Godspell DVD

(N.B. This is a film only review)


When my partner and I sat down on Easter Sunday, trying to find something to watch on the telly, we came across the film, 'Godspell'. We were faced with over 100 channels and the thought of flicking through them all made me want to be sick (or that may have been from the excessive amount of chocolate we had just consumed) so we decided to watch the film. I wasn't completely averse to it, as ...
...had seen clips here and there but never actually watched the whole thing, my opinion of it had always been that it looked too 60s hippy and happy clappy for my liking. So, essentially, I thought it was about time I watched it, and I quite enjoyed it!

Godspell, (the full, official title is 'Godspell, the gospel according to Matthew') is the film version of the stage musical (originally conceived by John-Michael Tebelak) written by Stephen ... more

(N.B. This is a film only review)

When my partner and I sat down on Easter Sunday, trying to find something to watch on the telly, we came across the film, 'Godspell'. We were faced with over 100 channels and the thought of flicking through them all made me want to be sick (or that may have been from the excessive amount of chocolate we had just consumed) so we decided to watch the film. I wasn't completely averse to it, as we did the stage production at school, years ago. I had seen clips here and there but never actually watched the whole thing, my opinion of it had always been that it looked too 60s hippy and happy clappy for my liking. So, essentially, I thought it was about time I watched it, and I quite enjoyed it!

Godspell, (the full, official title is 'Godspell, the gospel according to Matthew') is the film version of the stage musical (originally conceived by John-Michael Tebelak) written by Stephen Schwartz (the guy who wrote 'Wicked') and was released in 1973. The film is set in 70's New York City and basically follows a group of people who tell parables taken from the gospel according to Matthew, some of which are in the form of song. Traditionally, everyone in the show uses their own real life names, as is done in this film, except for two actors, one who plays Jesus, and the actor playing Judas (who also plays John the Baptist). The parallels between the cast, co-incidentally playing the role of Jesus's disciples is clear.

The film starts quite light heartedly and with a sense of fun. We are introduced to John the Baptist who 'calls' various members of the public to come and join him as they follow 'the lord'. As they come, they are also baptized in a fountain, followed by Jesus himself. We see different performance styles to tell various parables from the bible, some with song and some played rather comically. This juxtaposes completely with the end of the film, which goes onto portray something much darker and serious. Some of the parables we see performed are the story of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. The approach is playful and not at all as patronizing as you might think, just entertaining. I wouldn't be spoiling the ending by telling you that Jesus ultimately gets crucified (telling the story of Jesus and the betrayal by Judas).

The music is good, it's basically the same as the stage show, but with the omission of 2 songs: "Learn Your Lessons Well" and "We Beseech Thee", which is a shame as they are both good songs. There is an eclectic mix of musical styles as well, varying from gospel (co-incidentally enough 'Godspell' is the archaic old english spelling of the word 'gospel', which translates as 'good news') to pop, from ballad to rock. Other song titles that may be familiar are: 'Turn Back O Man', 'All Good Gifts', 'Light Of The World' and 'Day by Day'.

The costuming is odd, for some reason Jesus played by Victor Garber (who is now a well established actor, having been in Titanic, Legally Blonde, Alias to name a few) is dressed as a clown (take a look at the pictures, you'll see what I mean). Well, he looks like a clown. He has face paint, a big curly afro, bright coloured trousers, braces and big shoes…and bizarrely a superman t-shirt. Why on earth is he dressed like this?! Are they suggesting that Jesus is a joke? Not that I would take offense to it, but it just feels really odd. He annoyed me and didn't come across that strongly as a performer (his shoulders were far too tense for my liking), which is a shame, as he was, well, Jesus! Unlike David Haskell's honest and captivating, dual performance role as Judas and John the Baptist. At the start of the film, the cast are also 'baptised' by Jesus (with facepaint) and given different little symbols on their face, a nice idea in theory, however, I feel it almost dumbs down the profoundity of the piece as a whole. There are some characters that are portrayed innocently, through their demeanour, for example, one character has a rather sweet glove puppet, who is like an extra silent character, but the facepaint makes her appear more childlike, as opposed to an adult with an innocent quality. Which, if they left out the facepaint (making the actors appear undoubtably as adults), I think in turn, it would make the ending all that more tragic for the people's loss of their leader. A lot of the female characters are also dressed as rag dolls, with many layers of patchy material in various pastel colours. In my opinion, as a whole, they looked like characters from a children's book, again dumbing down the integrity on the film.

As well as Victor Garber and David Haskell, other cast members include: Katie Hanley, Merrell Jackson, Joanna Jonas, Robin Lamont, Gilmer McCormick, Jeffrey Mylett, Jerry Sroka and Lynne Thigpen (there's also a vocal appearance from John-Michael Tebelak, who conceived the whole idea). Although I've never heard of anyone in this small cast, it seems to create a greater sense of ensemble playing, than have there be some famous cast members amongst them, which could unbalance the cast somehow.

The choreography looks like it has just been lifted from the stage show, it just so happens that they are on location. I'm not sure I like this, it feels lacking in energy. Numbers are located in Central Park, Washington Square Park, the Lincoln Centre, on top of the World Trade Centre and by the Statue of Liberty to name a few. Visually, it looks great, but it all seems somewhat contrived and rather like a plight to increase tourism, instead of presenting an all round musical number in different location to the last.

That aside, I did enjoy 'Godspell' and think it is a good film, then again I may be biased as I have a soft spot for the show. Some performances are relatively weak, but don't let that put you off, as there are also some good moments. Direction by David Greene, is sound, however, I'm sure more could have been done to this film to make even stronger and gain more gravitas. Although having said that, when it was first received, the audience of the 70s may have been more accustomed to such ideas and performances. Unfortunately, it lacks something for today's audience, which is strange, as other musicals filmed within a certain time period ('Cabaret' or 'Grease', for example) are timeless and live on. I would buy this on dvd and would recommend people watch it, however, I would also warn them that it is no 'Fame', 'Dirty Dancing' or 'Footloose', or any other film musical from decades ago, that are still acclaimed today.

If you want to see a really bad quality of the original trailer, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ9X7OHAMs0

Thanks for reading ☺

© MarcoG 2008 

...less