The movie Godspell is a musical entertainment.

For those familiar with the story of Jesus

presented in the New Testament Gospels, some sense can be made of what is happening in the

movie. But for those without some biblical background, the movie is nothing more than a bunch

of kids or teenagers having some fun in the backyard. We would not recommend this movie to

anyone who wants to know the real and biblical Jesus.

Use of the Gospels

How are the Gospels employed in the film? Because the film starts with “playing in the

water,” we would guess that the movie producers have in mind Mark’s Gospel. Or maybe not.

Those involved in the movie might just have thought of it as a good starting point. Then the film

moves on to proclaim some verbal teachings of Jesus, set in songs. Thoughts from the “Sermon

on the Mount” (where of course materials from Mark, Matthew and Luke overlap) are prevalent.

One can trace too (for those who know the Gospel story) the film’s movement from Jesus’

teaching to the Last Supper, and to the crucifixion and resurrection. And that’s just it. There was

no conscious desire, we believe, to root the film in history and in the sequence that Gospels

present the life of Christ. Some Gospel teachings and parables were depicted and sung. But they

have been taken out of the context.

Depiction of Jesus and Others

The movie basically assumes Christian viewers. Otherwise, it is unintelligible. It is

obvious that the film was not made to depict Jesus, John the Baptist, and the twelve disciples as

historically accurate as possible. Maybe for those kids (and the whole movie crew), Jesus was a

1
kind of superman (notice the costume of the comic superhero) or, worse, a clown (with bushy

hair and colored marks on top of his eyes). And John the Baptist, that was him? And was he also

the one who betrayed the Lord? Was Judas his reincarnation? Maybe the film has a very low

budget, or that they cannot find additional people who can both sing, dance and act, so much so

that they had to assign two roles on one person. And then, you also will not know that Jesus has

12 male apostles and women who followed him. Where are the crowds? Where are the sinners

Jesus healed, freed from demon possession, and ate with? Who is Peter? Where are the Pharisees

and other Jewish leaders? How about Pilate and the Roman soldiers?

From the film, you would not know that Jesus was a Jew, or that he claimed to be divine,

or that he had enemies, or that he angered some people, or that he even had a purpose. What was

happening when the kids tied the bushy-hair guy? What was the lightning and the darkening of

the sky all about? When the other actors “collapsed” or showed signs of terror, what were they

trying to convey? Who knows? Here we have a case where a viewer can be entitled to his own

interpretation. Perhaps we were not meant to understand and interpret, but simply to rock with

the music, enjoy the humor, and sing our hearts out.

Aesthetics

Was the film well-made? Do the various parts, including the colors and settings,

contribute to the over-all impact of the movie? We think the answer is negative. Our impression

is that the movie was made just for fun. The settings and shooting locations have no bearing at

all. In the dramatization of the “gospel-seeds falling on different soils,” we were not transported

to a farm land. Perhaps the closest we get to an agreement between message and location is in

the retelling of the Lazarus story. “Heaven” was on top of the stairs, where Abraham and Lazarus

were. Meanwhile down below was the rich man in hell, with those ugly looking creatures; the

2
scene was indeed a bit scary. But it did not provoke the kind of fear and regret the rich man must

have felt. Well, other viewers could have felt some revulsion.

Are we to believe that the “junk yard” setting carries the message that “all people are

junk but that Jesus came to make them new?” That was not clear at all.

But the actors tried to be humorous and funny. And in many ways they succeeded.

Perhaps they did it to disarm us and make us aware of certain nuances in the Gospel materials,

especially in the teachings and parables. For this reviewer, the light simply did not flash.

Purpose and Genre

We are to judge the film based on its purpose and genre. Obviously the film does not

pretend to be a historical reenactment of the life of Christ. It is therefore understandable that it

would not follow a “chronological” plot, that it would do away with a lot of details in the life of

Christ, and that it would not reach for historical accuracy in the places Jesus visited, the acts he

did and the teachings he taught. What then did the movie intend to achieve? To proclaim that life

with Christ makes you sing and dance, and dance it gives color to your existence? After all, the

film began with depicting a dreary, noisy and silly existence for the kids “called” by “John the

Baptist.” And then they suddenly acquired a wet, wild and exuberant existence beginning at their

“baptism.” Is that it? Then we have to say that that does not portray neither the life Jesus wanted

to give, the kind of life He lived, nor the present existence of believers. Perhaps the junkyard

background meant to convey that even in a life filled with brokenness and garbage and mess,

there is joy and music for all who heed the voice of Jesus. Or the voice of the Baptist?

Then there was that scene at the start when the “Christ-figure” painted the faces of his

would-be disciples (just with small marks, one different from the other). Then before the Supper,

he wiped away the marks from their faces. Were we meant to find a meaning there? Given my

3
Filipino context, I am unsure. We suggest that it means this: even when we are with Christ, we

mask ourselves; but the Lord’s Supper and the crucifixion/resurrection unmask us and reveal our

true identity. Perhaps others have better ideas. Some say that the power of art is its ability to

draw various and different reactions and open up new possibilities or perspectives. Would this

film be a good art then? It might be, but the true message of the Gospel has been crowded out. At

least, for this reviewer, the message was not clear. What we had was moralism, much like

Gnostic ideas floating in the air.

If the message proclaimed was moralism and not the Gospel, this means Christian artists

have their work cut out for them. Christian movie writers and producers need the input of

theologians. And perhaps theologians and pastors as well need to get to know more how to use

the arts as medium for intelligent and biblical purposes. This reviewer needs to grow in this area

as well. How does our Christian community create art forms which are not hollow and which

carry the message of the Gospel in clear, substantial ways? We do not have an easy answer to

that. In fact, it is one area this reviewer needs to study so much more.

Personal

Did I enjoy the film? My 7-year old son, who watched it with me, certainly did. Did the

film challenge my own ideas about Jesus? Not at all. Did the film open up any new

understandings? Not at all. But it made me think this thought: If the producers and actors in this

film are Christians, and that is how they would treat the center of the Christian faith – with fun

and with no reverence at all – I cannot blame the unbelieving society if they do not give the Faith

a serious thought. But if the movie writers and producers were unbelievers, it would make me

pause and ponder seriously why they see Jesus that way.

4
 For humor and fun, I give the film two stars. Those looking for the biblical and historical

Jesus will not find it here. The film will not serve as a good discipleship material. But it does

prod us to ask the question: How are we training and nurturing our children and young people in

the Faith? How is it that people see Jesus as a superman or a clown, and not the threatening

young man religious and political leaders found him to be or the strong, welcoming friend

sinners found him to be.