MovieChat Forums > IMDBRefugee1SD > Replies
IMDBRefugee1SD's Replies
And it's the sad answer to the Peggy clown's question-"Can you take with you?"
Reportedly always an emotional moment for the cast in any production.
According to "All For The Best: How Godspell Transferred From Stage To Screen" it cost $1.3 million and made close
to $8 million in domestic box office. And much more on video.
The stage version was a phenomenon.
David is evil from the start in this film, but only reveals it gradually.
Yes, they were. And two of the cast members Gilmer McCormick and Robin Lamont were afraid of heights.
The tag line: A Musical Based Upon The Gospel According To St. Matthew was added for the New York stage production.
But the show also uses quotes from Luke and John.
This movie was made by a Jew, and the absence of the resurrection is not accidental.
I assume you are referring to Stephen Schwatz who wrote the music for the show. But John Michael Tebelak the
originator of the show is Christian. And the show never had an explicit resurrection scene.
It's fitting that this has become an Easter tradition since the impetus for the show was a joyless Easter service that
Tebelak attended in 1970. Godspell captures the joy of the Easter celebration.
They needed a John the Baptist character to kick off the story and then initiate the reprise of "Prepare Ye.." so he played double duty as Judas as well. That reprise of "Prepare Ye.." seems an obvious choice in retrospect, but a brilliant one. And that was a suggestion of Stephen Schwartz.
And yes, it goes back to the stage version.
This is what David Haskell called the changeover point. And don't forget the Finale which begins with "Long Live God..", an
implicit acknowledgement of the resurrection, and then Haskell starts the counterpoint "Prepare Ye" reprise. Now he's
back to being John.
Not to mention us old codgers who saw the film when it first came out.(LMAO)
Extended silent sequences can be quite powerful (e.g. the first 25 minutes of "2001: A Space Odyssey"), but I was referring to catching up with the classic silents like Murnau's "Faust" and Lang's "Metropolis".
It probably won't catch Guardians at the box office, but with 98% want to see it will do just fine.
Maybe films like The Artist and La La Land will inspire folks to investigate their respective "lost art forms", which are only
lost in the sense that in they are not making films like them today.
Haven't read the book, but it sounds like it's the same ending. But I interpreted it differently. I thought it was showing
the idealized result of true transparency. But human nature is such that true transparency is not possible.
I'm guessing that I've lived longer than you(67 years). Don't assume everyone posting here is a teenager.
Yes, both sides do it, but conservatives are more egregious in their misuse of spin.
You have not seen the film so you have no business commenting on it.
I agree about the surveillance state, but the film was about the dangers of giving too much information to internet
companies, not the covert surveillance that Snowden revealed.
And the author does not make any credible connection of that with progressivism.
Yeah, two androids, David and Walter. From the previews I'm guessing that Walter, who is still being dissed by the humans,
will be the bad android. And the repaired David the good android.
Maybe if she has an eye on a new Jaguar.
Ever notice how conservatives twist everything to suit their (in this case religious conservative) agenda?
No, she has better taste than that(LOL).