Yes, that’s “Jesus Christ” in the upcoming Hollywood Bowl production of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice’s “Jesus Christ Superstar.” Needless to say (I hope!) Jesus was not black, female or lesbian. Moreover, the character’s songs were not written for a female voice, but rather a powerful rock tenor.
Never mind, though. This is stunt casting, maybe even D.E.I casting. It’s not fair to the work, the music, and for audience members who are Christians, it may seem just a teeny bit irreverent. But Erivo is currently hot, Oscar nominated for a (I thought) rather single-note portrayal of Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West, in the exhausting film version of “Wicked.”
The story and a lot of the book of “Superstar” is taken right from the Bible, but even the original stage production was attacked as blasphemous when it premiered in 1971. The “rock opera” had begun its cultural life, like The Who’s “Tommy” a bit later, as a recording. Director Tom O’Horgan put it on stage with such innovations as a King Herod who pranced around as a flaming transvestite and Jesus and Judas blasting into microphones. The film version had still more anachronisms. Jesus and the disciples encounter tanks rolling across the Sinai Desert, for example.
So a black lesbian mezzo-soprano playing Jesus Christ in this show is not exactly the equivalent of non-traditional casting in an Easter pageant, just the slippery slope at work. I contributed to that slope: when I directed the show a few decades ago, I cast a woman as Simon the Zealot, a male saint and apostle who has a solo in the musical. The reason for my controversial choice was simple: a spectacularly talented, quirky and charismatic actress had auditioned for the show and there was no role for her—so I made one. Simon is not exactly well-known, in fact he is a confusing and mysterious biblical figure, although his reputed demise—being sawed in half alive and lengthwise—is certainly memorable. And the actress was terrific, making an often meh JCS number a show-stopper.
My stunt casting, in short, worked. Maybe having Erivo play the Son of God will work. There has already been an all-female production of the sung-through musical; Erivo played Judas in that one. That gimmick makes no sense to me dramatically or musically, but again, I have no business complaining.
As I have mentioned here a few times, I once was responsible for casting “Red Hot and Cole” entirely with women— a female Cole Porter, a female Noel Coward, Porter in a same-sex marriage. It bombed badly, but I’m in no position to criticize the director of the new “Superstar,” Tony Award winner Sergio Trujillo, for his experiment.
However, knowing and admiring the show as I do, would I want to see and hear Erivo sing the role of Jesus?
Hell no.
Ethics Alarms 
Honestly, I think I’m going to formalize a new “value” or position for myself. I don’t see controversial casting choices going away, ever; and this art, this music, these performances are meant to inspire *everyone*. There are people of all backgrounds who perform and want to participate and why shouldn’t they? The only time it’s important is when you’re attempting to be historically accurate – but come on. We have Matt Damon as Odysseus in Christopher Nolan’s next film The Odyssey. Last time I checked, Odysseus was Greek, not Scandinavian. My new position is I’m fine with all of it and all this complaining and negativity only ruins my attempt to enjoy a performance. They are adaptations and individual performances.
You want to put black people on Normandy beaches? Fine. It will inspire our current Black population to take pride in what we accomplished as a nation. You want to do a US Civil War movie where the Northern Black population puts down the Southern Black Confederates and free their white slaves? I’m okay with it. I may or may not watch it depending on how well it’s conceived and executed. Give me Ryan Gosling as Obama and Idris Elba as Bruce Wayne/Batman or even James Bond. (Actually, just make Idris Elba a new 00 character. That man CAN ACT!)
Life’s too short. Enjoy what’s available to you. Don’t be “ethically estopped from criticizing”. Be ethically motivated to support someone’s creative endeavors for new experiences and to chase new dreams.
Elba as 007 would be a dream.
Idris would have made a great Bond, oh, ten or 20 years ago. He’s 52, almost as old as Daniel Craig.
Sigh.
You know my feelings about this show.
I’m gonna go play the OG soundtrack now. It’s been awhile.
Mine is a more pragmatic view and somewhat mirrors Tim’s above. A privately financed programs that does not violate the terms dictated by the owner of the copyright does only one thing; it offers more choices. Choice is the foundation of freedom.
The beauty of choice is that it allows us to choose NOT to do or support something as much as it does to buy that which is being sold.
The most fundamental of human rights is the right to choose. But even as a fundamental right, people have an obligation to make their choices in a manner that does not inflict harm on another. To me, the ethical position is always to do no harm.
Jesus Christ Superstar was the first musical I attended; it was in London in 1978 as part of a school trip.
I do not see anything unethical with non-traditional casting, except when it violates the terms dictated by the owner of the copyright. For instance Porgy and Bess only allows for black actors for this reason.
Another example is Waiting for Godot by Beckett. Beckett dictated that this play can only be played by male actors. Beckett’s stated objection to women playing the roles was that they do not have prostates: in the play, one of the characters frequently leaves the stage to urinate. It is implied (never stated explicitly) that this is due to the common issue that ageing men face, namely enlarged prostates making them need to pee more frequently.
Since Beckett’s death in 1989, his estate has vigilantly respected his wishes, refusing to grant permission for performances of the play that involve anyone other than men in the cast.
In 2023, USVA, the student cultural and performing arts center associated with the University of Groningen (Netherlands), declined to host the play due to women not being allowed to audition. This decision attracted international attention. The whole story is accessible via the following link.
https://northerntimes.nl/waiting-for-godot-to-be-staged-elsewhere-in-groningen/
I do not see anything unethical with non-traditional casting, except when it violates the terms dictated by the owner of the copyright.
Unless it’s intentional being abrasive, which I suspect is somewhat what’s happening here. I don’t mind giving the part to a superstar to use star power to get support, but if you know you’re going to cause problems with off-the-beat casting then it seems like you should make attempts to avoid it.
It’s a little more than that: a production is unethical if it recklessly undermines the author’s intent as well as the audience’s ability to enjoy the show. The ethical values are competence, respect, fairness and responsibility. Saying it’s ethical as long as it doesn’t violate a contract is like saying conduct is ethical as long as it isn’t illegal. JCS is, at heart, faithful to the Bible and a serious work. Casting a black woman as Jesus does not demonstrate respect for the work musically or textually. Why not cast an obese paraplegic? An Asian dwarf? Conjoined twins?
I think we’re in agreement here. That first line was a quote from CEES VAN BARNEVELDT above me. I thought I responded to his comment but I guess I didn’t.
Jesus Christ Superstar was called sacrilegious when it came out. I remember a sermon where the pastor inveighed against seeing movies movies such as Jesus Christ Superstar and the Exorcist. The main objection to JCS was theological as JCS does not portray Jesus as the Son of God, human and divine in nature, who defeats dead in the Resurrection. Instead the musical takes liberties with the Biblical narrative, and portrays a very human Jesus, with Mary Magdalene as a starstruck groupie, and Judas as the tragical antihero.
About the ethics of non-traditional casting I tend to defer to the judgement of the the paying public, and the reviewers. If the reviews are stellar, and the musical is a box-office hit, then my tentative conclusion is that the production including the casting was competent and responsible. I would have an ethical problem with third parties dictating casting decisions based on DUI, such as happened in Groningen (see my original comment).
Similar ethics apply to remakes of movies, or movies based on a play. I recently watched the movie “Cat On A Hot Tin Roof” (1958) with Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor. This movie is based on a play by Tennessee Williams. However the movie had one significant difference with the play. In the play the main character (Brick) was gay, which explained the marital issues with Maggie the Cat. However the movie left out Brick’s homosexuality, as this was a a taboo subject in 1958. Tennessee Williams, who was gay, was not happy with the screenplay of the movie, and this was one of the main reasons. So the intentions of the original creators should carry some ethical weight, especially if explicitly stated by the original author.
Having said this, there are films based on a book that are very good and famous; however the author of the book did not like the movie. One example is the movie “The Shining” from Stanley Kubrick which is based on a book by Stephen King. As this is an excellent movie, my opinion is that the author of the book should respect the artistic freedom of the movie director.
The movie was a lousy adaptation of the musical, which was a lousy adaptation of the recording, which was a thoughtful adaptation of the New Testament. Theological musings about the inherent conflict between Jesus’s humanity and divinity were hardly new in the Sixties. Using the same material and O’Horgan and without changing anything in the text, the version I directed was considered emotionally shattering by many devout Catholics and, among other, my father-in-law, a Methodist minister. In presenting material like JCS, you are obligated to go nack to the original material, in my base, the “rock opera” itself and the Bible. Personally, I doubt that anyone handling the production responsibly would ever have the brainstorm of using a black Lesbian in the role. It is a gimmick by definition.
Choosing a queer women in the role of Jesus most likely pushes a theological point the director wants to make. According to feminist theology we may call God both Father or Mother in our prayers. So from that perspective, why does Jesus have to be a man?
Queer theology openly considers the possibility that Jesus is gay. Hugh William Montefiore states the following about Jesus’s celibacy in his article “Jesus, the Revelation of God“:
“Men usually remain unmarried for three reasons: either because they cannot afford to marry or there are no girls to marry (neither of these factors need have deterred Jesus); or because it is inexpedient for them to marry in the light of their vocation (we have already ruled this out during the “hidden years” of Jesus’ life); or because they are homosexual in nature, in as much as women hold no special attraction for them. The homosexual explanation is one which we must not ignore.”
Montefiore finds the explanation that Jesus was homosexual consistent with his identification with the poor and oppressed:
“All the synoptic gospels show Jesus in close relationship with the ‘outsiders’ and the unloved. Publicans and sinners, prostitutes and criminals are among his acquaintances and companions. If Jesus were homosexual in nature (and this is the true explanation of his celibate state) then this would be further evidence of God’s self-identification with those who are unacceptable to the upholders of ‘The Establishment’ and social conventions.”
So my take is that the director made a deliberate choice in casting Jesus as a lesbian.
Discussion about who Jesus Christ is are as old as Christianity. The Bible (1 John) already refers to a theology that sees Christ as divine but not truly human (Docetism). Later the Arians emphasized the humanity of Jesus, maintaining that the Second Person in the Trinity was created, and not eternally divine. At the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon the Church formulated the doctrines of the Trinity, and the Two Natures of Jesus Christ.
The portrayal of Jesus Christ in the original movie and the musical were not seen as in line with the orthodoxy of Nicaea and Chalcedon; it was regarded as too Arian. This musical pushes the theological envelope in the direction of feminist and queer theology. I do not see this as unethical; it opens an interesting theological conversation about who Jesus is, and how we relate to Him.
So from that perspective, why does Jesus have to be a man?
Because he was one????
And that is the theological issue the director wants to explore. Is there a theological reason why Jesus was a man? Or was it just accidental? Can Jesus be portrayed as a black man? Why is Jesus always be portrayed as a pale Westerner? I will leave that question open.
The point I wanted to make was that the director may have an artistic vision based on his theology for his casting choice. As the success of the music Hamilton demonstrates, with all black actors, this may well be a great artistic move.
Seems like they’re intentionally trying to provoke a reaction from the religious right. The smart response would be to not give them the satisfaction.
Exactly, the behavior ends when it stops paying dividends.
My response to this is, “ho hum.” If it works, fine; if not, I couldn’t care less. I refuse to get worked up about some casting issue in play/musical that I do not intend to view/watch or otherwise invest any time caring about. Edgy for edgy’s sake, though, is a monumental waste of time and energy.
jvb
Is Cynthia playing Jesus as a man or a woman? Didn’t Linda Hunt win an Academy award for playing a man in The Year of Living Dangerously?
Because everyone thought she was a man in that role, and nobody had ever heard of her before that film. An actress who is known widely and a vocal lesbian cannot submerge her identity into a role like Jesus. It’s not an apt precedent.
Theatrical productions are not something that I hold any knowledge of whatsoever. What I am examining is the conceptual framework of Ethics as it relates to economic theory; specifically consumer choice theory.
“. . . a production is unethical if it recklessly undermines the author’s intent as well as the audience’s ability to enjoy the show. The ethical values are competence, respect, fairness and responsibility. Saying it’s ethical as long as it doesn’t violate a contract is like saying conduct is ethical as long as it isn’t illegal.”
I would like to examine this point. Who determines if the production recklessly undermines the authors intent. It seems to me that it would have to border on negligence by creating a message that is so counter to the author’s intent that its artistic license could be objectively determined as having been expired for some time.
Such negligence would suggest that no due diligence was performed to ensure that the artistic interpretation was done in good faith with respect to the author’s intent. If negligence could not be shown, how would we determine competence, respect, fairness, and responsibility were absent? How do we evaluate directorial competence? Are Michael Bay or Steven Spielberg the directors against whom we measure competence or are we measuring against average high school drama teacher as a director?
As to whether the audience’s ability to enjoy the show was compromised by its casting, thus making it unethical, how is that determined if some in the audience rave about the show while some found the show uninspired, lacking in creativity, or just pain sucked because of the casting?
Tastes and preferences are more diverse than the growing multitude of genders. If the production earns a sufficient return to allow its continuation then it could not be unethical even if the majority of theater goers pan it, then fry it, and then trash it. No one can ever determine whether one group hated it more than another’s love for it.
With that said, anyone engaging in the creation of a production with the intent of defrauding its investors as was the ploy in The Producers, then I can agree that such behavior is unethical. However if the intent was to create an expression of art in good faith, even if not one person enjoys the show, it offered the theatre goers another choice. More choices in a society are valuable because choices promote freedom.
It is not unethical to make a bad choice. For if it was every mistake would be unethical and we would still be trying to figure out what fire is. We learn from our mistakes and that has value. No one is forced to be at any performance on opening night. Sometimes it is better to wait and get a review before you expend any money. That too is an ethical thing to do.
I prefer to give a lot of leeway to the freedom of the director to realize his artistic vision. Please read my other comments on what the director’s vision may be, with all the theological background.
About the ethical values you mention (competence, respect, fairness, and responsibility) I mostly disagree. Art may raise uncomfortable questions, shock people’s sensibilities, cause a scandal, assault people’s esthetic and ethical values, be impious irreverent and insulting. Good art may be good just when and because it is disrespectful, e.g. satire.
Michelangelo’s Last Judgement raised eyebrows because of the many nude figures in his painted, and Jesus was painted without a beard. Stravinsky’s first performance of Sacre du Printemps caused a riot. Somebody took a knife to Barnett Newman’s painting “Red Yellow and Blue”, because he did not value abstract art. The Rolling Stones and Sex Pistols music offended people. And let’s not start about nudity and sex in art!
So let’s question forementioned ethical values in favor of boldness and recklessness, and irreverence for tradition, because that is the way art moves forward. And don’t be a philistine who only appreciates safe, unoriginal, and boring art that will soon be forgotten.