Jerusalem (again) (Apollo Theatre 1/2/10) 2 February 2010

I went back for more although I wasn't impressed the first time. An opportunity arose to see it again without anything to lose (but time). So, I went for it and to be honest, there were some extenuating circumstances that clouded my first viewing and I wanted to be sure I gave it a fair shot, especially after it has been praised to the skies as the best play of the previous decade.

Here were the extenuating circumstances. I was dead centre in the first row (finances) and as many of you may already be aware, the Jerusalem set has really brought the outdoors in - real grass, real trees. Add to that a huge caravan and a large cast and I wondered if I was too close, I could smell the fertiliser and watch tiny flying insects just above the grass. Second, I had a bit of a hunger issue on that day which manifested itself as tummy rumbles. Nothing to be embarrassed about - unless you are dead centre in the front row and the actors are performing a quiet scene three feet away (act 3). So, to try and alleviate the systems I was squirming a a bit and trying to apply, covert pressure on the areas where I thought the rumblings were coming from. Needless to say, my concentration waned. Lastly I distinctly remember getting double vision, the kind you get when you are over tired and are trying at all costs to keep your eyes open. So, I figured by eating before the performance, ensuring I wasn't tired, and not sitting in the front row, I could eliminate all those obstacles which lead me to not enjoy it the first time. What did I learn from all that preparation? Those external obstacles were not the problem.

While watching it this time, I realised the Jerusalem is like watching an extended version of a TV sketch show. I think there's an argument there. Most TV sketch shows (think Little Britain and to a greater extent The Catherine Tate Show) have recurring characters. What sketch shows don't do is expand those characters into fully realised people, because, that wouldn't be funny. That's not what we watch them for. We want the quick, clever comedy that comes from obvious character traits - an immediate level of recognition.

In Jerusalem, just like a really good sketch show, the razor sharp dialogue comes fast and furious, one funny line after another - one put down after another - one funny situation after another - one too many after another. It's relentless and repetitive (like sketch shows when the character has outstayed their welcome). What we learn from a few exchanges is repeated in various forms, numurous times. Indeed, it's a laugh fest - for a while - but then each successive exchange gets more and more obvious. It seems like I'm digressing but I'm just trying to plant an image in your head so if I say that playwright Jez Butterworth is a great sketch show writer you will understand where I'm coming from.

It must have been hard work for the actors, each trying to make their character an individual but, no matter how much work they put into it, they will remain stock characters, enitrely interchangeable. At the Royal Court, their version of a programme is the playtext which I have from my first visit, so I looked into the writers descriptions of his characters. Usually, there's a little snippet of information that will give a clue as to who these people are. Here is Mr Butterworth's about four of the main characters:

1. Ginger played by Mackenzie Crook

Enter Ginger from behind the trailer singing....he puts his hand to his ear and air-scratches on an air-turntable.

2. Lee played by Tom Brooke

A young man, Lee, suddenly sits up from the couch, gasping.

3.Davey played by Danny Kirrane

Enter Davey, in big shades with an accordion.

4. Pea and Tanya played by Jessica Barden and Charlotte Mills

From beneath the trailer crawl two sixteen year old girls, Pea and Tanya.

That's pretty much all we get. All other traits were obviously created by the actors, the costume designers and the director. The most realised character is Johnny played by Mark Rylance and here's his description -

Wiry. Weathered; drinkers mug, Bare chest. Helmet. Goggles Loudhailer. Despite a slight limp he moves with the balance of a dancer, or animal.

It's now easy to see why, in addition to being a great actor, Mark Rylance rises head and shoulders above everyone else.

The entire cast from the original run have trasferred with the production and the same problems I had with four of them at the Royal Court I have at the Apollo. They aren't very good. And if you are having to carve your character out of a void you had better be real good. Maybe the lack of experience in those actors was a smokescreen to hide the lack of character?

I have three final gripes before I leave you in peace. First - these characters, although familiar and funny in their own way, come across as hilarious. These are drug taking, foul mouthed, unachievers who think of nothing to partake in a few lines of coke with teenagers. The audience continually whoops it up on the laughter front. Are they laughing with them or at them? Is it really funny or rather sad? I find it a misstep. Second - as has been proved in other Jez Butterworth productions I've seen - notably Parlour Song at the Almeida - he doesn't write women well. Actually he doesn't write them at all. They just exist and say some lines. They are just foils as is the case of one major female figure in Jerusalem, she makes a speech daming Johny then does what he does. Owing that we know nothing about her other than her realtionship to the main character this really makes no sense. Thirdly, it's really long, way too long for what it is. I kept thinking during the performance (not a good sign) of what they could have cut. Finally, I found that each of the three act was less interesting than the one before it. When we finally arrived at what seemd like the end I was begging for it to be over but, no. There were about three false endings. It was like Michael Meyers in Halloween, just when you though he was dead... but Halloween was at least interesting.

I can understand admiring parts of this - the set, the mostly clever dialogue, Mark Rylance - even Mackenzie Crook, Tom Brooke and Danny Kirrane are very good, but how can you just ignore the really bad parts - lack of characterisation, excessive repetitive length and some really clunky performances? Could it be a sheep mentality? Who knows, but like my friend said - 'You couldn't pay me to sit through that again'.

Jerusalem by Jez Butterworth - Mark Rylance (Royal Court Theatre - 27/7/09) 29 July 2009

I remember back in the day when a new play called Mojo was on at the Royal Court. It caused alot of buzz, was 'the' ticket to get and Hollywood celebrities were flying over to see it. Jez Butterworth was the man of the moment. I never got to see that production but all the same I was fascinated by it - by the image of the bloodied face, by the title , by the names of the characters and by the 1950's Soho setting. It wasn't unit many years later that I saw a production of Mojo at the small Rosemary Branch theatre in Islington. It was a good production but I felt a bit let down. It had great verbal sparring but I felt that it was lacking something. I wanted to know more about the characters, gain some sort of insight to help me care about them. With Mojo, and I am obviously in the minority on this as it won all sorts of awards, it just seemed to be bits of great verbal interactions strung together with a thread of plot. The emperors new clothes? Just a thought.

I tried to watch the film version but became so bored I think I only made it less than a third of the way in. I did however like his film Birthday Girl with Nicole Kidman and the great Ben Chaplin. It had heart. Funny enough though, there wasn't alot of the verbal sparring. More recently I saw Parlour Song at the Almeida Theatre. Evidently it was on Broadway but I don't remember hearing about it and I try to keep up. But hey, I'm no expert so, oh well. Anyway, Parlour Song was a strange ride. On one hand you have knockout uber hilarious performances from Andrew Lincoln and Toby Jones and on the other hand you get a semi forced story that concerns the wife of one of the characters. Nothing much comes of it and I came away feeling sorry for the poor woman who had to play the wife as Butterworth didn't seem to know or really care about her character.

I booked for Jerusalem on the strength of Mark Rylance being in the cast and knowing that if I booked sooner rather than later I could get a £10 ticket. So onwards and up...onwards and onwards to Jerusalem at the Royal Court Theatre, £10, front row, centre. Advance word was, as always is the case with Jez Butterworth, veering off the scale. 'Amazing', 'fantastic', 'genius' blah blah blah. I try my best to ignore this type of thing and I think I made a valiant effort to erase the plaudits from my mind.

Undeniably, the best thing about the production are the performances and every part is cast extremely well. This was not surprising as you have to have a certain skill to handle the verbal elements. Mark Rylance is fantastic, bringing his character Johnny Byron, a 40ish, drug dealing absentee father who lives in a 50's caravan on a plot of land earmarked for development, to life. Here's the basis of the play from the back of the playtext -

On St George's Day, the morning of the local country fair, Johnny Byron, local waster and modern day Pied Piper, is a wanted man. The council officials want to serve him an eviction notice, his children want their dad take them to the fair, Troy Whitworth wants to give him a serious kicking, and a motley crew of mates want his ample supply of drugs and alcohol. Jerusalem is a comic, contemporary vision of life in England's green and pleasant land.

The 'motley crew' get a special mention for being great. Mackenzie Crook (The Office) gives an expectedly touching performance and someone I wasn't familiar with, Tom Brooke who plays Lee the one emigrating to Australia, is a talent to watch. Honestly, there isn't one bad link.

Here is my act by act Jerusalem experience:

Act One - Great set by Ultz - a real 1950's silver streamline caravan in a real wooded area - trees, grass all real (I could smell the fertilizer in the front row and was dodging the occasional fly). Under the trailer there were real chickens and later a turtle. Interesting set up - very funny. We find out about most of the 14 characters.

Act Two - A bit more depth, we find out about the rest of the characters, most importantly Johnny's son and the mother of his son. Promising. By this point I wanted to know where it was going.

Act Three - This is where it fell down for me. The performances got very - slow and 'important'. Lots of long speeches. At the end of each I thought it was the end. But no, went on and on and on. It dipped into Mojo land with violence and blood, then still went on and on. (I was distracted for a moment by a mouse that bounded from the chicken coop and hid behind a set piece). Act three was when I realised Jerusalem wasn't really saying anything we didn't already know, or had heard on numerous Channel 4 documentaries.

Jerusalem is good in an observational sort of way. Again, the dialogue comes up trumps but I did think it felt a bit laboured this time around. I find it hard to believe that people can continuously spew funny lines. By then end I felt I had been hit over the head with a club called 'the point'. Get it? Got it. Good. It could have been edited into two acts, easily, without losing anything but you know what? With it's nods to Shakespeare (Midsummer Night's Dream and Lear), it's portrayal of a contemporary landscape and its great central performance by Mark Rylance, this will be nominated for everything and win a great many. Mark my words.