‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ Banned in Belarus

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Holly3278

I think it is good that they banned this film. I never did like the film and I always thought it was somewhat blasphemous but I am not sure why. I've only watched it one time and that was back when I was in either high school or middle school. I am now 29 going on 30.

It has been many years since I listened to the original LP, but as I recall, it ends with John
19:41, and thereby, excludes the resurrection. This was problematic, of course.

Jon

[bellasbane]

Originally Posted by JonNC

It has been many years since I listened to the original LP, but as I recall, it ends with John
19:41, and thereby, excludes the resurrection. This was problematic, of course.

Jon

The musical takes some liberty by emphasizing a tension between Jesus, Judas and Mary Magdalene that is not directly found in the Gospels, but is probably based on John 12:1-7 and makes for good theater. However, I don't have any problem with the end. After all, the Stations of the Cross end with Jesus being laid in the tomb.

Jesus is a very human Jesus throughout the musical - up until the Last Supper, but that's what I like about it. Too often we think about Jesus as the second person of the Trinity and forget that as a man he experienced everything just like you or I would. I think Glenn Carter does a great job getting that across in the 2000 film version.

The whole thing is available on YouTube if anyone cares to check it out.

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by JonNC

It has been many years since I listened to the original LP, but as I recall, it ends with John
19:41, and thereby, excludes the resurrection. This was problematic, of course.

Jon

Well, it is, in its essence, a Passion play. Come to think of it, its main focus is on Holy Week. For the record, Johann Sebastian Bach also took the same route and did not include the Resurrection in his Passion oratorios: "Your grave and headstone shall, for the anxious conscience, be a comfortable pillow and the resting place for the soul. Highly contented, there the eyes fall asleep."

The opera ending with John 19:41 did not stop some productions from including a Resurrection scene though.

And I know some people would not agree with me here, but I think the word "blasphemy" gets thrown around all too easily. Sure, I won't deny that its problematic theologically (from a Catholic POV) in some places, as well as artistically (it does feel like Rice and Webber have a hard time coming up with lyrics every now and then and just cram in words for the sake of rhyme), but I don't think it crosses the line.

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by bellasbane

The musical takes some liberty by emphasizing a tension between Jesus, Judas and Mary Magdalene that is not directly found in the Gospels, but is probably based on John 12:1-7 and makes for good theater. However, I don't have any problem with the end. After all, the Stations of the Cross end with Jesus being laid in the tomb.

Jesus is a very human Jesus throughout the musical - up until the Last Supper, but that's what I like about it. Too often we think about Jesus as the second person of the Trinity and forget that as a man he experienced everything just like you or I would. I think Glenn Carter does a great job getting that across in the 2000 film version.

The whole thing is available on YouTube if anyone cares to check it out.

To be honest, I never cared much about the 2000 film version (that's just my personal taste; I just could not stand Glenn Carter for some reason). Sure the 1973 film suffers from its age (it is horribly dated, as evidenced by the early 70s fashion and hairstyles), but IMHO Ted Neeley and Carl Anderson are still the best Jesus and Judas ever.

If there is something I really like about JCS, it is that it captures the "blindness of the disciples" motif found in Mark's Gospel. Far from being the venerable, saintly bearded old men with halos that later generations have portrayed them, Mark has a less flattering picture of the disciples in general. They are a slow, even buffoonish bunch who doesn't really comprehend what Jesus says and does, even given their privileged positions. In a sense, Jesus is the Superstar and the disciples are His (shallow and uncomprehending) groupies.

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.

If there is something I dislike about JCS, it is that Jesus' enemies are rather one-dimensional: they are never totally fleshed out. (This is also what probably prompted the accusations of anti-Semitism: the priests for instance are a syncophantic bunch, who merely echo Caiaphas - the thinker of the group - without any visible dissent.)

Oh, and for the interested, I posted an analysis of the songs on another thread not too long ago. Still unfinished though.

[JonNC]

=patrick457;9040323]Well, it is, in its essence, a Passion play. Come to think of it, its main focus is on Holy Week. For the record, Johann Sebastian Bach also took the same route and did not include the Resurrection in his Passion oratorios: "Your grave and headstone shall, for the anxious conscience, be a comfortable pillow and the resting place for the soul. Highly contented, there the eyes fall asleep."

The opera ending with John 19:41 did not stop some productions from including a Resurrection scene though.

Agreed. When it first came out on LP, our parish did a sort-of production of it, and my dad, who was a pastor, made sure the resurrection was included.

And I know some people would not agree with me here, but I think the word "blasphemy" gets thrown around all too easily. Sure, I won't deny that its problematic theologically (from a Catholic POV) in some places, as well as artistically (it does feel like Rice and Webber have a hard time coming up with lyrics every now and then and just cram in words for the sake of rhyme), but I don't think it crosses the line.

I agree, and like I said, it wasn't meant to be a doctrinal statement. Much of the music is great. For example, Pilate's song seems to nail exactly what I suspect he must have felt about the whole thing.
"Then I saw thousands of millions crying for this man,
and then I heard them mentioning my name, and leaving me to blame."

Jon

[bellasbane]

Originally Posted by patrick457

To be honest, I never cared much about the 2000 film version (that's just my personal taste; I just could not stand Glenn Carter for some reason). Sure the 1973 film suffers from its age (it is horribly dated, as evidenced by the early 70s fashion and hairstyles), but IMHO Ted Neeley and Carl Anderson are still the best Jesus and Judas ever.

If there is something I really like about JCS, it is that it captures the "blindness of the disciples" motif found in Mark's Gospel. Far from being the venerable, saintly bearded old men with halos that later generations have portrayed them, Mark has a less flattering picture of the disciples in general. They are a slow, even buffoonish bunch who doesn't really comprehend what Jesus says and does, even given their privileged positions. In a sense, Jesus is the Superstar and the disciples are His (shallow and uncomprehending) groupies.

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.

If there is something I dislike about JCS, it is that Jesus' enemies are rather one-dimensional: they are never totally fleshed out. (This is also what probably prompted the accusations of anti-Semitism: the priests for instance are a syncophantic bunch, who merely echo Caiaphas - the thinker of the group - without any visible dissent.)

Oh, and for the interested, I posted an analysis of the songs on another thread not too long ago. Still unfinished though.

I always felt that Ted Neeley came across as a bit stiff - but hey, that's just my opinion and there are certainly loads of folks who would agree with you.

On the other hand, I think you make a great point regarding the characterization of the Apostles in JCS being a lot like that of Mark. I think Simon's song is terrific - he's totally passionate and totally wrong.

Neither you Simon, nor the fifty thousand
Nor the Romans, nor the Jews
Nor Judas, nor the twelve
Nor the priests, nor the scribes
Nor doomed Jerusalem itself
Understand what power is
Understand what glory is
Understand at all
Understand at all

I've always wondered why the Tim Rice went to such great lengths to portray Pilate in such a sympathetic light.

On the other hand, Annais is totally evil - and gets all the best lines...

Listen to that howling mob
Of blockheads in the street
A trick or two with lepers
And the whole town's on its feet

and

Cut the protesting
Forget the excuses
We want information
Get up off the floor

and

Now that we have the gentleman
What more evidence do we need?
Judas, thank you for the victim
Stay a while and you'll see him bleed!

He's just creepy!

[Luigi Daniele]

Originally Posted by Fiasco

Good on `em (for banning it)!

[VeritasLuxMea]

Originally Posted by JonNC

How is saying "Good on 'em (for banning it)!" any different than the HHS mandate? They are both government banning of speech and religious exercise.
Whether or not one agrees with the message of the rock opera, banning something such as this "always gives me the horrors".

Jon

I like freedom of religion, as long as it's only MY religion that is free!

[VeritasLuxMea]

Originally Posted by Holly3278

I think it is good that they banned this film. I never did like the film and I always thought it was somewhat blasphemous but I am not sure why. I've only watched it one time and that was back when I was in either high school or middle school. I am now 29 going on 30.

The government should just ban everything that I don't like. It's easy that way, it's called despotism.

[Tenofovir]

Originally Posted by JonNC

And of course, our view of the role of government here in the United States is (supposed) to be different. The main thrust of government here is (supposed) to be protection of individual rights, not restriction of behavior, except behavior that interferes with others' rights.

What the thrust of your government is supposed to be and what it is are two different things. I'm sure you'll agree that not all is well, even with your government. I gather this from the all the negative comments about the latest HHS mandate.

And that's fine, so long as there is an understanding that whenone's rights are limited, it is tait permission for others' rights to be restricted. Whether or not Jesus Christ Superstar is a cheap western show or not.

In this case it's a cheap Western show making a mockery of God. It's YOUR culture being forced on Eastern Europeans by clever, glitzy intellectual, atheist elites who only wanna make some bucks.

I certainly have no issue with Belorussion culture. I have an issue with restriction of speech.

It's a show not free speech. It's a performance the people of Belarus don't want. If they don't want it, it does not get shown. They don't want this particular speech, who are you to force your ideals on them?

I wasn't aware that it was declared blasphemous. It clearly isn't completely theologically sound, but then it isn't a doctrinal statement, either. Its a rock opera.

It makes a mockery of God in a show business way. That's blasphemy.

[Tenofovir]

Originally Posted by bellasbane

Sorry to hear you feel about it that way. I would think the people of Belarus would appreciate the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they find the musical offensive or not.

Well some obviously found it blasphemous. Shows don't just get banned for nothing.
And yes it definitely is a mockery of God.

I think it is both delightful and devastating at the same time. Herod is a joke - but the 39 lashes counted out one by one is almost too hard to bear.

There is an almost limitless series of topics one could devote to delightful and devastating shows. But to make a cheap, show business production for the hoi polloi and make it about God, you know the Creator, the One who we are supposed to respect and be devoted to, I don't feel is right. Many people feel this way. You know I can understand Phantom of the Opera, Eva Peron or Les Miserables but Jesus Christ, you know is a little different to all those other subjects. Making a joke out of Christ, and not even for some political statement (say oppression of women by Christians or oppression of gays by Christians, while I may disagree I can see that the author has some form of semi-legitimate justification and is acting out in some way for something he perceives is unjust) but as a cheap gimmick to make money is most wrong. I'm sorry you feel that's not the case.

Belarus, except for the ex-apparatchiks and their families is mostly a Christian country. These people would not like this sort of thing.

Question for you, is freedom of speech at all costs more important than breaking the Ten Commandments? Are secular ideals more important than God?

[Digitonomy]

Originally Posted by Tenofovir

It's a performance the people of Belarus don't want. If they don't want it, it does not get shown. They don't want this particular speech, who are you to force your ideals on them?

While the topic of Belarus doesn't come up often here on CAF, I think this is the first time I have seen anyone assume that an action by the Belarussian government reflects the will of the Belarussian people. I won't deny that it might reflect the people's will, but I think heavy skepticism and further investigation is always called for before making such an assumption about the government in Minsk.

[Tenofovir]

Originally Posted by Holly3278

I think it is good that they banned this film. I never did like the film and I always thought it was somewhat blasphemous but I am not sure why. I've only watched it one time and that was back when I was in either high school or middle school. I am now 29 going on 30.

Your gut instinct is correct.

It trivialises God. It's irreverent. Now many people may not have a problem with that, but many people also have no problem with masturbation, adultery and abortion.

I think Andrew Lloyd Weber should keep his mitts off God. Now had he written a work of classical music, i.e something reverent, I would be all for "Jesus Christ Superstar" but even the very title is ridiculous and mocking.

[Rich Olszewski]

Originally Posted by Tenofovir

It's YOUR culture being forced on Eastern Europeans by clever, glitzy intellectual, atheist elites who only wanna make some bucks.

Forced on them? At the point of a gun?

It's a show not free speech. It's a performance the people of Belarus don't want. If they don't want it, it does not get shown.

Wrong. If they don't want it, they won't go to see it. That's the way free enterprise works.

It makes a mockery of God in a show business way. That's blasphemy.

Numerous other posters here disagree with you.

[Tenofovir]

Originally Posted by Digitonomy

While the topic of Belarus doesn't come up often here on CAF, I think this is the first time I have seen anyone assume that an action by the Belarussian government reflects the will of the Belarussian people. I won't deny that it might reflect the people's will, but I think heavy skepticism and further investigation is always called for before making such an assumption about the government in Minsk.

I know very little about the Belarussian government, but I know a bit about the people who live there. I don't see the typical Eastern European finding Jesus Christ Superstar, non-blasphemous. Ok there are some but these are, as said, descendants of Communist Party members of whom there are quite a few, they're usually atheist or pretend to be religious. I speak here for the average person who goes to church every Sunday.

I also know that they have a strong sense of respect for worthy objects. Watch the interview with Elem Klimov about his film, Come and See, it's on the DVD, and you'll see how everyone in the cast made that film with deep respect because of the "sacred" (his words) nature of the subject matter (extermination of civilians by SS). People do feel this way about God, too, and even more so.

I think such things may be "lost in translation" between cultures. It's a different approach, call it an outdated approach which is now mostly quaint in the West.