Who's Seen "Jumpers?"

I know most of the reviews were excellent, but I was more in agreement with Howard Kissell - found the whole thing more annoying than engaging, though some of it (especially the beginning of the 2nd act) was very funny.

All these people in the audience were saying they should go home and read it - chiefly because they didn't catch a lot of what the actors - especially Beale - were saying since many lines were spoken so fast.

Frankly, I'd rather read a play like "Invention of Love" (a far better Stoppard play) or "Copenhagen" to get deeper into an already satisfying thetrical experience. Not to try and figure out what the characters were saying in the first place - to me that is a failure on the part of the playright and/or director, not the audience member.

Anyone here see the last Broadway outing? Was wondering if George's speeches were taken at such a fast clip. I began to think that it didn't matter that much if you grasped everything he said.

Anyone here also think Beale was overly fey in the role?

It's odd, but from the front row of the mezzanine, I believe I caught and understood pretty much everything that came out of Beale's mouth. The character does get quite excited at times and tends to speak quickly when he happens upon good ideas for his speech, but all he's really talking about and trying to work out are the arguments supporting a philosophical view that there are indeed moral absolutes in the universe; that there is such a thing as objective good and evil; that there is a God (or perhaps two gods as the play posits), although he/she/it/they may be unknowable.

He contrasts this viewpoint (a minority point of view in academia) with that of most philosophers who believe in a sort of moral relativism, that good vs evil and right vs. wrong are entirely a subjective matter, depending on a person's own beliefs, tastes, background, culture etc....Archie is a prime exponent of this view and could, if pressed, philosophically justify and explain his affair with George's wife, the murder of the lead jumper, the archbishop etc (it struck me that he was not unlike some of our political leaders). Notice that the murders are never solved and the perpetrators are never brought to justice -- this is because in Stoppard's absurdist critique of modern politics and morality, such things don't matter because there is no true justice anymore because "right and wrong" have become "touchy feely" notions rather than concrete ethical underpinings of society.

George (who represents Stoppard) is critical of this view because he wonders how can one live in a world that rejects any basic or fundamental morality, a world without any ultimate meaning where even the word of God isn't taken as the final word on anything. The moral relativists (represented by Archie and "rad lib" jumpers gymnastics team -- their lack of a basic belief system allows them to jump about philosophically and argue any ethical quandry from any position) don't believe in anything that can't be proven empirically, scientifically and/or mathematically (and given that we all know how easy it is to manipulate statistics to support any side of any argument, they, in effect, don't really believe in anything). They represent a modernist scientific view where man is the center of the universe and where faith is shunned and the only things that can be believed in are things that can be seen and proven. This brave new world which exalts the head over the heart has lead to George's wife Dotty going insane -- when men land on the moon and it is revealed to be just another barren wasteland, rather than a shining, romantic symbol of hope, longing, love..... she finds herself unable to sing her old act anymore which contained many songs that presented an idealized notion of the moon. Without the moon (in effect, without anything to hope for and dream for) her life has lost all meaning.

I could certainly go on, but suffice it to say that it's a fascinating play, expertly performed and dazzlingly staged -- one of the true highlights of the season. Beale is extraordinary (and no he didn't seem overly fey to me) managing to make some very difficult dialogue seem fresh and spontaneous and quite intelligible to my ears. Leveaux has outdone himself, making a challenging straight play "sing and dance" at least as much as any of his musicals, yet conveying its ideas as clearly and coherently as one could possibly hope for.

I don't agree that "Invention of Love" was a better play -- this one's FAR more ambitious. In this play, written shortly after man first landed on the moon, Stoppard employs vaudeville and music hall traditions, Orton farce, Monty Python absurdity, Wildean word play and intellectual musings all his own to take on the meaning of life, of god and faith in our contemporary world and considers whether as we continue to advance technologically and scientifically, whether we as people (along the institutions we create -- the government, the church, medical science et al) are becoming less and less human and losing touch with our souls and our moral compasses. An indisputably great work, getting perhaps a definitive production currently at The Brooks Atkinson.

---

Margo, what a thoughtful, wonderfully written post. Thank you for taking the time and care you took to write it.

---

Margo thanks for such a deep review, now I am relly looking forward to seeing this show! My husband and I have mat. tickets for Sat the 22nd. Can't wait!!
Barbara

---

I'm still trying to figure out Jumpers. I appreciated the individual performances. And have thought of them several times.

George's preparing and rehearsing his speech. I couldn't believe that I kept trying to listen and follow him but he was fascinating. I found him so boring yet so mesmerizing to listen to. I found myself trying to keep following his every word even when he'd lose me.
Dorothy's breakdown and yet smartness that would come through
The dean's comedy (I know people that talk like he does)
And I loved watching the secretary, to say so little and yet be so intriguing to watch.

The most fun was the chatter of the audience at intermission. So many points of view were being discussed around me it was fascinating easedropping on all the different meaning being attributed to the same scenes, especially since philosophy is not my area.

But I didn't get the play as a whole. Once the trial started I was lost. Can anyone tell me what the trial was about? I don't think it's a spoiler but if it is could you email me?


THis was my first Tom Stoppard play. I went in blind and didn't know what I would be seeing. What I have read in articles makes me think I'm wrong. But I was wondering if anyone thinks the play was really a joke on the audience. I've read books by British authors that have done this and (once I was in on the secret) really enjoyed them.

Last note, beware of seat L102. I had a light that whenever the bedroom scene appeared would reflect off the mirrors. It shined directly in my eyes and it was like driving directly into a sunset after the sun has fallen below the car's visor but hasn't quite set yet. That spot you can't block out.

Just a heads up that "Jumpers" is on TDF today. Got tix for Sat matinee :))

---

I saw it, and was REALLY glad that I'd read it first- it's thick as a briar patch and twice as dense, and yes- Beale (who is amazing by the way) speaks at the speed of lightning.

I'd better stop before the metaphor police haul me in.