Playfully serious, musically excellent, and rich in spirit, Godspell romps through New York City exploring and embodying wisdom for life and relationships from the Bible’s Gospel According to Matthew. Set in 1973, Jesus
Read the rest of this entry »
1458
Pierced to the Heart is (slowly) migrating to a new web address: Life Love Illusion. Read more here and there.
Playfully serious, musically excellent, and rich in spirit, Godspell romps through New York City exploring and embodying wisdom for life and relationships from the Bible’s Gospel According to Matthew. Set in 1973, Jesus
Read the rest of this entry »
You must be registered (it's easy) and logged in to post a comment. Why?
It must have been about the third time that I watched Godspell — over the space of 30 years or so — that I finally was able the feel the full joy of the film. I had come finally to understand the how the film embodies the critical depth of life (as opposed to religion) that Jesus had come to lead his disciples (and us) into, and I came away strengthened, maybe I should say emboldened, to live with that type of love and life — at least in as many moments of my life as I can. And hopefully more of those moments each day.
Part of the reason I finally “got” Godspell is that I had grown and changed as a Christian in the intervening years, and this allowed me to come at the film from a new angle. Previously, I had enjoyed its music, but had not connected deeply with its playfulness. Previously — and bear with me here because what I’m about to say may immediately raise hairs on the backs of some Christians’ necks — I had seen the heart of the Christian life as though obedience were the main goal and life was the result. Since then, I have come, through verses like John 10:10 and Jeremiah 31:33, to understand that God’s main desire is for us to have full life, and that the Bible’s focuses on obedience simply as the best way to find the deep beauty, wonder, and pleasure that leads to full life. This turn of perspective freed me to engage with Godspell’s childlike joie de vivre, even at the few times that it might go a tad overboard.
In a sense, Godspell’s plot is quite simple: A quick opening, a quick ending, and a fat middle:
Although the "fat middle" is most of the film's content, the three parts play equally in the film's world. The opening establishes that each of the disciples is one who is ready to hear, open to and looking for something beyond a self-centered, peer-pressured daily grind. It's not just a randomly selected cast of characters, but rather hearts that are ready to hear and learn. The ending shows that it was not just an interlude of fun and games then back to the old life, but that Jesus' teaching changes the disciples. They carry him back into their lives, "day by day" seeking to follow more closely, and carry him to the city and the bustling mass of humanity.
The "fat middle" makes reading Godspell is different from reading a typical film because it doesn't have a linear (or even non-linear) sequence of characters in life situations. It's just a series of skits that, at first blush, might have been in any order. We get only the slightest glimpse of the disciples before Jesus and we don't see them back in their normal lives after Jesus so, beyond the joy they have going back into the City, we can't say much about how their time with Jesus changed their daily lives. But we can remember and reflect on key life insights that they could take away from the songs, stories, and wisdom Jesus led them in. Some of the major points include:
Aside from the joy and fun they have in putting them on, these and the other stories and songs provide the disciples with a foundation that undergirds the development of their community. Their community, their love, and their life is no longer grounded merely in an emotional reaction against the me-first life of the daily grind from which they were called, but rather it has a solid foundation in teaching that gets to the heart of why the me-first life is actually a me-first living death.
Along the way, Godspell slips in an important and creatively done counterpoint to common, latent conceptions of God. After Jesus tells them about not letting one hand know what the other is doing, the film addresses the audience directly, to clear something up. Many people live as though God's main idea is to keep a ledger card in heaven of good deeds and bad deeds, and that the ledger gets balanced out at the end of one's life. Judas starts to explain to the audience about the 100 million "ledger angels" in heaven, but Jesus cuts him short, bringing us back to the "reward" that is the full life and joy he is teaching the disciples through the goodness of his ways.
The Crucifixion is horrendous for the disciples. The music of "The Finale" is piercing in its guitar screams, volume, and drive, and the disciples are screaming and wailing along with the music. It seems all hope is lost as the Master dies. Yet somehow, as the sun rises and a bird chirps, they find life and hope and begin to sing "Long Live God".
What gave them this hope? The film itself is silent on the question. Jesus is and remains motionless for the rest of the film. Did they put together the pieces of the Last Supper's body and blood with "turn the other cheek" and other teachings toward forgiveness? Did they realize from this how forgiveness is a life-through-death experience? Was it simply a filmmaking shortcut to not elaborate more on how they found hope? Three things are clear: They did find hope, their hope was grounded in a view of Jesus being alive, and their response was to carry Jesus back to the City, joyfully dancing the life he had given them. As they carry Jesus back, their singing melds from "Long Live God" into "Prepare Ye The Way", sung to the people of the City they are going back to, and then into "Day by Day", the simple, humble, path to heart-centered change.
As I read Godspell, it is indeed consistent with the Bible in nearly every significant way. Most importantly to the film's work, the uninhibited joy and life in Godspell embodies the spirit of life that the Bible gets to when Jesus says, in John 10:10, "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." If we take nothing more away from the film than a lighter spirit and a deeper love for life, it will have served well. Jesus said his load is light.
The most significant question about whether Godspell is biblical is whether or not it depicts the Resurrection and, if not, is there an artistic reason for not doing so — a reason that enhances what the film is doing in us. To this question, one thing is immediately clear: After the Crucifixion, the Jesus character is never shown to have any signs of life. For some, this may settle the question (i.e., that there is no Resurrection) and lower their opinion of the film (or raise it, for any who think the Resurrection is mythical). Yet there is more to consider, including:
Does all this make a Resurrection? What might the filmmakers have done instead? Jesus could have awoke and started dancing with them. An additional scene might have portrayed the ascension in some way, perhaps by Jesus suddenly disappearing (in the same way that John flashed in and out of sight at the film's opening), and the disciples could have danced back into the City on their own. Yet, although something like that would have come closer to literally depicting the Bible, there is a strong visual power in the way the film has Jesus being bodily carried back to the City. The only way the City knows of the life Jesus came to bring is if we "carry" him to them, living the life and joy he brought. Our life and joy continue even though Jesus is physically dead to us (i.e., no longer here with us), and this contrast is strongly shown as the disciples bear his limp body.
What this does for me is to allow the question of whether Godspell portrays the Resurrection to melt into the question of whether it embodies the life-giving implications of his Resurrection. To that question, I find that Godspell most definitely brings us to life, if we are able to see it. This, too, washes over the film's lack of representation of Jesus as miracle-worker or healer, considering that the film's focus was on his teachings.
Although I did not scour the film for small ways that one might question whether Godspell departs from the Bible, I did listen closely so as to hear such concerns as I might catch in watching the film. There are some, but not very many, and few have any definite conflict. What I noticed, and how they each strike me, are as follows (but to be clear: even when these do stray from being biblical, they are nowhere near significant enough to discredit the film, but rather are cause for reflection on and grace toward the filmmakers and their work):
There are other times where the film might cut short something it takes from the Bible. For example, Jesus responds to the question from the "teachers of the Law monster" about the greatest commandment by saying, "Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul," but the Bible also inludes "all your mind" and "all your strength". Though it might be more technically accurate to include "mind" or "strength," I find this to be a minor point to the film's overall trueness to the Bible (and anyway, "strength" occurs in only one of the three relevant Bible passages — and not in Matthew, which is the stated biblical basis for Godspell).
Screenshots and dialog copyright © 1973 by the filmmakers.
You must be registered (it's easy) and logged in to post a comment. Why?
When a film dwells heavily in the content of a particular organized belief system, the way that Godspell dwells in Christianity, a couple of the main backstory questions to arise are “What were the beliefs of the creators?” and “How do those beliefs factor into what they were trying to do with the show?” For the film Godspell, the three most significant creators to consider, and their main orientations toward the work, are:
I find that Tebelak’s vision comes through strongly in the film. Furthermore, I find it significant that Tebelak’s vision was sparked by his attendance at a service of observance of the Resurrection. Though neither the film nor the stage play contain a literal depiction of the Resurrection, Tebelak’s response to observing a failure-of-life in the Easter Vigil led him to Godspell, whether intentionally or not, as an expression of the deeper point of the Resurrection: that life comes through death. In the grand narrative of Christianity, it is through Jesus’ death and Resurrection that we have life, yet even in small ways, such as one’s forgiving a small offense, there are small deaths that lead to life (i.e., giving up one’s “right” to revenge).
Schwartz’s focus on community (shared also by Tebelak) is a strong and important element of a life-giving response to Godspell — and to Jesus himself. Schwartz’s general lack of knowledge of Christianity did not prevent him from capturing and reinforcing the strong spirit of Christian life in Tebelak’s vision. Perhaps his lack of Christian knowledge is also part of his downplaying a focus on the importance of Jesus’ teachings.
Once a work of art is complete and its creator(s), not being a part of the work, fade to the background, the work is there to stand on its own. The context and intent of its creation is still there, relevant, and interesting, yet a work may speak things that the creator(s) never even considered. Thus, even if Tebelak’s background and vision were not centered in appreciation of what Christianity should work in one’s spirit and life, I would hold it valid to read Godspell as a beautiful embodiment of the life Jesus came to bring and valid to place as much (if not more) focus on how his teachings lead to life as on the bonding of a community. The fact that these were Tebelak’s vision simply strengthens the reading of Godspell as such.
Some other backstory points are worth noting about Godspell:
You must be registered (it's easy) and logged in to post a comment. Why?
In regard to your analysis of Godspell, I believe the explanation of the face paint is that everyone has their own pet sins..their own unique set of hurts, hangup, habits that make us different from every other aND which ade clear as day to Him. Jesus paints it on each face to show them that he knows each of them completely (warts and all) and loves them regardless. Then at the last supper he wipes everyone’s “sins” away except his own to signify that with his death all their sins are wiped away. That is why he leaves his own on –the heart. It signifies the reason he took our sins upon himself : LOVE. The tears signify his suffering by ta king on all our sins.
That’s a lovely thought, lizebeth. Building on that, I see two other things. First, he paints their faces as he is talking about the law (see the first still in the post above), which aligns with your reading that the paint points us to each person’s uniqueness, including their sins. Second, Jesus paints attractive things on their faces, and often we don’t see the ugliness of our sins, but instead we sort of wish to see them as something nice that we want to keep. There are indeed rich images here.
Thank you for your comment! It enriches me now, and will also enrich my next viewing of Godspell.