Jerusalem (On Broadway)

Jerusalem.

 Jez Butterworth's play has been on the theatre buzz list recently after having received rave reviews both on the West End and Broadway, not to mention having a stellar cast, including theatre deity Mark Rylance.

I HAD to go.  When I saw $37.50 tickets for a Wednesday matinee through Playbill Club, I had no excuse NOT to.  So I did.  A couple of weeks ago.  And I am still thinking about it.

I had a pretty visceral response to the play - the kind of response that allows me to understand the kind of energy people feel when they describe a deep religious experience (you know, the kind where your hair stands up on the back of your neck and you feel like the world is shifting underneath you and you become temporarily blind while simultaneously seeing more clearly than you ever have before.)  

HOWEVER, I have been having trouble talking about the play in an intelligent/useful way and all of my efforts to try and describe my experience to other people have been more filled with noises that with words.  After having several conversations with friends who also saw the show, it has become clear to me that there is something missing.  

I think that missing ingredient is information.  

Broadway is great for many reasons.  There are also things about it that are so-so.  But sometimes, it just completely misses the point.  Providing their audiences with information about what they are about to see on stage is one of those things that the beloved Great White Way just really, royally sucks at.  

I'm leafing through my playbill from the show right now and while there are some cutesy interviews with actors currently on Broadway that are useful in an E-Entertainment sort of way, but the only thing in the 52 page program that actually give specific information about the play itself is the brief director's note that explains the title of the play, but not a whole lot else.

Read this article in the Times that was written before Jerusalem opened on Broadway and you'll see that lack of information was already a concern with this particular production.  

In April, Patrick Healy wrote, “Jerusalem,” in other words, is about very English things, yet the play may well resonate with American audiences. At least Mr. Rylance and his producers hope so, given that — Broadway’s substantial Anglophilia notwithstanding — a full appreciation of “Jerusalem” depends on understanding the socioeconomic trends that Mr. Kingsnorth laid out in “Real England.” 

Okay, problem acknowledged.  Time to come up with a solution, right?

Yes - the play is about England.  And not the kind of England that we are used to seeing on TV but an England that may be unfamiliar to the average American Broadway audience member.  Not only is the play about England now, but also swells with English history, mythology and a certain paganism that I at least do not have the vocabulary for.  

Having grown up in places that carried a lot of English culture (and colonialism) in their history and having gone to schools that indulged Anglophilia, I felt that I could sense the weight and density of the production, as well as the specificity of all the directing and acting choices that were being made, but was not sure exactly what they all meant.  Things in my body understood exactly what was happening on stage, but my brain couldn't quite keep up.

During intermission I paged desperately through my program, hoping to find some clue that would help me key in better to what I was watching.  Not that I wasn't enjoying the show, or that it was completely passing me by... Actually, it was making me ravenous for MORE.  I wanted to talk to the playwright, I wanted to talk to the director, I wanted the dramaturg's notes... Alas, all I found was a coupon for a churrascaria and a $5 bag of peanut m&ms.  

I've heard some people say that Jerusalem should have been adapted for an American audience, but I disagree.  One of the great things about theatre is that we get to learn things, right?  We get to travel to another place and time, see a different perspective, be with people who think completely differently to the way we do, but just like school, sometimes you need a few extra tools to help you out.  Henry V doesn't need to be adapted for an American audience because the history surrounding the play is already in our collective consciousness.  I would like major theaters to start providing that opportunity for new (or obscure) work as well.

I mean, COME ON!  Broadway, you can't expect everyone to cross the ocean without a boat.  Most of us are going to drown.  It's already hard enough to get people to the theatre as it is, why aren't we doing everything humanly possible to make sure that the audience has the necessary tools to enjoy (or at least understand) what they are watching?

Since I was

So here... I am no dramaturg but I figure some information is better than none.  Whether you have already seen the show or plan on going, I hope reading some of these will add to your experience.

Putting the Juice in Jerusalem

About St. George's Day

St. George's Day in England

Full Lyrics to Jerusalem

Read "A Midsummer Night's Dream"

Watch an episode (or 10, it's really addicting) of the UK TV series "Skins."  (It's on instant play on Netflix)

Read about Wiltshire, England (where the play is set.  In addition to being home to Stonehenge, the locals are referred to as "moonrakers..."

Read about Moonrakers

I coud go on and on.  There is SO much to discover in this play.  Have you seen it?  Any good information to add?

-- Sarah Wharton

 

Comments

[Jez butterworth]

Sarah

You don't need any more information. Nowadays, with the Internet there's a hope to clear up mystery with facts. it's about the mystery. Not knowing. Feeling.

Blind but seeing like never before is beautiful

X jez

[Ben]

I'm having trouble making the leap between the initial frustration of trying to find the words to describe an invigorating experience in the theater, and the complaint against Broadway's lack of contextual information about a show like Jerusalem.

Reading this, it sounds like the play inspired some digging, so my question is, did your dramaturgical research end up aiding you in expressing your hairs-on-end experience? If so, I'd love to hear more about it.

[Sarah Wharton]

Ben - Yes, my digging had allowed me to express my experience more coherently. My frustration came not only out of my own inarticulateness, but also from hearing too many other people just dismiss their own experience with "I didn't get it." It's hard to have a conversation about something when both parties have so few words. I hesitate to launch a detailed description of what it all "meant" to me from this platform, because I do think it should be a conversation, not an essay.

Jez - Thank you. And I agree. But when someone asked me, "What is this play about?" I didn't have the words to tell them. As an audience member, I felt like I was failing the play in some way by not being able to talk about it. But maybe that's okay. My private experience was thrilling. But I wanted to share it, and I didn't want "I don't get it" to be an excuse for other people to dismiss theirs.

[Julie]

Being near sixty has it's advantages. Plenty of years to read English novels so that nearly all the references in the play made sense or were easily divined. My son coined the term "red neck English" to describe the title character and his company and the rest of the play was about the struggle between the actual common folk (as opposed to the romanticized version) and the banal and insidious gentrification of the countryside. The title character rails like a grand Homeric hero against the inevitable outcome and is transporting in his flaws and the beauty of truth. The acting is superb. The singing was not. The playbill.....as I have always found in NYC is nearly completely useless. I am used to regional theatre with excellent programs. NYC is in embarrassment in this department whether for shows on Broadway or the Metropolitan Opera. We hicks are supposed to be so grateful for being in The City that we are supposed to overlook that.

[Julie]

Postscript: Jerusalem is a hymn that is an sentimental English national favorite with lyrics from a William Blake poem (and heard by three billion watching the recent royal wedding). It is experienced as a great patriotic/religious song and has the unusual line referencing "dark satanic mills" which was Blake's recognition of the underbelly and suffering caused by industrialization. This parallels the social juxtapositions in the play. The poem stands well on it's own. The music is beautiful and both are printed in all Anglican hymnals.

[moncler netherlands]

I like the writing structure of your blog and it does a pretty decent job of presenting the material.

[Ratzzz]

During intermission I paged desperately through my program, hoping to find some clue that would help me key in better to what I was watching. Not that I wasn't enjoying the show, or that it was completely passing me by... Actually, it was making me ravenous for MORE. I wanted to talk to the playwright, I wanted to talk to the director, I wanted the dramaturg's notes... Alas, all I found was a coupon for a churrascaria and a $5 bag of peanut m&ms.