Jerusalem: I Don't Think I Got It? — Page 3

Sorry if my comments are in anyway "stupid" or "uniformed." I'm simply stating what I thought/felt throughout the production.

I understand that I won't always understand 100% of a show, and that's fine, but the fact that none of us can make sense of the piece means that it wasn't successful in my eyes. And no, I don't think I need to study the history of a country to understand a 3 hour play. It's not graduate school; it's Broadway.

After seeing the show and reading the play, I feel that it was more of a study of characters than anything else. We got to know and understand these people, their relationships, their interactions. I really feel as if the play was effective in giving us a snapshot into their lives. I was completely enthralled the entire time and I'm trying to get back there before it closes.

Disliking a show does necessarily mean one didn't understand it. I disliked this play intensely, and yet I had no problem understanding it. The problem is its message is at once simpleminded and specious. Add to that the play is a self-indulgent, long-winded bore, and you have one very unpleasant evening.

God, yes! I really hate it when people find themselves enjoyably challenged by theater and want to share that experience with others.

I've already stated my opinion on the show earlier...but there is nothing wrong with strong opinions for or against anything - its only when someone else tells you that your opinion is WRONG or you must not UNDERSTAND it if you did/didn't like it.

I love to hear opinions other than mine in a true discussion -- as long as all involved treat everyone else involved with at least a modicom of respect.

This thread has had a number of folks lauding it, hating it as well as respecting/appreciating it.

---

"I love to hear opinions other than mine in a true discussion -- as long as all involved treat everyone else involved with at least a modicom of respect."

You mean like this?

"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."

Those in this thread who have enjoyed or appreciated the play have done so without putting others down - while many (not you, dramamama) who don't like the play, are quite vehement and pejorative (and repetitive) about it.

"Those in this thread who have enjoyed or appreciated the play have done so without putting others down"


Not true. Reread the thread.

I don't think that addressing a comment that poster made was rude but I'm sorry if it was construed that way. I didn't talk about the POSTER -- just what he implied. He implied that the playwright created this great work of art specifically FOR America. He did not. He wrote it for a British audience, and then producers decided to give it a shot here. Nothing wrong with that, at all, but the poster tried to imply something entirely different.

Again, I was addressing a comment, not the poster -- well maybe.

I am also NEUTRAL about the play. I didn't love it, no, but I was drawn to the performances and appreciate the work.

---

"Just to be clear -- I never particularly thought it HAD a message"

Wow. You've seen the show how many times, and you didn't think it had a message? Why the heck do you think the playwright wrote it? I don't understand plays that don't have anything to say. To me what's the point of it? A play can still have a message and be enjoyable: Hairspray was very commercial, but it still had something to say.

That said, I'm not sure what the message was. I still don't understand the whole plot point of the girl going missing then she comes out of mobile home and then they romantically dance? I don't get that at all, sorry. And in no way would I call this modern day Shakespeare. There wasn't anything really poetic about it to me at all.

It's interesting though to compare it to Normal Heart. They are two very different shows, and I'm more a fan of the Normal Heart because of it. Normal Heart has a specific plot. Things happen that spur other things, and then other things happen and it builds to something. Jerusalem is basically a "talkie." It's a play about ideas. They talk and talk and talk about ideas. Very much like Time Stands Still. There isn't a lot of 'action,' but ideas are discussed and thrown around. I like a play that is going places with a plot, I'm not much into theater where people sit around and discuss things.

I didn't see any such insinuation, but then again, I'm not looking for insult. I saw MusicAndPassion respectfully offering a suggestion that might help, a suggestion I've seen made before about this play and others, such as some of Stoppard's. I wouldn't see Rock and Roll, for example, without reading up a little on Eastern block countries, Socialism, Havel, etc. You don't like doing a little homework before seeing a show. That's fine, but some of us enjoy that level of engagement on occasion. I hope I never reach a level of education where I think I have nothing left to learn.

Besides, how would M&P know how incredibly well-versed you are in British history and theater until you brought out all your creds?

You saw someone insulting your intelligence - I saw someone trying to help you out. Strange thing to get offended over.

Updated On: 7/18/11 at 08:55 PM

You raise an interesting point, Ripped Man, about audience expectations.

A playwright may write a play with lots of allusions to history, politics, etc. that some in the audience will not pick up or understand. Others who have a like reference point will get the allusions and enjoy the play for them.

So that leaves it to the playwright to offer something to those who will not get the references. An intertwined parallel plot, something that can be taken and understood on face value which will entertain these theatre goers. Shakespeare always appealed to a multi-level audience in his works, from the masses in the pit up to educated nobles and royalty.

Still, if the playwright is creating a style with their play, like the genre of the absurdists, they may not be able to do that because it will detract from the art form which is appreciated by familiarity with the genre.

I read The Normal Heart years ago but haven't seen either production. I don't always want to see the show after I read a play because it takes away the surprises for me. However, given the varied reaction to Jerusalem here, I think I'd want to read the play first before I'd shuck out money for a ticket.

I sort of love that the play is receiving a discussion such as this again now (as I enjoyed it when it opened) because I feel like it really is appropriate for the play. Love it or hate it (I fall more into the love it category, though I, by no means, thought it was a perfect show), you have to admit it's a frustrating piece of theatre. Frustrating can be read in a good or bad way, but it really begs for this kind of discussion, I think.

After I saw it in April, I found it intriguing and haunting. In retrospect, I wish Normal Heart had been open when I was in the city seeing Jerusalem, but I'm still glad I saw it. It was an interesting new play, and very different from what I traditionally see on Broadway. And the last few minutes still remain with me, even if the rest of the play has settled into an odd spot in my memory.

---