First Preview Jerusalem? — Page 2

For all of its Britishisms, I feel Jerusalem is a particularly relevant play in America for the following reason: it's about freedom of an individual versus a society that would stamp out the wild, the natural, the untamed. For all of our vaunted "freedom" in America, we do the same thing and fear the "otherness" of people not like us.

There are some things in the play that will resonate more for UK audiences: the hymn "Jerusalem" does not have the same resonance for a US audience as it would in the UK, but it is sung at the top of the show and referred to at points throughout the play. It refers to a mythic visit of Jesus in the English country ("And did those feet in ancient times walk upon England's mountain green"...) It goes on to mention the "dark Satanic mills" of the Industrial Revolution. It yearns to rebuild paradise out of a country that may have lost its way. Is it not possible to see how that can be relevant to a US audience as well?

St. George's Day is also not something we instantly know much about here - but all that needs to be known in viewing the play is that the day is marked by country fairs (with one of the characters dressed up in the garb of a Morris dancer, a sort of folk dancing with a mystical element to it). It's not dissimilar to the country fairs that dot the landscape when you travel a bit outside of New York City.

Johnny Rooster Byron aggrandizes his history to the point that its hard to separate fact from fable. It is part of what the character is all about. While the play deals in the ancient mystic English folklore tradition, with its setting in Wiltshire not too far from the prehistoric site of Stonehenge, we certainly have figures throughout American history who have mythologized their own pasts, to the point that one has no way of knowing where truth ends and fiction begins. (I thought for example of Arthur Laurents saying Gypsy Rose Lee was "allergic to the truth" and that she told him that her story was so vaunted that anything he came up with for his book would seem just as authentic).

I think part of the wonder of going to the theatre is to be taken somewhere you've never been before and to be in company of people you don't know and to come out with something that makes you understand maybe a little bit more about the world around us. I was at Jerusalem last night and feel that it's as great a play, production and leading performance as anything I've seen in over 40 years of theatregoing. I think any serious theatregoer should not miss it at any cost.

---

Updated On: 4/3/11 at 09:34 AM

I agree I was in the front row side I got my ticket at the TKTS booth so I wanted to see it more than just RUSH BUT I can not recommend it to anyone I know
I thought Rylance was brilliant but who cared ? I was not emotionally involved at all In fact when they mentioned Elton John in the text of the play I recalled that I forgot to DVR Saturday Night Live with Elton John so I left after the second act during the break to watch a real Englishman If you sit in the front center or right side you will get wet It woke me up I will say that the time goes quickly I left at 10 20 and didnt realize it was that late when I left Brantley will like it again but the News and Post will not
Saw Born Yesterday at matinee and was pleasantly surprised at how wonderful it was A fun time at the theater was Born Yesterday At least one could appreciate the great script

Another clothesless emperor.

The play is a garrulous bore. A lot of uninteresting people blathering and bickering on and on about nothing worth hearing.

As for Mark Rylance, he gives a good performance, but a studied one. You are too often aware of his acting choices. He also had problems making himself heard last night. He's shown himself to be a great actor on more than one occasion, but I wouldn't use the word "brilliant" for this first preview.


As for the play, why was this thing even imported here?

Whatever:

Thank you for providing the link to this very interesting article.

To refrence this article to the play, "Jerusalem," the problem strikes me as twofold.

First, if a play requires a speciic cultural affiliation to be properly understood/appreciated, then it's best to leave it within that culture.

Second, the play itself is lousy.

"if a play requires a specific cultural affiliation to be properly understood/appreciated, then it's best to leave it within that culture."

Theatrical apartheid.

I experienced this play as poetry. I didn't look for any particular symbolism, but the whole thing feels like it has a mythical (mystical?) overlay. Rylance is a powerful interpreter of this piece. I found him magical as a modern-day pied piper.

Agreed
I sat there last night and was able to leave after the second act since Elton John was more important and more enjoyable
Dribble is dribble and drool is drool

Posted On:4/3/11 at 06:34
"the best Butterworth has written"

Could be, but that's not saying much, since all his previous plays that I've had the misfortune to see were terrible. And if "Jerusalem" is his best work then I'm thankful to have missed the others. :)

Hey After Eight, I haven't seen Jerusalem yet so I can't comment, and you certainly have every right to hate the show. But when you say all the Butterworth plays you've ever seen are "terrible," I find myself wondering why you keep subjecting yourself to his brand of theater! If you think he's so "lousy," isn't life too short to keep going to his plays? Just a thought...

I had TDF tickets for Jerusalem this past Sunday - row D, center orchestra, thank you baby Jesus for TDF. I'm very glad I saw it - Rylance gives a masterful, mesmerizing performance, and the rest of the cast is strong. I don't feel it's "too British", and I sympathized with the Rylance character. Loved the ending!

I saw the production in London and left feeling that without Rylance's absolutely stunning performance anchoring it (along with Mackenzie Crook's less weighty anchor), the play would be lost. I felt that the play was about the dissipation of cultural legend and myth in the face of development.

However, I felt the play was saddled with a great deal of extraneous baggage- scenes, characters, dialogue. So many parts that did not contribute meaningfully to the whole. I walked out remembering only Rylance and Crook's characters- a bad thing for a play with such a sizable character list.

I also had the distinct feeling the "Britishness" of the piece would work against it here, where theatregoers aren't as open minded or educated about other cultures. There's certainly nothing that would prevent an American from understanding the piece, but enough references that would put one off of it. Not every audience member will be going in having done their research.

---

Does anyone know what rush has been like?