Talk:Jesus Christ Superstar

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:

More recently, Barbra Streisand has married Barry Dennen, an actor-singer who appeared in one of the first versions of the show. He's written a book about their relationship called My Life with Barbra. They are currently preparing to film another new version of "Superstar," set to star Dennen repeating his role as Pilate and Streisand as Mary Magdalene, which will be released to benefit an AIDS prevention organization.

Ellsworth 15:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Title

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)

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)

Judas

Cut from intro:

is told largely from Judas's irreverent point of view

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)

Independent performances

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)

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.

Race

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

• When I was in Junior High School (early 90's) there was discussion about how people charged the movie version as being "racist" because Judas was played by a black man. Of course he was also portrayed sympathetically (Judas being a historically maligned figure), but still. This was part of a discussion we had over the "controversy" of the time such as the allegation by some that Mary Magdalane clearly was sexually attracted to Jesus (as if that was the only kind of "love" a person can have for another of the opposite gender). In later years it seems the controversies have been the portrayal of the Jewish leaders as caricatured villians (black clad "vultures") and Mary Magdalane as a former prostitute (a "sin" committed by nearly all Hollywood Jesus movies anyway).

Censorship

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)

• Agreed. "Leave me alone!" is the DVD line (I own the first DVD version of the 1973 musical). The album line is "Heal yourselves!"

• Ditto.

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)

Moving the film to a separate section

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)

Music

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.

Jeff

Reactions of the Church?

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)

• As I stated above, I too am curious about this. It seems the key issues as I understood them (though I admit I wasn't alive for the original screening of the film): Judas being portrayed as a black man, Mary Magdalane supposedly having "sexual feelings" for Jesus, Jesus being portrayed as a "Hippie", and the lack of a "resurrection" scene. Many years later the issues seem to have changed to charges of anti-semitism (over the top villianhood of the Jewish leaders) and insinuations that Judas is TOO sympathetic therefore the film is urging people to "doubt Jesus" (as a divine figure of Christian faith). Various complaints from more conservative or fundamentalist circles over the blasphemous nature of rock music or the "scanadlous outfits" of some of the dancers didn't reach the ears of a Catholic schoolkid, but apparently they were out there too.

• I do have the feeling that perhaps people overreacted before seeing the movie, however they COULD have gotten wind of some of the possible objectionable elements for people of faith from the broadway musical and the album. There have been many different versions, and I can see some of the controversy. The 2000 DVD edition of the stage remake portrays Judas as an ambigiously gay character who possibly is jealous of Mary Magdalane and Jesus. Additionally Jesus in that version was portrayed by a leader of the controversial (and allegedly hippy) Raelian cult (portraying Jesus as a "cult leader" would perhaps have been a subtly important element but to choose somebody like the Raelians, known for their socially edgy views on issues like sex probably would offend a lot more people). This version also shows the 39 lashes in an interesting and controversial way: instead of being whipped, every "lash" is a member of the (Jewish) crowd running forward and "slapping" fake blood from their palms onto Jesus' back. This was criticized in one review as explicitly blaming the Jews for Jesus' death (and the glee of many of the actors probably helped bring this message home to that reviewer). Of course Pontius Pilate is also portrayed wearing a Nazi SS hat (not so subtle choice for the Romans treatment of the Jews). In many ways it almost seemed as if this version was going out of its way to "shock" in some sense. Then there was that version with the Indigo girls and having Jesus portrayed by an openly gay woman (I didn't see it though). So of all the versions out there, perhaps the 1973 version is the "most reverant" to mainstream Christian sensibilities. But at the time it may have seemed controversial for various reasons. Anyway, sorry for the soapbox, but I thought I'd share my experiences. Definately more sources would be appreciated, both contemporary and modern. [Paraforce]

As far as I know, Christians have taken offense, to a lesser extent, at Judas being portrayed as a sympathetic figure who means well (contrary to the story of the Bible) and, above all, at Jesus being portrayed as a man and not as a God. This second aspect is much debated, as many of the Christian fans of the show feel that it is ambiguous about the divinity/humanity of Jesus. However, Rice and Webber had clearly stated that their purpose had been to portray Jesus as human (although they had emphasized that it wasn't their intention to either confirm or deny his divinity). The non-divine and non-Christian moments include the implied semi-romantic relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, his feelings of anger, sadness etc., (especially as expressed by Ian Gillan on the original recording and Jeff Fenholt on Broadway), his ignorance about his own fate ("there may be a kingdom for me somerwhere - if I only knew") and about the meaning of his sacrifice ("why should I die?"). And while the Christian Christ is, according to the Christian credo, redempting the sins of humanity, the Jesus of JCS seems to be dying mostly with the ambition to be remembered and influence the way people live. --85.187.44.131 18:21, 4 July 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)

Could We Start Again Please

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)

Original 1970 Album Cover

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)

Please note new article created on film

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.

Jeff

Need NPOV

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)

You lost me when you asserted that this musical could be used as "clear proof" of something.... 66.65.43.42 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the poster reminds us to look from the point of view of those who observe from the other side. All of the things mentioned definitely offer themselves to skeptical viewers. In general, this criticism seems very important. Misplaced1 (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Backstabber vs traitor

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)

Errors in the article

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)

Biblical References?

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)

The problem with doing that is that the playwright created a story so loosely tied to the New Testament that it would not correlate the two. Jtpaladin 21:39, 26 April 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.

Jeff

(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)

Gethsemane

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)

Well, I don't know specifically, but the final tune of the show, "John 19:41" is that same melody, shorn of the "jazzy" sections. I've played this in church on Easter. It's possible that someone added some Italian lyrics to it somewhere along the line. —  MusicMaker 05:37, 5 July 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)

WikiProject class rating

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)

Antichrist Superstar

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)

Character list deleted; instrumentation list; background

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)

Is the instrumentation list different from the album? At the end of the discussion of the album, there is a little analysis of the music. It seems like the instrumentation for the musical should be moved down and combined with the musical analysis. There could also be more analysis. There are too many stubby sections, and some could be combined into more narrative and analytical sections to help the flow of the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I MD'd JCS about 10 years ago and remember that instrumentation (transposing the bassoon part for bass clarinet was my first attempt at a transposition of any length...). Orchestras are frequently augmented for recordings, so they could be different. Also, that's the instrumentation for the rental materials from MTI; it could have been different for the actual production. —  MusicMaker5376 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't remember a piccolo being used.... —  MusicMaker5376 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The instrumentation on the album is wildly different than the instrumentation given, which is probably the minimum for productions. The album has an 85 piece orchestra! There are also other extras not listed, such as synthesizers. 70.55.59.138 (talk) 03:27, 21 June 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)

To my knowledge, it was written as a musical, produced as an album, marketed, then produced as a musical. ALW and Tim Rice did the same thing for Evita. Of course, I don't have any sources for that. I did hear a rumor that they approached John Lennon to play Jesus, but he wanted Yoko to play Mary Magdelene, and ALW and TR were smart enough to say "no thanks". —  MusicMaker5376 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Movie from 2000

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)~

Damned For All Time

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)

Some issues

1. Why does the title of this article, Jesus Christ Superstar deal with the rock opera instead of the album, which was released a year before the musical?
2. Why does the dab header say that the album was based on the rock opera when by all accounts it appears to be the other way around?
3. Why does the lead section say that "twentieth-century attitudes and sensibilities as well as contemporary slang pervade the lyrics" when in fact the entire opera is influenced by the counterculture of the 1960s, which is a very small part of the twentieth-century?

And, that's just to start...

Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

On the above numbered points:

1. The album was the rock opera, written and produced by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice. The theatrical productions were just that, theatrical productions of the work.
2. Yes, the dab is completely wrong. This article should cover the work and can also survey major productions. If any breakout is really called for, it should be the other way around: Consider that an opera by Verdi or Wagner would normally be covered in an article on the work, and there would rarely be separate articles on productions of the work. To my way of thinking, a main article on the work would have a "see also", not a dab, for any articles on productions of the work, and articles on productions of the work should have a dab linking to the original work.
3. I am not sure "counter culture" is the best characterization of the work's perspective, but you are right that "20th century" is almost meaninglessly overbroad, as is "modern."

And, that's still just to start.... ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:49, 27 May 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)

Verifiability, neutrality

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)

The Bible (if not the musical) refers to Judas as holding the money bag (i.e., group treasurer) and being a "thief" (i.e., crooked). These points are the focus of the exchange between Judas and Jesus in Everything's Alright. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for my recent edits to lead section

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)

This is a very good start, and is well written, although it would be even better if you could cite to a source specifically discussing the difference between the Christian belief and the story line of the show. I am sure it exists, because this musical has been much-discussed over the years. Indeed, the article has no "reception" section, and I'm sure the critics of both the original album and the original Broadway production (and other productions) would have had something to say on the subject. Plus, the musical was famous enough that there have been books written about it. Feel like adding a Reception section? Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why was my reference to machine guns as props deleted?

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)

Depiction of Jesus in 'Superstar'

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)

Actually, Jesus makes several statements that could reasonably interpreted as "Christological claims" or teaching:

• I could ... even tell you where I'm going / .... / If you knew the path we're riding / You'd understand it less than I
• Think while you still have me / Move while you still see me / You'll be lost / You'll be so sorry / When I'm gone
• The rocks and stones themselves would start to sing [in praise of me]
• The entire "Poor Jerusalem" monologue, especiallyt he line "To conquer death / You only have to die"
• This is my blood you drink, This is my body you eat

And while he neither admits nor denies he's the King of the Jews, there are certainly implications that he is supernatural, in that he is quite attuned to God's will and what the future holds for him and Jerusalem. (I don't know if Jesus' prediction of Jerusalem's destruction was intended to be a prediction in the musical, but it seems likely Webber and Rice would have been aware of this major event in Jewish history.) Moreover, Christ's reaction to the group of sick people implies he would be able to heal them if theyre weren't so many of them and too little of him.

Finally, why would you presume Mary is being portrayed as Jesus's lover? I think, in fact, it's quite clear she is not his lover, but rather is feeling very complicated emotions toward him. She wants him, but she's scared of him. Clearly he hasn't reciprocated any feelings to her nor has she tried to "bring him down" or "speak of love" with him. 71.198.44.85 (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

1980's section edits

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)

Wang Theater 1994/95

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)

Can we add a table of recordings?

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:

• Cast Recording (was there only one?)
• Original London Concept Recording (what is a "Concept"?)
• etc.