So... y'all might have noticed my conspicuous silence about the JCS event of the year at the Hollywood Bowl last weekend. (Or maybe you didn't; I like to believe I wield influence, I'm rarely correct about just how much.)
I was silent for a few reasons, which I'll explain before I post my review below the jump:
The ten-block rule. The Graduate Musical Theatre Writing Program at NYU is big on teaching this, and it's a good rule of thumb (in my opinion) for reviewing any piece of entertainment. Namely, don't talk about what you think about any kind of performance until you have gotten ten blocks away from the place where you saw the performance, especially if you're going to dissect what you just saw in detail and not merely praise what you liked. You really have no idea who is listening to you that close to the venue (in the specific ten-block example), and you don't know what kind of damage you'll do with your opinions. Since I am not a man of means, travel, accommodations, a ticket to the show, and the urge to splurge on exclusive merch would have wiped me out, so in this case, it's more honoring the ten-block rule in a spiritual (pardon the pun) sense: I won't yuck someone else's yum by immediately posting something less than ecstatic about what I've seen, especially when a lot of people obviously loved this production. Which is important, because...
I'm not objective about JCS, and I don't want people to judge what they see based solely on my opinion. I have accepted for a long time that, short of me directing or consulting, most new productions of JCS are not going to reflect what I would consider a good or even great rendition. (Luckily, I've had 30 years of ALW-sanctioned revivals to adjust to that. *ba-dum-tish*) I'm not disappointed or bitter or sitting in a corner with my candle lit in my Ted Neeley shrine, chanting "WHYYYYY" on a loop, if it's not exactly what I want (and believe me, it's taken a long time and a lot of work on my part not to be sore-assed about it), but I'm not gonna pretend I'm impressed by something I'm not either. This has led to some people accusing me of "losing the joy" in other circumstances when talking frankly about other productions. Being unable to observe myself from the outside, I can't say for certain, but from where I'm sitting, I just expect more, whether you think I'm picking nits or simply have a more refined palate. For most new productions, I am content to say, "These days, JCS, for me, is much like pizza -- even if it's bad, I will probably still find something to like about it. It's pizza. (Metaphorically speaking.)" Sometimes, if I'm more enthusiastic than not, I'll even add, "I'm happy people like it, and there are a lot of things I do like about it."
While I don't think I should feel weird about evaluating a piece through online clips rather than actually having seen it in person (I tend to share Sweaty Oracle's viewpoint on the ethics of that), I still kind of do. Self-explanatory.
But I feel sufficient time has passed, and I've watched enough clips of all three performances to get the gist, so I think it's time to unpack in detail what I liked and what I didn't like. If you want the whole gory story, hit the jump. Otherwise...
TL;DR: Though it's not a high bar to clear (again, in my opinion), and the approach was not without flaws (at times I could feel ALW's thumb on the scale, and I think it held them back), there have been precious few better high-profile productions of JCS in the past couple of decades, and I'm glad the show is in the spotlight again. Things I'd tweak are only things that mattered to me; that may be different for you. In a word, this was… serviceable.
Production (Direction/Choreography/Design/etc.)
In a nutshell:
Knowing the Bowl summer concert musicals well, this had more staging than they normally receive. That said, it was pretty much a concert with some dancing and blocking, and I didn't honestly expect more than that in this setting. I found the former more energetic than the latter, kudos to Sergio Trujillo, although I will say that my detail-oriented ass picked up on interesting things others wouldn't. (Example: during "Superstar," Cynthia carried a single horizontal crossbeam rather than struggling with the weight of a traditional giant cross... weird place to show you did your homework on the practice of crucifixion in first-century Judea [to show mine, they called the crossbeam the patibulum in Latin], but kudos for doing it.)
I thought the projection screen, which seemingly mainly served to hide the rest of the orchestra, could have been used more creatively. (The Peep Arrow production in Italy is the stuff of tradition at this point, but what they did with projections was unique and involving by comparison; it also made me long for the ticker-tape and digital images of the 2012 Broadway revival.) In the -- unfortunately unlikely, if my fairly reliable sources are anything to go by -- event that this production goes anywhere beyond the Bowl, that is one key area that should be revisited. Especially if they're sticking with the concert aesthetic, projections could be remarkably atmospheric and provide a sense of time and place typically afforded by a traditional set.
Speaking of the orchestra... aside from the altered keys (I'll get to that in a sec), nice to hear the full orchestration for the first time in a solid decade or so, my Manhattan production aside. I was also pleased that it sounded far less anemic than the official Lambert single. I was hopeful when Stephen Oremus was picked to wield the baton, as, quite apart from his skill and talent, he was also involved musically in one of my favorite productions (a late '90s regional revival starring Billy Porter that set the show visually in apartheid-era South Africa, drawing parallels between Christ and Mandela), and he did not disappoint. Involve this guy in professional JCS as much as possible!
Cast (In Order of Appearance)
Adam Lambert (Judas Iscariot)
Okay, I'll be the outlier in two ways:
I was totally prepared to dislike him. I know he's a talented singer, perhaps even one of the strongest vocalists of this generation, but I often find his showboat tendencies to be distracting. Plus, he's been campaigning for this role for so long (first link is to a 2007 performance of "Heaven On Their Minds," second to a 2009 interview dreaming aloud about the role) that I wondered how fresh his approach could be. (Sometimes someone who really wants to play a part gets set in their ways before they ever approach the rehearsal room, and I wanted something that fit the show, not a canned, polished take.)
The promo single didn't fill me with confidence, although that was more about the orchestration than him. Still, he slayed the notes, his vocal embellishments were fantastic, but I didn't hear or feel the conflicted character coming through.
So, I prepared myself accordingly. I expected his performance to feel more like Adam Lambert singing the songs rather than the character of Judas, and braced for impact.
Well... I was wrong. He was fantastic and, by far, the star of the show for me. His "Heaven On Their Minds" and "Damned For All Time/Blood Money," no lie, rank among my top 5 of each of those songs now, thanks in no small part to his little "options up" in both ("we must keep in our place" and "…want your blood money," respectively).
As far as the showboating goes, I think he balanced everything quite well. The runs he did do were impressive.
10/10, would cast him again.
Cynthia Erivo (Jesus Christ)
Let me get some shit out of the way upfront: casting a queer black woman (or any woman -- there is a rich history of female performances in the role) as Jesus does not bother me in the slightest. That kind of representation is essential in this country right now. Hell, my current dream Jesus, if I had to pick a flavor of the moment, would be Alex Newell, who springs readily to mind as someone that might have the range for the score while also typically cast in female-presenting roles.
If any of that bothers you, you have no place on this blog. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. But before you go, if you're offended because you're a Christian, consider this as you leave: you are missing the blatantly biblical perspective of her portrayal. Her performance invites us to reflect on how Christ lives through those we least expect. Jesus took on flesh not in a palace, but in poverty. If he walked among us today, would he not again appear in ways that provoke and unsettle? Art is not heresy when it brings someone closer to the heart of Christ. It's heresy when it says that Christ can only ever look a certain way.
Now that I've unpacked some church trauma, to the matter at hand: her performance. It was... interesting.
Her look was the first thing that struck me. Costumes aside (a little skimpy showgirl-ish at times for my taste, but if someone asked what I'd dress a female Jesus in, I can't honestly say I'd have a good idea), she looked great in the part. There's something inherently otherworldly about her appearance that helped straddle the line between God and man. (I won't lie, the bald thing probably played a role.)
Her acting was very... actorly. Like, decent, given it's a concert, but... well... with time to reflect and re-watch, I don't feel like she was singing "Gethsemane" with her head in the role. It didn't seem like she was thinking about why she was singing particular lyrics, more going through the motions: be sad, be angry, be sad again, hold for applause. Maybe that's what to expect in a concert, but I've seen more in similar settings from others.
(Another acting note: if someone is shoving what is supposed to be a crown of thorns onto your head, you need to react somehow or it will look weird. This is the human side of Jesus. He is not above the pain.)
Now, as far as the singing goes... there is no denying Erivo is possessed of a powerful instrument. I am also pleasantly surprised she managed to get an okay from ALW on changing keys, definitely unexpected considering his usual inflexible stance of "sing what I wrote or bust." That said...
Regarding transpositions, I am surprised she didn't push for more consistent implementation. There were times, possibly due to his likely insistence that they do it as little as possible, that it stuck out like a sore thumb and made it look like a diva's whim, which I'd expect is the last impression she'd want to give. (Example: They transposed all of "What's The Buzz" to a sympathetic key for everyone to make sense for her voice, but "Hosanna"? All original keys, but only her verses change. Make that make sense.)
Moreover, not all of those adjustments felt necessary. The transpositions might have made more sense if she performed the original melodies in the new keys; however, even after transposing, she was still making alterations, often singing parts up an octave. Why not just sing it up an octave in the original key? Despite the fact that so much of the role's traditional appeal is built on how it fits in a male voice, I've heard female performers do that and make it compelling. I want a Jesus to show off their range, and instead it felt like Cynthia stuck to the same part of her range as much as possible; if something was lower than that, she usually brought it up, and vice versa if something was higher. "The Temple" comes to mind as one moment where she really let it rip. I wish there were more of that, and that she had let her lower register shine more. The overall effect was pretty and controlled; I want more breaks and grit.
Speaking of which... yep, I missed the bolder choices and high notes male performers traditionally do in "Gethsemane." Lock me up. In many of the songs, there have been riffs or specific notes that I think are now quintessential. For me, the performance loses something without those elements. I wouldn't ask for the equivalent of a G5 (that high fifth turns into a C♯6 in the key they chose that would sound unpleasant from any woman), but giving us the tonic (an F♯5) on the first "Why" would have at least made it hit similarly. Yes, the note is the famous high point of the song, but more importantly it escalates the emotional tension. You have to do something there to deliver impact similar to the men who've done it in the past, and she didn't. Is it the end of the world? No. But given that this is the most JCS has been in the zeitgeist in a hot minute, the stakes did feel a bit high, and she fell short, if only in that specific department.
Despite what you may believe I think from the above, however, my two cents are that this was a compelling, potent performance overall, and I am here for it. The standing ovations speak for themselves; anything else is just notes from a connoisseur's eye.
Phillipa Soo (Mary Magdalene)
Brilliant in just about everything she does. Kudos for playing it straight compared to her co-stars. Liked her perfectly fine.
Zachary James (Caiaphas, High Priest) and Brian Justin Crum (Annas)
A solid pair of priests (indeed, a solid group counting the nameless members of the council). Zach was sometimes hit or miss with the super low notes, but made up for it by being surprisingly belty in the higher parts. Brian delivered as Annas. Probably one of my favorite renditions of "This Jesus Must Die" I've ever heard.
Tyrone Huntley (Simon Zealotes)
Overqualified for Simon, given his Judas experience, but it says something about the caliber of the show that someone that good got a part that small. (Will have more to say about the size of the part shortly.)
Raúl Esparza (Pontius Pilate)
Pros:
I have wanted this man to be Pilate practically since he aged out of Judas territory (by traditional industry standards, anyway), and while I don't love the post-Fred Johanson booming take most Pilates give these days, he is by far the best at it.
His voice is fantastic; it can be beautiful and then shift to a proper rock-edge at the drop of a crown of thorns. Immensely satisfying to listen to. Wish he held out the B going into "Superstar" that some Pilates do, but the guy regularly shreds his voice doing tenor roles, so I won't begrudge him that. (Much.)
Acting-wise, I love how he played the revelation that he was talking to the man from his dream. A lot of Pilate actors actively lose their shit. (Speaking of Fred Johanson, am I the only one who giggles when his voice gets all squeaky at that moment in the Trial?) I know it's The Theater™, but Esparza did a lot of understated work there that felt more realistic to how a leader attempting to keep control in front of the masses would act in such an extraordinary situation.
Cons:
I thought in some places he was almost comically campy.
I wish they'd given him something other than a tank top, comfy purple pajamas, and a cloak for a costume, but hey, it's a concert.
Milo Manheim (Peter)
Never heard of him before this, though I have since discovered I love his mom's work, but he was solid.
That said, both he and Huntley, while good enough at their respective parts, were also proof positive that it's past time to combine the roles of Peter and Simon, as both are singular performers in their own right wasted in these small roles when one or both could build more of a character with the combined arc I've proposed.
A Tale of Two Herods
Full disclosure, in case you haven't gleaned this from my book or less opinion-based work: I'm so over campy Herod. Given the political climate we're in, a more Trump-reminiscent authoritarian Herod would be a much better move. (Not at all subtle, mind you, but shit, Screaming Gay Herod isn't subtle either.) Nonetheless, we got two flavors of campy Herod, so I tried not to let my distaste for that approach color my opinion.
John Stamos -- Full disclosure, I've never been able to stand the guy, so take the following with a grain of salt. So... I give him credit for stepping in at the last minute, but he was -- unsurprisingly -- mediocre. Let's be real, he only gets brownie points when you factor in such little time to prepare. (I'd have given him more for not going the lazy route and pulling out his Elvis impression, but I found myself almost wishing he had, Joseph comparisons be damned, because that would be better than what I saw.) Otherwise, I'm glad Gad tested negative quickly enough to come back. Having said that...
Josh Gad -- I won't say I was underwhelmed, but his casting was a safe choice when I'd have preferred more of a wild card if one must stunt cast. My expectations were higher for Gad, so I was therefore less impressed. Fun, but nothing special; decent tribute to Josh Mostel, cute ad-libs in personal style, solid traditional Herod. Not sure why they had to change the key for him and not Stamos when he's a more qualified singer (and before you say, "Dude, he had COVID," they raised the key for Josh). Plus, I found the RuPaul-inflected "Sashay... Stamos" joke his first night back, if quite funny, to be a bit mean-spirited. The guy got tepid notices. Why kick him while he's down?
Conclusion
So... yeah. It was fine! And that's not faint praise, regardless of how I feel about finer details. I'd see it again if they took it further, and buy an album if they chose to release one.
Casting the evil parody JCSS musical Yanessa Superstar that Yanessa is definitely going to pitch Hal for propaganda. Who's who?
List of potentially relevant C4 NPC'S/PC's: Yanessa Halovar, King Gus (Augustus Valian), Primus Tachonis, Filoneus Halovar, Wicander Halovar, Halandil Fang, Azune Nayar, Tyranny & Sisters (Emnity, Agony, Cruelty), Aranessa Royce, Julien Davinos, Godard Halovar, Zebani Halovar, Harondus Einfasen,
List of JCSS characters: JC, Mary Magdalene, Judas, Simon, Peter, Caiaphas, Annas, Pontius Pilate, King Herod,
Obviously Yanessa is JC in her propaganda musical, maybe King Gus is King Harod? Bit of a stretch considering he was also almost murdered, but he was supposed to be actually dead and he isn't, so it depends on how she want's to spin it. It's not like her story needs to conform to reality. Herod or Pontius for Gus probably.
Judas is interesting because two of the characters I'm seeing for the roll haven't been discovered yet. Wick hasn't had a proper confrontation with his Grandma and he might be able to smooth things over, (he's only been gone for a week) and Azune can still salvage this by saying he was there to protect The Halovars. He performed admirably based on the info he had, it's not his fault he wasn't let in on the Halovar scheme. Also Azune isn't important enough politically (as far as the Halovars are aware) to use up good propaganda on. Primus on the other hand is a very good candidate for Judas. If she wants to heel turn and abandon that alliance, framing Primus as Judas is the perfect way to do it. It depends on how involved she was with the attack on Royce and how confident she is in her handle on that situation I suppose.
I think Wick is Mary which... yikes... (crisis of faith song) Maybe Wick is Peter and Filoneus is Mary... still yikes.
Caiaphas and Annas could either be The Dog Knights or maybe some other political enemies of Yanessa's.
Tyranny and her sisters would be disciples. Maybe Hal is a disciple in this? He rolled very high talking to her.
