Jerusalem: I Don't Think I Got It? - Page 5

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 3:22pm

"1300 years ago he would have been the same dirtbag that he is today. King, indeed."

Lol!

You obviously don't know the first thing about English history.

Kings don't always sit on thrones or live in castles. There were kings before people on the island were even capable of building castles. I wonder where they lived or how they and their tribal followers survived? Perhaps you could tell me, After Eight? No googling - that would be cheating.

"The one thing some of us are forgetting here is that mores, customs, values,...

Why else do we have the Ten Commandments, for Jesus Christ's sake?"

Is this post intended to be serious? The island that is Britain was gradually converted to Christianity over several centuries. The nature of the societies on the island pre-Roman, Roman and post-Roman-but-before-Christianity were all extremely different.

If, as you suggest, mankind didn't change we'd still all be living in caves.

Or maybe you're one of those people who actually believe the world was created in six days?!

Are you even aware that there are other major religions in the world? And that those religions have given rise to very different forms of society?

If, on the other hand, your post is sarcastic and directed at After Eight, then I think, maybe, I can possibly understand it.

Have either of you read the thread I link? If not, why not? If so please may I have some intelligent comments? Sentences of more than one word are a good place to start. Some of the posters in the linked thread demonstrate considerably higher intellects than have been demonstrated here. Updated On: 7/21/11 at 03:22 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 6:22pm

Hey Scripps,

I'm not talking about British history, or thrones, or castles. I'm talking about the CHARACTER of this dirtbag: 1300 years ago, now, or 1300 years from now. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

But thanks just the same for your many insults. Touché. You're a master of the put-down.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 7:37pm

Scripps, can I have the credentials of where you did your MA and PhD in British History? Thanks.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/22/11 at 12:04am

Disagreeing with Rooster that he would have been a king 1300 years ago, is certainly a creditable position to take (as is thinking he has a point, for that matter), but either way, his saying so doesn't reflect badly on the play. Characters in plays say things which may or may not be 100% true.

next!

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 7/22/11 at 7:32am

Sorry, henrik, but you're wrong again. We don't need more depictions of unsavory characters on the American stage. It's filth. Leave that trash on the British stage, where it belongs, and let's get those ladies back in the kitchen, too.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/22/11 at 6:33pm

“Scripps, can I have the credentials of where you did your MA and PhD in British History? Thanks.”

Unlike you, I don't feel the need to justify myself or my posts by bragging about any qualifications I may or may not have. Trying to pull rank on people as you have done fails to work because this board is a great leveller; people only need to be able to articulate their experience of theatre to post successfully here. If you have any issues with my posts you are free to raise them. Go ahead…

“Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?”

Because I thought you were responding to my post within the context with which I wrote it. Is that such an unreasonable expectation?

“But thanks just the same for your many insults. Touché. You're a master of the put-down.”

Actually I'm not. I'm just the latest in a queue of people who have challenged your posts on this play in various threads over the last few months. You continually dismiss this play claiming you understand it whilst posting nothing to substantiate that claimed understanding. I have seen nothing in your posts that suggest you understood the first thing about it. And when others have challenged you, you always side-step that challenge. And no doubt you will continue to do so.

I'm not the master of the put-down but I have absolutely no time for people who think they know everything when it is obvious they know nothing.


So, After Eight (and Professor AC126748 ), back to the thread I linked. Please may I have some specific feedback on the debate therein?




Updated On: 7/22/11 at 06:33 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/22/11 at 11:35pm

"I'm not the master of the put-down"

You're too modest by far.

"but I have absolutely no time for people who think they know everything when it is obvious they know nothing. "

Case in point. Strangely, though, you seem to be devoting an awful lot of time and energy to that very person!

Actually, I find your combination of insolence and befuddlement rather engaging. It certainly occasioned me more merriment than I had at Jerusalem.

"So, After Eight (and Professor AC126748 ), back to the thread I linked. Please may I have some specific feedback on the debate therein?"j

Since I admire you so, it fills me with regret not to be able to oblige you. But you see, I haven't read your link, and I don't intend to. I need parse no lengthy discussions on the meaning of this play. It was painfully evident in the theatre.
But to be truthful, even if I had, as you maintain, not the slightest understanding of the play, I wouldn't read it for the simple reason that I don't snap to your command. Yes, imagine that. And moreover, since you find all the enlightenment you need in that thread, why you would want further input from someone who you feel understands absolutely nothing about anything is a puzzlement indeed.

But that's what makes Scripps2 the amusing paradox that he is.

Seriously, though, I think you're great, and I'm glad you liked the play.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/25/11 at 5:45pm

"Strangely, though, you seem to be devoting an awful lot of time and energy to that very person!"

Not really. I've ignored your posts on this play for months and spent approximately 30 minutes responding to them. Proportionally that's nothing.

"I wouldn't read it for the simple reason that I don't snap to your command."

No - as I predicted, you won't read it because you can't face up to the challenge of having to respond to it.

"why you would want further input from someone who you feel understands absolutely nothing about anything is a puzzlement indeed."

Easily puzzled there. I don't want your input. I just want to prove that you are not capable of responding. And since you've side stepped the issues again the point is proven.

Case closed.

"But that's what makes Scripps2 the amusing paradox that he is."

Considering you detest this play but cannot stop posting about it you are an amusing paradox yourself: like it or not you too have fallen under Rooster's spell!!! If I were Jez Butterworth I'd find your posts extremely satisfying - I'm sure he'd rather have strong adverse reactions than disinterest.

"Seriously, though, I think you're great, and I'm glad you liked the play."

I come here not for praise or to fight but to enhance my appreciation of the theatre going experience by imparting and debating that experience with others.

Anyone seriously interested in Jerusalem cannot afford to ignore the thread I linked.
Updated On: 7/25/11 at 05:45 PM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 7/25/11 at 6:19pm

FWIW, Scripps, I have exercised great restraint in NOT reading the thread you have linked, though I did come across it when its contributors were originally constructing it. After I see the show this Saturday, I look forward to finally being able to read sans spoilers.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/25/11 at 11:11pm

"Anyone seriously interested in Jerusalem cannot afford to ignore the thread I linked."

And yet, despite your fulminations, there has been no discussion of it here. Why do you think that is?

Strangely enough, I feel a little bad that no one has heeded you, seeing how you seem to have invested so much of yourself in it. There's something admirable about your love of ideas, but your manner - and manners -........ well, let's stick to what's admirable.

"I come here not for praise or to fight but to enhance my appreciation of the theatre going experience by imparting and debating that experience with others."

All you've "imparted" here are a link to another thread and insults galore. As for "debate," there can be none if you refuse to accept what other people tell you, or if you yourself don't speak in good faith.

But hey, if all that has enhanced your appreciation of the theatregoing experience, well then, I say, good for you!

[fosca3]

Posted: 7/26/11 at 10:41am

Actually, I followed the link and read it as soon as it was posted

I've found Scripps' posts very considered and well-thought-out

I don't think it's HIM that no one is responding to -- I've avoided responding cuz you apparently are only interested in picking a fight, and I didn't feel like encouraging you

There were several attempts to turn this into an interesting thread with a serious discussion of a play which seems to engender lots of strong feelings

You however keep insisting on dragging it down to the gutter

I think THAT is sad

[littlegreen2]

Posted: 8/6/11 at 3:10am

I said earlier in this thread that I wouldn't be seeing Jerusalem but the mixed reviews inspired me - I saw it tonight and can't even begin to describe how I feel.

I guess I should say first that I've never seen a play on Broadway - tonight was my first time. I'm 17 but I do see a lot of theatre (usually musicals) and I like to think that I can analyze things like this effectively... Bear with me.

Mark Rylance gave the most incredible performance I've ever seen onstage, and this is not the first time I've seen a Tony winning performance... I was weeping. I was so emotionally invested in Rooster that when I saw him come out of his trailer my body was shaking and I didn't know what to do. I was immersed in the play from start to finish and I probably understood 70% of the dialogue. I bought the script so I hope that I can do some research to better understand the playwright's message. Parts of it were confusing but I didn't even care - Rylance was so phenomenal that I am considering going again tomorrow night.

Mostly I just came here to thank you all for talking/arguing about it because if this thread didn't exist, I would have never seen this show. I'm sorry that my thoughts are not eloquent or organized... Hours later I'm still shaken up and can't fully process the end of it. I'm so blown away.

[fosca3]

Posted: 8/8/11 at 2:26pm

I'm so glad you liked it

I had the same reaction -- I was stunned, then ordered the script and read it thru twice. Then booked my next ticket cuz I couldn't wait to re-see parts I'd read and couldn't remember exactly how they played

I get something new from the story every time I see it, and from the way the characters interact with each other

I sometimes wonder if the characters are evolving, or it's just me. I've seen other shows where I could definitely see that that characters were changing as the run went on. JERUSALEM is such a dense play, that I'm never quite sure

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 11:56am

can someone help me out with the last item on the professor's list of "what's in a good play"...."written before the year it was written"...as in a time machine of some sort? McFLY!

and i think the illegible list item starting with M might be "Marlboros" if the teacher was Jack McFarland's from WILL & GRACE...Zondra with a Z.