|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
Godspell and MeDateline: 16th March, 1998
Heralded by a sprinking of glitter-dust and much laying on of microphones, Godspell is back... For those who missed it the first time, this is your golden opportunity: you can miss it again. Oh dear! I came across this quotation just as I began preparing for my (second) production of Godspell. Now, I approve of Michael Billington: he's one of those critics who usually have something sensible and useful to say about the show he reviews, so I was a little taken aback on reading this. "Well, he's wrong this time," I told myself, and got down to working on the show. Now I was doing the show with kids. We're an 11-16 comprehensive and we had kids of all ages in the show, although the bulk of the work was done by 14/15 year olds. We started rehearsals on 12th January and had our last performance (in this country) last night, 13th March. (We are taking it to Germany next Friday to play two nights, but that's a different story.) Up until last night I was concentrating on getting the best out of my young company, and even once the four night run started I was geeing them up, giving them pep-talks, making minor alterations to performances, and so on. But last night I could just sit back and watch - and that's what I did: I sat back and watched the audience. I'm sorry, Mr Billington: you're wrong! Godspell is a good show. The audience laughed (a lot!); there were moments where they were clearly made to think; and, at the end, there were tears. I am not, I assure you, boasting here. I am trying to be as objective as I can. The performance my kids gave was the not archetypal school show. No one in that audience had to make the mental reservation "Well, they're just kids". Their performance would stand comparison with any amateur group I have ever seen, and their discipline on-stage was a joy to behold. Although a large part of the audience was, inevitably, made up of family and friends of the cast, a substantial minority were neither. They were looking at the show as a show, not as a showcase of kids' performances, and they loved it. One guy said to me after the show, "I've never seen Godspell before, and, to be honest, I thought I wouldn't like it. But it's good entertainment." And I think that hits to nail on the head! Godspell is good entertainment. The message isn't startlingly original (well, it couldn't be, being based on the Gospel of St Matthew); it doesn't have much of a plot (and there are no surprises - we all know the ending!); there is no deep characterisation (there is only one character in the normal theatre sense of the word). But it entertains. The music is good - very catchy, singable tunes in a variety of musical styles, but without becoming pastiche in the mode of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. There are innumerable changes of mood, unlike in the inexorable build-up of menace that you get in Jesus Christ Superstar. It has something to say about life, unlike, for example, Calamity Jane or Guys and Dolls. OK, it's not demanding, in the way that most Sondheim pieces are. Musically it's quite simple, unlike, for instance, Miss Saigon or, again, much of Sondheim. But these are criticisms which could be laid at the door of many shows. No, the main criticism that can be levelled against Godspell is that it is naive. It is, in fact, childlike in its approach: when Jesus talks to the people, he talks like a teacher talking to young children, and they react like young children. They get excited; they sing and dance; they play childish games with the stories; they even squabble. This was acceptable in those innocent days of the late sixties and early seventies, when everyone was sure that universal love and peace were just around the corner. Since then, however, we've had the eighties, the me-centric decade when greed was good and people were told to go and take what they wanted, when the love of money, far from being the root of all evil, was touted as the motivating factor of human life - not of society, for, for the eighties generation, society did not exist. Perhaps we're still too close to that bleak decade, where style was elevated to godhead and the acquisition of wealth was the sole aim of life, to appreciate the innocence of Godspell. But perhaps not. Looking at the audience over the past few days, I saw a delight, even a joy, which was not there when we've done other more recent, more "modern" plays. I think back to Little Shop of Horrors, our all-time most financially successful show, which audiences loved. But, although it gave enormous pleasure and swept the audience along with its wonderful humour and music, the "feel-good" factor was missing: its black, albeit funny, ending leaves audiences uneasy. Godspell, however, is life-affirming, even for those who, like me, could not be called Christian. Sorry, Michael Billington, you're wrong! It's a good show, and well deserving of its place in the theatrical canon. Articles Indices: |
|
|