I do agree that some plays are all plot and some plays are all character study. I just felt that some bits were funny almost for the sake of being funny? I like the rather long monologue about how Rooster got his drum, for instance, which is very funny in itself, but the Points West bit was a bit like a stand-up routine to me; it didn't serve to illuminate the plot or the characters very well for me, it was JUST funny, and I didn't feel that was enough for me. That is a very fair and valid point. It worked for me, it didn't work for you, and that's okay on both fronts. :) I'm a little *too* into this play at the moment, and consequently need to remind myself that discussions are fora for people to share ideas and not battles that must be won. XD I think what I love most about the drum (apart from the chilling ending) is that it's a brilliant set-up for Marky's entrance. XD The Royal Court crowd didn't laugh so much at that last August, but when I saw it at the Apollo, that audience were much more on my wavelength and we all had a good laugh at the giant-summoning drum calling up a 6 year old boy. :3 Yeah, it may be a needlessly long set-up for that particular joke, but at least it's very entertaining while it's going on. :)
(perhaps it's also that I know one of the presenters of BBC Points West and used to watch it every day so was bridling indignantly as Davey took the piss) That... could account for that.
But it's very true to Davey's character; he doesn't just dislike leaving Wiltshire, he's positively xenophobic about the rest of the country. The
Points West rant helps hammer that home so you know he's really not kidding when he talks about being uncomfortable going anywhere near Berkshire, in ye olde "show, don't tell" tradition.
(was it you who commented on how great the sound design was? They had BIRDS! Tweeting!) Yes, it was me! I LOVE the sound design for this play SO MUCH! Good sound design in a play is something you just don't notice. But BRILLIANT sound design in a play is something that takes your breath away with its simplicity and perfection. The distant fair sounds were great, the birds tweeting were great, but the bit that absolutely sold me was the distant aeroplane during one of Rooster and Wesley's discussions. It wasn't just an aeroplane overhead, it was a properly distant aeroplane overhead, one of the ones you can only just hear on the stillest of spring days. I don't imagine for a minute that everyone in the theatre could hear it. I'd be surprised if even everyone in the stalls heard it. But it was there, and it was PERFECT. PERFECT. :3
But it's not a play I'd think to read again - I'm a fairly big Stoppard fan, and I'm always finding something marvellous and intratextual (if that's the right word) in his scripts, whereas I'm not sure I'd get that out of Jerusalem. Doesn't mean it's bad, it just doesn't mean it's necessarily my thing. I think this play is a grower. When I first saw it, I thought "well, yes, that was very good, and Mark Rylance was brilliant, and most of the rest of the cast were awesome, and I'm ever so glad I've seen it. But I don't need to see it again". But the Royal Court being the Royal Court, I gave 'em £3 for a programme and they gave me the full playtext.
I gave it a cursory read, and I've been rereading it on and off ever since, and am a teensy bit obsessed right now. Oops! When did you see it? I'll be interested to see if it grows on you too or if it's just how it affected me. :) (Anyone who cares, they're selling the text for £5 at the Apollo. Much better than the £8.99 RRP!)
Although saying that... having read Wikipedia, did I completely miss the suggestion that Troy was abusing Phaedra? I thought he was just concerned, in a very thuggish way, about where his step daughter was? The name should be a clue that there's something wrong in that family... It was implied by Rooster when Troy first appeared. I know Rooster ain't exactly a bastion of truth, but Troy didn't exactly deny it either. I work on the assumption that Troy was abusing Phaedra, but I'm still in two minds about whether Rooster was taking a more-than-paternal interest in her himself or if he genuinely was just giving her some sort of caravan-based asylum. Another one of those bits of ambiguity!
(Stepping back and looking at it plain, Rooster probably was taking a more-than-paternal interest in her, but it was coming from someone who wasn't supposed to be a father figure and as consensual as that kind of relationship between a 50 year old man and 15 year old girl can be. Ah well. XD)
I wondered if he might torch the van with himself inside it. I had wondered that too. Here, lemme dig out the article that set me on my personal path of interpretation:
https://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/theatre/article6997182.ece See what y'all think! I think another point of the ambiguity is that we are supposed to make up our minds about things, not just to emphasise the mythic nature of the Rooster. :3
So what is all that stuff when he gets his ex to stare into his eyes and she nearly freaks out (extremely well acted)? Maybe there were old words written there that shook her down. :P Orrr maybe they have an incredibly complicated relationship - they have a child together, they've just done some kissing even though she's with another man, and Dawn did just snort some coke - and looking him directly in the eyes is just that little bit too intense for her to handle so easily on a sunny spring day.
And why does he bang the drums if he knows the giants don't exist? I suppose it's all part of him convincing himself that he is indestructable. I'd invite you to draw your own conclusion, but I see you already perhaps have.
Besides, what does he have left to lose at this point? Maybe he just wants to go out with a bang...?
Anyhoo! I am LOVING this discussion! Keep bringing the noise! (Am totally not continually referring back to the text, honest. ;D)
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
