u/Malurus06

Today I came across this review of the recent Melbourne production of JCS, published in the Catholic Weekly (so you can already tell neither the reviewer nor the audience of the article are likely to appreciate a secular retelling of the passion story).

The reviewer lands a few decent criticisms about the minimalist staging of the production, but makes a few really odd observations.

One is his complaint about the omission of Satan from the production. It is well known the show is a secular retelling that is expressly without supernatural elements, and since two of the synoptic gospels don’t mention Satan in the passion narrative anyway, I hardly think that is a relevant criticism; level your complaints with Matthew and Mark first before you come after Rice and Lloyd Webber for that one.

Another odd criticism is remarking that Jesus is depicted with short hair. It is well known that Jesus’ appearance is never described in the New Testament and the bearded, long haired depiction of Jesus is an artefact of the Middle Ages. Let them depict Jesus with short hair, it doesn’t change anything.

He continues through his list of criticisms of the writing, staging and performances (including a criticism that there is too much dancing… in a musical…) only to end it with this truly perplexing recommendation: rather than see this production, “put the original soundtrack album on instead”. Why? The original soundtrack is the same show, with the same narrative choices; the same ones that are raised as criticisms here (granted, you can’t critique the dancing on a soundtrack).

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a more disingenuous review of this show, especially from someone who apparently appreciates (even recommends) the original concept album?

I’m curious to see if there any equivalent recent examples of ‘poor takes’ on the show from a professional reviewer, because this is certainly the worst I’ve seen!