A Revisitation - 'Jesus Christ Superstar', King's Theatre Glasgow, 9th and 10th Sept 2010

In 2010 I witnessed two performances of an amateur production of "Jesus Christ Superstar" (it was double cast so I saw both) and, as was usual, I decided to write about it. Upon publication I received quite a bit of hate from members of the cast. Originally I wrote a review after seeing the first show but after seeing the second cast in the next performance I decided to rewrite the review to combine impressions from both shows.
For some reason I never published the review or the responses to it here on my blog (to be honest I thought I had) so do so now:


Let me point out here and now - these are my opinions and I stand by them.

I think 'Jesus Christ Superstar' is one of the most exciting scores written for theatre and I have always loved the piece.
The Orpheus Club presented an enjoyable show which had things I liked and things I didn't.
If any company aspires to professional standards then I shall view the production as such. I think amateur companies far too often get a bad rep and for all misconstrued reasons. Amateur performers are probably amongst the most dedicated that exist - they have to juggle full time careers, funding shortages and never have the technical rehearsal time given to pro shows. Yet they never fail to entertain. I have seen far too many disappointing pro shows in comparison to amateur ones and often find the vigour and passion of amateur performers out-weigh those of the professionals.
So - onto the show itself; Walter Paul's direction is adequate if uninspired at times with some scene transitions being quite clumsy (transitions are important to the flow of a production and Joshua Logan was a pioneer in this field in his direction of 'South Pacific' in the late 40s) and I do wish these had been dealt with better. That said there are moments in the show which are quite exciting and thrilling. His use of the large impressive set, designed and supplied by Scenic Projects Ltd in a similar style to the original London production of 1972, varies but the highlight was the leper scene which was especially creepy as hordes of the lame came crawling up the steps to overwhelm Jesus. There are other times, however, when the set seems to overwhelm the cast giving one the impression that the stage is half empty though the entire cast may be onstage. The trial scene was another highlight for me with an impressive emotional build up. It's in scenes like these that the ensemble cast really comes up trumps; though their staging may be a bit too simplistic for my tastes the reactions of many of the cast feeds into the power of such scenes overcoming any directorial handicaps. The temple scene might be a case in point here; it was during this scene that I felt the direction was at its weakest with the scene portrayed as some quasi-holiday camp. There was certainly not enough sin on display to warrant Jesus' objections to the goings on (seemingly approved of by the priests who were in attendance - another directorial error methinks) and it was here that my mind wandered and thought I was witnessing, albeit briefly (thank god!) a performance of 'Summer Holiday' (ugh!). Thankfully the leper scene that followed pulled things back onto the right track.
The 'Herod' number was incredibly funny and a welcome reprieve. I have seen previous productions where Herod has been played almost straight and others where he was played as a clown and here he was certainly portrayed as more of the latter - a welcome choice brought off by an exuberant cast. The following scene was a marked contract, and another highlight, where Jesus' is beaten by the Roman soldiers during 'Could We Start Again, Please?', always one of my favourite numbers.
Paul's direction of the 'Superstar' number was a bit of an anti-climax for myself, more so as it follows the heart-wrenching trial scene; instead of an overwhelmingly powerful musical segue into the crucifixion it came across almost as an afterthought. Only my opinion but, as the final musical number, I have always felt that something impressive should be made of the scene and Paul had decided to use a minimum number of singers with a small chorus of dancers. Judas' appearance here as an outright rocker was impressive but the soul girls attired as 1940s club singers jarred, even if their voices were divine. The lack of a true finale to the number, replaced with a fade out here, also weakened the sequence for myself.
As for the crucifixion itself; I was actually impressed with most of it and the cast certainly added to the emotional intensity of the scene. My one quibble with this finale was that the director decided to introduce the character of Mary, Mother of God when Jesus asks about the whereabouts of his mother. As the character was never mentioned or seen previously in the production it seemed a dramatic error of judgement on Paul's part to introduce her for this one moment.
Costuming was primarily modern summer dress which  worked for most of the production (and really seemed to suit the apostles) whilst Herod and his court were attired in 1920s garb appropriate to the ragtime nature of the music in the scene. The priests were dressed in suits and leather coats giving the production a little of the variety it needed. Looking very much at times like members of a mafia the priests were amongst my favourite characters in this production and gave the production an added air of darkness and mystery.
Judas stood out dressed in dark quasi-emo clothing later transforming into a true rocker for the 'Superstar' number which really suited.
The Musical Direction of Andrew S. Nicol was well done although I did lament the cutting of some musical sequences and felt the temple number was too slow; draining the scene of some essential energy (a similar tempo was used in the 2000 video production and I felt the same there).
Choreography was simple and effective if a little un-original and was sparsely used. 'Hosanna', normally one of the choreographed numbers, was actually left dance free and I'm still unsure if that was a good thing or not.
Lighting by Ian Irving was a little too broad at times for my liking and I felt some scenes could have been lit better (especially to delineate space given the large space) but the leper scene and 'could we start again, please?' stood out as some excellent lighting. Here I might as well say that I felt the overall production was too light and I felt it could have done with more variety of shade, in the trial scene for example, although the priests were often given a darker lighting scheme.
The cast themselves generally excelled with the ensemble giving some verve to proceedings and the apostles forming a well rounded group of individuals who one felt truly were a brotherhood. James Thom's Peter came across very well and his vocal quality is something I really enjoyed. Steven Struthers as Simon gave a vibrant and energetic performance in the role being not too wild and not too subdued as the 'zealot' of the group.
The priests were, as said previously, well executed by Kenny Reid, Andrew Forrest and David Blackwood with Matt Bingham and Alex Robertson being equally impressive as Caiaphas and Annas.
Sean Stirling's Herod was a joy and his innuendo and comedy were excellent drawing heavy laughs from the audience whilst Kris Haddow as Pilate was truly impressive with a resounding voice and presence that commanded and drew your attention. For me he was certainly one of the highlights of the show, especially during the trial.
Judas Iscariot as portrayed by Tommie Hart, frontman of Zener Diode, had an impressive roll-call of vocal pyrotechnics to hand but I did initially feel his Judas wasn't varied enough, although in the second show I saw I did see more variety of emotion. Whether it was a decision taken by actor or director I felt that what is, to me, the most interesting role in the show was simply not given a believable story arc and almost seemed super-imposed on the production at times (actually, thinking about it, if this was a deliberate choice, if executed a bit better it could have been exceedingly interesting - almost like an 'Ariel' character; observing and dipping in and out of the action - but i detract). Hart's voice impressed the audience certainly but was not always to my taste although he really came into his own as a rocker during 'Superstar'.
Walter Paul does have a tendency to double cast some roles and he has done this again with Mary and Jesus. Both of the women playing Mary Magdalene, Jennifer McLardy and Lynsey McLaughlin, gave the role some emotional finesse albeit in different ways. McLaughlin brought an innocence and sweet voice and subtlety whilst McLardy brought some interesting vocal styling though at times her performance became a little too forceful. But both ultimately excelled as the single female role of note in the show.
John McLarnon and Ross Nicol played Jesus on alternate performances and ultimately I felt McLarnon's performance was more successful having a voice more suited to the role and also bringing a charisma and power that drew attention to the character; although his diction could have been a little better he excelled throughout and his lashing in the trial scene was something to behold.
Nicol as Jesus, at least for me, didn't quite have the same presence or vocal ability though his 'Gethsemane' and crucifixion were excellent. In the case of Nicol I felt I paid more attention to others around him whereas I was more drawn to McLarnon's Jesus who seemed a bit more natural.


And here's some of the 'comments' I received from members of the cast (I've included the full conversations, including spelling and grammar errors, but deleted personal details):

From a female cast member:

Female Cast Member

JCS REVIEW !

Looking very forward to seeing your next production .... I've got a lot of friends who review for some excellent publications so i'll make sure you get a mention ! Plus I give pretty good critiques too ....I'll make it extra special for you smile emoticon
Nothing like some tit for tat hey......oh and it was such a same that you couldn't get to play ALTERNATIVE JUDAS as it should have been double cast !....... noone could even come close to Tommie's performance though......suck balls !!
Also talking about balls...... I look forward to meeting you at some point with my "unsubtle" foot and kicking yours !
You should behind amateur clubs pal and not putting them down after all you were a part of it for weeks..... will be suprised if you get into another club when your disgusting attitude comes into focus !
Nice to speak to you pet

Sharman Odd Tobias Prince

we are each entitled to our opinions. and believe me when i say i am very much behind amateur companies - but simply because they are so doesn't mean they should get off lightly. in my home town if it were not for amateur groups then there would be little musical entertainment. and each and every one gets professionally reviewed. there was much i enjoyed about each performance i saw - yours included, or can you not read? and as for Tommie Hart, although he was not to my personal taste as Judas, he cartainly impressed many. and Ben Goddard was an exceptional Judas! and by the way i have been known to suck the occasional set pff balls
be well and happy

Female Cast Member

Oh yes sweetheart I can read or i wouldn't have seen the review...... I don't give a flying fuck what you think of me ...those were not only cast members but friends of mine up there and some have little confidence as it is ....luckily enough I know i'm amazing so don't need you to reiterate the fact !
I think you might want to stop sucking balls it is clearly doing nothing for your personality !  

Sharman Odd Tobias Prince

you cannot comment on my personality whatsover as you don't know me
Be well ...

 

Feamle Cast Member
No i don't thank christ ....but i know alot of people who do !! and yes I can comment on whatever I like as " I am entitled to my own opinion and those of others " !!!
same to you !!!
can't wait to see shite I mean spring awakening ...woop x

 

Sharman Odd Tobias Prince

forgive me, but i am always witness to that which i making an opinion of. ... and happy x

 

Female Cast Member

in english ??? you mean .... " I am making ??? or" I make opinions of " ??? anyway I'm bored with you now so ........
goodbye

 

Sharman Odd Tobias Prince

oops- must remember not to copy and paste lol that should have been 'i am always witness to that which i AM making an opinion of' though tbh - "You should behind amateur clubs pal and not putting them down after all you were a part of it for weeks..... will be suprised if you get into another club when your disgusting attitude comes into focus !" you failed to put a "Be" after "should" and before "behind" but i let it slide
Hwyl

And another from a male cast member:

 

Male Cast Member

JCS Review

Hi
I believe u have already heard from a couple of people regarding ur very harsh and spiteful reviews. Now i appreciate that everybody is entitled to their opinion and i respect that, however I have to say, posting those comments on facebook knowing that the cast would see it at some point is disgusting! Fair enough if u had left it till after the run but to post it during the run of an amateur show which i might add you were a part of is bang out of order! You should be supporting amateur theatre not ripping it too shreds on facebook. Personally i couldn't give a toss what you think about me, but i know a couple members of the cast were extremely upset about your views which before going onto to do another 3 shows is the last thing you need. It is highly unprofessional, disrespectful and to some people who remember do this as a hobby extremely hurtful! Again personally i couldnt care less about your views but keep what i said in mind for future, and if you have anything like that to say again then have the balls to come up to the stage door and let us know. If you have a problem with anything i have said, i would be more than happy to discuss it with you over here or by all means call me on 07*********. Again I would like to express my sheer disgust at your actions, and hope that you face the consequences!  

Sharman Odd Tobias Prince

thanks

 

And some other comments from others not involved in the production:

"A review is one person's opinion. We all have opinions and are entitled to voice them. I think it is important to be honest. Some of the reviews I have read overuse the word "good". The scenery was good. The chorus numbers were good. Sometimes, as a performer, you read what you deem as the negative comments and get upset about them, rather than reading the good comments and building on them. If someone reviews me, orally or printed, and says something that I think I can work on, then I try to. Good job it isn't Strictly Come Dancing - have you heard some of Craig RH's comments?"

"I've never heard such a fuss over someone's opinions. Facebook is an open forum for people to express their own opinions. This unnecessary 'backlash' typifies all that is wrong with amateur companies who have lost touch with modern trends and furthermore highlights why such people are indeed amateur and not professional. there you go - there's another opinion that everyone call all have a moment about!"

"I loved the show, both casts and was thoroughly entertained! Don't get too upset by the opinions of others - you can't please everyone all the time! just enjoy what we do and hope that we can all keep on doing for many years to come! We have a fab hobby!"

"I thought your review was written very well and didn't slag anyone off just gave your opinion on what you liked about the production and what you didn't like. I can't believe the abuse you've had - that's ridiculous. If the actors are taking it to heart that much - they'd NEVER in a million years make it in the industry. Truth hurts I guess"


At the time someone also said to me that Scottish Amateurs were not used to being reviewed, which is fine, but my response was that where I come from they are and face the same quality of reviewing as a professional production. I also offered the idea that if you're going to put yourself (or your work) on display then one is open to the opinions of others. I've had some harsh critique of my own work throughout my life but I must say that the vitriol I received from the performers in this particular production (the female cast member was a professional performer at the time and the male cast member was at drama school and has since become a professional actor) was something else.
But I still stand by my verdict and stand by all my writing. Though, at times, my opinion may change after some time (for good or ill) I stand by the fact that these were my opinions at the time of writing and are as valid as anyone else's.

"Jesus Christ Superstar", Edinburgh Playhouse, 9/4/15

One of the problems with a production of a musical (or a play) that is more than 40 years old is that it is always at risk of falling into clichés that have become associated with previous productions or, as is the case with "Jesus Christ Superstar", the various filmed versions. It was thus a surprise to witness a production that clearly tries to do a little more than the obvious with such a well-known show, albeit to varying success.




The first thing to strike you about this production is the monolithic set by Paul Farnsworth which is dominated by several huge pillars reminiscent of Byzantium design and a mammoth back wall in which are two huge doors of similar design. A three-sided catwalk and movable steps make up the remainder of the set which surrounds a central playing area. A steel 'crown' hovers over the action, moving though-out the events of the musical.
Impressive as all this is I do wonder why the pillars were so heavily bas-relieved since most other design elements are more abstract. That said the shadows they produce under the lighting are stunning.
The lighting by Nick Richings is sympathetic to the production. It is moody, atmospheric, precise and creates some wonderful moments onstage, including being used for some excellent transitions (the title of this blog indicates such a use) such as that between "Judas' Death" and the "Trial By Pilate".
Costumes (apparently by Farnsworth) are standard Biblical-like affair and stand up as a little uninspired compared to the rest of the design elements.




The musical direction by Bob Broad is assured, confident and varied. Whilst the orchestra (or rather, band) has been reduced to seven players but the orchestra has evidently been augmented with click-tracks which enable the sound produced to be of a larger, more epic scale than most productions of the last twenty years - there is even some (pre-recorded) strings in evidence. As good a sound as this makes I do wish that full-size orchestras were the norm today as once they were. But the live musicians are really excellent and perform flawlessly, investing the score with energy and a zip that has been missing in most recent productions (especially the Arena tour of several years ago).
The sound design by Dan Samson also aids in creating the sense of grandness present within the show and is used to excellent use in creating a soundscape that is thrilling and deep, be it the vocals/dialogue that comes from all around the audience or the threatening, dangerous sounds of the whip-cracks which are the most unpleasant I've heard. The "Crucifixion" is also made all the more unsettling by Samson's design which has every hammer-fall, laugh and breath echo throughout the auditorium.


Bob Tomson and Bill Kenwright's direction is solid and tends to avoid the more bland staging ideas that can trouble some other Kenwright productions; something as simple as having the Last Supper staged on a slight diagonal, rather than straight on, creates a more interesting, dynamic, shape to proceedings and avoiding the over-used Superstar cliché of staging it as a visual copy of Da Vinci's painting is also a *ahem* blessing (pun intended). Throughout it seems simplicity is the key and this works to promote the strength of the score. It does take, however a good ten minutes or so for the show to really kick in to gear; despite staging the" Overture" (common these days) with "Jesus" recruiting his Apostles and also hinting at the friction between the Romans and the natives, "Heaven On Their Minds" is treated with typical "Superstar" staging with "Judas" moving in and around "Jesus" and his followers, although the over-used hand-clapping usually featured in the 7/8 musical section is, thankfully , not present and the first real indicator that this isn't just a paint-by-numbers production. "What's The Buzz" is a little limp vocally and the staging of "Everything's Alright" is also a little pedestrian.
"This Jesus Must Die" is when the show really steps up both staging-wise and vocally and it's from here that the show, more or less, moves along at a steady, energetic, pace. Throughout they pepper the staging with moments that prove that more than the usual thought, for the most part, has gone into the direction of this show; such as "Jesus" shouting at "Caiaphas" to "Get Out!" rather than the usual crowds within the "Temple" sequence is one: The resulting stare-off between the two is another and it's only until the "High Priest" reluctantly leaves that "Jesus" continues with his sombre reflections. Such choices in direction add a more psychological element to proceedings since, for example, they are able to make the audience question what "Caiaphas'" true motivations in wanting rid of "Jesus" are: "Jesus" evidently has a power over "Caiaphas" that the latter is unsettled by, whilst "Jesus" is more evidently angered by the authority figures here.
The staging of "Herod's Song" also varies from the more usual over-the-top camp of most and is here staged within what appears to be a Roman bath-house where "Herod" is less outrageous as outraged (despite his nipple-tassels) and his bath-robed dancers are clearly there under duress and thus take it out upon "Jesus" who is passed around them and subtly beaten by them by the occasional high-kick or the like.
One of their biggest success was in the "Crucifixion" sequence which was amongst the most drawn-out and disquieting (all in a good way) that I've witnessed. It's clear the score has been reworked here but it is to the benefit of the scene where nothing is rushed and the agony of "Jesus" is more than evident making the jesting of the soldiers a starker contrast than is usual. Here is the perfect combination of score, sound, design, lighting and acting and a most unsettling highlight.
Given the size of the set and the staging of some scenes it's a shame that there are not more members of the cast since in certain scenes the stage looks somewhat empty, especially during "The Temple" (where little really happens) and the "Trial By Pilate" sequence.
Carole Todd's choreography may not be the most innovative but it certainly varies from typical "Superstar" fare and is, at times, surprising, funny and energetic and adds a further energetic element to a generally powerful production.


And so to the cast:
Present in almost every scene, Tim Rogers' "Judas" is a vocally rough-edged Roger Daltry sound-a-like and he moves around with intention. Whilst he may not attempt some of the higher notes Rogers' is a satisfying performance and his "Judas' Death" is tragically unsettling and emotional.
As "Jesus" Glenn Carter, who played the role on Broadway and in the 2000 film version, establishes himself better than is evident in the film; here he is more subtle, even if he does fall back to playing the same pace and moves that featured in that film. Whether the directors left him to his own devices or felt them to be more appropriate is debatable but it would have been nice to see even more variety within the portrayal of "Jesus" since he is all too often walking around in a ponderous, intentional way. Never is this "Jesus" as carefree as he really could be at times. That said, whilst Carter may not be a favourite "Jesus" of mine he did impress me more than I expected and his vocals were, despite his thin sound, stronger than as evidenced in his film portrayal. Indeed, Carter was stirring in the "Gethsemane" scene (far subtler than his film performance), which closes the first act, and sublime and tortured in the "Crucifixion" and he makes for a physically impressive figure.
Rachel Adedeji was rather a disappointment as "Mary" since she was rather one dimensional in her portrayal. Given to simply moving from one place to the next with little intention even her vocals were a bit of a let down. Only in a few moments in "I Don't Know How To Love Him" and "Could We Start Again, Please" did she really shine, and these when she allow her voice to let rip. For the most part her vocal performance is high, breathy and stunted which serves no purpose in such an important role. Indeed I've never found falsetto singing to be satisfying for the role of "Mary" and it's only when this is abandoned by Adedeji that she shows an inkling of what she could have done with the part.
Tom Gilling's "Herod" was a more thorough interpretation than most, yet still humorous. He gleaned a subtle psychopathic streak from his few minutes in the role which contrasted against the more obvious fun aspect of the song and this is another welcome variation from the norm that this production is blessed with.
The "Apostles" and the "Apostles' Women" are all blessed with good voices (indeed all the males are named in this production) and they create a rather attractive and youthful group, injecting each performance with zest. Edward Handoll's Peter has a lovely voice and becomes suitably pained following his betrayal whilst Kristofer Harding's "Simon Zealotes" number is another highlight and full of verve from all involved including Harding whose vocals are amongst the strongest of the entire company. I was also a bit surprised to find that "Maid By The Fire" has been re-christened "Maid By The River" in this production especially as there is no river present. True, there is also no fire present (at least at that particular moment) so the change of title is a rather pointless one.
I wish I could say that Rhydian Roberts' "Pilate" was also another strong element but sadly he was "indisposed" (once again) and so I witnessed his more than adequate understudy, Johnathan Tweedie, who lent the role an air of dignity with a strong voice to match. During the "Trial" he became suitably more and more unravelled until his final outburst.
The "Priests" led by the "Annas" of Alistair Lee were of powerful, threatening voice whilst Cavin Cornwall's "Caiaphas" was the true star of the show for me. Cornwall's deep vocals were powerful and rich and equally matched by his deliberate, controlled movements. His lithe, tall figure gave the part an added sense of menace and his subtle touches upon "Judas" in "Blood Money" were disturbing: One almost felt that that simple touch upon the head of a kneeling "Judas" from a towering "Caiaphas" was an echo of the thought that, to put it crudely, "Judas" was now "Caiaphas'" bitch. Cornwall's performance was one of controlled power and, together with his strong vocals, created a character vastly different to his portrayal of "Peter" in the 2000 film of "Jesus Christ Superstar" and probably the best "Caiaphas" I've seen.


A surprisingly strong production for the most part and one that surpassed all my expectations. The stronger elements certainly outshine the weaker and make the whole far stronger than most productions of "Jesus Christ Superstar" in recent times. It is an infinitely better production than the muddled Arena tour of only a few years ago.


I thought I'd also mention the lovely coda/curtain call at the end of the show: Following the emotional events of "John 19:41" the orchestra begins a sombre version of "Hosanna" and the cast slowly re-emerge onstage before the "Superstar" refrain rings out triumphantly and the bows start proper. Given that the audience seemed reluctant to commence the typical clapping following the end of the show (no doubt caused by the fact that many an audience member is rendered somewhat stunned by the end) this gentle, yet sad, musical piece is very appropriate to slowly reintroduce an energy appropriate to a curtain call since the suddenness of moving from "John 19:41" to sprightly bows is often a jarring one.

"Jesus Christ Superstar", Glasgow King's Theatre, 21/11/14

Frankly I cannot write about this production without it coming across as a bit of a rant and I'll say now that the reason for my frustration with the production is that it clearly had promise (especially in its cast) but was, ultimately, let down by direction that lacked cohesion.








Let's start with some positives:
I must give kudos to the director, Steve Mann, who seemed to be attempting something 'new' even if everything he applied wasn't. The simplest of his staging ideas were the best; the cross-over of 'Poor Jerusalem' into 'Pilate's Dream' - where 'Jesus'  (Lawrence Sharkey) remains onstage once his song is over to become an image from the dream of 'Pilate' (Johnny Collins) - was nice, as was the final sequence of 'John 19:41' where 'Jesus' is removed from the cross, dressed in a simple cloth and lifted above the heads of the 'Apostles' who carry him slowly offstage. Simple but effective.
The choreography by Lynne Bustard was enjoyable if prosaic for the most part although the number 'Superstar' was a more exciting sequence with some fine motifs.
Musical Direction by Alan Fraser was assured and the guitar playing quite brilliant. The quieter moments, such as 'Pilate's Dream', were amongst the strongest sequences and 'The Temple' was a rousing aural experience with the tempo of the number the fastest I'd experienced onstage creating an exciting musical experience.
But the best thing about the production was the cast, most of whom were blessed (no pun intended) with lovely voices and sufficient stage presence to root the show and raise it above the mundane.








Now for the negatives, and here I must go into some detail to justify my views:
Verisimilitude was lacking throughout because of the disconnected direction which failed to connect on an emotional level.
The show was advertised on social media as being 'avant-garde' and utilising physical theatre. They did so in as much and to the same effect as the Arena tour of a few years back i.e. underwhelmingly: I can't say I saw anything in the production to warrant its claims and the physical theatre seemed to comprise of little more than numerous choreographed ensemble-undulating sequences. Some circus-skills such as a silk performer and stilt walking were also employed, the latter appeared in the Arena tour. To be honest their use didn't really add anything to the dramatic purpose of the scene other than to appeal visually.
If nothing else the director is guilty of being too derivative: There were scenes based on the Gale Edwards UK touring production (which was filmed before heading to Broadway) and also on the Arena tour. Examples include the 'Overture' which was all but a copy (save for redundant dialogue) of Edwards' production as was 'Could We Start Again, Please' while 'The Temple' seemed to be lifted from the Arena tour.
During the 'Overture' background information (such as why the Priests disapproved of Jesus) was projected which I felt unnecessary given that all that is required to understand the plot is within the lyrics. If the director really had to provide this information then it should be kept to programme notes as the projection became a distraction from the frenetic action onstage. It also didn't help that some elements of the set obscured the projection screen. The projection also clearly set the production in the early A.D. period which was confused by other elements throughout (graffiti, costuming etc.) and the director would have done better to suggest a period rather than specifically define it which would have made the anachronistic elements to sit more comfortably within the production (as some other productions have done).
Directors should also be aware when to use stillness and when not to. People were often almost manic while at other times the ensemble was reduced to choreographed slow-motion action.
There were some scene changes and entrances and exits that were a bit clumsily handled thus stilting the flow of events and these could easily have been rectified. The same could be said of some prop/scenic elements such as the cloth hung from the flies for the aerial acrobat and the rope that 'Judas' (Garry Taylor) hangs himself with which intruded beyond their allotted use and became rather distracting. 'Judas' Death' and the earlier 'Damned for all Time' sequences also had an ensemble of figures who were reminiscent of the 'Tormentors' of the Tom O'Horgan production: Figures in black who waft around 'Judas', although in this case they carried boughs with shredded black material hanging off. The programme mentioned the presence of ravens as a symbol of death and I can only assume that this material is what is alluded to. But again these figures weren't really utilised to the best effect. The only purpose I can make for them was as a foreshadowing of the tree from which 'Judas' will hang himself. I may be totally incorrect. (The director attempts to explain some choices in his programme notes but the need to explain such things suggests a possibility of unsuccessful communication of these ideas across the footlights.)
Given the director makes heavy-handed attempts to show the frustration and anger of 'Jesus' (amongst other things) the director once again misses Tim Rice's point about his divinity - that is it isn't shown or admitted ('Jesus' never claims to be the Son of God in the show and deflects the suggestion) - by opening Act II with  'Jesus' walking on water (a cloth waved by cast members!) directly before the 'Last Supper' begins. Another cringe-worthy moment was in the Da Vinci Last Supper Tableau enacted by the company which got quite the laugh from the audience (the Da Vinci setting was even projected in the background) - unfortunate given the nature of the scene that follows.




The choices the director makes for his cast was also rather worrying: From the outset it appeared that all the 'Apostles' were bad tempered, very much against the intention of Tim Rice and thus making little contrast with 'Judas', at least in the opening. This wild attitude also made the sudden calmness of 'Everything's Alright' and the 'Apostles'' actions within rather odd.
'Jesus' is also quite a violent figure - he manhandles people and throttles 'Judas' in the 'Last Supper' and threatens vendors with a knife in 'The Temple'. By all means I can understand that 'Jesus' can be seen as a revolutionary but one has to balance such extremes within the material that is written.
'Judas' was presented pretty much as seen in the Edwards' production although the actor here subdued the more miserable aspects of the role which was appropriate whilst 'Mary' (Vicky Robertson) was presented as one of the 'Apostles' and a strong figure amongst them. Thus it made her attempt at slashing her wrists during 'I Don't Know How To Love Him' all the more problematic, indeed worrying, not to mention unsightly. In fact I felt this was utterly irresponsible and quite unbelievable - why should someone who is presented as a reformed prostitute decide her life is not worth living simply because she loves someone for the first time? Yes, the emotion troubles her and unsettles her but even contemplating suicide is far beyond any truth within the role after all she states within her big number how she'd handle the situation ('I'd turn my head, I'd back away ... '). Applying a shot of violence here and there for nothing but shock value is not good direction.
Given there was so much violence of some degree or another throughout the show it made the appropriate violence in Act II ('The Trial') less effective than if there was more contrast beforehand. 'I Don't Know How To Love Him' also ended with 'Jesus' giving a full on kiss to 'Mary' - thus making 'Mary's' motives and lyrics in her big number a bit questionable. Given that 'Judas' plants a similar kiss on 'Jesus' in the betrayal I had to wonder whether this 'Jesus of Nazareth' was a bit easy.
'Caiaphas' (Dougie Muir) and 'Annas' (Stephen Jannetts) were probably the most successful portrayals with 'Caiaphas' blessed with a strong, deep, bass voice although the director choose to obscure his lines in 'Hosanna' by having the crowd shouting over him (a 'school-boy' error).
'Pilate' was played a little too weakly for my liking, a bit too free-and-easy if you will, although there were glimpses in Act II of the darker, heavier edges that the role requires.
'Herod' (David Robertson) was the least appropriate I felt and emerged as a Liberace-style figure with a distracting lisp which partially obscured some lyrics. During the dance section of his number, however, 'Herod' was revealed to be an S & M creature that looked like a 'Rocky Horror Show' reject. Both impressions brought laughter but I don't think for the correct reason. 'Herod' was overly camp (some lyrics became unintelligible because of this when the actor started screeching his lines) and probably played into everything that Andrew Lloyd Webber especially hates about such portrayals of the character. Of course 'Herod' should be seen as a debauched, spoilt figure but this was an overly heavy-handed and ham-fisted way of portraying that. Frankly Tom O'Horgan's original staging of the number on Broadway in 1971 must have been more subtle. And choreographically we were treated to another Charleston-inspired dance which was uninspired although the cast appeared to be enjoying themselves.


Given that no-one in the cast seemed to be giving less than 100% (even 'Herod' albeit not in an appropriate manner) it puzzled me as to why I was left emotionally untouched and disbelieving. I can only blame the director whose work had actors often doing pointless or clichéd things (e.g. 'Jesus' striking a cruciform image several times throughout the show). To be honest, as nice as the voices were, there was not a huge amount of the edge or rawness that a rock score requires. 'Judas' was certainly more the exception than the rule with his more appropriate image and vocal.
Aside from 'Herod' I got the impression (true or not) that the actors were generally restricted within the confines imposed by the director adding to the lack of truth in virtually all performances, sadly none more so than in the portrayal of 'Jesus' which is a shame since these actors are clearly better than the direction they were given here.






The Musical Direction started well but as soon as we got to the first number proper, 'Heaven On Their Minds', the problems emerged. The opening section (with the infamous riff) was slowed inexplicably down giving the opening to the show anything but an exciting start especially given the frantic energy of the 'Overture' immediately prior. As the start of the show proper it seemed to take forever to get the show stared and it felt to me that it was only when 'What's The Buzz' began that the show really started. A big error given that 'Jesus Christ Superstar' is ostensibly told through 'Judas'' viewpoint.
The tempo of 'I Don't Know How To Love Him' was also played with, having the ending of the intro and of each verse suffering a rallentando thus killing any momentum in the music. The reprise of 'Everything's Alright' immediately prior was also interminably slow, much like the 2000 film.
The first verse of 'Superstar' was also slowed killing the energy and momentum of the show, disastrous given that this I basically the peak of the show, although the common tempo returns for the chorus and continues throughout the remainder of the number.


Given that the guitar work was quite wonderful throughout, the fact that Andrew Lloyd Webber had already drastically reduced the original orchestration, it's a shame that for most of the time the more subtle instruments went almost unheard - the woodwind and synths especially. The band also had a trumpet player who seemed to, most of the time at least, take a while to find the actual note he or she was supposed to be playing. Not a good thing especially during the brass heavy parts (the opening of 'Superstar' was particularly painful).




The costumes by Graham Burn were, deliberately, both 'Biblical' and 'modern' but not in a successful way as was the case with John Napier's costumes for the 1996 London revival where they assimilated into each other. Some, such as 'Simon's' (Kris Morrison) and those of the 'Soul Girls', immediately brought Edwards' production to mind.
I also had to ponder as to why they put 'Jesus' into an unflattering wig which did nothing for the actor or the role except occasionally obscure his face.




Jonnie Clough's lighting was serviceable without really enhancing the rather dull set and could have done with being more defined and concentrated at times which would have made the set more exciting.


Anyway, I know this was an amateur production but I know the capabilities of such companies especially one who claim to work to the standards of professionals. Thus I shall treat them as such. After all, I've seen professional productions which have been worse than most amateur shows.
This is, of course, only my opinion but, given the overheard conversations upon exiting the theatre, it is not a lonely one.


Thus I ultimately must say that there was much promise within many aspects of the production but it was ultimately let down by some rather clumsy directorial choices.

Heaven On Their Minds - Stephen Tate

Another (quick) video I created since I've had some requests to upload more of the Original London Cast album.
Stephen Tate performs as 'Judas'.

'Jesus Christ Superstar', Glasgow SECC, 25/9/12

One of my all-time favourite shows. In an arena, echoing its original incarnation onstage in the United States. Well, not quite. Where those arena tours were produced simply (orchestra/band, singers and mic stands - no fussy staging and no attempt at set or costume) and on the back of the huge success of the album here we have a case of either overblown or underwhelming.

At this moment in time composer Andrew Lloyd Webber is stating this is how 'Superstar' was always conceived and yet throughout the show's history both Lloyd Webber and Lyricist Tim Rice have openly stated that the album and arena tours only happened because no-one wanted to produce a stage musical of their work. It was only after the recording success of 'Jesus Christ Superstar' that it finally hit its intended location - the musical theatre stage, albeit in varying degrees of success. The original Broadway production, directed by Tom O'Horgan ran for two years although his psychedelic vision was rather jarring and, some would say, ahead of its time. Lloyd Webber especially loathed the production. Various international productions followed until in 1972 'Superstar' opened in London directed by Jim Sharman who brought aspects of his previous Australian concert and theatrical stagings into the mix to produce a show that would run eight years. Simplicity ruled over excess and even the two cast recordings, Broadway and London echo this (Lloyd Webber and Rice had no involvement of the former whilst they produced the latter, and it is audible).

On the original 1970 album and on those early cast recordings you can hear the full wonder of Lloyd Webber's orchestration (although Hershey Kay adapted them for Broadway). Over the years those orchestrations have been down-graded from a near 30 piece orchestra/rock band to a 10 piece band - and that's one of the crimes of this new arena production. So much so that there is little variety in the sound produced by the band, especially since virtually everything is played at one single volume; loud and with seemingly little regard for tempo variation. In fact the whole musical direction lacks variety lacking any real light or shade.

As for the concept and direction of Laurence Connor I can only say that it is at times odd, cliched in some aspects and the concept is jarring with many of the lyrics that are sung. The choices he makes from one scene to the next do not always unify, thereby creating something of a jumbled way of story telling, rather than following a conceptual through-line that adequately works.
I also cannot understand why a random line or two of dialogue was added which added nothing to the story (were these authorised by Tim Rice?). There were also things going on which didn't need to be, detracting from the music and lyrics and primary story telling (when there was a momentary coherent moment of it) such as during 'Peter's Denial' where we have 'Peter' and 'Mary' and the three denial witnesses supplemented by at least three ensemble members performing acrobatics and skateboarding in the background. To what purpose? Beats me.
Which reminds me; when I heard that they would be using parkour in the production I was intrigued. I was greatly disappointed to find that it only really consisted of the same repeated somersaults and cartwheels amongst otherwise run-of-the-mill choreography. Perhaps there is really little that could be done on a set , by Mark Fisher, that consisted primarily of one giant staircase (reminiscent of the finale of 'Carrie' in 1988). The remainder of the modern day, protest/political concept seemed to me to have been an extreme development of some of the concept that Gale Edwards touched upon in her revised 1998 UK tour (and subsequently filmed for the 2000 video release and produced on Broadway) - indeed the stairway reminded me of elements of the design for that earlier production. The costume design was incredibly boring and tired - far too cliched and dated ('Rent' cast-offs galore) with every other cast member having dreadlocks - do they all share the same hairdresser? The whole visual concept was just far too obvious and 'been-there-done-that'. The use of screens, whilst at times helpful to those seated further back, was perhaps over-used in a vain attempt to help clarify the plot - that should have been done otherwise. For me the best moment was 'Judas' Death' which worked very well.
Having 'Herod' as a talk show host served no real purpose other than, perhaps, highlighting the idea that in the case of 'Jesus' the people have the power (in this case via text), although Chris Moyles was evidently more concerned about soaking up the adulation more than being a part of a company attempting to tell a story. It was during his number that a hideous choice was made where Moyles rushed off-stage to be replaced by an obvious double who performed back flips before Moyles rushed back on to continue. Again utterly pointless.
The idea of having the 'Priests' as bankers(?) was an odd one as surely they should have been played as MPs? I actually laughed when 'Caiaphas' sung the line 'Our expenses are good' because, unexpectedly, MPs are the first thing that shot into my mind. It's always good to try and think outside the box but these concepts just didn't work for the piece - they were heavily shoe-horned in and in an incomplete state; 'follow the twelve' is displayed prominently throughout and yet I kept asking myself, which twelve? We are never shown the twelve Apostles themselves - we eventually work out which ones are 'Peter and 'Simon' simply because they have solo parts - but the remainder (Judas aside, obviously) were just part of a mass of men and women who were always together, even at the 'Last Supper'.
'Pilate' (Alex Hanson) as Judge was probably the most appropriate choice made in this 'update' of the show although even some of his choices (dictated by the story) are at odds with today's modern world - what Western civilisation would openly and publicly flog a prisoner before condemning him to death? Hanson's portrayal was a highlight of the show. His was a more is less take which upstaged many of the larger-than-life aspects of the production.
Story-wise there was little development in any character's journey; Jesus abruptly goes from being quite jubilant up to 'Simon Zealotes' to suddenly being downbeat for pretty much the rest of the show - there is no graduation. 'Judas' is presented as starting out as he means to go along - angry and pissed off - with no change along the way. 'Mary' serves very little purpose, save to look somewhat knowing. We are just presented with music and words and visuals which didn't necessarily compliment each other rather than a story complete with faceted characters with varying agendas.
It is clear that when modernising a story that is as old as this one there is a limit to how far a director can go, and in this case Laurence Connor went too far.
The lighting by Patrick Woodroffe is suitably rock concert orientated and I think that is symptomatic of this production: It is trying to be both a rock concert and a theatrical presentation. I believe it is possible to do both to varying success (hell, 'Notre Dame De Paris succeeded far superior than this) but there are too many missteps here to say that it gelled as a whole. It simply didn't; here was the odd occasion that worked as a theatrical, almost dramatic presentation, and there were many more that were rock spectacle; the guitar soloist during the introduction for 'Damned For All Time' for one. Again, utterly pointless in the storytelling.

I'll say here that the cast were all pretty good, the ensemble were strong singers and even Mel C as 'Mary' was better than expected, though her voice isn't particularly to my liking (nor her horrible costume and dread locked hair) and she isn't up there with Yvonne Elliman, Dana Gillespie or Anne-Marie David. Like most of the cast, Melanie Chisholm's acting was too large and flat to truly register any emotion (I do blame the director for these choices) and, Ben Forster as 'Jesus' suffered the same fate at times, though he came to life during 'Gethsemane'. Whilst He can certainly sing the role he is no Steve Balsamo who redefined the role in the 1996 London revival - and that is part of the issue with this role: Ian Gillan originated the role on the album and Jeff Fenholt copied his vocal performance almost note for note on tour and on Broadway. Ted Neeley who played the role on the silver screen put his own twist to the vocals and his was the performance to copy. Then Balsamo came along and totally reinvented the vocal part and ever since people have tried to copy him note for note - Glenn  Carter certainly attempted to do so on Broadway and on the 2000 film, but his voice was thin and weak in comparison. Forster has much more power than Carter but the fact that his vocal choices were made by someone else robs him of the chance to truly own the role. Tim Minchin as 'Judas' is certainly the most successful of the leads. His is not so flat a performance, being able to express visually and vocally more than others do, which makes me wonder why he is able to do it and others aren't. Of course, the role is the most complex in the show and his voice, albeit different to what one would expect for the role, is quite suited. I only wish the cast were given more chance to actually act and create three-dimensional aspects to the characters they play in a production worthy of them rather than the flat, almost paint-by-numbers parts they have here in a production which is not.

If I imagine this as a rock concert with some (random) visuals it would be fine but since they were obviously trying to perform dramatically then it missed as much as it hit and considering Lloyd Webber kept mentioning in publicity the original 1971 American arena tours I wish he had just done that - ORCHESTRA (Oh! how I missed the orchestra!) and rock band, singers (no fancy costumes or staging) and mic stands. Da-Dah! Let the score speak for itself. Failing that, a fully fledged theatrical tour. And why not a revival of the 1996 London production which, since the design by John Napier was in the style of an Amphitheatre, could surely have been adapted for an arena stage?

Last words: The best thing to come from this production is that it has made me revisit the original album and the early cast recordings, if only to hear decent orchestrations and singers who, through vocals alone, without need for an in-your-face visual can tell the greatest story ever told.

Everything's Alright - Dana Gillespie, Stephen Tate, Paul Nicholas

Another video constructed from the London Cast album of 'Jesus Christ Superstar'.

This is one of my favourite songs from the show and this is one of the best versions I've heard.

Enjoy!

'Could We Start Again, Please?' Dana Gillespie and Richard Barnes

I should have posted this last week but it totally slipped my mind.
Here's another, simpler, video.

Dana Gillespie as 'Mary', Richard Barnes as 'Peter' and the Original London Cast of 'Jesus Christ Superstar'.

John Parker, Stephen Tate et al 'Trial Before Pilate/Superstar'

Another video created from the 'Jesus Christ Superstar' Original London Cast album.
This is the 'Trial Before Pilate' leading into 'Superstar':

Pilate - John Parker
Caiaphas - George Harris
Jesus - Paul Nicholas
Judas - Stephen Tate

Paul Nicholas 'Gethsemane'

Another video I have fabricated.
This is Paul Nicholas, London's original 'Jesus', performing 'Gethsemane' from the Original London Cast album of 'Jesus Christ Superstar'.

This is one of my favourite recordings of this song, with the orchestrations being quite exceptional, giving the piece a sense of majesty and drama that is certainly missing from later recordings.
The images I've used are from various 'Jesus Christ Superstar' productions and I've added a few pieces of religious art for good measure!

Dana Gillespie 'I Don't Know How To Love Him'

Okay, so I have put together this video as I haven't been able to find it otherwise online.

Dana Gillespie played 'Mary Magdalene' in the Original London Company of 'Jesus Christ Superstar'.

The London Cast album is one of my favourites and the soundtrack to this video is taken from that album whilst the pictures are from various sources, but all are related to the OLC.

This is my first video, and I think it turned out pretty well, if I do say so myself. And I do!

Jim Sharman 'Blood & Tinsel - A Memoir'

Jim Sharman is the director of 'The Rocky Horror Show'; the film adaptation; 'Hair' in Australia, Japan and Boston; the Australian and London premieres of 'Jesus Christ Superstar' and numerous other theatrical endeavours.

The book is an auto-biography, or ‘memoir’, and deals with Sharman’s life and work including his youth spent in the carnivals through his work on the seminal rock musicals of the 60s and 70s, to his return to his native land, his depression. We also have insights into his relationships, both personal and career related. 

Yet for all that, Sharman is a writer whose style is easy, informative and interesting; you want to know more about this man, yet at times he doesn’t quite give you enough to satiate your appetite.

His insights into theatre and, to a lesser extent, film are not at the level of academic research but are insightful enough to make you appreciate the genius that can lurk within someone’s mind. He is quite matter of fact about certain aspects of his life, including his sexuality and his relationships with people. One certainly gets the impression that Sharman is someone who’s been able to take out of life all that he can, appreciate what comes along, yet know when it’s time to let go and say goodbye. This view was something totally alien to me, but I read and thought and what I love more than anything in this book is how, throughout his life and work, Sharman looks with an eager eye; learning and gaining insights into humanity itself.

I finished the book wanting more and more yet coming away from it all with a sense of wonder and fascination at how intricate, complex and joyous the world is. I often hear how informative, how insightful some directors can be and reading this overwhelming book I can clearly understand why.

Jim Sharman is one of my favourite directors, yet I’ve never seen (nor probably ever will) one of his productions as he chooses to work exclusively in Australia - a great loss to the rest of the world – yet reading about his work, reading his insights behind what he does leaves me in awe at this theatrical magician, hoping that his work will cross the oceans once more ...

The Book

There is a saying that the three most important things in a musical are book, book and book.

The ‘book’ (or libretto) is, in essence, the glue that holds all the separate parts of a show together: It’s the narrative structure that allows the story to be told without being simply an amalgamation of dances, songs and dramatic scenes. The story is the skeleton which the musical, choreographic and dramatic materials are attached to.  Important aspects of the book include telling the story clearly (and concisely), allowing situations in which song and/or dance can tell the story and push the plot forward. It is also usual that it is the book that creates characterization whilst the songs create an emotional climax/release. Since a musical is a collaborative art form it is usual that the book writer and song writers will work together to ensure that a transition from dialogue into song and vice-versa is as easy and as natural as possible. Likewise all disciplines, be they dialogue, music, lyrics, dance, should work together and sympathetically toward the same goal of telling the same story. There may be places where one speciality is better at telling the story than another, so some form of diplomacy is required.

It is often the book that is criticised for a show failing although there are many successful shows that have weak books and many more short-lived shows with strong books.

I write about the subject of ‘the book’ because I was reading about some of the works of Tim Rice and the subject struck me as an intriguing one: Rice’s work, I think, epitomises the two extremes in the argument of the need for and success of ‘the book’.

Rice is heralded as being innovative in having discarded the book when he wrote the lyrics to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s music for Jesus Christ Superstar, which was initially written for record before being produced theatrically (although this was the ultimate aim from the point of view of the writers). Rice himself has written that any innovations that he and Lloyd Webber initiated were happy accidents along the way of creating the record and were not necessarily their intent.

Looking at the lyric booklets provided with the album there certainly are no stage directions, but there are descriptions of days and places such as ‘Bethany, Friday night’ (used in the 1972 London production as displays). But are detailed stage directions a necessary part of what constitute the book? Reading Rice’s lyrics one certainly gets a sense of what’s happening and what needs to happen from a directorial point of view, and this can also be said of the works of Shakespeare who never wrote any stage directions himself: I recall learning in university how the ‘sacred’ texts that we take for granted as being written by Shakespeare were in reality reconstructed from several sources including actors’ rehearsal copies, leaving the possibility that those actors tweaked their own lines, that lines originally excised by the author were retained having appeared in earlier versions etc. etc.

The place, times and even entrances and exits of characters were created after Shakespeare originally wrote his words. So Shakespeare basically wrote only the words spoken by his actors. Clearly this is enough for any director as we continue to have endlessly inventive productions of Shakespeare whose words are enough to let a director, and an audience, know what is going on and what needs to happen on (or off) stage. Do Rice’s words serve any less?

Yes, a dramatic play and a musical book are different things, but do they not serve the same purpose; as a means of telling a story?

So did Rice really eradicate the book? Or did he simply, accidently, re-write what it constitutes? Opera librettos are really nothing more than the lyrics and the same can be said here: Superstar is an opera in the idea that it is told entirely through music and lyrics. The same is true of Evita whose Lyric booklet does have more detailed stage directions than Superstar. But like any good opera, directors continue to find new ideas and create new productions all the time.

Where Rice is applauded for doing away with the book for Superstar and creating a clear, concise structure through lyrics he is often criticised for the book in the musical Chess (music by Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson), a musical of some length with minimal dialogue.  Many complain the plot is too complex or even unbelievable; accusations that Rice has refuted and proffered evidence against. The history of Chess as a show is far more convoluted than its plot; hence its history of being constantly reworked by director after director, starting with the first; Trevor Nunn (don’t get me started).  Chess was produced, like Superstar and Evita, as an album first and that album too had a book containing the lyrics, though there was a note indicating that the album was not the complete show. Included, however, was a complete synopsis of the story together with the full lyrics, together with stage directions as in the Evita booklet, of the music and scenes contained on the records (many of the stage directions were carried through to the published script) and reading the synopsis and lyrics one has a clear idea of what is going on in the story.

When it came to be staged the plot was reworked slightly in parts, lyrics were altered and song order rearranged – all per director request (much to Rice’s later regret). I shan’t go into later Chess variations (i.e. Broadway and beyond), some of which had Rice’s input, many of which did not, but I shall concentrate on the original London production which is the closest to the original album. Rice published the London Chess script in 1994 with a few more, very minor, alterations from the original London script (these include returning the original lyrics to ‘The Story of Chess’ and eliminating the meeting of Florence and Svetlana – a few lines of dialogue only - during ‘I Know Him So Well’ which served no real purpose).

Reading the published script it is easy to follow the story, so long as you pay attention to the lyric, and although Rice chooses not to always immediately give reasons for a character’s actions, he does offer consistent insights into behavioural traits, allowing a spectator and an actor to assemble a whole character, whilst his lyrics offer both clear and metaphorical commentary on both character and action. The least well written part is that of Svetlana, if only because she has little time in the show, and is not often referenced while not on stage. Many have said that the Sydney production, reworked by Rice with director Jim Sharman (who also directed the 1972 productions of Superstar in Australia and London), solved the issues of the book including expanding the Svetlana part, but I honestly believe that the London book is not as flawed as many make out.

Rice’s stage directions are basic and brief but are clear enough as any other libretto I’ve read and they allow leeway for a director and his/her designer. Perhaps at times some actions and plot exposition need reinforcing to ensure that an audience can understand (as one really must pay attention to the lyrics in Chess, even the abstract and metaphorical ones – and what’s wrong with that?) but Rice refrains from writing complex stage directions telling a director what needs to happen physically onstage to do so, while a good director will have little trouble coming up with something that will play sympathetically with the score, without altering a lyric or a melody, and certainly without screwing with plot as has often happened.

Rice reworked Chess for the 2008 Royal Albert Hall concert in an attempt to create a definitive, and clearer, version of the show. Rice admits that the concert didn’t completely meet his aims but he has said that it’s the closest that’s been achieved so far.  The current UK tour directed by Craig Revel Horwood reworks the show again, and not always to its betterment in my view (see my review), and often undoes some of Rice’s efforts in the concert version (including reinstating long, dramatically unnecessary, dance sequences that Rice excised – but then Horwood is a choreographer), although it is a thrilling and exciting production. And it’s true that most revivals rework shows these days, though I wish they’d consider what they do with more care.

Reading the libretto of Chess I wonder how close a director needs to adhere to the stage directions in order to clearly tell the story. I have experienced productions of Chess that don’t strictly keep to the stage directions and so long as the lyrics are left alone the story flows quite easily. So again, the lyrics (and dialogue in Chess’ case) are more important to the story telling and any embellishments on a director’s part should only serve to enhance that telling. And this is true of all the musicals cited here.

So here we have Rice lauded for doing away with the book and its inherent problems when writing Superstar and blasted for trying to create a complex and detail-rich story, asking the audience to think, when writing Chess. When thinking about Chess and why people are often confused by it I often wonder that perhaps it’s laziness on an audience’s part, as though they are unable to put the lyrical pieces together to come up with the whole. After all, it is all there!

I wonder that, where an audience is willing to pay attention and listen to what is said in a play, they expect a musical to just wash over them with only the minimum of attention required. The 80s heralded the mega-musical and Chess certainly was one of these, but it actually does demand something more from an audience than was usual; respect for the text.  Perhaps it is because the book is a little more complex and demanding of an audience that Chess is less attractive, whereas Superstar is simpler, both plot wise and lyrically and one doesn’t necessarily have to hear every word to know what’s going on. Whatever the reason both scores are excellent both musically and lyrically.

It is interesting to note that Rice is rarely credited as being the author of ‘the book’ for these two shows; in America Tom O’Horgan is often credited as writing the book for Superstar, having contractual billing as ‘Entire production Conceived and Directed by’. But having written the book? Hmmm, I wonder. In Chess’ case, on Broadway at least there certainly was a book credit – the script was rewritten by Richard Nelson who was brought in by Trevor Nunn to basically rewrite Rice’s plot. Originally - prior to previews - Rice and Nelson were both credited as book writers but, ultimately, only Nelson was credited come opening night and, apparently, Nelson’s contract means that only his script can be used in the US and his name is credited even if his script is not used. Thankfully this does not apply to the original UK version which was written by Rice, who is not often even credited with the book. And if Rice is not credited here then no one is.

Another bookless musical? Chess?  I don’t think so: Its book is detailed and complex and, given the necessity of the plot, remains surprisingly clear and uncluttered (despite its turbulent history and development) allowing the story to move along.

These days song lyrics are more than simply entertaining words – they are text that allows exposition, character and plot development. So rather than recreating the book, perhaps Rice, together with Stephen Sondheim, simply reinvented the lyric and its importance.

'Jesus Christ Superstar' at the Tony Awards

This clip from the Tony awards shows 'The Temple' scene and 'I Don't Know How To Love Him' as performed by the original Broadway company of 'Jesus Christ Superstar' including Yvonne Elliman and Jeff Fenholt.

Anne Marie David 'Le Chanson de Marie Madeleine'

A track from the 1972 French cast recording of 'Jesus Christ Superstar'