First Preview Jerusalem?- Page 3

[GimmeABreak2]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 1:16am

I think this production is wonderful. I saw it in the West End and have been eager to see it here. I believe it transferred very well with slight alterations in the text that don't detract from the show.
To anyone new to Jerusalem, you DO NOT have to do research. In fact if you're wary of the published script (from its 2009 Royal Court run and not updated since), any pop culture reference that would send you to google has been switched up. Alan Sugar to Donald Trump, Girls Aloud to Pussycat Dolls. Just simple, common sense switches for the US viewers.

I experienced this play as poetry. I didn't look for any particular symbolism, but the whole thing feels like it has a mythical (mystical?) overlay. Rylance is a powerful interpreter of this piece. I found him magical as a modern-day pied piper.

Exactly agree with you, Vegas2, he's such a force that even if you think you'd want him evicted from your town because of his reprehensible behavior--the eminent danger facing Mark Rylance's Johnny Byron-- you will still be riveted by Rylance's portrayal and storytelling ability. You can see why he's able to amass such a following in the town's lost youth. The man is a legend in his own mind and can pretty much bring anyone under his spell. A scene where he convinces his teen gang that he actually spoke with a live giant is the perfect example of his influence. And when his forest world is invaded by characters that actually call Johnny out on his bullsh*t (by Geralding Hughes' Dawn or Barry Sloane's Troy) the invasion is striking, making them some of the most powerful scenes in the piece.

Yes Mark Rylance is definitely the anchor to the show (it's an unmissable performance to be honest) but I completely enjoyed the entire environment he inhabits which includes all his hangers-ons. Especially his, by turns, most loyal and most argumentative friend Ginger. I think the ensemble have gotten even more well drawn in the transfer. The original cast definitely has, I would like to see it again soon with the new additions only because I was kind of distracted by catching differences in the interpretations of, for example, John Gallagher Jr as Lee --this would not be a problem for new audiences of course.

Ultimately, the play isn't restricted to small town England, it's about an establishment breaking in and endangering something wild and sacred. And the set design in this play is so gorgeous, a complete woodland with live animals, that you feel a great tragedy in the the idea of it being bulldozed for modern structures.
To Michael Bennett's point, I agree Americans do glorify the wild and reckless, we had the old west and cowboys after all, but very often it's just that, idealizing and not actually letting people BE wild. A hypocrisy explored in the play by how their town festival has come to be sanitized by outside business and corporate sponsorship rather than defined by individuals. Specifically Johnny Byron's banned dare-devil acts.

And I can not review this play without adding (spoilers for the very beginning of the show...)
the rave scene that kicks off the play is a BLAST and the favorite start to anything I've ever seen on stage. Stunning.
(spoilers over)

To this thread I might add to After Eight, though I disagree with your assessment of the play, I would commend you for still being open to work by a writer you have not been a fan of.

As for me, I think it's a beautiful beautiful play with unmissable performances by the whole ensemble lead by the fascinating Mark Rylance.

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 1:52am

To Gimme a Break:

I enjoyed reading your well-thought analysis, although, obviously, I do not share your high regard for this play.

"Ultimately, the play isn't restricted to small town England, it's about an establishment breaking in and endangering something wild and sacred. "

Actually, there is no need for the establishment to break in and endanger something wild and sacred: Johnny Rooster Byron has already desecrated it by his god-awful trailer-home and the junk he has littered all over the forest grounds. He's a boor no matter where he lives.

And I quite fail to see why this person merits the slightest indulgence or empathy whatsoever. As you yourself state, his conduct is reprehensible. So we're supposed to feel for him because he refuses to play by society's rules? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. One can be an individualist, one can retire to the woods like Thoreau, and still be worthy of admiration. This individualist is so obnoxious that he stands as a poster boy for the establishment.

He's also a crashing bore. That's never great when one has has to spend over 3 hours in his presence.

[vegas2]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 2:47am

It's the "bad boy" thing. Rooster is a serious bad boy. That's why the girls love him.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 8:42am

I think I'll catch this one next weekend. Seems like the play to see this season.