University of Virginia Library

The Broadway Beat

Struggling With Jesus, Rocking With St. Matthew

By STEVE WELLS

NEW YORK - The
question for today is how did a
tastefully intriguing rock opera
such as "Jesus Christ
Superstar" become a vulgar,
plastic, and incredibly inept
Broadway musical? The
answer, quite simply, is Tom
O'Horgan.

O'Horgan, in case you've
forgotten, was catapulted into
the spotlight as a result of his
staging of the Broadway
version of "Hair" back in
1968. And why? It was, at
best, a gimmicky, tasteless, and
altogether self-indulgent
directorial job - three traits
which have since become
O'Horgan's trademarks. Even
"Lenny," last season's
late-arriving play about
comedian Lenny Bruce,
succeeded more in spite of
O'Horgan's contributions than
because of them (although his
tastelessness was at least
justified here and Cliff Gorman
gave - and is still giving - such
a whammo performance as to
offset the weaknesses inherent
in Julian Barry's script and
O'Horgan's production
concept).

I think it is fair to say that
Andrew Lloyd Webber's score
for "JC Superstar" is to
today's young audience what
Galt MacDermot's score for
"Hair" was three years ago.
Although I tend to think both
are slightly overrated, there is
much talent apparent in each.
And each has to be the
strength of any production -
"Hair's" book and lyrics were
so bad as to be ludicrous and
"JC Superstar," being an opera
of sorts, has no book and
Tim Rice's lyrics show only
sporadic flashes of ingenuity.

Well, given this situation,
O'Horgan has been true to his
"Hair" example and has
amplified the music to within
an inch of its life. Which would
be fine if it didn't distort the
quality of the sound, as it
often tends to do.

This is annoying, but not so
much as some of O'Horgan's
other hack tricks. I mean, I
know it's a peculiar desire but I
do like to hear the words that
come out of the singers'
mouths, and I found at least a
half to two-thirds of the entire
first act unintelligible. Things
improved a bit as the evening
progressed, but never to a
really satisfactory level. You
see, for some inexplicable
reason, O'Horgan has provided
several poorly disguised hand
mikes which the actors scream
into and thrust in front of each
other (it really adds to
dramatic moments to have a
secondary actor hurl himself
between the principals with a
mike as if he were Howard
Cossell at ringside).

There are other areas open
to criticism as well, such as the
platforms which hang in the air
and try to hold four or five
actors at once, which shake
and wobble until you fear for
the lives of the people on
them. Or the way O'Horgan
has disciples groping about the
stage like lost monkeys (I will
say that O'Horgan knows how
to make people grope better
than anyone I know of, but he
has overworked this
"tribalism" theme). Or (as
William Goldman noted of
"Hair") the unjustified
camp-fag humor he tries to
achieve by depicting King
Herod as a drag queen.

None of this has been done
with regard for the material,
and composer Webber has gone
so far as to voice his
dissatisfaction with the
production in a New York
Times interview, asserting that
he certainly didn't think that
this production is the
"definitive" one. The point is
that it should be; the
implication is that these two
kids from England came to
Broadway with a successful
work and fell victim to the
commercial ploys of an egoistic
director. Sure, there are lines at
the box office and SRO at