What do you think?
Rate this book
The Last Days of Judas Iscariot
From one of our most admired playwrights, an ambitious, complicated and often laugh-out-loud religious debate (Toby Zinman, The Philadelphia Inquirer)
Set in a time-bending, seriocomically imagined world between Heaven and Hell, The Last Days of Judas Iscariot is a philosophical meditation on the conflict between divine mercy and human free will that takes a close look at the eternal damnation of the Bible's most notorious sinner. This latest work from the author of Our Lady of 121st Street shares many of the traits that have made Mr. Guirgis a playwright to reckon with in recent years: a fierce and questing mind that refuses to settle for glib answers, a gift for identifying with life's losers, and an unforced eloquence that finds the poetry in lowdown street talk. [Guirgis brings to the play] a stirring sense of Christian existential pain, which wonders at the paradoxes of faith. (Ben Brantley, The New York Times).
Set in a time-bending, seriocomically imagined world between Heaven and Hell, The Last Days of Judas Iscariot is a philosophical meditation on the conflict between divine mercy and human free will that takes a close look at the eternal damnation of the Bible's most notorious sinner. This latest work from the author of Our Lady of 121st Street shares many of the traits that have made Mr. Guirgis a playwright to reckon with in recent years: a fierce and questing mind that refuses to settle for glib answers, a gift for identifying with life's losers, and an unforced eloquence that finds the poetry in lowdown street talk. [Guirgis brings to the play] a stirring sense of Christian existential pain, which wonders at the paradoxes of faith. (Ben Brantley, The New York Times).
79 pages, Paperback
First published December 27, 2005
155 people are currently reading
6970 people want to read
About the author
Stephen Adly Guirgis
17 books87 followersStephen Adly Guirgis is an American playwright, screenwriter, director, and actor. He is a member and a former co-artistic director of New York City's LAByrinth Theater Company. His plays have been produced both Off-Broadway and on Broadway, as well as in the UK. His play Between Riverside and Crazy won the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for Drama.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,059 reviews
May 21, 2021
why didnt you make me good enough so that you couldve loved me............
April 26, 2017
This book destroyed me. I'm having a really hard time trying to come up with what to write for this review, because I feel like I just got off of an emotional roller-coaster.
The play is about the trial of Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus and whether or not he should go to Heaven or Hell for it. Many are called to the stand, such as Sigmund Freud, Pontius Pilate and Mother Teresa. I basically laughed my ass off for the first half. Then after that, it was raining on my face.
This is one of those books that makes you feel something. Even if you don't believe in what this story is about, I believe that the reasonings of these characters and the significance/justification of their presence are enough to move anyone. I have always considered Judas to be the worst of the apostles. Now I'm really not so sure.
The play is about the trial of Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus and whether or not he should go to Heaven or Hell for it. Many are called to the stand, such as Sigmund Freud, Pontius Pilate and Mother Teresa. I basically laughed my ass off for the first half. Then after that, it was raining on my face.
This is one of those books that makes you feel something. Even if you don't believe in what this story is about, I believe that the reasonings of these characters and the significance/justification of their presence are enough to move anyone. I have always considered Judas to be the worst of the apostles. Now I'm really not so sure.
January 3, 2021
So fucking brilliant.
September 8, 2022
[2.5 stars, might change my review to 3 one day if I'm in a good mood]
Okay, let's get it out of the way: "Why didn't you make me good enough so that you could've loved me?" is an insane line. The entire final conversation between Judas and Jesus is such a hard-hitting, emotional moment that I do truly love and consider one of my favorite moments in any stage play. That being said, there is a reason that that is the only part of the play that is ever brought up by people who have read it.
Full disclosure, I went into this play after hearing about it from a friend and seeing some quotes (all from that final conversation!), and assumed it was a full-on drama. This is obviously inaccurate, a fact I learned the moment that Hope, Purgatory is introduced to us. I finished that play very disappointed months ago, and only last month did I go and give it a re-read (as well as watch a production of it on youtube). This re-read left a much better taste in my mouth, but I still was overwhelmingly disappointed.
I think the main thing for me is that I just didn't find this play very funny? And I understand that comedy is subjective of course but the amount of jokes and scenes that were very obviously made to be a comedic moment that fell completely on their face was, to be honest, shocking. I don't even feel the need to pull up specific moments in the text because I would be here all day (I tried, I found it hard to do without overloading half my review with explanations for the set up, as most are more long form jokes of sort). It felt like it was almost trying too hard.
And, like, I -get- this play. I understand that Cunningham sees herself in Judas - sees this broken man, completely rejected by society, and sees herself and her life. I get that she views getting Judas pardoned for his sin, being forgiven by God of all people, as a way to prove to herself that she can be forgiven and loved. I get that her parents rejected her and her mother told her she wanted to abort her and that her father had abandoned her, and how that ties into her need for Judas (herself) to be forgiven by God. I think this is a very compelling and heavy core theme for her character, but due to the format of the stage play, we are forced to rely on a "tell not show" attitude the playwright took. This is not all his fault, of course. I understand that large cast, 2 act plays generally do not have the time or ability to give these more character-based themes justice. However, it still makes for a bad read where you feel as though you're less being spoon fed snippets of information about the characters, but rather their entire life story is being shouted at you by the literal devil in a confusing and almost out of place climax to the play.
Continuing that thought, the climax (I am considering the climax to be the second time Satan is called to the stand as the final shown testimony) is, again, a very confused moment. We end what is one of my favorite parts of the play, the testimony of Pontius Pilate, and recall Satan up to the stand. Satan immediately jumps on the Judge, scolding him about some of his damned souls he saw in purgatory, and informs the judge that he will be taking two souls back to Hell for repayment. One of these souls being the Judge's own. From there, we get a very muddled section of a lot of yelling and a lot of the Devil just explaining (?) Cunningham's life story and why she is acting the way she does, Which, on paper, is an excellent idea! We, as the audience, have seen Cunningham become almost obsessed with proving Judas' innocence, relating herself to him in multiple instances (her bringing up to Mother Teresa that she has had two abortions, and then asking her why she isn't in Hell, for instance) but we don't know -why-. And then we get this huge climactic emotional high of the play where her life and mistakes are laid bare for everyone to see and judge her! ...Except we don't and it just fumbles as a scene where Cunningham is trying to continue the questioning while Satan goes back and forth between threatening the judge and sitting nicely for questioning. The scene flops as an emotional moment, and takes with it the entire climax of that the play has been building up to.
It is then immediately overshadowed by the aforementioned final conversation between Judas and Jesus.
I hate being this negative towards the play. I know people who, for them, this play is it, it's everything to them. The epitomy of a Catholic guilt theme mixed with the perfect gay tragedy, regret, loss, love, etc. that they rave about and crop their quotes into web-weaving posts (though, that is more of me complaining about how I've seen this play taken by those who have read it, and definitly not at all what the author had in mind when writing this)(also, I am saying this as a gay Catholic. Just to clarify).
Let's go to moments in the play that I did really enjoy. I won't get into the final conversation between Judas and Jesus; I feel like everything that there is to be said of that has been said. However, I do see very little mention of the jury leader's monologue to Judas following that, which I found to be a very somber and thematically fitting moment. It immediatly reels us back from the emotional high of the last 10 minutes to this man, who sees the comatose Judas that his jury just cursed to another eternity frozen in Hell, and tells him his story. He states that he's dead, and begins detailing how he met, and, ultimately, ended up cheating on his wife. It is a long and rough monologue, and one of my favorite moments of the play (though I do find the final line a bit cliche). This is a story about not being able to forgive yourself, yet desperately craving the forgiveness of others. Or maybe it's about people who cannot forgive themselves -until- they are forgiven by someone they love.
As I mentioned prior, I was also a fan of Pontius Pilate's scene. Another part that I enjoyed was Simon the Zealot's portion. I really don't have much to say specifically about those parts other than I enjoyed them and found both their characters to be very compelling to the narrative of the story. This scene also was not constantly bogged down by leagues of failed jokes, as other parts did (Mother Teresa's and Judas' Mother's for example), so that may have an impact. Sorry for not going further into this point, I find myself having less specifics to say about moments that I simply liked versus moments that I hated haha.
One of this playwright's strongest skills (at least in this stage play, I am not familiar with his other works) is his monologues. Specifically the one-off or two-off monologues that interrupt the formulaic composition of this play. I already have mentioned the final monologue by the jury leader, but Saint Monica, Mary Magdalene, and each of the disciples who speak to us as an audience might honestly be the best parts of the play. These interruptions were written so well and so emotionally strong and intelligent that I was disappointed each time they ended and we were back to El-Fayoumy (who I have not brought up specifically, but I could never find him funny beyond a few lines). When I finished this play the first time, the parts that stuck with me the most were the monologues of Peter, Matthew, and Thomas. These were the only parts of the play that I really loved, to be honest. Each of these moments take us out of the almost vapid, petty arguments between the lawyers, and remind us that this is a real man who was sentenced to an eternity of torture. His friends who knew him in real life don't really think he deserves it, but they have no say in the trial itself. It helps ground us back into the fact that, while it is a comedy, they are playing with the serious consequence of whether or not this man should continue his punishment until the end of time (the scene with Mary and Saint Monica also accomplishes this, as does the Judas and Jesus argument and, to a lesser extent, the final monologue of the jury leader).
Outside of these moments, though, I could not find myself enjoying the play. I felt that the narrative was losing itself every time a new character was called to stand and that the three mediocre leads were too focused on setting up punchlines than creating an emotional ground for the play (the Judge and El-Fayoumy at least, Cunningham was much better written though she still left a lot to be desired). Ultimately, I feel lost. I don't feel like I read the same play as everyone else did, I don't think the humor was well written (though a good cast can make even lame jokes work, as seen in a few performances of this play), and I don't think the author achieved at all his goal in the storytelling or moral message. Sorry if this is a bit incoherent, I’m not the best at reviews.
Okay, let's get it out of the way: "Why didn't you make me good enough so that you could've loved me?" is an insane line. The entire final conversation between Judas and Jesus is such a hard-hitting, emotional moment that I do truly love and consider one of my favorite moments in any stage play. That being said, there is a reason that that is the only part of the play that is ever brought up by people who have read it.
Full disclosure, I went into this play after hearing about it from a friend and seeing some quotes (all from that final conversation!), and assumed it was a full-on drama. This is obviously inaccurate, a fact I learned the moment that Hope, Purgatory is introduced to us. I finished that play very disappointed months ago, and only last month did I go and give it a re-read (as well as watch a production of it on youtube). This re-read left a much better taste in my mouth, but I still was overwhelmingly disappointed.
I think the main thing for me is that I just didn't find this play very funny? And I understand that comedy is subjective of course but the amount of jokes and scenes that were very obviously made to be a comedic moment that fell completely on their face was, to be honest, shocking. I don't even feel the need to pull up specific moments in the text because I would be here all day (I tried, I found it hard to do without overloading half my review with explanations for the set up, as most are more long form jokes of sort). It felt like it was almost trying too hard.
And, like, I -get- this play. I understand that Cunningham sees herself in Judas - sees this broken man, completely rejected by society, and sees herself and her life. I get that she views getting Judas pardoned for his sin, being forgiven by God of all people, as a way to prove to herself that she can be forgiven and loved. I get that her parents rejected her and her mother told her she wanted to abort her and that her father had abandoned her, and how that ties into her need for Judas (herself) to be forgiven by God. I think this is a very compelling and heavy core theme for her character, but due to the format of the stage play, we are forced to rely on a "tell not show" attitude the playwright took. This is not all his fault, of course. I understand that large cast, 2 act plays generally do not have the time or ability to give these more character-based themes justice. However, it still makes for a bad read where you feel as though you're less being spoon fed snippets of information about the characters, but rather their entire life story is being shouted at you by the literal devil in a confusing and almost out of place climax to the play.
Continuing that thought, the climax (I am considering the climax to be the second time Satan is called to the stand as the final shown testimony) is, again, a very confused moment. We end what is one of my favorite parts of the play, the testimony of Pontius Pilate, and recall Satan up to the stand. Satan immediately jumps on the Judge, scolding him about some of his damned souls he saw in purgatory, and informs the judge that he will be taking two souls back to Hell for repayment. One of these souls being the Judge's own. From there, we get a very muddled section of a lot of yelling and a lot of the Devil just explaining (?) Cunningham's life story and why she is acting the way she does, Which, on paper, is an excellent idea! We, as the audience, have seen Cunningham become almost obsessed with proving Judas' innocence, relating herself to him in multiple instances (her bringing up to Mother Teresa that she has had two abortions, and then asking her why she isn't in Hell, for instance) but we don't know -why-. And then we get this huge climactic emotional high of the play where her life and mistakes are laid bare for everyone to see and judge her! ...Except we don't and it just fumbles as a scene where Cunningham is trying to continue the questioning while Satan goes back and forth between threatening the judge and sitting nicely for questioning. The scene flops as an emotional moment, and takes with it the entire climax of that the play has been building up to.
It is then immediately overshadowed by the aforementioned final conversation between Judas and Jesus.
I hate being this negative towards the play. I know people who, for them, this play is it, it's everything to them. The epitomy of a Catholic guilt theme mixed with the perfect gay tragedy, regret, loss, love, etc. that they rave about and crop their quotes into web-weaving posts (though, that is more of me complaining about how I've seen this play taken by those who have read it, and definitly not at all what the author had in mind when writing this)(also, I am saying this as a gay Catholic. Just to clarify).
Let's go to moments in the play that I did really enjoy. I won't get into the final conversation between Judas and Jesus; I feel like everything that there is to be said of that has been said. However, I do see very little mention of the jury leader's monologue to Judas following that, which I found to be a very somber and thematically fitting moment. It immediatly reels us back from the emotional high of the last 10 minutes to this man, who sees the comatose Judas that his jury just cursed to another eternity frozen in Hell, and tells him his story. He states that he's dead, and begins detailing how he met, and, ultimately, ended up cheating on his wife. It is a long and rough monologue, and one of my favorite moments of the play (though I do find the final line a bit cliche). This is a story about not being able to forgive yourself, yet desperately craving the forgiveness of others. Or maybe it's about people who cannot forgive themselves -until- they are forgiven by someone they love.
As I mentioned prior, I was also a fan of Pontius Pilate's scene. Another part that I enjoyed was Simon the Zealot's portion. I really don't have much to say specifically about those parts other than I enjoyed them and found both their characters to be very compelling to the narrative of the story. This scene also was not constantly bogged down by leagues of failed jokes, as other parts did (Mother Teresa's and Judas' Mother's for example), so that may have an impact. Sorry for not going further into this point, I find myself having less specifics to say about moments that I simply liked versus moments that I hated haha.
One of this playwright's strongest skills (at least in this stage play, I am not familiar with his other works) is his monologues. Specifically the one-off or two-off monologues that interrupt the formulaic composition of this play. I already have mentioned the final monologue by the jury leader, but Saint Monica, Mary Magdalene, and each of the disciples who speak to us as an audience might honestly be the best parts of the play. These interruptions were written so well and so emotionally strong and intelligent that I was disappointed each time they ended and we were back to El-Fayoumy (who I have not brought up specifically, but I could never find him funny beyond a few lines). When I finished this play the first time, the parts that stuck with me the most were the monologues of Peter, Matthew, and Thomas. These were the only parts of the play that I really loved, to be honest. Each of these moments take us out of the almost vapid, petty arguments between the lawyers, and remind us that this is a real man who was sentenced to an eternity of torture. His friends who knew him in real life don't really think he deserves it, but they have no say in the trial itself. It helps ground us back into the fact that, while it is a comedy, they are playing with the serious consequence of whether or not this man should continue his punishment until the end of time (the scene with Mary and Saint Monica also accomplishes this, as does the Judas and Jesus argument and, to a lesser extent, the final monologue of the jury leader).
Outside of these moments, though, I could not find myself enjoying the play. I felt that the narrative was losing itself every time a new character was called to stand and that the three mediocre leads were too focused on setting up punchlines than creating an emotional ground for the play (the Judge and El-Fayoumy at least, Cunningham was much better written though she still left a lot to be desired). Ultimately, I feel lost. I don't feel like I read the same play as everyone else did, I don't think the humor was well written (though a good cast can make even lame jokes work, as seen in a few performances of this play), and I don't think the author achieved at all his goal in the storytelling or moral message. Sorry if this is a bit incoherent, I’m not the best at reviews.
February 26, 2022
WHY DIDN'T YOU MAKE ME GOOD ENOUGH SO THAT YOU COULD'VE LOVED ME ❗❗❗❗❗❗
fucking obliterates me every time.
fucking obliterates me every time.
April 15, 2021
I haven’t encountered a piece that rocked my view of my faith like this play did in a long time. The discussions of anti-semitism, generational trauma, systemic racial inequality, mental health, afterlife theology, grace, justice and forgiveness all feel unparalleled, while still delivering hilarity and moments to breath in reflection. The love of Christ and the tragedy of humanity appear in every line of this work. It’s a play I long to be an active player in.
July 16, 2021
forever angry that there were only 7 pages of homoerotic friendship between Jesus + Judas when it's the only reason I read this play...
Beyond that specific frustration, there were quite a few other problems with this. While it certainly aimed to confront the moral complexities of Christianity, it didn't go far enough in any way (also, it felt like it was a little too nice to Freud). The majority of the characters (even white Roman colonial settlers) used AAVE which was just,,, a mistake on the behalf of the author. It certainly had a unique perspective of Heaven/Hell/Purgatory but that doesn't really make up for the weird shit it had going on. Just read from page 105-112 for the gayness and save yourself the trouble.
Beyond that specific frustration, there were quite a few other problems with this. While it certainly aimed to confront the moral complexities of Christianity, it didn't go far enough in any way (also, it felt like it was a little too nice to Freud). The majority of the characters (even white Roman colonial settlers) used AAVE which was just,,, a mistake on the behalf of the author. It certainly had a unique perspective of Heaven/Hell/Purgatory but that doesn't really make up for the weird shit it had going on. Just read from page 105-112 for the gayness and save yourself the trouble.
September 19, 2022
I don't know, man. Did I read the same play as everyone else here? I went into this play really excited--I mean, I've been looking for it from a library for over a year. It had to come from Indiana, for goodness sake. But ultimately I found it kind of...vapid. Perhaps vapid isn't the right word, but it definitely felt like it was trying too hard. I think there were some really excellent moments (the very last scene and the last monologue in particular come to mind), but I think they were overshadowed by the humor, which felt like it was playing at what Guirgis thinks funny is supposed to be. I mean, I'm sorry, but the workplace harassment/boob jokes? I love a good bit of irreverence, and sure, people are definitely like that, but do we have to pretend it's funny? I think the themes that the play attempts to address (guilt, forgiveness of self and by others, greed and selfishness) are really interesting, which is why I wanted to read it so badly. However, the delivery cheapened these themes to the point that I don't really feel like there was much emotional depth until the very end, which reads like a last ditch effort to tie up an otherwise fractured and somewhat juvenile play. Overall, the play read like an edgy 13 year old trying to seem #deep, which I think is such a shame, because the premise is so intriguing. But lemme tell you, I read another one of Guirgis' plays and had similar issues, so it's clear that our sensibilities don't mesh. If you've liked his other work, you may like this one, too.
July 25, 2010
You know, this play is ridiculous. Ridiculous in that it takes a special kind of person to write it. A person that's willing to look at the New Testament as simply a story, rather than gospel. EXCELLENT play - the last scene alone should be a 10 minute play all by itself.
January 13, 2023
oh, you know. don't ask me how i am.
very attached to all the monologues
very attached to all the monologues
November 1, 2021
There are some good scenes in it, but I thought most of it was haha-look-it-is-the-gospel-but-then-in-naughty-language humor, which just gets old very quickly.
October 5, 2017
A little bit too ecumenical, clichéd, New York-ish, and bubble gummed for my taste. An excellent effort, though.
Read
November 16, 2023JUDAS: Why didn’t you make me good enough so that you could have loved me?
JESUS: Please take my hands, Judas. Please.
JESUS: Please take my hands, Judas. Please.
April 19, 2022
“Do you know who W. H. Auden was, Mister Iscariot? W. H. Auden was a poet who once said: “God may reduce you on Judgement Day to tears of shame, reciting by
heart the poems you would have written, had your life been good”
i am fucking bamboozled
heart the poems you would have written, had your life been good”
i am fucking bamboozled
Read
April 19, 2022The line Why didn't you make me good enough so that you could've loved me? lives in my head rent free. Judas remains my favorite biblical figure ever.
February 14, 2023
Holy hell, when it was good it was really good. Some standouts include Henrietta Iscariot’s testimony, Saint Thomas’s monologue, the exchange between Cunningham and Satan, and the final exchange between Jesus and Judas.
As far as the play’s use of AAVE is concerned, with some characters (Saint Monica) it felt like a natural extension of the character, but with others it seemed to clash (Pontius Pilate, who has bald white cop energy). Additionally, points deducted for El-Fayoumy’s characterization, as he seemed like a bunch of Orientalist tropes cobbled together rather than a real character.
As far as the play’s use of AAVE is concerned, with some characters (Saint Monica) it felt like a natural extension of the character, but with others it seemed to clash (Pontius Pilate, who has bald white cop energy). Additionally, points deducted for El-Fayoumy’s characterization, as he seemed like a bunch of Orientalist tropes cobbled together rather than a real character.
July 2, 2023
bye, leí esto por un screenshot de tikitoki y morí, la neta no me estaba gustando tanto al principio porque it feels very 2005 pero de PRONTO me salen con la convo entre judas y jc y morí, si me había gustado cosas que decían antes sobre todo la cunningham y satan ((they stole the show)) pero de todo todo todo lo mejor fue la última convo de jc y judas, los amo, son mi wolfstar
also everything que se dijo de la injusticia e hipocresía de la religión ???? stunning
also everything que se dijo de la injusticia e hipocresía de la religión ???? stunning
Read
May 6, 2024“Why didn't you make me good enough so that you could've loved me?”
A long time ago I heard a theory alluding to queer undercurrents in the relationship between Judas and Jesus that has sent me on a wild goose chase for similar explanations. This play is the first time I have found this theory fictionalized in such an interesting and nuanced way. Now don't get me wrong, blink and you'll miss the implications. But nevertheless, this idea is weaved into this story, along with themes of forgiveness, questioning, and unconditional love.
Forgiveness- The play looks at the concept of forgiveness and pardons in relation to Judas. In reality, it is getting us to see that God’s forgiveness (as outlined in christianity) is supposed to be instant and engulfing as long as we forgive ourselves first. There is no need to get the approval of a jury of your peers before God can forgive, we just so often imagine ourselves in need of the acceptance of everyone around us before we allow ourselves an inkling of forgiveness.
Questioning- The play discusses a lot of modern critiques of christianity, most notably, how can God be all-powerful and loving, and yet Hell exists? The answer, inconclusive. If They loved us, They would forgive us our sins and Hell would not exist. If They were all-powerful, They would deliver us from evil and Hell would not exist. Where does that leave God?
Unconditional love- My favorite part of the play was the final conversation between Judas and Jesus. As Judas sits, cantankerous and hurting, Jesus reminds Judas that he is beside him in every moment of every hour. That love between them does not fade with time, but stays constant and abundant. And finally, that Satan does not exist, suffering is self-inflicted by humans because we do not choose better for ourselves (answering the question above: Hell is not real). There is happiness and fulfillment waiting for you in the world, all you need to do is be good and do good by others to have it. Read that again: There is happiness and fulfillment waiting for you in the world, all you need to do is be good and do good by others to have it. This is summed up well in the W.H Auden quote that closes the play, “God may reduce you on Judgement Day to tears of shame, reciting by heart the poems you would have written, had your life been good.”
A long time ago I heard a theory alluding to queer undercurrents in the relationship between Judas and Jesus that has sent me on a wild goose chase for similar explanations. This play is the first time I have found this theory fictionalized in such an interesting and nuanced way. Now don't get me wrong, blink and you'll miss the implications. But nevertheless, this idea is weaved into this story, along with themes of forgiveness, questioning, and unconditional love.
Forgiveness- The play looks at the concept of forgiveness and pardons in relation to Judas. In reality, it is getting us to see that God’s forgiveness (as outlined in christianity) is supposed to be instant and engulfing as long as we forgive ourselves first. There is no need to get the approval of a jury of your peers before God can forgive, we just so often imagine ourselves in need of the acceptance of everyone around us before we allow ourselves an inkling of forgiveness.
Questioning- The play discusses a lot of modern critiques of christianity, most notably, how can God be all-powerful and loving, and yet Hell exists? The answer, inconclusive. If They loved us, They would forgive us our sins and Hell would not exist. If They were all-powerful, They would deliver us from evil and Hell would not exist. Where does that leave God?
Unconditional love- My favorite part of the play was the final conversation between Judas and Jesus. As Judas sits, cantankerous and hurting, Jesus reminds Judas that he is beside him in every moment of every hour. That love between them does not fade with time, but stays constant and abundant. And finally, that Satan does not exist, suffering is self-inflicted by humans because we do not choose better for ourselves (answering the question above: Hell is not real). There is happiness and fulfillment waiting for you in the world, all you need to do is be good and do good by others to have it. Read that again: There is happiness and fulfillment waiting for you in the world, all you need to do is be good and do good by others to have it. This is summed up well in the W.H Auden quote that closes the play, “God may reduce you on Judgement Day to tears of shame, reciting by heart the poems you would have written, had your life been good.”
November 23, 2023
the girls that get it (ex catholics) get it. WHY DIDNT YOU MAKE ME GOOD ENOUGH SO THAT YOU COULDVE LOVED MEEEE
August 16, 2024
Stephen Adly Guirgis may be my favorite living playwright. The Last Days of Judas Iscariot is my least favorite of his plays. In many ways, it is typical of his style, so I find myself asking why this one just doesn’t hit me the same.
Subject matter is the obvious answer. Instead of being a dark urban dramady, as are so many of his works, this play is a fantasy of Judas on trial in Purgatory. The whole emotion-laden tale of betrayal, fraught with guilt and remorse leaves me cold thanks to the knowledge that Judas never existed. He was a literary devise with a propaganda purpose.
After the Jewish rebellion against Rome in 66 C.E., Rome began to heavily persecute Jews in the empire. At that time, Christians were just another splinter sect of Judaism, and Christians wished to distinguish themselves as something different to escape the odium. One way was to assure the Empire, which after all, was responsible for executing the sect’s founder, that they held no grudge — that it was actually those nasty Jews who were responsible for killing Jesus. The character of Judas was created for this purpose. His name, Judas, equals Judah — it was actually the word the Romans used for Jew. For anyone alive at the time, there was zero subtly in this devise. Judas equals Jews. No worries Rome, it’s the Jews fault. This is the literary propaganda that launched thousands of years of persecution against a people.
Beyond being put off with the subject, Guirgis’s usual flourishes just didn’t work for me here. Even with a trial in Purgatory, he still put his usual urban vernacular into most of his character’s mouths. Having the likes of Saint Monica (mother of Saint Augustine) talk like a street tough spewing motherfuckers like punctuation doesn’t offend me, but neither does it shock me or make me laugh. It just falls flat. What works in his darkly funny urban tragedies just doesn’t fly here in this fantasy examining faith, redemption, and forgiveness.
Two and a half stars rounded up because Guirgis.
Subject matter is the obvious answer. Instead of being a dark urban dramady, as are so many of his works, this play is a fantasy of Judas on trial in Purgatory. The whole emotion-laden tale of betrayal, fraught with guilt and remorse leaves me cold thanks to the knowledge that Judas never existed. He was a literary devise with a propaganda purpose.
After the Jewish rebellion against Rome in 66 C.E., Rome began to heavily persecute Jews in the empire. At that time, Christians were just another splinter sect of Judaism, and Christians wished to distinguish themselves as something different to escape the odium. One way was to assure the Empire, which after all, was responsible for executing the sect’s founder, that they held no grudge — that it was actually those nasty Jews who were responsible for killing Jesus. The character of Judas was created for this purpose. His name, Judas, equals Judah — it was actually the word the Romans used for Jew. For anyone alive at the time, there was zero subtly in this devise. Judas equals Jews. No worries Rome, it’s the Jews fault. This is the literary propaganda that launched thousands of years of persecution against a people.
Beyond being put off with the subject, Guirgis’s usual flourishes just didn’t work for me here. Even with a trial in Purgatory, he still put his usual urban vernacular into most of his character’s mouths. Having the likes of Saint Monica (mother of Saint Augustine) talk like a street tough spewing motherfuckers like punctuation doesn’t offend me, but neither does it shock me or make me laugh. It just falls flat. What works in his darkly funny urban tragedies just doesn’t fly here in this fantasy examining faith, redemption, and forgiveness.
Two and a half stars rounded up because Guirgis.
September 8, 2023
JESUS. You think your suffering is a one way street?! It’s not! It’s the exact opposite of not!
JUDAS. You got a lot of fuckin’ nerve –
JESUS. – and you’ve got no nerve at all! Where’s your heart in all this, Judas? You think you were with me for any other reason than that?! It was your heart, Judas. You were all heart. You were my heart! Don’t you know that?!
JUDAS. You got a lot of fuckin’ nerve –
JESUS. – and you’ve got no nerve at all! Where’s your heart in all this, Judas? You think you were with me for any other reason than that?! It was your heart, Judas. You were all heart. You were my heart! Don’t you know that?!
March 16, 2022
this did make me say "WHAT" out loud at the end bc i didn't realize it was over if that means anything
April 15, 2022
"W.H. Auden was a poet who once said: 'God may reduce you on Judgement Day to tears of shame, reciting by heart the poems you would have written, had your life been good.'"
ouch ouch ouch
ouch ouch ouch
February 23, 2023
A coarse tragicomedy that's impossibly, improbably, somehow a successor, or cousin, to Lewis's The Great Divorce. An examination of despair and the paradoxes of faith made specifically for my every fear and doubt and unending heartache. I underlined and annotated so steadily I tore through the pages. I wept til I heaved.
Only the existentialist can capture the absurdity of it all, the breadth. There's a lot of banger lines in here if you're looking, not just The One that circulates online everywhere (though, of course, that one really just gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?)
happy lenten season I guess
Only the existentialist can capture the absurdity of it all, the breadth. There's a lot of banger lines in here if you're looking, not just The One that circulates online everywhere (though, of course, that one really just gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?)
happy lenten season I guess
January 14, 2023
JUDAS: I would have never believed that you could have left me.
JESUS: I never left you.
JUDAS: That you didn’t love me.
JESUS: I do love you.
JUDAS: Why … didn’t you make me good enough … so that you could’ve loved me?
this conversation alone made reading this worth it. most of the dialogue was cringe and trying too hard to be funny. it was not. the racist “jokes” and stereotypes was unbearable to go through, as well. judas and jesus’ conversation was the only thing i looked forward to honestly
JESUS: I never left you.
JUDAS: That you didn’t love me.
JESUS: I do love you.
JUDAS: Why … didn’t you make me good enough … so that you could’ve loved me?
this conversation alone made reading this worth it. most of the dialogue was cringe and trying too hard to be funny. it was not. the racist “jokes” and stereotypes was unbearable to go through, as well. judas and jesus’ conversation was the only thing i looked forward to honestly
June 8, 2012
It's so beautiful. So moving, and eloquent, and heart wrenching, and funny, and sad, and uplifting, and downtrodden. It takes you to so many levels and emotions and you can't help but feeling like you've experienced SOMETHING afterwards. If you can't be in a production of it, see it. If you can't see it, read it. It's worth it. This isn't about religion or what you believe. It's about the beauty that is the theatre and what it can produce
August 5, 2022
where's your heart in all this, judas? you think you were with me for any other reason than that?! it was your heart, judas. you were all heart. you were my heart! don’t you know that?
ok well this is making me insane. im literally obsessed!!!!!! maybe it’s the catholicism left over from when i was younger but jesus christ. this was. wow.
ok well this is making me insane. im literally obsessed!!!!!! maybe it’s the catholicism left over from when i was younger but jesus christ. this was. wow.
August 17, 2021
I'm not crying it's just the existentialism in my eyes.
My lack of religion did not impact the hard-hitting nature of this play, in which the dialogue was Neil Gaiman American Gods-esque but filled to the brim with philosophy and questions of faith.
The nature of religion, forgiveness, history. Guirgis puts it all together in a short trial set in a non-existent space with biblical characters and also Sigmund Freud, just because. This is something I know I would never get tired of reading.
That final dialogue with Jesus and Judas at the end emotionally ruined me - it was the "why didn't you make me good enough...so that you could've loved me?" and the "I loved you. that's all I did. And that's the truth. And now I'm here."
Or maybe it's ending on that Auden quote - "God may reduce you on Judgment Day to tears of shame reciting by heart the poems you would have written had your life been good."
My lack of religion did not impact the hard-hitting nature of this play, in which the dialogue was Neil Gaiman American Gods-esque but filled to the brim with philosophy and questions of faith.
The nature of religion, forgiveness, history. Guirgis puts it all together in a short trial set in a non-existent space with biblical characters and also Sigmund Freud, just because. This is something I know I would never get tired of reading.
That final dialogue with Jesus and Judas at the end emotionally ruined me - it was the "why didn't you make me good enough...so that you could've loved me?" and the "I loved you. that's all I did. And that's the truth. And now I'm here."
Or maybe it's ending on that Auden quote - "God may reduce you on Judgment Day to tears of shame reciting by heart the poems you would have written had your life been good."
April 27, 2023
literally started reading this for class bc i wanted to send in a response paper abt the mythicity of jesus and his relationships + just wanted another example and yknow i expected to be walloped over the head but not this bad. i want to dissect this play to itty bitty pieces till the cast are smithereens on my bedroom floor. cant wait to chat about this with my professor sometime soon :) also tw for the r slur and f slur, did NOT expect them and it kinda soured the experience for me andddd the use of the word nigga when giurgis is NOT black.... like i get Why but erm ... unnecessary and uncomfortable!
January 1, 2022
If my son is in Hell, then there is no Heaven—because if my son sits in Hell, there is no God.
For the hour or so I read this in, I was a Christian. The dialogue, the history, the Auden quote at the end, the "You didn't wash your hands Pontius Pilate—History did it for you" was really all too much. If anything I wish it was longer.
For the hour or so I read this in, I was a Christian. The dialogue, the history, the Auden quote at the end, the "You didn't wash your hands Pontius Pilate—History did it for you" was really all too much. If anything I wish it was longer.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,059 reviews