JERUSALEM — Page 2

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

They'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.

I haven't seen Jerusalem from the boxes, but I saw La Bete there with a rush ticket and I would say if you're on the outer most seats towards the stage it's no big deal but 3 and 4 seats over you might be a bit obstructed.

The Doc drinks the Jerusalem hype cool-aid, and vomits.



Jerusalem: What the, What?

---

Updated On: 4/19/11 at 02:27 PM

Ok, this might be a stupid question but there was one part I was extremely confused about.

SPOILER****

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?

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.

---

Broadway Doctor is totally out of his depth with this one.

Someone wanted to know so I'm asking here -

About how long are each of the acts?

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.

---

Someone wanted to know so I'm asking here -

About how long are each of the acts?

I want to say about an hour each.

"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.

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.

---

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.