rock_musicals
|
1973 vs. 2000the discussion moved from the "101 Embarrasing Moments" thread....
I prefer the arrangements from 1973 movie...
The 2000 were sort of annoying, lame 90's pop-rock
A lot of the people in the 2000 movie were horrible...
I couldn't stand Annas
or Jesus, much less Judas 
The only complaint I have about the 1973 film was the idea of a bunch of hippies driving out to an Israeli desert..
The "Overture" scene really reminded me of a cult
|
jcstar
|
JCS 1973 is the perfect film. I can't see anything wrong with it.
JCS 2000 was good. I defended this film soooooo many times on other boards, that I got tired of doing it.
But,
Jerome Pradon (Judas) is an excellent actor and a brilliant baritone. He wanted to be Jesus, but ALW saw him (as do I) as Judas. He took a high tenor role ands gave it his all. Yes, he may notr have hit the notes like a Carl Anderson or Tony Vincent, but he is tearing his lungs out to sing the stuff.
Glenn Carter I like as Jesus. The only thing I wanted to see and hear was him cough up blood while singing Jesus. I want the man who plays Jesus to put his health on the line while performing. Carter is a great tenor, but he stops short of killing himself in the role.
Fred Johanson can sing, but his Pilate is too cold.
Caiaphas and Annas are both great. Owens is miscast (vocally) as Caiaphas.
Renee Castle would be better live. She's very attractive and sings very well. But, she needs to be seen live to appriciate her talent.
I forget who else is in the film as I haven't watched it in two and a half years.
Andy.
|
rock_musicals
|
The priests scared me...
|
superdave
|
1973, is better. Because of the singers...It's a rock opera, and they casted rock singers...that is the point.
But I like some of 2000s visuals.
|
jcstar
|
| rock_musicals wrote: | | The priests scared me... |
They're supposed to scare you. That's how the parts are written.
Andy.
|
Lord Moe
|
I like the 2000 version more. But I have certain points to make.
- I like Glen Carter, but those high notes are definatly for someone like Ted Neeley. Glen is just too pretty for those high notes.
- Carl Anderson pulls off the part perfectly in the vocal manner, but Jerome's acting is mountains better.
- Tony Vincent...I'm sorry, but he should be in N'SYNC or something. The '73 Simon is hilarious.
- Ciaphas and Annas, imo, are better in the 2000 version. The '73 Annas sounds like a woman, and the '00 version has that creepy tone that I love. The '73 Ciaphas just speaks and growls his singing, while the '00 one has that deep voice (which does, i admit, get gravely at times) that's great for the part. And the other high priests in the '00 version are awesome, especially the other bass (who played Ciaphas in the '96 london production).
- The '73 Mary ANNOYS THE HELL OUT OF ME. Does she have to slide up to every note. "Could We Start Again Please" is supposed to make you close to tears, not make you cringe.
- '73 Peter went on to be a porn actor. Why did I mention this? I don't know.
- I think the '73 Pilate sounds kinda feminine. I love the '00 drill seargant Pilate.
- 2000 Herod. It's Rik Mayall. Need I say more? 
Overall, the best Jesus is Steve Balsamo. 
|
jcstar
|
Just one thing...
Name one actress who has sung Mary and been more attractive, stunning, gorgeous and beautiful than Yvonne Elliman?
You can't. No one can compare with her beauty. Her voice is amazing, too.
I win.
Andy.
|
Lord Moe
|
| jcstar wrote: | Just one thing...
Name one actress who has sung Mary and been more attractive, stunning, gorgeous and beautiful than Yvonne Elliman?
You can't. No one can compare with her beauty. Her voice is amazing, too.
I win.
Andy. |
lol, I never said she wasn't beautiful. And I never said that she didn't have a good voice, I just don't like how she sings in this. From the sound of her voice, she sounds like she could be great, but I just don't like how she sings in this.
Anyway, I think Joanna Ampli is prettier than Yvonne Elliman, but I'm not going to get into who I find attractive, lol.
|
jcstar
|
| Lord Moe wrote: | | lol, I never said she wasn't beautiful. And I never said that she didn't have a good voice |
Okay, fair enough.
Last year, a friend of mine passed away from Cancer. While grieving for him, Yvonne's version of "Everything's Alright" was on the radio. She made me cry all over again.
No one can sing the role better than she can. But that's soley my opinion.
(While watching the film, I wish I could jump in there and hug her.)
Andy.
|
DramaPrincess
|
Though I don't think it's perfect, I prefer the 2000 version, mainly from a directorial point of view.
The first time I saw JCS was a video of the 73 show and I absolutely hated it. I thought it was the cheesiest most awful thing in musicals and it took me a lot of convincing to listen to the show after that. I've now come round to some redeeming features, but I still think it's a poor interpretation overall. The 2000 version has quite poor singers imo - Pradon I really don't like, Rik Mayall was a mistake and I don't think Glen Carter is amazing, but overall the look and feel is much better (and doesn't have random scenes with tanks coming over sand hills and nonstop wandering around the desert). The 2000 version is more what I can imagine myself performing in/directing
|
Jesus
|
If you can't for yourself discern the obvious, yet genius symbolism which Jewison litters his film with. Or if you can't see the beautifuly drawn parallels which he draws between Jesus' own movement, and that of the "Flower Children," or if you're oblivious to the overt political implictions Jewison makes with his film, then you should never be anywhere JCS as either a performer or a director.
If you think Gale Edwards's film is in the slightest bit compelling or interesting, or if anything at all in that film is clear, or necessary, then again, you shoiuldn't be anywhere near JCS.
Jesus
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
Damn it, you're in for it now! That was freakin' Jesus. 
|
Beagle On Stage
|
And as usual, he was right. 
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
He is. The 2000 movie was awful.
|
kittengoespop
|
Believe it or not, I'm going to disagree with Jesus on this one. I think the 1973 movie is a godawful piece of trash movie that isn't worth anyone's time to watch. I hate hippies and I don't think that the show has anything to do with hippies or should. I much prefer the vaguely Orwellian post-apocolyptic netherworld idea, and I think it's a lot darker and more chilling than wacky hippies. And, being a fan of Caiaphas, I much prefer Frederick Owens over Bob Bingham. Bingham just doesn't do it for me with his raspy bass voice, and the costume he's wearing is absolutely laughable, with that stupid hat. The priests should inspire much more fear than that, which I feel was properly accomplished in the 2000 movie version.
So, that's my two cents. I'm sure I'm the only person in the world who feels this way, but at least I've expressed my opinion.
|
DramaPrincess
|
Oh my god the hats! How could I forget...maybe I tried to blank them out or something.
Two things I remembered from my first time watching the 73 movie - lame dancing in Simon Zealotes and the awful hats! It took me 5 and a half years before I could bear to even consider watching any version of it after that!
I think the show is much more interesting if it's easy to relate to - part of the whole point of the show to me is presenting all these famous religious figures as real people, and the 2000 version seems to me much more relevant and accessible. I didn't say I couldn't see parallels in the 73 version, I just don't find them particularly interesting.
Even with some crappy performances, I find the 2000 version more engaging.
Definitely agree with kittengoespop on most points
"Wacky hippies" are rather embarassing.
|
superdave
|
I first saw JCS, the film version when I was 12. And I loved it...I still watch it... I think its what it is. I mean, guys the film was filmed in 1973--before Digital Technology was available. JCS, on Broadway was bizzare--I have looked at pictures, and if I had seen it today-- I would be wondering what in the hell, just occured. So them stripping it down, to a bare minimum...I think was the prime intention. Plus, you cant get away with how good the singers are in the 73 version. I mean Anderson and Neeley--no questions. I get chills when I hear, Neeley do Gethsemane...and Anderson, wont even go there. I liked the preists, you cannot forget the contrast of the weasely sound of Annas, mixed in with the grumbling of Caiaphas. You cannot forget the craziness of the Herod Song. Or Barry Dennen!--That guy rocked as Pilate, he defined the role.
Sure there are setbacks, one the film is dated, two Simon is a little bit too much, the visuals arent as good...
I think JCS in a gotham, appoloyptic settting is chilling and does wonders for the show...but in 1973-- JCS was what it was...A Rock and Roll Show with hippies. Get over it.
|
rock_musicals
|
I agree. It was a rock show with hippies. I just can't stand it as a pop show with X generation kids. I prefer the 1973 version. It doesn't matter if it is dated. For some reason, people seem to think for something to be cool, it has to be up to date. I completely disagree.
|
kittengoespop
|
But see, I don't think JCSS is about hippies. I also don't like the overall campiness of the 1973 movie. The 2000 movie takes itself much more seriously and the industrial atmosphere, I think, works better than the desert. But again, that's just me, and I know that everyone thinks the 1973 movie is considered by some, for I don't know what reason, a classic movie.
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
I'm not going into this one... 
|
Tom
|
| kittengoespop wrote: | | I think the 1973 movie is a godawful piece of trash movie that isn't worth anyone's time to watch. I hate hippies and I don't think that the show has anything to do with hippies or should. |
The show was written in 1969/70. The musical was a part of the hippie movement. It had a huge impact in America because of Hippies. The original record was a flop in Engalnd. It took two years for Superstar to take off in England but was an instant sensation in America. It was America that gave Superstar a chance. It struck a chord with the Hippie generation. It spoke of a a long haired radical preaching peace. But he is kept down by "the man" for upsetting the status quo. His political upheavals get him killed. JCS IS about hippies because Superstar was Abie and Jerry being tried in Chicago. Hippies understood SUPERSTAR because they were being killed at Kent State for upsetting the staus quo. Judge Hoffman, Governor Rhodes and President Nixon were the hippies Ciaphas, Annas and Pilate! Superstar was a perfect metaphor for what was going on in the streets at the time.
No art work can be divorced from the era it is created in. It reflects it's time as well as speak to the human condition as a whole
To say that Superstar has nothing to do with Hippies clearly was written by someone who has no first hand knowledge of Superstar when it first came out or the impact it had on youth culture of the day.
|
kittengoespop
|
Okay, fine. I still don't like hippies, and I still don't like the 1973 movie.
|
DramaPrincess
|
ROFL at the last two posts
| Quote: | | No art work can be divorced from the era it is created in. It reflects it's time as well as speak to the human condition as a whole |
Definitely disagree with this statement, at least in relation to theatre.
(especially as I've got a 2000 word essay kicking around on my laptop on why Shakespeare "was not for an age but for all time"  )
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
No, no. The 2000 movie was trash.
|
Monsieur D'Arque
|
The 2000 movie was an example of a good concept poorly presented.
A modern, semi-apocalyptic Superstar could work quite well, and to be honest, I liked the costumes, the set and the fact that some of the Moog synth lines were made into more guitar solos. However, the performances were not as good as many others, although I love Pradon's Judas.
Simon had plenty of energy and seemed like, well, a zealot, but playing him as a charismatic boy-band type isn't really right for the character. His brandishing weapons at the end of the song, a good move for the piece, didn't work with the character he had created. If he had been played more as an AlQuaeda terrorist, or even as an anarchist punk, the scene would have made more sense. I saw a production once in which on "We will win ourselves a home!" Simon threw aside his robe, revealing sticks of dynamite strapped to his body. I liked the image.
The priests, in my opinion, were great. Annas's voice, though not up to the soprano B's through D's originally sung, was chilling and effective. Caiaphas was, in my opinion, near perfect. Glenn Carter was sub-par, and I've heard him do better in JCS boots. Pilate's Nazi energy was entertaining at first, but got old. He wasn't smooth and sinister enough. I still favor Danny Elfman to play both Pilate and Herod on a studio recording.
Rik Mayall, as always, was entertainingly abrasive as Herod.
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
I don't think Annas does Soprano notes; he hits Top C at the most.
Anyway, I agree, it could've been good. The North American Tour (with Kunze) had the same set and costumes, but it was so much better. The singers could actually sing...AND act! 
I wish it lasted longer...
|
jcstar
|
| Lazarus (Adam G) wrote: | I don't think Annas does Soprano notes; he hits Top C at the most.
Anyway, I agree, it could've been good. The North American Tour (with Kunze) had the same set and costumes, but it was so much better. The singers could actually sing...AND act!
I wish it lasted longer... |
Laz, the tour lasted four years. What more do you want?
I'll admit, the tour was much beter than trhe 2000 film... even though I enjoy it, but I will stop right there.
Andy.
|
Monsieur D'Arque
|
Hmm... I don't know. I don't have the original score, I only have the revival and subsequent tour piano-conductor score, and I think, unless i'm wrong, he goes to the D. But I'll check.
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
Yeah, but two of those years Sebastian Bach stared as Jesus.
|
jcstar
|
| Lazarus (Adam G) wrote: | | Yeah, but two of those years Sebastian Bach stared as Jesus. |
No further comment.
Andy.
|
DramaPrincess
|
| Monsieur D'Arque wrote: | The 2000 movie was an example of a good concept poorly presented.
A modern, semi-apocalyptic Superstar could work quite well, and to be honest, I liked the costumes, the set and the fact that some of the Moog synth lines were made into more guitar solos. However, the performances were not as good as many others, although I love Pradon's Judas.
Simon had plenty of energy and seemed like, well, a zealot, but playing him as a charismatic boy-band type isn't really right for the character. His brandishing weapons at the end of the song, a good move for the piece, didn't work with the character he had created. If he had been played more as an AlQuaeda terrorist, or even as an anarchist punk, the scene would have made more sense. I saw a production once in which on "We will win ourselves a home!" Simon threw aside his robe, revealing sticks of dynamite strapped to his body. I liked the image.
The priests, in my opinion, were great. Annas's voice, though not up to the soprano B's through D's originally sung, was chilling and effective. Caiaphas was, in my opinion, near perfect. Glenn Carter was sub-par, and I've heard him do better in JCS boots. Pilate's Nazi energy was entertaining at first, but got old. He wasn't smooth and sinister enough. I still favor Danny Elfman to play both Pilate and Herod on a studio recording.
Rik Mayall, as always, was entertainingly abrasive as Herod. |
Agree with everything, except on Pradon and Mayall
|
Jesus
|
| kittengoespop wrote: | Believe it or not, I'm going to disagree with Jesus on this one. I think the 1973 movie is a godawful piece of trash movie that isn't worth anyone's time to watch. I hate hippies and I don't think that the show has anything to do with hippies or should. I much prefer the vaguely Orwellian post-apocolyptic netherworld idea, and I think it's a lot darker and more chilling than wacky hippies. And, being a fan of Caiaphas, I much prefer Frederick Owens over Bob Bingham. Bingham just doesn't do it for me with his raspy bass voice, and the costume he's wearing is absolutely laughable, with that stupid hat. The priests should inspire much more fear than that, which I feel was properly accomplished in the 2000 movie version.
So, that's my two cents. I'm sure I'm the only person in the world who feels this way, but at least I've expressed my opinion. |
You prefer the 2000 movie because it is exactly the blatent, offensively obvious attempt at symbolism and sublty that appeals to psuedo theatre academics. If you had any sense of real theatricality then you would be aware that, in real life, there is no such thing as "Good vs Evil" and any attempt to portray this concept on a stage, or in a film, usually results in a hokey, comic book type product.
Annas and Caiaphas should not be devoutly "evil" at least if the director wants them to be seen as real human beings. And while, yes, for the purposes of the story they are the antagonist, it is far more interesting to watch human beings struggle with a decision, than it is to watch comic book villians verbalize what their purpose is. The 1973 movie has the advantage here because A) The director understood what is really interesting and compelling for an audience to watch and B) because of the inclusion of "Then We are Decided" a nice little tune which goes miles in further drawing Annas and Caiaphas as real human characters. The idea that the Priests should inspire fear has long confused me. Are they to be
Satan incarnate? These intrinsicly evil beings with no conscience or humanity? The audience should be frightened not by their appearence or characterization, or costumes or the pathos surrounding them, it should be the fact that they are able to come to the conclusion that this man is such a threat to their power, and that they prize their power so much, that they decide the only course of action is his death. This decision, and the zeal with which they pursue their goal should be what is frightening, NOT the priests themselves.
People often look at Superstar as a piece which humanizes Jesus and Judas, but in reality, the piece offers the chance to any who might take it, to humanize the story in it's entirety. Annas and Caiphas were PEOPLE, not villians, Pilate was a PERSON, with conflicts and reservations, Mary was a PERSON, with desires, both emotional and sexual, Peter was a PERSON, with regrets and hope.
The first thing Gale Edwards does in the 2000 movie is draw her line in the sand. "These are the good guys, and these are the bad guys." * Jewison presents the story from a resolutely human perspective. No one is devoutly one thing. Everyone has a thought process and a conflict, thus providing for an inherently more compelling, and infinetly more effective piece. We see a reality, rather than a post apocalyptic psuedo Gotham City.
*And when she does draw these lines, I think she draws Judas on the wrong side. I mean, firstly, I never once saw any love, or even a hint of friendship between Jesus and Judas. And in all honestly when Judas did kill himself I was glad, I didn't feel for him at all. I think most people would be happy to see the jerk who LICKED their friend for no apparent reason other that to piss people off, hang from the bloody rafters.
A note on the hats, and the overall 1973 production design. Personally I think that everything about the 1973 film is strategic. Designers don't make choices for no reason, unless they're bad designers. The 2000 movie's intentions were plain enough, seeing as they beat you over the head enough to make you dizzy. The 1973 design intentions I think, were more subtle, and dare I say it, subliminal. The first thing they say to the audience is "This isn't your traditional Passion." Helping, hopefully, the audience to shed at least some of the preconcieved notions associated with such a prolific story. The costumes, especially in the cases of Pilate and the Priests, traditionally "evil" characters go a long way to accomplishing this. Seeing Pilate in those fantastic aviators, my first reaction now, is a bit of a giggle, because it is so dated. But in 1973 people's first reaction may very well have been..."Hey I have those same glasses." Thus instantly loosing some of the stigma associated with Pilate. As for the Priests. The reaction to their hats both now, and in 1973 has, in my experience, always been a good laugh. In all honesty they are ridiculous. But THATS THE POINT. The second we see these characters who were have already (perhaps not consciously) slated as the bad guys, in such crazy attire, some of the preconcieved notions we associate with them fade away. These aren't the villians of the bible. I can laugh at them EVEN THOUGH I KNOW they are going to kill Jesus. It's a fantastic device used liberally in Superstar, because of necessity. It helps the audience to see each character, not as what they went into the theatre prepared to see, but as what Jewison wants the audience to see...PEOPLE!
Jesus.
|
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.
|
Spoken like a true fan.
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
Score.
|
jcstar
|
I never viewed Pradon's Judas as "evil" or bad." He was simply beating Jesus over the head with his remarks and cynicism. He wqs saying "Listen to me! Now! NOW!! Listen, damn it!"
Pradon tells a story of Judas Iscariot, the Zealot. Not a disillusioned Evangilist - no matter how much I love Anderson's Judas. Pradon may have looked at the historical Judas for his portrayal.
The historical Judas was from another country. He probably spoke the same language as Jesus and his Apostles, but he may have spoken other languages as well.
His father was a Zealot, and following in the family tradition, Judas became one himself. Zealots, like everyone else including the Sanhedrin) were waiting for "the Christ" or "Messiah" to appear and overthroiw Rome. This would have excited the you Judas, until he saw his father crucified and or followed "false Messiahs." Therefore filling Judas with doubt.
He meets up with Jesus somewhere along the line. He sees Jesus as the one he's been waiting for. He also is Jesus' intulecual match. They talk, they think, the drink and ewat together and become best friends.
HOWEVER, Judas is older than Jesus by maybe a few years. He watches the Ministry of Christ develop and change through three years. To Judas, this man is falling into the same trap as the other Messiah's did.
Judas tries to tell his friend what he has seen, but is ignored. Judas, seeing that he has been betrayed by his friend is filled with resentment.
He sees his former lover, Mary of Magdalla (Magdalene) fooling arounfd with Jesus, giving him attention he doesn't deserve.
And now you know the rest of the story.
Andy.
|
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.
|
Wrong. We know your view of what leads to the 2000 version.
Fact of the matter is, the rest of the story will never be truly told, no matter how many lost books of the Bible are found, no matter how many musicals, movies, books, and what-have-you are written. The rest of the story will be forever elusive until the day that all is known.
|
Jesus
|
JCSTAR...
What you say about Judas is not fact, it is historical supposition. Very little is actually known about the life of Judas Iscariot, and what is known is very likely to refer instead to another Judas, who was also one of Jesus' Apostles.
And while yes, the portrait you have created of Judas is indeed an interesting one, and perfectly viable for use by any actor portraying Judas, to me none of your ideas were conveyed by Pradon. Personally I feel Pradon is a fine actor who was badly directed, and it showed. It was obvious he had issues justifying some of the things he was told to do.
| Quote: | | I never viewed Pradon's Judas as "evil" or bad." He was simply beating Jesus over the head with his remarks and cynicism. He wqs saying "Listen to me! Now! NOW!! Listen, damn it!" |
Well, after viewing him, it would seem that in beating Jesus over the head, any sense of a fully three dimensional person was lost. Also, if the audience is to truly feel for Judas, and appreciate his fall, it is imperative for them to see his relationship with Jesus as a friend. The positive. The love. That has to be apparent, it shouldn't be the audience's responsibility to assume as much. It wasn't apparent with Pradon, from the begining through to the end, it was a constant barrage of either completely in your face aggression, or more restrained, but still fully palpable aggression. There was never any conflict in him, at least none the audience could see, and what use is a conflict or emotion if the audience isn't privy to it?
But beyond Superstar, I think it vital that you should go back and look over your sources of biblical information. Most of the historical facts you stated are most obviously not. Historians assume Judas was from another country and could speak another language, there is no proof...(and how is this relevant to the character in Superstar...because Pradon speaks french?). What is known about his family life is nearly all supposition, there is no historial proof for the majority of it, including his father's crucifixtion, or even his status as a Zealot. The idea that Judas had followed other false messiahs in the past is again preceeded by a "probably" my any historian worth his scratch.
All of your supposition on the inner workings of Judas' mind, while interesting, are not fact to be associated with the "Historical Judas." They are your thoughts on how someone in that situation would feel and thing.
| Quote: | | Therefore filling Judas with doubt. |
How could you, or any historian gain access to this information without interviewing Judas himself...again it is historical guess work, and should not be included with a break down of the "Historical Judas" without some advert of it's true origins.
There is no information, and nor has there ever been any splinter of proof that Judas and Jesus were best friends...Judas was Jesus' apostle, that is all we can say is fact.
It is very well and good to have historical hypothesis and to make educated explorations, but it is unfair to readers, and very inappropriate to present these ideas as fact.
Jesus.
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
Jesus "pwns".
|
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.
|
CHSIBM!
|
DramaPrincess
|
And one of the things I liked about JCS was that I could enjoy it without having to descend into a theological debate 
Quite cute point about the sunglasses. Though I don't have those sunglasses but I do have a jacket a bit like Pradon's leather one (it was actually a costume for another show that I....acquired).
I don't think the priests in the 2000 version are all scary and evil (admittedly I still giggle at that scene as with the 1973, but more because I see Michael McCarthy and you just can't find him scary!)
Yes, I think JCS is about showing all these famous religious characters as three-dimensional people, but I honestly don't give a toss about the characters in the 73 version. The 2000 managed that better for me, even though some of the performances weren't up to much in my opinion.
And I think debating what is religious fact in relation to JCS is a bit silly personally.
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
I cheered when Carter was Crucified.
He can't act. See the Amstetten Video's Crucifixion. That's how it should be done.
|
Jesus
|
| DramaPrincess wrote: | | And I think debating what is religious fact in relation to JCS is a bit silly personally. |
I was in no way discussing religious or historical fact in the context of Jesus Christ Superstar. I was simply pointing out the flaws in what JCStar submitted so as to avoid confusion and the spread of inaccurate fact.
Jesus
|
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.
|
Jesus "pwns" again.
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
OMG JEZUS SO PWNS!!!111!lol
|
the27thvoice
|
| jcstar wrote: |
Jerome Pradon (Judas) is an excellent actor and a brilliant baritone. [...] Yes, he may notr have hit the notes like a Carl Anderson or Tony Vincent, but he is tearing his lungs out to sing the stuff. |
To me, this seemed intentional. Jesus is perfection, Judas is flaw. Thus, Jesus should have a fair voice, and Judas should not. This adds to his feeling of inferiority, his respect for Jesus and the difficulty of the betrayal.
Atleast I could never imagine acting his part with a fair, golden voice, after hearing that.
|
jcstar
|
| Jesus wrote: | JCSTAR...
What you say about Judas is not fact, it is historical supposition. Very little is actually known about the life of Judas Iscariot, and what is known is very likely to refer instead to another Judas, who was also one of Jesus' Apostles. |
I should have clarified this, but the books I have read on Judas Iscariot have treated their info as fact.
One book, "The Twelve Apostles" written around the time of JCS, treats Iscariot's origin, life and suicide as fact.
Several other books do as well. Maybe I should have explained that in my post.
Andy.
|
Jesus
|
| Quote: | To me, this seemed intentional. Jesus is perfection, Judas is flaw. Thus, Jesus should have a fair voice, and Judas should not. This adds to his feeling of inferiority, his respect for Jesus and the difficulty of the betrayal.
Atleast I could never imagine acting his part with a fair, golden voice, after hearing that.
|
Well someone missed the point of the show. Jesus isn't perfection in Jesus Christ Superstar. He is seen through Judas' eyes, and as Judas does not see him as being divine in the show, neither should the audience. A perfect Jesus wouldn't begin ranting and raving, demanding things of God, as in Gethsemane. He wouldn't fear his death, because he would know that eternal life awaited for him, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Judas NEEDS to have an outstanding voice, with an unnatural range. The part is written as such. He doesn't have to be note perfect, or have any semblence of technique, but he still needs to have a killer tenor voice. Look at Murray Head, his voice isn't always beautiful, but even when it's not, he's still thrilling to listen to, and he can still sing the role. Pradon didn't have the range or timbre for the role to begin with. Look at Carl Anderson, the man has such a huge range that the role of Judas is, dare I say it, easy for him, vocally, but even so, he still puts his blood sweat and tears into, hits the notes, has this amazingly emotional voice, and sounds like the tearing a lung out onstage. Thats what the role needs.
You can't sit there and have this terribly unpleasant voice blaring at you for two hours, the singer needs to be good enough to sing the role, then add the emotion to his voice. Pradon was and is not a good enough singer to sing the role of Judas. He even admits it. It wasn't some clever directorial choice (Gale Edwards is not clever) but simply bad casting.
|
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.
|
Yes. In one breath, Pradon admits he's bad for Judas, but in the second, he had the balls to say in another interview that when they first approached him, he thought it was for Jesus, of all roles.
I mean, come on!
(NOTE: The first time they approached him, according to some UK fans who are in the know, was during the Lyceum casting stages when they needed a Judas, and ALW kept him in mind since then.)
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
I like Ted Neeley because his voice is weak; he's small, and he looks like you could beat the crap out of him without even trying.
Jesus is supposed to be vunerable, quite, and weak, if you want a human Jesus. This is why Ted Neeley is perfect.
|
jessiemil42
|
In the 2000 version, I thought Jerome Pradon could've done a better job with the role of Judas. Not that I'm a professional, but either he could've improved with Judas or would've been amazing as Jesus (not that their Jesus wasn't amazing)!
I prefer the '73 version because it wasn't as cheesy rock, and it stayed true to the original recording.
Plus, Ted Neely is the best Jesus I've ever seen or heard.
|
Jekkienumber24601
|
I have to say the new one is worth it just for Annas singing and Jerome's performance.
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
I was talking to someone recently, and he made a point about Pradon:
Anthony Hopkins is an amazing actor...but does that mean he should be in musical theater? Hell no.
Just because Pradon can act doesn't mean he should've played Judas; it's way out of his range. He's got a great baritone, but a shit tenor range.
|
rock_musicals
|
I definitley thought that the 2000 version was crappy cheesey pop-rock.
|
Brother Marvin Hinten, S.
|
There's actually some good guitar, it's just buried in ALW's orchestral crap. Basically, there was some good, but ALW pulled a BAT III on JCS with the 2000 revival.
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
[quote="Brother Marvin Hinten, S."]There's actually some good guitar, [quote]
Yeah, but you have to take out the shitty vocals to really hear it. 
|
jessiemil42
|
[quote="Lazarus (Adam G)"][quote="Brother Marvin Hinten, S."]There's actually some good guitar, | Quote: |
Yeah, but you have to take out the shitty vocals to really hear it. |
you go Adam G!
you go!
|
jcstar
|
I'm quitre fond of the organ and piano bits in the 2000 version. That guy can play!!
Andy.
|
freddierox
|
I have to say, '73 all the way! I absolutely love Ted Neeley, because his voice makes me tremble every time i listen to Gesthemane(seven years later and it still doesnt get old.) The '00 one was ok but...
-Glenn Carter had a good voice, but it was wimpy
-Jerome Pradon sounded somewhat like a banshee, and during the betrayal he looked more like a man on narcotics than a tortured soul
-Fred Johnson sounded and acted like a cartoon character
I can see that it could have worked with better singers. But i absolutely love the '73 version.
|
rock_musicals
|
| freddierox wrote: | I have to say, '73 all the way! I absolutely love Ted Neeley, because his voice makes me tremble every time i listen to Gesthemane(seven years later and it still doesnt get old.) The '00 one was ok but...
-Glenn Carter had a good voice, but it was wimpy
-Jerome Pradon sounded somewhat like a banshee, and during the betrayal he looked more like a man on narcotics than a tortured soul
-Fred Johnson sounded and acted like a cartoon character
I can see that it could have worked with better singers. But i absolutely love the '73 version. |
I have to disagree about Glenn's voice. I think its "whiny" and annoying. Other than that (and how you said it the '00 movie was ok, which I disagree) I agree with you. Pradon looks like a druggie. Johnson has a rediculous voice.
|
kittengoespop
|
I do admit that the 2000 movie has its faults, but I like it better than the 1973 version because I hate the 1973 version. But I've said that already, and quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being the only person in the freaking world who thinks so.
|
Jekkienumber24601
|
| kittengoespop wrote: | | I do admit that the 2000 movie has its faults, but I like it better than the 1973 version because I hate the 1973 version. But I've said that already, and quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being the only person in the freaking world who thinks so. |
don't worry I agree. Though I hate Glenn as Jesus. I wish they filmed Steve Balsamo and Zubin Varla, though I liked Jerome (was a little weak vocally, but for some reason it worked for me)
|
xalexx543x
|
I know this is a old fourm but I wanted to share my input to this thread
The 1974 movie was a fantastic movie for it age.
I loved how they placed it into the desert in Isreal and used locations for all the scenes.
The music was great for its age and there was alot of emotion in the movie as well.
The 2000 one I really like. I like the movie better than the 2000 Broadway Stage version.
I liked everyone in this movie except Jerome (Judas) I dont even know why they casted him for anything. He is absolutly HORIABLE! Killed the movie.
I loved Tony Vincent's(Simon in 2000 movie) version of Judas (Played on 2000 Broadway Stage Version). I wish he played Judas in the film!
Glenn Carter was a really good casting choice as Jesus he has a really good voice and hes a great actor, no one can beat Ted Neeley but Gleen was really good. I like how the 2000 one also you had to imagine where they really were cause the set was the same (Just like the stage show) but the lighting made up for it. It was so rich and full of energy and power.
King Herod's Song was good as well as the Temple.
|
