Looks, let's get this straight about Jesus Christ Superstar. It is not what most people think it is. I don't think it is even what Norman Jewison, the director, thinks it is. Least of all is it what Andrew Llloyd Webber thinks it is, though he wrote the music-- nothing he did elsewhere in his career substantiated the promising intrigues of this modest little opera and film.
In short, some interpretations I've heard, which I think are wrong:
1. the movie is very "spiritual" and has led a lot of people to Christ. Look, it may be true that the movie has led some people to Jesus, but it's not a very spiritual film at all. It's very much about politics and power and organized religion as a social force. But God makes no appearance in this movie-- he is conspicuously absent. The cheesy image of the sheep at the end (I'll bet Jewison wishes he could take that one back.) is misleading. Jesus dies on the cross and, in this version of events, he stays there, leaving his followers and antagonists to wonder just who he really was.
Did you know there is even a web site devoted to very pious paintings of Ted Neely as Jesus? These are paintings of an actor playing Jesus, as if he really were Christ. Strange.
There are dozens and dozens of productions of this very expensive show-- many of them by churches or religious groups. Even stranger. I mean, it's agreeable-- and certainly an improvement on the usual drivel many churches' mistake for art, but it's still somewhat surprising.
2. the movie is about a bad man, Judas, and how he grew jealous of Jesus' popularity and betrayed him, only to be disappointed when he becomes a "superstar". Oh please! Judas hangs himself because he realizes that he has caused the horrible death of an innocent man because he misunderstood the motivations of the Scribes and Pharisees. He thought Jesus was getting carried away with his mission and posed a threat to the foolish, innocents who surrounded him. When he realizes that the Pharisees and Scribes mean to kill Jesus, he understands that a) he has been just as foolish as Jesus, b) he has become the tool by which manifest evil will be committed, c) he is going to remembered as the man who betrayed the holiest man on earth.
3. the movie is about the different paths by which people come to find God. As I said, there is no God in this film. There are some stories about dark clouds blocking the sun during the crucifixion scenes, and about Norman Jewison running around modern day Israel pointing at archeological digs and shouting, "God is here", but Jewison didn't understand the opera, and tried to put a bit of a new age spin on things. Didn't wash.
Significant Changes From Rice's Original Script:
Original: Caiaphus-- "What you have done will be the
saving of Israel,"
Movie: "What you have done will be the saving of everyone,"
Original: Jesus to Pilate--"There may be a kingdom for
me somewhere if I only knew!"
Movie: "There may be a kingdom for me somewhere, if you only
knew."
Original: (Jesus, as he is mobbed by the poor and the lepers):
"Heal yourselves!"
Movie: this angry, frustrated outburst is omitted.
Original: nothing
Movie: awful, schmaultzy song led by Peter and Mary on how they miss the guy:
"Could We Start Again". I believe the song was written for
the original and then wisely omitted. The movie, needing an extra few minutes of
scenery, resuscitated it, to ill effect.
What does it mean? That Jewison tried to put a "correct" spin on the movie? Rice's lyrics clearly imply that Jesus is deluded, and has begun to question his own mission. His irritated outburst at the mob of lepers and poor betrays a deep frustration with the demands put on him by an endlessly needy and desperate populace, and raises doubts about Jesus' confidence in his ability to meet those demands. Then Jewison tries to make it sound like Jesus is one up on Pilate. And he tries to make it sound like Caiaphas is paying Judas an ironic compliment, when Rice meant to suggest that the betrayal is significant only to Israel.
What is the movie about? It's about an extraordinary, complex man whose gifts and ideas generated intense responses in the people around him. The story constantly shifts focus from one constituency to another, from his disciples who hardly grasp what he means and hope to be famous some day, to Herod who finds him a curiosity, a joke, to Pilate who discerns the worth of the man, but sees him as a danger to himself, to Mary Magdalene doesn't know how to love him, to the priests who see him undermining their legalistic authority. The utter clarity of the schematic should be apparent to everyone: all of the parties are self-interested, except for Jesus. Jesus is a shock to "Israel in 4 BC" as he would be today. He was the very definition of the word "provocative". And you don't have to believe that he was the literal son of God to understand this.
Without developing a theological treatise here, you could do worse than encapsulate the nature of his message thusly: blessed are the weak. This particular phrase has become a modern cliché, but it's fundamental subversiveness should never be underestimated. All around us, we proclaim "blessed" are the strong, the successful, the rich, the able, the triumphant, the popular, the creative, and so on. To understand the subversiveness of Christ's message, try to picture Pat Robertson standing in front of his earnest Republican cohorts, or Madeline Albright in front of the U.N., or Eminem at the Grammies, or Colin Powell in Jerusalem: blessed are the losers. Aint gonna happen.
On the other hand, picture former President Carter hammering a shingle on a house for Habitat for Humanity. Every president of the U.S. claims to be a God-fearing Christian, but Carter is the only one I know of who actually might be one.
The tragedy of the movie is that when Christ resists the temptation to play to the self-interests of those around him, they do him in. And so it will always be. I doubt if the reaction to Christ today would be any different. Those Christians who rave about how they can't wait for his return have one serious problem: they won't know him. If Christ returned today, he would not say, "blessed are the cheerleaders..."
And that's what is being done to the original rock opera itself.
The movie was reasonably faithful to the opera (which was recorded before the show was produced anywhere) at least partly because it had to be: it was an opera. The terms were relatively fixed.
But do a quick search on the internet and you'll find that it is being appropriated by people who don't seem to understand or care what it means.
