Jerusalem: I Don't Think I Got It? - Page 2

[littlegreen2]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 11:35am

"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."

I haven't seen Jerusalem, and I won't be seeing Jerusalem, but I thought his Tony speech was brilliant. I was obviously pulling for Mantello but I was definitely enthralled by Rylance.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 11:37am

How was it brilliant?

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 11:41am

Henrik, JERUSALEM is definitely a departure from Butterworth's previous works, which were usually Pinteresque closet dramas--very intimate plays with small casts. Pinteresque is form, that is, but not in skill.

Personally, I don't get Rylance. LA BETE was a crushing bore, and what was impressive about what he did aside from memorize a lot of verse? He played Valere with the same bland midwestern accent that he used in BOEING BOEING. I certainly didn't see the need for praise there.

Updated On: 7/17/11 at 11:41 AM

[littlegreen2]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 11:45am

RippedMan - I just thought the poem he recited was very fitting. Particularly the last line - "A moment of total darkness before you step out onto the other side." I think it was representative of his work as an actor and I really enjoyed that it wasn't a normal approach to an acceptance speech.

Obviously, this may not have been his intention but I really enjoyed it.

[RippedMan]

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

I just don't see how that's fitting? He's not stepping into any sort of darkness or out of darkness. It's not like he's some sort of newbie who is risking his cred.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 12:10pm

Watching Rylance, I was constantly aware that he was acting. There was nothing natural about the performance. With Mantello, I was completed taken into the flawed world of his Ned Weeks and completely drawn in. He was extremely believable.

I became officially "over" Rylance when we all had to endure another of his arrogant, self-serving, in character, acceptance speeches.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 12:14pm

I think most people are with you on that last part now, adamgreer.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 12:15pm

Do you mean that Lee (John Gallagher Jr.'s character) was Phadra's brother? I don't recall anything suggesting that.

All I know is at one point we learn that Rooster may have been sleeping with a woman whose husband was away in the Falklands. If this means the wife of someone who was stationed in the Falklands but not during the Falklands War, which would have made his absence too early to have produced someone as young as Phadra, than Rooster could be Phadra's father, as one of the friends I saw the play with suggested to me, but for which I don't see any other compelling evidence. Then again, exactly what is Phadra to Rooster? what is it all about with her year as queen which she spends with him? Is this all a reference to something which many Brits might understand but is lost on us?

But even if Lee were Phadra's brother, that doesn't mean that Rooster would nec. have fathered both children.

* * *

I didn't see La Bete, but was in awe of Rylance in Boeing, Boeing (I'm originally from Wisconsin, and he nailed that character, dialect and all; although I was pissed he, with some reason as it turns out, stood in Patrick Stewart's way from grabbing a tony for his brilliant Macbeth, one of the great classical performances of our times).

In any event, I think some are taking Rylance's tony acceptance speeches a little too seriously. IMHO they are refreshing and hilarious. A splash of dada in an evening of pomp, delivered with unabashed glibness by an actor who is one of contemporary theater's great clowns. Not intended for subtextual analysis.

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 12:50pm

We also saw this play the afternoon after seeing Normal Heart. Worlds apart in style and idiom but I think similar in purpose: two playwrights trying to make a larger point about disenfranchised communities by concentrating on the intimate details of a single unlikable central character and his 2 or 3 close contacts. We felt Normal Heart achieved its goal naturally and effortlessly, while Jerusalem was so determined to do things the hard way. Endless attempts at grander poetry to evoke Blake and Keats, constant struggle for conflict and momentum that kept running dry.

We were fascinated by Rylance's performance until after hour 2 or so when it just got to be annoying. I agree with adamgreer: "Watching Rylance, I was constantly aware that he was acting. There was nothing natural about the performance." We actually loved the performance of Mackenzie Crook as Ginger--could have enjoyed a whole play about him alone. But at the end we were really left wondering what it was all for.

By comparison I'd also salute Tom Stoppard's lovely Arcadia that was still playing just up the road from Jerusalem when we saw it. Now there's a play that earns its poetry on the nature of love and requiems on a dying England absolutely honestly. Give me those 3 hours over Jerusalem's any day.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 2:23pm

Hm. Maybe I'm wrong. I thought Lee was related to her. I thought he says in the beginning of the play "Where's my sister gone?" Or something like that.

And I agree. Cook was great as Ginger. I loved any of the exchanges about him and his profession as a DJ.

And that's true. I was always aware of Rylance acting, which is maybe why I didn't fall into the play like I should've. I kept thinking "I wonder what he's like at home," or "I wonder how the rest of the cast likes him?"

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 4:38pm

Thought the play stank, and thought Rylance was in no way spectacular in it. I liked him even less in La Bete, an absolute bore. I didn't like his acceptance speech, either. We don't need dada at the Tony awards. Just say, "Thank you very much," and leave the stage.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 4:49pm

^ Thank you.

[MusicAndPassion]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 5:12pm

Study British Drama. Study the historical context of major British plays as well as the history of the stage in England. Look at British history, geography and politics. Take on major British plays and less known ones, particularly most things done by the Royal Court Theatre, and then return to Jerusalem (even just read it) and it will all make sense.

Jez Butterworth's play is a gift to America and Broadway. I'm sorry you didn't understand it - it's okay. It's by no means an easily understood play. Yet Mark Rylance knocks it out of the park on this one, and being a Chicago-turned-English actor it's incredible that he's only done a limited number of Broadway productions in his life.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 5:17pm

I have studied British drama extensively (I'm a professor of Theatre Studies as well as English Lit), and believe me, it does nothing to change or deepen my opinion of the play. Besides, it's not the audience's responsibility to do homework before going to the theatre.

If this play is a gift, I'd like the receipt.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 6:15pm

If Jez Butterworth's play is gift to America, then could we please exchange it for some Wedgewood?

Moreover, ALL his plays, including this one, have been horrible.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:41pm

Very funny, After Eight. I disagree with you on the value of Jerusalem, but I appreciate your wit.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:43pm

I'm going to agree that it's not anyone's responsibility to study before we enjoy a piece of theater. Most of the audience is going to be unfamiliar with British theater to the extent you suggest.

A gift to America and B'way? Really. He didn't write it FOR us. If anything, it's a re-gift, or possibly a hand-me-down.

[wonkit]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:51pm

I understand what Butterworth's intent was, but I don't think this play effectively gets us where he wants us to be. Much of the middle of the play seemed like a self-indulgent detour. Liked the beginning and the end (although Rooster's final speech did not build the way I expected it to, having read the play in advance).

[Scott3]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 8:08pm

Updated On: 11/11/16 at 08:08 PM

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 8:23pm

You're welcome?

[wonkit]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 8:29pm

"Tragic"? Infuriating, yes. Stupid, yes. Uninformed, even.

But if you want tragic, try the drought in Ethiopia.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 8:31pm

A person who cannot process the fact that people have differing opinions would find it tragic.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 8:42pm

I finally saw it two weeks ago and was mesmerized from start to finish.

Sad, but true -- my father is a lot like Rooster. For me, what most people keep calling an allegory became a deep, inward reflection. I realize this is a situation very few other people could have experienced. But for me, the play chewed me up and spit me out.

I left the theater a heap of tears, a complete sobbing mess. I cried on and off for a good hour or two after the show had ended.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 8:44pm

Scot,

For someone who is not "criticizing" any of us, you seem to have done a very good job of it.

And incidentally, when you say the whole BWW experience is "tragic," to what are you referring? Having the opportunity to express one's opinions here?

And if it's so "tragic'" why are you here, and why are you reading these threads?

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 9:14pm

By the way, I should put it out there that I left THE NORMAL HEART with a cold and distanced feeling. I enjoyed it, respected it, understood the praise. But it didn't effect me as deeply as JERUSALEM did.

I think that a lot of people are going to be divided on this play. And perhaps my journey was different than any other audience member's, but I left that 3-hour play feeling that no theater could come near the experience I had.

Now, this is not saying that I think it is a perfect play. I don't. But my experience in that theater was unlike any other I have ever had. I got lost that day. It took a few hours to stop crying and a few days to come back to earth.