I think you touched on it when you mentioned a modern-day version of Christ. Up to that point in time, the only image most people had of Jesus was the solemn, long-haired man (never smiling) in a picture hanging on their grandmother's bedroom wall next to a crucifix displaying a tortured figure with outstretched arms--not exactly inviting sights. I believe Tebelak's intention was to have Christ portrayed in an upbeat, radical manner, the same way he would have been viewed in biblical times--either to be admired or (predominantly) scorned. I doubt the disciples would have chosen to follow someone looking constantly depressed and persecuted. There must have been a certain degree of conviviality in Jesus, and the "clown" portrayal effectively conveyed this. Mind you, the character of an athlete or, perhaps, a musician would have worked just as well. The Gospell of Matthew contains valuable parables about life and what governs true peace and happiness, but, speaking from my own childhood, the bible did not make them sound like anything more than rebukings from an angry Jesus. Godspell is a refreshing, colorful look at the scriptures that departs from the constipated tone that too many versions of the bible emit.
He who conquers himself is mightier than he who conquers a city.
reply
share
novastar_6
13 years ago
I think that's a good way of putting it, after all the way they spoke the Gospel, of course I think Matthew is pretty easy to understand but it was being delivered in a modern sense so it was easier for people to understand.
reply
share
anitagormley
13 years ago
I like all of these interpretations. I've always thought of the makeup as a representation of Jesus' humanity when he was here on Earth. Before the crucifixion when he makes them remove their makeup, but he keeps his on - I've always interpreted this as Him wiping their sins clean and taking them upon himself.
Or maybe it's just a 70's thing! :)
reply
share