Jerusalem: I Don't Think I Got It?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 12:02am

I saw the show tonight. 3 hrs of just mayhem. I'm not sure I "got it." I don't see what everyone is raving about? The play is meandering and just nonsense for 3 hrs. Rylance is a great actor by all means, but he just played the same character in the same theater this past Fall. Except this time he has a bad leg. And why did it say "English Stage Company" above the proscenium the whole time?

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 12:36am

If all you saw was "3 hrs of mayhem", then you definitely didn't "get it".

That's ok ..... move on, enjoy what you enjoy, and don't worry about it.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 5:08am

As I've stated previously, I found the play and Rylance's performance supremely overrated.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 5:08am

double

Updated On: 7/17/11 at 05:08 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:11am

Well...I wasn't "wowed" by the play itself. I felt the playwright was being rather self-indulgent and felt his message was clear and important (although I couldn't tell you what his message was.)

The overall plot (IMHO) was simply the last days of a deeply troubled, dillussioned and addicted man, him being his own conflict.

I did think the performances were stronger than the material. And while I didn't feel my time was a loss, it wasn't a show I felt I would reccommend to other.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:25am

*spoilers*

I think you're right overall, dramamama. My guess is that the play itself is an allegory; Rooster's downfall represents the playwright's view of the country's downward spiral. However, I didn't think he went far enough into expositing this, and it certainly doesn't help that Rooster (IMO) is one of the most unlikable/unsympathetic characters I've ever seen. I felt the same way about THE HISTORY BOYS (and Hector), which most people thought was the second coming.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 8:46am

SPOILERS

I mean, I get that plot point, but why was the girl missing and then found? Was he shacking up with a 15 year-old? Why does the little boy come back at the end? And why was the little boy such an awful actor? And how come the "bigger girl" and John Jr. had a subplot, but no one else did? Why did we need to know more about their relationship? And why was she never quite as funny as I wanted?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 9:07am

Can't tell you WHY the boy cast was an awful actor. Can't tell you why someone wasn't as funny as YOU wanted them to be.

I think we see some sub-plots to see that Rooster's life is beyond pathetic. Sure the younger people party with him, but they have a bit of life beyond that.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 9:27am

Oh, I was just joking. In my head it sounded rather funny/sarcastic.

But okay, I'll by that line of reasoning. I mean I didn't think it was an awful play or anything, and granted it was never really touted as some amazing play, but rather a great performance in an okay play. I do think it was a little too "British" for me, or for those around me. A lot of names mentioned I didn't understand, etc. But I still enjoyed it. Glad I saw it.

But why did it say English Stage Company as part of the set? I liked the set, and it's sort of mix of theatricality. I like that it was so fake looking, but realistic too with the chickens and dirt, etc.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 9:32am

"Why does the little boy come back at the end? And why was the little boy such an awful actor?"

God, that made me laugh. LOL

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 9:39am

I mean, am I wrong? ha. Next door at Billy Elliot those kids are living, but this kid was making crosses before he was even asked to cross, ha. I just pictured his mom crouched in the wings doing his blocking for him.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 9:42am

Sorry that I didn't catch the sarcasm!

I can't answer your question about the English Stage Company, as I had the same thoughts, but then simply forgot all about it.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 9:43am

I saw it the beginning of April and really don't remember the kid too well but now I want to watch it again!!

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 9:50am

He's the same kid from Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, which made sense because he looks Native American..... but he looks out of place here when both of his parents are super pale, as is every other British actor around him. But maybe I'm being too harsh.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 10:19am

"English Stage Company" is the resident company of The Royal Court, where Jerusalem premiered. It is customary for the name to be emblazoned on the proscenium of their home shows, so I guess they decided to keep it on Broadway to recognize where the play originated.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 10:23am

I thought both Rylance's performance and the play, neither without their merits, were ridiculously overrated as well. Mantello should've won that Tony, but that's neither here nor there. I thought the only moments of the play that really worked were towards the end. But then again, I don't remember much (specifically) about the show itself. And I only saw it two months ago.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 10:28am

Aside from the scene between Rylance and the excellent Geraldine Hughes, I remember very little about the actual play. If you asked me anything about Rylance's final monologue, I'd draw a blank. I'd forgotten it by the time I was out of the theatre, and all I remember is being bored.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 10:32am

My immediate reactions after seeing the play were that I didn't have a clue as to what I had just seen but unlike friends of mine, I was completely fascinated by what it and was fully engaged for the shows three hours. I remember thinking that I'm sure I'll be analyzing it in my head for a very long time but, truth be told, the next day I stopped thinking about it all together and now I really only remember a very few scenes, the most vivid being the very ending which I found extremely powerful. I'm not mad at Rylance for his Tony win over Mantello. He was honored for giving two very demanding performances in one season but I do think after his acceptance speech it'll be the last Tony they'll want to give him for a while.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 10:33am

It is certainly a flawed play and I left with many questions, not just about purpose and meaning (which I don't mind as long as I am engaged to think about those questions, which I was), but about what the hell was materially happening at many points (just one example, what the hell was he digging for - literally speaking - in the last scene?). I also found that less would have been more in terms of the plot structure. Rooster's family, his son, the girl, her family, the possibilities of abuse on both sides of that equation, what was the girl doing with him, was she perhaps his daughter, the metaphysical and legendary elements of the play including the giant, the eviction..... it was all a bit much for it's own good in my opinion.

Which is not to say that it wasn't fascinating.

All in all, I'd say it's a very fine if not a great, play, visionary, epic and highly entertaining, which puts it ahead of 99% . Not only Rylance's epic performance but the marked beauty of the language throughout the play (this, is what will sta with me; it was a pleasure to hear those words and those lines) and the ambitious reach of the work, its vision of England past and present, totally transported me.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 10:43am

I find the polarizing reactions to the play really interesting. Like you guys, I have many friends who have seen it and didn't particularly get/follow/like it, but were fascinated by it. (I'm not in this camp) As to HenrikEgerman's comment on the beauty of the language--I definitely didn't find the prose as gorgeous as many people have. Lots of theatergoers said the same thing about Butterworth's PARLOUR SONG--that it showed a masterful command of language--but to me it came off like third-rate Pinter. I'm not an Anglophile or a huge fan of the British idiom (or, as I've stated, a Mark Rylance devotee), so perhaps that has to do with why I found the play so unengaging.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 10:54am

I found the play to be a meandering bore. Reliance was loud and yelled a lot, but I wasn't really captivated by his performance and found it (and the play) extremely overrrated. The fact that he won the Tony over Joe Mantello is a crime.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 10:57am

Intersting, AC, I haven't seen the other Butterworth play, but I didn't find Jerusalem at all like Pinter. The dialogue in Jerusalem is world's apart from Pinter's clipped, piquant cryptic minimalism. It instead veers from simple, but poetic and very humorous, naturalism to the highly romantic and unabashedly expansive. More like Whitman than Pinter in the latter mode.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 11:12am

Adam, I had a very different reaction to Jerusalem and The Normal Heart. I loved Rylance's performance and found a great deal of modulation and an endless variety in it.

On the other hand, and I know I am going to be ripped a new one for this by its many fans, it was some of the performances in The Normal Heart, even Mantello's at points but especially Barkin's, which I found ineffectively blustering and overridden with hand movements, often inartful ones, and pyrotechnics. I realize, of course, that Mantello is playing Kramer's highly dramatized standin, and in many ways he was superb, but I would have much preferred to have seen him and Barkin, who are both estimable actors, no doubt, finding more and richer quiet moments in their roles which would have highlighted and given more dynamism to their big, angry tirades when they were unleashed.

For me, it wasn't Mantello's and Barkin's, but Parsons' and Breen's performances that were the standouts in The Normal Heart.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 11:22am

Funny that these two plays are being discussed on the same thread as I saw them both the same day.

I'll agree quite a bit with what Jordan said, while I didn't exactly like the play or connect to it, I was involved with it every moment -- which I can only chock up to the performances. I thought thought Mackenzie Crook was OUTSTANDING as well.

I was so moved by the entirety of The Normal Heart, that I cannot begin to pick it apart and examine its parts.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 11:22am

I mean there's no doubt that Rylance gave a great performance. I'm inclined to think less of him only because his Tony speech was still in the character of his previous two performances, so it makes me think maybe these parts are very much of a stretch.

And true, what was he digging for?

And I still don't understand why they were looking for the girl and then they found her and that was that.

Also, wasn't the guy that comes to beat up Rooster John Jr.'s dad because he and Phadre are brother/sister? There didn't seem to be any sort of mention of that when the dad stormed the camp grounds. And why would that one girl yell out to the dad like that? What makes her so ballsy? Unanswered questions.