Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Trip To Jerusalem

Mark Rylance won the Tony this year for his work in JERUSALEM, and ten minutes into this production, you can kind of sense why. He gives an all-out flesh-eating performance. He does everything in here he could possibly do to show everyone, "Hey I am doing everything...Give me a Tony." Well, that's what it seemed like to me, anyway. At most times, it seemed exhausting in an everything-but-the-kitchen sink kind of way. Actually scrap that - even the kitchen sink and everything else is included. It feels almost as if he was begging, and doing everything so he would win that Tony. Moreover, I thought the play was interminable bore, with an almost unbearable first act. I felt the same way about "Rent." Who and why would you want to watch a bunch of kids do nothing but drink and do drugs? Maybe it's my age showing, maybe it's my ignorance of a lot of the British slang words that they use, but I thought that the whole act was pointless. Things pick up (plot-wise) by the second and third act for me, but I fear that they have lost me by then. Even John Gallagher Jr, couldn't make me rise up from being annoyed. I was asking myself, almost all the critics loved this - did they see the same thing I am seeing right now?  Well, it turns out I am not alone, because because audiences are sharply divided about the play, too. So, I feel better about not feeling it.

No comments:

Post a Comment