you chose me for your crime." However, because it is early in that transformative realization, I think there was a fair amount of rationalization involved as well. Judas understands that Jesus had no intention of stopping him from going to Annas and Caiaphas, but he fails to understand (until later) that the fact that it was necessary (from the point of view of Christianity anyway) that Jesus be betrayed does not wash the blood from the hands of the betrayer.
Also interesting to consider is the line: "I don't believe he knows I acted for our good." Does this line indicate that Judas believes he acted 'for our good' in that he has stopped Jesus from causing Rome to crush Israel, or because he does finally understand that he was meant to betray Jesus for Jesus's sake? Can the second reading be reconciled with Judas's belief that Jesus doesn't know his motives? If God intended Judas to sacrifice Jesus so that he could be martyred and begin the Christian church, surely that means Jesus is divine, and if Jesus is divine, surely that means he's aware of Judas's motives. Right? On the other hand, if Judas believes that it was necessary to sacrifice Jesus to save Israel's very existence (from an ever-more-suspicious and hostile Rome), then why does Judas accuse God of choosing him for his 'foul, bloody crime?'
I find these questions to be fascinating. Davidnowlin ( talk) 02:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
And, that's just to start...
Viriditas ( talk) 20:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe the so-called concept album was in fact intended as a concept for a musical (not a "
concept album" in the usual sense, like Tommy). I can't find a reliable source for this, but I do believe I've seen it in one; and the careers of the authors speak for themselves. I'm not partial here - personally, I think the concept album remains the best version of the thing that's ever been done, but it wasn't meant to be.
Also, I dare say that "modern" and "20th century" are clear enough to most people, without nitpicking. Despite the acceleration of history, the differences between the overall intellectual worlds of the 20s and the 70s do pale in comparison with those between the 20th century AD as a whole and the 1st century AD.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 16:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
These edits to the article introduced some material that is not supported by the primary source. There is certainly nothing in the musical to identify Judas Iscariot as a "Roman rebel", or to sustain a reading that "It's exactly this lack of understanding of Christ's purpose to die as a sacrafice for mankind that motivates Judas' drive toward the betrayal of God (in the person of the Christ, the Son of God). Judas betrays Christ because he cannot force Him to conform to the worldly view of humanism." -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It is my belief that Moonriddengirl made the changes she made at my request. New to the discussion side of WP, I posted some concerns I had about the neutrality of this article on the Neutrality bboard. I wanted to list those concerns here as a defense of the changes that were just made. The following is my original post.
I have serious issues with the main header paragraph on the Jesus Christ Superstar article. It reads as follows:
The plot focuses on the character of Judas who is depicted as a tragic figure who is dissatisfied with what he views as Jesus' lack of planning. However, as the crooked treasurer of the twelve disciples, he suddenly becomes alarmed by the claims of Christ's divinity when the Lord reveals His purpose of dying for the lost. Judas is of the belief that the the only pupose for the Messiah is to lead his people (the Jews) in political revolt against the Romans, who have oppressed the Jews for centuries. Judas fears that Jesus will doom the Jewish people to destruction at the hands of the Romans without ever understanding Christ's true purpose. It's exactly this lack of understanding of Christ's purpose to die as a sacrafice for mankind that motivates Judas' drive toward the betrayal of God (in the person of the Christ, the Son of God). Judas betrays Christ because he cannot force Him to conform to the worldly view of humanism.
Aside from the first sentence, virtually everything in here is either a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the text.
1. The article refers to Judas as a 'crooked' treasurer.
While it's true that the text portrays Judas as being concerned with the group's money, and against its waste, nothing depicts him a treasurer or even hints at his corruption (in that capacity).
2. "He suddenly becomes alarmed by the claims of Christ's divinity when the Lord reveals His purpose of dying for the lost."
The text certainly depicts Judas as becoming alarmed by Christ's claim to divinity. [JUDAS: I remember when this whole thing began. No talk of God then, we called you a man.] However, there's nothing in the text about Jesus's revealing his purpose of dying for the lost. Indeed for about 60% of the play, Jesus's purpose appears to be to avoid dying at all. [JESUS: I only want to say, if there is a way, take this cup away from me. I don't want to taste its poison.]
If for no other reason, this characterization is faulty for its timing alone, as Judas expresses his alarm at the beginning of the first Act and Jesus does not consent to be sacrificed until the beginning of the second Act. [JESUS: God, thy will is hard, but you hold every card. I will drink your cup of poison.]
Additionally, portraying the Jesus depicted in the play as having a purpose of dying for the lost betrays a very Christianity-centered bias that is in direct opposition to the theme and tone of the work. The central theme of the work is Jesus's human struggle with his perceived divine obligations, as well as Judas's struggle with the same issues.
3. "Judas is of the belief that the only pupose for the Messiah is to lead his people (the Jews) in political revolt against the Romans..."
First: 'purpose' is misspelled. Second: this is entirely false. It is Simon Zealotes who argues that Jesus should lead the people in political revolt, not Judas. [SIMON: "Keep them yelling their devotion, but add a touch of hate at Rome. You will rise to a greater power, and we will win ourselves a home."]
Judas's main concern throughout the work (aside from his doubts about Jesus's divinity) stems from his belief that their primary goal should be raising money for, caring for and providing for the poor. [JUDAS: Woman, your fine ointments, brand new and expensive, should have been saved for the poor. Why has it been wasted? We could have raised maybe 300 silver pieces or more.]
Further, according to the text, Judas doesn't think the purpose of the Messiah is different from what Jesus thinks it is. Rather, he believes Jesus is not the Messiah. [JUDAS: They think they've found the new Messiah, and they'll hurt you when they find they're wrong.]
4. "Judas fears that Jesus will doom the Jewish people to destruction at the hands of the Romans without ever understanding Christ's true purpose."
I have no problem with this sentence, except for the word 'true.' It's true that Judas thinks Jesus's actions will have negative effects on the Jews as a people. It's true that he doesn't understand what Jesus is trying to do. But nowhere in the text is it conceded that Jesus's true purpose is to die for sinners and redeem them through his sacrifice. Indeed, the resurrection was left out of the play, presumably precisely because the play was never intended to take definitive side in this debate. Clearly there is tension between Judas's belief that Jesus was not divine and Jesus's (never stated) belief that he was. That conflict was not resolved in the play and I have to believe that lack of resolution was intentional.
The truly ironic thing about this claim is that the closest the issue comes to being resolved is when Judas flirts with the idea of becoming a believer. [JUDAS: God, I'm sick. I've been used and you knew all the time. I will never understand why you chose me for your crime.] At his death, Judas laments his role in Jesus's capture and torture and admits, if only to God, that he understands that both Jesus and God intended for him to betray Jesus. He doesn't say it, but the logical conclusion of the admission is that God intended for Jesus to die and be martyred. The next logical step leads to the conclusion that Jesus actually was divine. Either the play takes no stand on the issue of Christ's divinity, or it only hints at taking a stand and does so from Judas's point of view, which Judas, of course, necessarily understands.
However, Judas's near-conversion aside, throwing around terms like 'Christ's true purpose' in an article that is supposed to remain neutral shows a deep misunderstanding of Jesus Christ Superstar's true purpose.
5. "It's exactly this lack of understanding of Christ's purpose to die as a sacrafice for mankind that motivates Judas' drive toward the betrayal of God (in the person of the Christ, the Son of God). Judas betrays Christ because he cannot force Him to conform to the worldly view of humanism."
I'm… just at a loss. First, 'sacrifice' is misspelled and the proper possessive form of 'Judas' is 'Judas's'. Second, there's no part of this that is about Jesus Christ Superstar. This is, start to finish, religious pontification that has nothing to do with the play, the characters it portrays, the doubts they express, the struggles they go through or the conclusions they reach. This belongs in an opinion piece in a Christian magazine, not in a neutral article about an artistic endeavor even though that artistic endeavor focuses on religious and Christian subject matter.
I'd have had no problem with this paragraph if it had at least pretended to be discussing how the play deals with faith, spirituality and examination of the veracity of the claims made by Christians about Christ's divinity, but it doesn't. It has nothing to do with those things. It's merely a mini-sermon masquerading as a summary and it should be removed. Davidnowlin ( talk) 02:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
An unregistered edit was made to the lead section of this article this morning; it was a clumsy attempt to explain that the depiction of Jesus in Superstar is different from the Christian belief. I think it's worthwhile to mention that they are quite different; people interested in the musical might want to know how this depiction of Jesus (a pretty important historical figure, to say the least) compares to views throughout history, so I added a couple sentences and cross links to articles about Christian beliefs. I tried to keep it as neutral as possible while still explaining the fundamental differences between the opera and the Biblical Jesus. I just thought I'd let everybody know what I was doing and hopefully stave off any potential controversy. :) MarianKroy ( talk) 15:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
on 3/29/10, I added a passage to the text noting that some of the ostensibly Roman sentries carried machine guns during the film. I would have added (had I remembered) that tanks and fighter jets are used as props as well during various scenes. I inserted a conclusion that the movie makers were posing a separate question about what would happen if Jesus arrived in modern times rather than in ancient times.
This is also interesting in that if Jesus is to return, it would be interesting to know how he will be received.
Can the editor explain the deletion? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.105.42 ( talk) 23:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the props were meant to be a symbolic demonstration of Rome's tremendous power over those they had conquered. The scene where Judas is running in front of the tanks is compelling. One frail human against the might of Rome, or really, any conquerer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 ( talk) 06:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
An Opinon: There are a fair number of errors here (Helen Reddy didn't have a hit with "I Don't Know How To Love Him; Anne Murray did). And a lot of opinions stated as facts. For example, while the work never states definitively whether Christ is divine and will rise from the dead, there are a few statements here claiming that the work itself depicts Christ as human, not divine. It does no such thing. It is therefore possible to interpret this work both ways. A great hint toward a divine interpretation can be found in the final notes of the final piece, John 19:41. A mystical-sounding turn occurs, a floating, ethereal presence -- or so it can be interpreted. Opinions are fine if stated as such: mine is that JCS holds up BEAUTIFULLY (I refer to the orignal cast 1970 recording; the movie isn't much good). Many of the beats sound utterly contemporary. The emotional impact is undeniable. Easily the rock opera of all rock operas -- "Tommy," by the Who, doesn't even come close. Little else in pop music can touch it for sheer scope and simply great, great songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.189.142.146 ( talk) 21:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Helen Reddy did indeed record and have a hit version of "I Don't Know How To Love Him. Not sure if Anne Murray even recorded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 ( talk) 00:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
That the show does not depict Jesus making 'high Christological claims' is something of an understatement, surely. The Jesus of the libretto is a weary, confused, often anguished figure. We do not see him teaching, not directly anyway, nor learn much about what his teaching contains. Nor why he is so famous. Others seem to be making, or have made, supernatural claims for him, but in person he tends to turn them aside. 'Christ' is used throughout Superstar as a kind of surname, and Herod for instance seems already familiar with the formula 'Jesus Christ'.
Mary, who here is presumably Jesus's lover, seems unaware of any supernatural element, singing "He's a man, he's just a man", and later "I wonder how he knew [Peter would deny knowing him]."
The libretto is not just based on the Fourth Gospel, as it puts the Cleansing of the Temple in Easter Week as the synoptic gospel do, where John's has it early in Jesus's ministry.
It is very difficult to draw conclusions about characters and events when the libretto is sometimes as tongue-in-cheek (or out-of-time) as
"Always hoped that I'd be an apostle Knew that I would make it if I tried Then when we retire we can write the gospels So they'll still talk about us when we've died".
Rogersansom ( talk) 18:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree about Mary not being his lover. I think this is a naive assumption by those who take a modern interpretation of the lyrics of "I Don't Know How To Love Him". I see the song as Mary not knowing how to have faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 ( talk) 00:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Please provide references for the edits of 24 Dec 2010 by User 68.167.200.163. There are no citations for verification of the added information, and it appears to be original research. Please provide third-party citations or it will be removed. Thank you. JMax555 ( talk) 09:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I saw JCSS in Boston (Wang Theater) - late 1994 or early 1995. It was advertised as having some of the original stars (JC and MM? were original stars?). I have to say it was very, very good - I was moved almost to tears; so I'm surprised that production series doesn't seem to be mentioned. Anyone know of this production? Tweedledee2011 ( talk) 05:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There are some many different recordings available, it's hard to know what recording to take. It would be nice if we had something like:
Recording | Production | EAN | Re-Mastered on | Technology | Listed Price | etc. |
Original London Concept Recording | ? | ? | September 24, 1996 | Audo CD (remastered? I'm unclear on this) | $24 | |
Cast Recording | 1990 (unique?) | ? | ? | ? | $170 |
One problem is, I don't know if the following terms are unique or meaningful:
The picture of Peter with a sword striking Malchus is bogus. It falsely shows Peter about to strike his left ear. Both Luke 22:50 and John 18:10 say he "cut off his right ear". A downward stroke would continue into his neck or shoulder.
—
Telpardec (
talk)
18:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." CaptainPedge | Talk 14:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Softlavender. I was unaware that the "rules" on possessives had changed. In the words of Paul Simon: "Who am I to blow against the wind?". There was one which was already without the "s" so I just conformed the others to that one. No worries. THX1136 ( talk) 01:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
We need something more serious than a brief flippant offhand metaphor/analogy in a 2011 review of the Ontario Stratford Shakespeare Festival production to substantiate that the musical (which began as a concept album) is either consciously and deliberately based on the Passion of Christ or is or resembles a passion play. To have Passion of Christ be in the infobox as a "Based on" needs to come from a statement by either Rice or Webber, not from speculation. To substantiate that it resembles or follows a passion play needs to come from either Rice or Webber or a reliable in-depth analysis in a serious exegesis (preferably from the era in which it was written). Otherwise, all of this is original research, making inferences after the fact. Softlavender ( talk) 12:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)