'Jesus Christ Superstar' vs. 'Godspell' - A Conversation with Peter Kistler

Theatrical release poster for Jesus Christ Superstar

1973 saw the release of not one but two film adaptations of musicals about Jesus: Jesus Christ Superstar, directed by Norman Jewison, and Godspell, directed by David Greene. Apropos of nothing in particular, I invited my friend, theater and musical expert Peter Kistler (who once directed a production of Godspell), to have a live conversation with me to compare and contrast the two movies. We had our "conversation" in a Google Doc, which I reproduced below. It therefore accurately reflects the conversation we had as we had it (with only minor subsequent edits). Paragraphs beginning with "JB" are my words; those beginning with "PK" belong to Peter. 

Theatrical release poster for Godspell

JB: All right, Peter. Thank you for joining me. Now, to begin our conversation about these two Jesus movies, I think we should start by talking about Jesus. What do you make of the two different interpretations/versions of Jesus we get in Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar?

PK: As you know, I’m coming to this comparison from more of a theatrical perspective than a scriptural one. That being said, I think Jesus’ characterization in Superstar does an excellent job humanizing him while remaining within the bounds of what scripture tells us of his life. I think the script and Ted Neeley’s performance complement each other nicely to that end. 

Jesus (Ted Neely) with Mary Magdalene (Yvonne Elliman) in Jesus Christ Superstar

 JB: I think I’d agree with that assessment about the Jesus of Superstar, though I’d add that I think his character is far more interesting - as, indeed, characters usually are - in his moments of highest stress. He does a good deal of noble standing around, which is fine, but I’m all about the moments when Neely shows us the inner anguish of Jesus with the assistance of his impressive vocal range. Now, let’s talk about Victor Garber’s Jesus in Godspell. For reasons we’ll surely discuss later in this conversation, Godspell is a very different movie from Superstar, and I think the Garber-Jesus fits his movie well. He’s equal parts quirky and profound, full of energy, hopping around, etc. It’s one of many components of Godspell that contributes to the movie’s tremendous sense of fun and energy.

Jesus (Victor Garber) in Godspell

PK: I agree that Garber’s performance is more involved, though I’d suggest Neely’s Jesus maintains a deliberate distance from his disciples, given the inner crisis he undergoes in his final days. There are some wonderful moments of connection between Garber and his disciples, though I felt as though Godspell wasted some opportunities to let Jesus and Judas connect. Perhaps it was the script’s decision to use only dialogue from the Gospel of Matthew that made some scenes ring strangely, but scenes like the Beatitudes, where John/Judas breaks in with an aggressive “Blessed are you when all manner of men shall persecute you!....falsely…” still leave me somewhat confused as to what’s going on between the two characters. I think Godspell might have benefitted from giving its Jesus and Judas a moment to breathe, like Superstar’s number “The Jaded Mandarin” after the last supper scene.

JB: I’m glad you brought up Judas, because he’s the part of both movies I wanted to talk about next. Godspell has a potentially interesting conceit of having the same actor (David Haskell) play both John the Baptist, who charmingly draws all of the disciples from all walks of New York City life together to get baptized at the beginning, and Judas. I think I’m stealing this point from a prior conversation I had with you, but I wish Godspell would have done more with this interesting idea. But I doubt anything Godspell could have done with the character of Judas would have come close to the fascinating portrayal we get from Carl Anderson in Superstar. Judas in Superstar has, I think, the best musical numbers and is the most interesting character, perhaps even the main character (despite the title). And it’s interesting to me that in both movies elevate Judas to such prominence (in one of his numbers in Superstar, Judas describes himself--perhaps vainly?--as the “right hand man” of Jesus), against such characters as, say, Peter (who has but a a few lines in Superstar, and no clear equivalent in Godspell).

Judas Iscariot (Carl Anderson), Jesus Christ Superstar

PK: It’s strange to me that Godspell is so unconcerned with holding up Jesus and Judas’ competing ideologies. The number “All For the Best” appears to do this, as Jesus and Judas interpret the same phrase in unique ways, but the two seem to be talking (or singing) past one another. Past that point in the film, Judas seems already on the path to betrayal and we’re never quite shown a moment in which he decides to do this. One of my favorite moments in Superstar is in “Everything’s Alright” when Jesus openly rebukes Judas and tries to correct his assumptions about helping the poor. I wish Godspell, even with its dedication to preserving the text of scripture, could have given us a moment to let those two characters clash before the final scene.

I wonder if the Jesus of Godspell is too busy attending to his other disciples to realize the extent of Judas’ discontent. It seems as though Judas’ concerns tend to fall through the cracks in the moment of whatever parable is being told.

Judas/John the Baptist (David Haskell), Godspell

JB: I think that’s a plausible interpretation, but perhaps an over-interpretation of the relatively simple structure of Godspell. At any rate, the elevation of Judas in both movies - even if imperfectly in Godspell - intrigues me. In scriptural terms, Judas seems to absorb some of the attributes and prominence of Peter. You could make a good movie with Peter as a main character; he has plenty of faults and defects - I mean, at one point, Jesus calls him Satan - but I suppose the arc of Judas lends itself better to a dramatic structure. Any last points to make about Judas, Peter?

PK: I don’t think so. I think we’re coming close to an issue that I think is at the heart of both movies: The challenges of adapting scripture to a dramatic structure. Okay if we discuss that for a minute?

JB: Sure. In fact, that’s sort of where I wanted to go to next. So I’ll just start the discussion with some general comments about each movie’s answer to that challenge. Godspell, weirdly enough, despite varying the number of disciples, moving the setting to the New York of 1973, etc., sticks closer to the actual text here (in this case, the Gospel of Matthew). But it suffuses that text with an infectious energy that sees Jesus and the disciples running, jumping, performing, and singing all around the city. Meanwhile, Superstar is a bit more relaxed in its literalism, but was filmed beautifully--thanks in part to the efforts of the great (alas, recently-deceased) cinematographer Douglas Slocombe, perhaps best known for his work on Raiders of the Lost Ark--on-location in Israel. It therefore looks more like what we expect a “Jesus” movie to look like: e.g., Ben-Hur, King of Kings, The Greatest Story Ever Told. So each approach emphasizes fidelity in some respects and innovation in others. Is one superior to the other? 

A scene from Jesus Christ Superstar

PK: It seems to me that the scripts of each film approaches the story with a different intent. The script of Godspell is fairly minimalistic, including the dialogue and some notes on what was done in the original production, but in fact does not specify a setting or much of the blocking and stage directions one typically finds in a theatrical script. One could argue its intent is more to simply set the story of the Gospel in a more modern vernacular, and to let individual productions fill in the details of setting, blocking, character moments, as they see fit. In my opinion, some of this fluidity comes at the expense of some coherence in terms of characters and their motivations (as we discussed with John the Baptist / Judas). I think these things may simply be of less importance to Godspell, whereas Superstar was conceived as a more traditional story focusing on the conflict between Jesus and Judas.

JB: I predict you may disagree with what I am about to say here, but that hasn’t stopped me from talking before (just ask my enemies). As you know, but our audience does not, I watched these movies back-to-back over the span of a single afternoon, so I have a pretty direct basis to compare/contrast them. Viewing them both in such proximity, I came away from Godspell feeling, strangely, that it was a more authentic representation of its source text, despite its dramatic differences in setting, characters, etc. The greater textual literalism helps this, but the quirkiness and energy of much of what it happens in Godspell seems like a reasonable translation of how Jesus and his disciples might have been regarded in their own place and time (at least until the authorities started worrying about them). Meanwhile I found Superstar a more compelling story, with much more interesting conflict and characters, but not as much scriptural authenticity (which probably wasn’t its goal in the first place anyway). But I like both movies, of course, though for different reasons.

PK: I like your point about the way Godspell’s central conceit conveys the way the disciples would have been perceived by the society against which they rebelled. The opening scene of each one throwing away the vestments of their previous lives is always invigorating to me, and perfectly encompasses what Jesus said all his followers must do to truly follow him. What appeals most to me about Superstar, though, is that it uses its dramatic format to give each of the key players in the passion story a voice--something that we didn’t get to see in the original scripture. We see Mary Magdalene’s torment as she sorts through her feelings; Judas lays out his grievances with Jesus’ methods; Pilate struggles with the demands of the mob to do something his conscience rebels against. Superstar makes the story feel more real to me because it emphasizes all of the players in the tragedy are human, especially Jesus.

JB: I also enjoyed the way Godspell began: With John the Baptist semi-magically appearing in the lives of these random people via simple (almost, in some cases, cheesy) special effects, and then drawing them all together. And you’re on the nose with your assessment of Superstar. The Pilate of Superstar was one of the best I’ve seen in film this side of David Bowie. Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to address some of the intentional metafictional/anachronistic conceits of each film. Obviously, Godspell isn’t too concerned with anachronism, being set in the New York of the year it was filmed (1973). So for me the more pressing conceit was the complete emptiness of New York aside from Jesus and his disciples from just after the beginning to just before the end. Was there a point to this that I didn’t understand? Superstar, meanwhile, has both metafictional aspects--if I remember correctly, the way it opens and closes suggests that the movie we are watching recognizes itself as a performance of Jesus Christ Superstar--and anachronistic ones: e.g., Roman guards holding guns, Judas tormented by visions of tanks and fighter jets, etc. I suppose my question is: Do these things have any deeper meaning, or are they just the lingering accoutrements of theater adapted to film? 

Godspell, in the heart of New York City

PK: I wouldn’t say these are any sort of leftovers from a theatrical production; as I mentioned, a director of Godspell is more or less given a clean slate, and Superstar, being a rock opera, has no real script to speak of apart from its lyrics. Whatever the implications of these phenomena, we can be sure they were intentional.
I think Godspell’s empty NYC was meant to emphasize that the disciples’ former lives were far behind them. Considering that Godspell’s script doesn’t spend much time contextualizing the Disciples’ place in society after they join with Jesus, I don’t think repeated shots of passersby shooting confused looks at the Disciples would have added much to the story. Though, come to think of it, Judas does bring a police escort with him to the Crucifixion. This might be another instance of Godspell prioritizing its internal logic less than its central concept.

I’m not sure what purpose Superstar’s anachronistic props, costumes, etc. serve. Most of the strange things we see could conceivably have been brought in on the bus the actors arrive on; Judas’ vision of tanks and planes…….might just be a trippy ‘70s musical set piece. ;-)

JB: I think I read somewhere that another purpose of the empty New York of Godspell is that, at the end, when people return, the disciples carry the body of Jesus into the world. That’s a pretty directly symbolic action, and a nice complement to the purpose of New York’s emptiness you identify at the beginning: New York empties when the disciples leave their former lives behind; it fills again when they are ready to proclaim the good news. Superstar’s anachronisms don’t bother me that much, except for the jets and tanks. One possibility I entertained is that Judas is having a vision of a future Middle East full of conflict that he thinks Jesus may in some way be responsible for (his vision is the proximate cause of his decision to betray Jesus to the high priests), though that’s reaching. Another possibility is that the crew managed to secure the participation of some military force for the movie (perhaps Israel’s?), and just thought it would look really cool. Looking cool is always nice.

PK: I just thought of this: It could be that the tanks represent the otherwise-unseen might of the Roman Empire, and the fury they would bring to bear upon Israel if Jesus were to be crowned King of the Jews. This is something we hear Judas worry about (“And they’ll crush us if we go too far”--‘Heaven on Their Minds’). It could be the fear of the destruction of Israel motivates him to turn his master in. 

Pictured: An anachronism from Jesus Christ Superstar

 JB: I think that make sense. Another line in “Heaven on Their Minds” (maybe my favorite musical number in Superstar) is “Have you forgotten/how put down we are!?” Judas is worried about Israel as a political entity. I think his anachronistic vision of tanks and jets would make sense as an expression of that, with trippy 70s-ness filling in whatever other logical gaps remain. Now, we’ve already addressed this without ever directly discussing it, but is there anything else you want to say about Superstar’s scriptural fidelity?

PK: I’m a little surprised you found Godspell to be the more scripturally-authentic adaptation. It’s true that Superstar doesn’t use the characters’ original words, but as a teenager I learned a lot about the power struggles of the Pharisees, the Romans, and Pilate (that I hadn’t gleaned from my Sunday school education) by watching Superstar. I personally am willing to accept that, say, a particular scene didn’t take place in any of the Gospels (and the only one of these I’m aware of is “The Jaded Mandarin”, which was written for this film version), if it fleshes out some of the characters. Your thoughts?

JB: That’s a good point about the power dynamics, the Romans, Pharisees, Pilate, etc. The only taste of any of that we get in Godspell is the Pharisee Monster of “Alas For You.” I suppose it comes down, as we discussed before, to a letter-of-the-law vs. spirit-of-the-law debate. Godspell is much more a “letter of the law” movie (the “law” here being the original text), whereas Superstar captures the spirit of the “law.” Now, let’s move onto some final issues/questions. Aside from what we’ve already discussed, is there anything in either movie that just doesn’t work for you? For me, it was King Herod’s musical number in Superstar. I found it tonally out of place, more fit for a production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat or something.

PK: I haven’t seen Joseph but I think I see what you mean. The point of the number, I’m sure, is to surprise the viewer with just how little Herod cares about what’s going on in Jerusalem. I’ve seen criticism levelled at Mr. Mostel’s portrayal of Herod, though I personally have always loved that number for its sheer bizarre quality. I’d recommend you look at the 2000 filmed production of Superstar for an alternate take. In it, Herod is more of a smooth lounge-singer type, and his number is more an expression of his glamour and wealth than of his excess.

I came to both films during my church confirmation class in ninth grade, and revisiting both has opened my eyes to my own changing tastes. As a younger man I was drawn more to Godspell for its sheer optimism and idealism, and was more forgiving of its dramatic inconsistencies. Upon revisiting it I found it a much less compelling watch, especially compared to the deep connections evident between the lead characters in Superstar. Of course, having directed my own production of Godspell on my high school stage eight years ago, it’s possible I’ll never be quite far enough away from the show to view it objectively. Many of the issues I’ve outlined with it here are problems I wrestled with in interpreting the show for the stage.

JB: All right, easier question: Favorite musical number from each. I’d have to go with the cliche choice of “Day by Day” from Godspell, though “Alas For You” comes a close second for the Pharisee Monster. 

 
Meanwhile, “Heaven On Their Minds,” the opening number of Judas from Superstar, won me over from the start, and perfectly establishes the character of its singer (while also treating us to some scenic desert beauty):



PK: Easier? I feel like I’m in Sophie’s Choice. Purely in terms of the movies’ renditions of the numbers…..from Godspell, I’d have to pick “Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord”. 
 

As many times as I’ve seen that particular fountain featured in movies, it couldn’t have been put to better use. The cast is clearly having a great time playing around in the water, and David Haskell is the perfect blend of mysterious and joyous. I laugh every time Katie Hanley turns around to drop her purse in the trash. From Superstar…..oh, so many choices! I think it’s “Trial Before Pilate / The Thirty-Nine Lashes”. 

 
The staging of that ampitheatre at the bottom of the mountain really allows the crowd to close in on Pilate and Jesus. The decision to shoot the lashes themselves in slow-motion gives us time to see everyone’s reaction--Mary’s screams, Pilate’s growing unease. The whole thing is intense and provides a sense of intimacy, that we’re there listening in on Pilate and Jesus, that wouldn’t have been possible in live theater. We need more musical films!

JB: I enjoyed both of those sequences as well. The fountain baptism showed Godspell at its lively best. And I liked how Jesus appeared during that number. I’ve been paying a lot of attention to character introductions in fiction lately (e.g., Han Solo’s very first words in A New Hope are “Han Solo, Captain of the Millennium Falcon”), so I liked that the first words of Jesus in Godspell were something like “Hey! I want to get washed up” (spoken to John the Baptist). And excellent assessment of the Pilate sequence. It was intense. The repeated guitar riff crescendoing, Pilate’s anguish...when I watched it for the first time, I, as a viewer, began to feel some of the same anguish and disgust I think we were supposed to understand that Pilate himself felt. But unless you have anything else to add about either movie, or want to confront another Sophie’s Choice and decide which one you like better, I think I’ve said just about all I have to say, except, of course, that I would recommend both to fans of Jesus and fans of musicals.

PK: Fans of Jesus will be glad to hear it. I hear they’ve been a little starved for new material lately.
As I mentioned, at this juncture in my life Superstar appeals to me more, though I will always have a huge place in my heart for each.
I’ve enjoyed being a guest speaker on A Life Between Runs, though! I’m glad this comparison provided enough substance for us to examine in depth.

JB: I am also satisfied on both counts. Readers can anticipate our next exegesis on Batman: The Movie (1966), Batman and Robin, and The Dark Knight, in which we decide that Adam West is the best Batman (certainly better than the Batfleck, at any rate).

PK: Holy Collaboration! I’d be happy to gush about the merits of camp (and camp done badly) for as long as anyone is willing to listen.

JB: Well, readers, I mentioned that as a joke, but I like it as a serious idea the more I think about it. If we ever do get around to it, then you’ll find the conversation here, same Bat-blog, different Bat-time. Until then, thanks for reading.