JUMPERS, anyone

[Chevstriss]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 3:01pm

saw a preview. opinions, or explanations, wanted. I guess the set was kinda cool. perhaps.

[JakeB]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 3:23pm

I'll be interested to see how this does gross wise. When it was in the UK I kept getting tons of free tickets to this but never once went.. it's not my kind of thing.

[Chevstriss]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 3:49pm

well, let's just say i'm glad my ticket was free also.

My mother always taught me if you can't say something nice . . . .

[magruder]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 4:11pm

Why not write what you think the show is about? (Also, given that the play is by Tom Stoppard and is over 30 years old, there is a lot of material written about the play available online and elsewhere, explaining it in detail).

[Gypsy Rose Me]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 5:58pm

I loved it when i saw it in London! But i am a HUGE Essie Davis (Dorothy) fan. It's not one of Stoppard's best plays and can get a bit boring , especially in George's long monologues. But the performances, set design and direction more than make up for it. It'll be interseting to see what reaction it gets when it opens in New York.

[NuggetMonkeys]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 5:59pm

ooh, I want to see this. how was it?

d.b.j

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 6:03pm

saw it tuesday night, loved it. i'd forgotten who good a night in the theatre could be when seeing a writer's work who really relishes language. i thought there was not a weak performance in the bunch, the sets were pretty snazzy and they had a few jaw dropping light cues. yeah, some of the material is a bit dated, but hearing it in today's environment was quite interesting. but aside from the philosophy, the humor was enough to make me nearly wet myself on multiple occasions.

of course, it's been a while since i saw a really good play that loves words the way stoppard does. that and i am a big fan, so i may be looking with a jaundiced eye. there were a plenty of people there who did not share my opinion and it did not get a standing ovation, which i was sure would bring about armageddon.

[NuggetMonkeys]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 6:05pm

hm. i'm seeing it.

no tickets yet, but oohhhh...i will.

d.b.j

[magruder]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 6:20pm

People who want to understand every one of Simon Russell Beale's speeches and want a literal meaning for every aspect of Jumpers will no doubt hate it or be confounded by it. It's like faulting an impressionist painter for not painting a realistic bowl of fruit.

[Chevstriss]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 6:52pm

So you mean it was an actor's choice to be speaking so swiftly that the audience can't actually hear words, just a sort of scholarly rhythm? I suppose that is entertaining for about 2 1/2 minutes, it certainly felt like a butt numbing 12-15 minutes each speech. That technique was amusing in Archie's final speech of jibberish, which was blessedly much shorter.

But during George's first act pontifications we mostly experienced everyone in the mezzanine whispering to each other "I can't understand a word he's saying". The same Speedy Gonzales approach was used in his first scene w/ Dottie, who felt she must match his stride word for word.

I guess the comic relief were the cop, janitor, and shrink: all 3 actors spoke at a comprehendible speed and volume.

If everything the character George says is simply to be dismissed, why must it be such an endurance test for the audience? some kind of Brechtian discomfiture? Nowadays, the "torture the audience" school of theatre merely makes people bored.

[magruder]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 7:08pm

His speeches are not to be dismissed. But at the same time, it is Stoppard's point that despite George's zeal and faith, all of his attempts to prove the existence of God and the intuitive,
God-instilled sense of morality in all human beings, end in inconclusiveness and futility. He is one lone man, arguing and railing for goodness and ethical behavior while oblivious to the murder that occurred in his own home and the world going mad around him.

I can't speak for the mezzanine, but I had no trouble understanding Beale at the back of the orchestra.

Updated On: 4/8/04 at 07:08 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/8/04 at 7:35pm

nor did i and i was in the very last row.

[magruder]

Posted: 4/9/04 at 2:56pm

Nice piece in the NY Times today about the jumpers.
Jumpers

[Roscoe]

Posted: 4/11/04 at 2:50pm

I saw the play last night, and loathed pretty much all of it. A bad play. A very bad play, one that replaces plot and characterization with erudition and philosophical name-dropping. The play is a crashing bore. There's the occasional flash of wit, but Stoppard's famed way with words cannot hide the ultimate uselessness of this play. In a desperate attempt to fool the audience into thinking that it is seeing something interesting, David Leveaux lavishes a lot of tricks to keep things moving, but the turntable and video projections cannot hide the fact that Stoppard's play is a bore. It makes one point very early on, and is content to make it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

For this play to have been written 30 years ago, produced 30 years ago, and flopped 30 years ago is one thing. Mistakes are made. For anyone to bother reviving this piece of tripe is inexplicable.

[magruder]

Posted: 4/11/04 at 3:19pm

Ah well. It's not going to be for everyone, that's for sure. I was just delighted with the play and the production - but I guess I've made that clear.