Jerusalem

Jerusalem

Aug 20, 2011

with Kara

Orch P 8

Note: This review was written after postshow discussion with Kara and incorporates some of her thoughts, too.

I was so pleased to see Jerusalem before it closed as it had been on my must-see list for months.

The problem in reviewing Jerusalem is knowing how, or even where to start. Do I focus on the acting? On the script? On the story as it appears on surface level or as it appears when one delves deeper?

Alright. Let’s start with the surface. There’s a man named Rooster who lives in the woods in the vicinity of an English town. He’s been there for about twenty years, drinking, rabble-rousing, and welcoming whoever wants to join him. These have mostly been young teenagers, some of whom have stuck with him into their adulthood and others who are now trying to drive him out of the woods and keep their own children from him as they’ve decided he is unsavory and driving the property values down. As the play begins, city officials nail an eviction notice to his trailer and the rest of play carries on with his friends in turns facing and denying what is about to happen as Rooster remains in denial, too. Even his ex-wife and child visiting fail to bring him around. To further complicate matters, a teenaged girl is missing and her father, formerly one of Rooster’s teenaged party-goers is convinced Rooster has her. This is all juxtaposed against an annual festival taking place in the town that day and

memories of how Rooster, a former stuntman until one near-death-experience too many, made the town council end his days as the highlight of the festival. The play ends with the girl found in Rooster’s trailer, where she’s been sleeping off the previous night’s party and hiding from her father, Rooster beaten by the father and his friends, and him alone to stand off the roar of the bulldozers in the distance.

Scratch a bit beneath this hilarious and at times disturbing surface and one finds a play overwhelming with meaning, metaphor, fairytale. The story now: There’s a troll in the woods who makes noise, or is he a Pied Piper who lures children away and never gives some of them back, or is he indescribable, magic and powerful, wonderful and terrifying? He lives in his own paradise (Jerusalem of the title is based on the William Blake poem, made into a popular English hymn, which envisions mythic England where Jesus walked.) He knows all of your secrets, but there’s no threat about him, only happiness and fun, but careful! Because if you threaten him, he’ll bring out his arsenal, and what he has is stronger than what you’ve got because he knows everything about you. He’ll freeze you to the spot with what he knows. It amazed you when you were a child, but now that you’re an adult, he’s your greatest fear. You try to keep your children away, using the excuse that kids shouldn’t be drinking at their age, not like you were, but that’s a surface lie. Beneath it is the fear that your children will grow up to be like you, to be as terrified as you are of brazen honesty and things that should never be said about who you used to be and the things that frightened you then. The missing girl appears dressed as a battered angel, her costume in tatters that wars with her innocence as Rooster gives her a place to retain it and the rest of the world strives to strip it away. She’s nearing the age where she’ll have to decide if she’ll be loyal to Rooster or go against him.

Rooster tells stories of gaining promises of protection from giants, of being born with a cape, a dagger, and teeth, tells them with such vigor that even as adults his remaining friends are hesitant, frightened even, to disbelieve. When one dares call him on his bluff, Rooster hangs back knowing the bravado won’t last long, and indeed it doesn’t. The young man falls back under Rooster’s spell immediately. For now, the girl hides in the woods, needing the innocence and shelter he offers. But Rooster has to fear the ones who don’t feel his magic anymore, those who see something threatening in it. As the play ends, he calls upon the giants sworn to protect him. The curtain falls to the sounds of their lumbering feet drawing near to smite his enemies.

Mark Rylance won his second Tony Award for playing Rooster and a slew of UK awards that I am too lazy to look up. I think a good many people were there because of that and didn’t like the play. I’m not sure why, but it seems to be one that people either love or hate. I loved it and haven’t stopped thinking about it since.

Baby It's You

Baby It's You
Broadhurst Theater
Mezz E 113
April 26, 2011 with Brian

Baby It's You is the story of Florence Greenberg (Tony Winner for "The Drowsy Chaperone" Beth Leavel, who is very good with what she gets), a New Jersey Jewish housewife who starts a record label, pulls four girls off her daughter's school playground, and dubs them the Shirelles. They go on to become one of the greatest girl groups of all time. Ms. Greenberg has an extramarital affair with her business partner and producer Luther Dixon (Allan Louis), a black man. Early on the show establishes Mr. Greenberg as a "women belong in the kitchen, let me crush your dreams" husband, and steamrolled over any possible plot tension by making the whole audience hate him right off. Well of course Ms. Greenberg should have an affair! Her husband's a jerk! And of course she should remain married despite not loving him, it's the 1950's! People would talk if they divorced! Plus Mr. Dixon's black!

This two hour twenty minute jukebox musical is jammed so tight with hits from 1958-1965, including songs by The Shirelles, Dionne Warwick, Chuck Jackson, and others, that there is almost no space for anything else, by which I mean plot development. A DJ named Jocko (Geno Henderson, also playing Chuck Jackson and other roles) acts as 'narrator' (that's really the wrong word) who pops in during act one to tell us via multimedia the top songs, film, and theater of the year, and then largely disappears in act two until the very end when his reappearance emphasizes how unnecessary these interludes are. Wait, I know what he reminded me of. Remember how in old old old productions a pretty girl would walk across the front of the stage with a sign that said "Chicago, 1814" or "Ten years later" or "Back at the ranch"? Yeah. That's it.

The story develops under the impetus of the songs in lieu of more than a few lines of dialogue, but when "Soldier Boy", a song inspired by the idea of a girl being true to her boyfriend who is heading to Vietnam becomes a vow of fidelity between (the still married) Ms. Greenberg and Mr. Dixon, my tackiness meter exploded. I can (by combating my boredom) get over that we're supposed to be on board with the cheating because Mr. Greenberg is a jerk (read: man of his time), but this? Really? No.

Today, news came down that various real-life figures, including members of the Shirelles, Ms. Warwick, and Mr. Jackson are suing the producers for using their personas without permission. This could explain my complaint that the Shirelles characters had no development. Granted, with forty (!!!) songs squeezed into the show, there's no time to develop anyone, but the Shirelles remain from start to finish the same bubbly nineteen-year-olds.

Part of me feels like a grouch for not enjoying this show. The songs are amazing! We know and love them! Everyone around us loved it. People were standing up and dancing, some actually in the aisles. Me, I enjoyed act one. I settled in, loved the music and waved away the absence of development. But at the start of act two, I realized that I was done with it because it was the same thing. Completely. The second act of anything should buckle the audience in and be different from Act one. Grab, squeeze, amaze, release. The singing is great, particularly The Shirelles and Luther Dixon. I'd get the album for that. But I'm not a fan of jukebox musicals that exist solely to shove songs down our throats. Jersey Boys avoids that. Boy From Oz avoided that. This doesn't. It may as well be a revue, but instead someone decided to stick an underdeveloped story in there.

Who knows what the fate of the show will be with the lawsuit underway, but I have a feeling that after the reviews come out tomorrow, it won't be great.

I'm going to go ahead and single out the ladies who played the Shirelles, who looked like they were having a lot of fun, and they, along with Mr. Louis, at least were able to make me not completely despise the show. So thanks to Christina Sajous, Kyra de Costa, Erica Ash, and Crystal Starr. (I had to look up the names of the real Shirelles on Wikipedia to make sure I got the right actresses because aside from Shirley and Beverly, the show skims right over them.)

I believe Brian summed it up best: "Well, that happened."

Yes, yes it did.