Godspell (1973)
After a month’s absence I’m back looking at Godspell based on the hit musical Stephen Schwartz and John-Michael Tebelak. It’s one of the more heavily criticised Jesus films as it has not dated at all well, but the musical still remains possible and it’s attempts to reinvigorate Jesus’s teaching is still interesting today.
(Director - David Greene)
(Cast: Victor Garber - Jesus, Katie Hanley - Katie, David Haskell - John / Judas, Merrell Jackson - Merrell, Joanne Jonas - Joanne, Robin Lamont - Robin, Gilmer McCormick - Gilmer, Jeffrey Mylett - Jeffrey, Jerry Sroka - Jerry, Lynne Thigpen - Lynne, John-Michael Tebelak - Pharisee Monster [voice]).
Listen Now:
Standard Podcasts [5:50m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (94)
June 6th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Well done! I agree with much of what you say about the resurrection. It has always bothered me that it was not present, though I’ve often mused that the ending shot of the disciples carrying Jesus’ body around a corner, from which masses of people emerge, could be a sort of Gnostic resurrection - Jesus alive again spiritually in the hearts of believers. Or, more broadly, Jesus alive in all people in a sort of inclusivist twist - though this would not quite be in keeping with the film’s depiction of the parable of the sheep and the goats. If it were, it could be saying that salvation is given to all, but assured only by our actions as Keith Green pointed out, the difference between the damned goats and the redeemed sheep is “what they did and didn’t do.”
There again, though, after that parable, Jesus returns to the goat disciples and gestures for them to follow. “Come on,” he winks. It’s as if he’s saying, “Aw, never mind. I like you kids. You’re not damned after all!” This could reinforce an inclusivist reading of the film.
I agree also that the film has the problem of removing Jesus from his original context and not really replacing it with another. However, the mechanized, junkyard nature of the robot figure does reflect the mundane, cluttered urban existence the disciples had before following Jesus. So, it could be seen to at least reflect the “powers that be” as one would find them in modern day New York - represented by the idea of machinery and therefore industry. It’s also interesting that the disciples make and operate the robot, as the line continues to be blurred between real events taking place in some quasi-spiritual dimension and a group of actors putting on a show both for themselves and the audience. Is it, then, the characters of the disciples who seem so affected at the end of the film or the characters of the actors putting on this show?
This is not the only film, though, in which Jesus dies for no clear reason. Many Jesus films, I feel, arrive at the crucifixion because, well, that’s what comes next. They fail to create a clear cultural conflict or to explain the religious and political dynamics involved. If they do, they are often invented subplots or restructured versions of the Biblical narrative. Few films, to my mind, really clearly illustrate the impact of Jesus and the motivations behind his death on either the political or religious fronts. That this film also fails in that regard is nothing new, but that it does so in such a cryptic, nebulous fashion is indeed unique.
Thanks for another great podcast! I really enjoy this film on many levels, but it’s nice to talk about some of its limitations as well as the questions it raises.