JERUSALEM- Page 2
JERUSALEM
April Saul
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/17/06
#25JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/11/11 at 4:10pm
I agree, AfterEight. You've pretty much hammered home your point, over and over, which appears to be just that the show is "lousy" and for theater snobs.
I stopped by the stage door yesterday, because I hadn't had a chance when I saw Jerusalem last week. James Earl Jones was visiting Rylance and when Rylance finally emerged, an extremely pushy woman from some theater publication instructed him to pose for photos by yelling "Frontal, please!" and barking rapidfire questions like, "How does it feel to be compared to Ralph Richardson, Laurence Olivier, etc. and have people say you are the finest actor of all time?" and crap like that.
He tried to handle her gracefully, thanking her, and pointing out that he'd never had the opportunity to see those guys act.
Earlier, at the Arcadia stage door, the English actors all headed out happily into Manhattan on foot while Billy and Raul, though quite friendly, cheerfully sped off in sleek chauffeured vehicles.
So at least you can't accuse the Brits performing here of being snobs 
bwayfan7000
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/28/09
#27JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/11/11 at 4:44pmThey're pretty terrible, but you get what you pay for. If you go while the play still has scores of empty seats (i.e. before reviews/Tonys/etc.), you can do what I (and every other person in the box with me) did, and move to empty seats in the Orchestra/Mezzanine for acts 2 and 3.
April Saul
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/17/06
#28JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/11/11 at 7:47pm
If you check the other thread, now they appear to be giving rush people the front row again...maybe someone could ask the box office people what their formula is for this? Very confusing...but I agree about slipping into another seat easily in previews, and bear in mind, there are two intermissions in which to accomplish this, and the first one is pretty close to the beginning of the play
GimmeABreak2
Stand-by Joined: 4/14/09
#30JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/12/11 at 7:47am
I didn't get to see the show last week, so I'm going to have to come back to the city in the next few months.
Has After Eight weighed in on JERUSALEM?
I'm not yet quite sure what to think about it or the people who have seen it before I haven't seen it yet, and I'm also wondering whether it has enough naughty language to be completely discredited as actual art.
Thanks in advance.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#31JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/19/11 at 2:27pm
The Doc drinks the Jerusalem hype cool-aid, and vomits.
Jerusalem: What the, What?
Trust Me, I'm a Doctor.
Updated On: 4/19/11 at 02:27 PM
bwayfan7000
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/28/09
#32JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/19/11 at 2:39pm
Saw it Saturday afternoon. Loved it for its complexity and artistry, and for Rylance and that amazing set. I felt a bit lost through some of it, but I think that's the nature of this play. The end is completely stunning, and worth the whole three hours. I walked away feeling like I'd seen more than a good play (and it was a good, if not great, play for sure), but more a theatrical event. A happening. I will be thinking about this one for a while.
And to answer my own question, the boxes were not fantastic (I was on the outermost seat, but a person was directly in my sightline), but ended up in the 8th row dead center for Acts 2 and 3.
"Art, in itself, is an attempt to bring order out of chaos."-Stephen Sondheim
#34JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/19/11 at 3:01pm
I thought it was terrible. It was long (A LOT can be cut), boring, and trying to hard to be deep. Rylance was fine, but I have grown weary of his schtick. John Gallagher, Jr was terrible and cannot do an accent to save his life. I thought the only two good performers on the stage were Mackenzie Crook and Charlotte Mills. Also, I found
Aimeé-Ffion Edwards irritating as Phaedra.
#35JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/19/11 at 4:35pm
When Rooster stares into the eyes of his ex -girlfriend she starts to shake violently. I believe it was in the 2nd act...anyone care to explain?
To me this is when he was revealed to be the King of the fairies. You get it if you listen to the lyrics of the song the young girl sings at the beginning of each act. She's not a real fairy though, despite her wings.
Stephen: "Could you grab me a coffee?"
Me: "Would you like that with all the colors of the wind?"
Cape Twirl of Doom
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/2/05
#36JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/19/11 at 5:01pm
To me this is when he was revealed to be the King of the fairies. You get it if you listen to the lyrics of the song the young girl sings at the beginning of each act. She's not a real fairy though, despite her wings.
Wait, what? I can't tell if this is a joke or not. What were the lyrics of the song? I found it very hard to hear the words of what she was singing.
"It's Phantom meets Hamlet... Phamlet!"
GimmeABreak2
Stand-by Joined: 4/14/09
#38JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/19/11 at 6:41pm
From Broadway Doctor:
This play got poor reviews when it transferred to the Apollo Theatre in London, but for some reason, there has been some excellent lies spread by a grass-roots word of mouth marketing campaign falsely informing people it was all raves, and that it even won the Olivier Award for best play, and never informing people what it’s about!
You're joking right? They transferred to the West End because of its success in the Royal Court run and in the West End it was a sellout because of the emphatically positive reviews it received.
WhatsOnStage - 5 Stars
The Guardian - 4 Stars
London Evening Standards - 5 Stars
The Telegraph - 5 Stars
The Independent - 5 Stars
The Times was glowing too and I've linked it for lacked of stars.
I have links to all of these reviews if you want, these aren't lies spread by a marketing machine. I'm sure it got poor reviews somewhere too--the internet exists--but these are pretty legit reviews to say the least, its not like Spider-man pull quotes.
And never informing people what it's about...it's on the front page of their official website. This doctor review baffles me, really.
The Times Jerusalem review
CurtainCall
Understudy Joined: 4/1/11
#41JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/19/11 at 7:21pm
This is one of those shows that really angers the people who don't like it... more so than other plays, I mean. I'm fairly well in the minority that I thought WAR HORSE was bad, and, in fact, the more time passes, the memory of it grows more rotten in my head. But I'm not in the WAR HORSE threads crying about emperors and clothes or making up lies like it's deserves to be vanquished from the planet Earth. I also quite sufficiently hated THE HOUSE OF BLUE LEAVES revival. It literally put me to sleep. Literally. But some people have really seemed to enjoy it. Are those people morons? Maybe. I don't know. Personally I think we're all morons. But I would never make their liking it sound like an accusation, for pity's sake.
I'm all for theatre criticism. I'll champion it every time. It's very important. I don't like to see bad theater blindly rewarded or affirmed, and can and will speak vehemently for or against shows I feel are worth debating. And typically when I'm buried deeply in the minority on something, the first sensible thing to do -- it seems to me -- is to ask, like, "Hey... what's that all about?" instead of going, "No! No! No f0cking everyone in the world liked that show except for me! IMPOSSIBLE!"
(For the record, I won't be seeing JERUSALEM for another two weeks, though I do admit very much to looking forward to it.)
But what on earth is it about this play that inspires such torturous insecurity in the folks who don't care for it? Odd.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
aja
Swing Joined: 2/4/10
#42JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/19/11 at 7:34pmI think the fascination/repulsion for Rylance's acting style comes from that fact that he is a classic British stage actor. What I mean by this is that he works from the outside-in. Funny walks, funny voices, funny body positioning, funny clothing choices, very broad character-based choices. This is directly oppositional to the American acting technique of inside-out that has dominated most stages since Brando and the rise of Strasberg's 'Method.' A classic example of this was the famous interchange between Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman on the set of Marathon Man. Hoffman had beein putting himself through the mental and physical ringer for days trying to get into the head of his character. Finally, seeing his obvious exhaustion and near-collapse, Oliver offered the simple advice 'Why don't you try ACTING my boy.'
sorano916
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/6/08
jeffmiele
Broadway Star Joined: 11/6/07
After Eight
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/5/09
#45JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/19/11 at 9:48pm
"But what on earth is it about this play that inspires such torturous insecurity in the folks who don't care for it? Odd."
I find this statement itself odd. Why do you see "torturous insecurity" in those who dislike this play? I see simple dislike, for a variety of reasons stated by various posters in two threads. And I wonder, does your dislike of War Horse also indicate "torturous insecurity" on your part?
As for myself, I explained the reasons for my dislike in detail in the first thread on this play. It's too bad a second was begun when we already had one on the subject.
And I don't feel the slightest bit insecure about my opinion. On the contrary, it's the show's adulators who seem insecure and defensive at the slightest critique either of the play or Rylance. As has been painfully and embarrasingly demonstrated in this thread.
#46JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/19/11 at 10:53pm
I also caught the play at the Sat Matinee and I really haven't stopped thinking about it. I agree, its an emotional satifsying, theatrical event with a magnificent tour de force performance by Mark Rylance and a tight ensemble (god, I would have loved to have seen more of the rave scene at the start of the play...) The fact that its not a tidy symetrical play (or is it?) also lends itself to shear discovery, discovery of these characters, of Rooster himself and discovery of where the plot is actually going...
Stil digesting and looking forward to hearing more dialogue on the play...
#47JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/20/11 at 7:59am
After Eight, I'm responding to you, but please bear in mind I was not addressing you directly in my last post.
The difference seems to be between expressing one's opinion and then engaging discussion with others who may agree or disagree and rat-a-tatting the same adjective-driven criticisms, as if there's some kind of conspiracy or something wrong with or false about the people who *did* enjoyed the show, or -- in a more terrible example -- conconcting lies about the show's history in hopes that people not inclined to fact-checking might be brought to some kind of ill-gotten catharsis.
The difference between my reaction to WAR HORSE and others' reaction to it leaves me a little incredulous because, while many point have pointed out the play's flaws, I don't feel enough has been made of them. It puzzles me, but I also realize that there's no absolute right and wrong in such discussions; there's expression, and then there's reaching towards mutual understanding. Empathy is useful.
In my opinion -- and clearly you may disagree -- the method of expression that some detractors of JERUSALEM have chosen has the flavor of a bird pummeling its wings ceaselessly against cage bars, as if making as much noise as possible might wake everyone else up... as if the idea that anyone might have enjoyed it is not simply surprising, but absolutely preposterous or, worse, wrong. Disagreement -- even argument -- is common enough. But some folks' reaction makes it seem as if they've been personally affronted. Some of the one-noteness even brings with it a tinge of anger, especially the cries of snobbery because, while there's certainly a segment of the theatergoing population to which herd mentality may be accurate, to suggest that *everyone* has fallen into some kind of intellectual vacuum sounds, to put it kindly, paranoid. Theater critics don't meet in some dark basement and decide on a concensus, and neither do audience members.
That's what I find odd.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
indytallguy
Broadway Star Joined: 7/13/08
#48JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/20/11 at 9:04am
Well pout, themysteriousgrowl.
Reminds me that in conversation people often lean toward advocacy or inquiry. While almost exclusively advocating one's opinion might seem satisfying for the "rightness" of one's argument, engaging in inquiry with others who see things differently usually leads to more personal growth and understanding.
Updated On: 4/20/11 at 09:04 AM
#49JERUSALEM
Posted: 4/20/11 at 9:37am
I found it to be a fascinating experience - I was enormously entertained the entire evening, yet had no idea what the play was "about" - clearly some sort of allegory about St. George's dragon, without the saint, but more than that I couldn't say.
It's delightfully, easily funny, like a sit-com, but the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. These certainly aren't "real" people (except for the officious council representatives, perhaps). The four young people who hang with Rooster are barely sketched at all, they just seem to serve a sort of chorus role (I kept expecting Lee, John Gallagher's character, to do something, since he has a Tony award).
But is Rylance's character mystical or just a charismatic burn-out? You really don't need to know the answers to enjoy the ride, but the ride is, I think, ultimately nonsensical.
Videos