|
|
Post by budd on May 5, 2022 18:02:56 GMT
Is my head just making it up or was there an interview with Mark where he said that wanted to return to Rooster once every decade?
|
|
394 posts
|
Post by lichtie on May 5, 2022 18:33:50 GMT
Is my head just making it up or was there an interview with Mark where he said that wanted to return to Rooster once every decade?
In here |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 5, 2022 18:43:02 GMT
Saw this for the first time last night and it pretty much lives up to the hype. Doesn't feel like 3 hours at all and Rylance is obviously great value for money. Bit surprised Crook wanted to do it again, he's great but it's hardly a stretch for him. He seemed a bit distracted during the curtain call. It's a pretty good role and he gets chance to work with Mark again. Maybe it could be that one would only do it if the other did. MacKenzie is doing the Wurzel Gummidge stories for BBC which he is writing, directing and adapting so takes a lot of time in make up and must be hard work. So perhaps doing an easier role which he has played before to good reviews just suits him. I don't think he's doing Worzel Gummidge this year. I'm hoping there'll be more, but the kids are probably young adults now, so it's unlikely to be with them. He appears (also under a lot of make up!) in Jez Butterworth's psychedelic Romans in Britain/Slaine-style series Britannia so there's an ongoing relationship there. |
|
|
|
Post by floorshow on May 5, 2022 19:24:54 GMT
It's a pretty good role and he gets chance to work with Mark again. Maybe it could be that one would only do it if the other did. MacKenzie is doing the Wurzel Gummidge stories for BBC which he is writing, directing and adapting so takes a lot of time in make up and must be hard work. So perhaps doing an easier role which he has played before to good reviews just suits him. I don't think he's doing Worzel Gummidge this year. I'm hoping there'll be more, but the kids are probably young adults now, so it's unlikely to be with them. He appears (also under a lot of make up!) in Jez Butterworth's psychedelic Romans in Britain/Slaine-style series Britannia so there's an ongoing relationship there. No new Worzel is a bit of a blow  I assumed he's back in this for love, must be hard to say no if you're asked to revisit a hit for a shortish run. |
|
10 posts
|
Post by dynamiccoins on May 5, 2022 20:17:20 GMT
Great! Which link did you use? Go to this page on the Nimax site and click ‘book online now’: nimaxtheatres.com/shows/jerusalem/Don’t go to jerusalemtheplay.co.uk and try and book through there - for some reason they don’t show up to date availability and the day seats don’t appear on there Ok thanks |
|
|
|
Post by charleswill on May 7, 2022 18:12:57 GMT
Given its quite a physical role, can anyone say if Mark being a decade older is noticeable or not in this? I imagine even if it is, it’s no issue and he’d work with it.
Anyway, doesn’t Jez Butterworth have an aversion to capturing and broadcasting his plays? If so, I hope he can get over it. Rylance’s performance is the stuff of legend and I hope more and more people can see this genius at his best.
|
|
|
|
Post by nisev on May 7, 2022 19:15:21 GMT
I didn't see the original production, but I can say that I was really impressed by the physicality of Rylance in the show. One moment in particular right at the beginning where he {Spoiler - click to view}
sustains a handstand over a trough of water while dunking his head in it is something that I've recounted to many people since seeing it! I saw Rylance in Dr Semmelweis at Bristol Old Vic just a couple of months before, and the physical difference in Rylance was pretty remarkable. |
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 7, 2022 20:17:46 GMT
Given its quite a physical role, can anyone say if Mark being a decade older is noticeable or not in this? I imagine even if it is, it’s no issue and he’d work with it. Anyway, doesn’t Jez Butterworth have an aversion to capturing and broadcasting his plays? If so, I hope he can get over it. Rylance’s performance is the stuff of legend and I hope more and more people can see this genius at his best. By and large, he's just as physical,but there is one instance of physicality that is very significantly reduced. . . When he banged the drum in 2009, 2010 & 2011, the physical effort and sustained drumming was drastically more than now. Eleven years later, he focuses on the emotion of the scene rather than the physical display. Other differences are that Mackenzie Crook's Ginger, having aged, is like fine wine. He is much more effective as a massive loser-dreamer now that he is older and his timing and acting have improved from good to great. He's as hilarious as Rylance now. Another difference is the character of Lee. Played by Tom Brooke, he was hugely sympathetic, a note of hope. Played by Johnny Flynn, he was an awful bounder, as dreadful as the other hangers on, leaving Rylance even further out to dry. Lee Riddiford plays it somewhere in between. |
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on May 8, 2022 15:41:51 GMT
I agree that Rylance still impressive in main role (how has he not aged?) and Crook is splendid as Ginger…I savoured each line he delivered as a fine wine, such was his timing and finesse. And to listen to Rylance deliver his tall tails, even knowing the punch lines, is such a joy. In itself it reminds us of the whole history of storytelling and fables and myths, and how we love to gather round and listen until we fall under a spell.
I hesitate to be critical, as it always seems unfair to the actors that are replacing originals, but my heart was with the first cast for the smaller parts - probably my fault!
I thought play still relevant. Some have criticised the racism and sexism (and poorly written parts for women) but it’s still all around us. Brexit just shone a bit of a light on it, is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleswill on May 8, 2022 18:22:25 GMT
It’s obviously incredibly early, but what are the odds Rylance wins the Olivier again? We’ve had actors nominated twice for the same role, but I don’t think anyone’s ever won for the same part twice. It would seem illogical to predict such a thing, but it also feels illogical to not predict Rylance winning for this part when he’s still universally regarded as untouchable in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by imstillhere on May 8, 2022 21:33:36 GMT
Confirmed. Peter Andre in talks to lead the replacement cast.
|
|
4,789 posts
|
Post by Mark on May 8, 2022 21:46:58 GMT
It’s obviously incredibly early, but what are the odds Rylance wins the Olivier again? We’ve had actors nominated twice for the same role, but I don’t think anyone’s ever won for the same part twice. It would seem illogical to predict such a thing, but it also feels illogical to not predict Rylance winning for this part when he’s still universally regarded as untouchable in it. The Olivier's are weird. This is the Awards body who decided they would Nominate Mel C in a show that had already been going 20+ years, allowed Mary Poppins to win Choreography for the original and revival (it's the same choreography), and Constellations won best revival despite being the same physical production as the original. |
|
3,334 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on May 9, 2022 9:35:10 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon. A great view from the front row (£15 online bargain). There a tyre in front of me for the first act, but that was moved for the rest of the show. Plus, it was the side of the stage where the audience didn't get covered with a variety of liquids, which is always a bonus!
This is a fantastic production. Fresh and original and really draws you in. I presume this has been updated a bit since the original (they talk about technology that wasn't around a decade around), but nothing else seems dated at all. Plus, it has a satisfying ending, unlike so many plays which just leave you with more questions than answers.
Recommended. The 3 hours and 10 minutes will fly by.
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on May 9, 2022 17:02:04 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon. A great view from the front row (£15 online bargain). There a tyre in front of me for the first act, but that was moved for the rest of the show. Plus, it was the side of the stage where the audience didn't get covered with a variety of liquids, which is always a bonus! This is a fantastic production. Fresh and original and really draws you in. I presume this has been updated a bit since the original (they talk about technology that wasn't around a decade around), but nothing else seems dated at all. Plus, it has a satisfying ending, unlike so many plays which just leave you with more questions than answers. Recommended. The 3 hours and 10 minutes will fly by. Great to hear! Which side was this may I ask? Will keep it in mind when I try this week |
|
|
|
Post by beguilingeyes on May 9, 2022 18:25:10 GMT
Unfortunately Mark Rylance will never allow a filmed version of the production to happen. He is only interested in Jerusalem being a live experience. Well Rylance has gone far, far down in my estimations. What an awful, elitist view, exactly the sort of thing that puts people off the theatre. I couldn't afford to see this. Jerusalem is a play for the rich only. Day seats are £15, for the previews they were a tenner. In reach of most people |
|
1,736 posts
|
Post by fiyero on May 9, 2022 19:27:39 GMT
Well Rylance has gone far, far down in my estimations. What an awful, elitist view, exactly the sort of thing that puts people off the theatre. I couldn't afford to see this. Jerusalem is a play for the rich only. Day seats are £15, for the previews they were a tenner. In reach of most people I paid £15 for rear stalls. I had to book as soon as they went on sale but that is an accessible price! |
|
3,334 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on May 9, 2022 19:43:26 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon. A great view from the front row (£15 online bargain). There a tyre in front of me for the first act, but that was moved for the rest of the show. Plus, it was the side of the stage where the audience didn't get covered with a variety of liquids, which is always a bonus! This is a fantastic production. Fresh and original and really draws you in. I presume this has been updated a bit since the original (they talk about technology that wasn't around a decade around), but nothing else seems dated at all. Plus, it has a satisfying ending, unlike so many plays which just leave you with more questions than answers. Recommended. The 3 hours and 10 minutes will fly by. Great to hear! Which side was this may I ask? Will keep it in mind when I try this week I was in A16, which was a fantastic seat. |
|
629 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on May 9, 2022 20:25:35 GMT
I was in A7 last week which was an excellent seat, but I'm glad I'd read on here the possibility of being in the splash/debris zone so I didn't wear nice clothes. I got pretty thoroughly drenched with water a couple of times and I stank of beer on the tube home. Would definitely sit there again though!
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 9, 2022 23:08:56 GMT
Well Rylance has gone far, far down in my estimations. What an awful, elitist view, exactly the sort of thing that puts people off the theatre. I couldn't afford to see this. Jerusalem is a play for the rich only. Day seats are £15, for the previews they were a tenner. In reach of most people Not really. Most people aren't in London. |
|
525 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 9, 2022 23:17:56 GMT
Day seats are £15, for the previews they were a tenner. In reach of most people Not really. Most people aren't in London. You can buy them online. Or is the Internet also only for the rich? |
|
185 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on May 10, 2022 10:25:01 GMT
Not really. Most people aren't in London. You can buy them online. Or is the Internet also only for the rich? I believe what they mean is that even day seats available online will work primarily for those living in London or close enough to London that they can buy a ticket in the morning, in the certainty that they will be able to go about their day (including work) and still make it into central London in time for the show. |
|
394 posts
|
Post by lichtie on May 10, 2022 10:49:59 GMT
That was one of the reasons I really liked Mockingbird's allrise ticket scheme - it gave everyone a chance both to get cheap tickets and plan the trip for those of us who don't live near London. Though I admit for Jerusalem I just coughed up the cash when they first went on sale for when I knew I could be free in early summer.
|
|
3,334 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on May 10, 2022 11:06:24 GMT
This is the same trade off we all make when visiting somewhere. If you live in London, your cost of living will be high, but you have more flexibility to take advantage of offers.
If you live elsewhere and have to book hotels etc, then either you pay more for the dates you want, or you take the risk that a cheap ticket for your preferred show might or might not be available.
Even those of us who work in London can't usually disappear from work for 10am to go and queue up for day seats.
But I got a day seat online at 11:45am on Sunday. At the time, there were two available in the front row and a whole row on one of the upper levels. I suspect there were available earlier, but that was the first time I thought to check. So there are options out there.
|
|
525 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on May 10, 2022 13:57:59 GMT
You can buy them online. Or is the Internet also only for the rich? I believe what they mean is that even day seats available online will work primarily for those living in London or close enough to London that they can buy a ticket in the morning, in the certainty that they will be able to go about their day (including work) and still make it into central London in time for the show. So it's an issue with the entire concept of London based show day seats? I don't think that's quite what they were getting at. The actual problem they have is specifically with this production, which releases cheap tickets every Monday for the coming week, online, so everyone can access them. I'd like to see shows up in Manchester - the fact it's expensive for me to get up there, even if I managed to get an affordable ticket, isn't the same as me complaining that the certain show is only "for the rich". |
|
|
|
Post by imstillhere on May 11, 2022 11:54:28 GMT
Well Rylance has gone far, far down in my estimations. What an awful, elitist view, exactly the sort of thing that puts people off the theatre. I couldn't afford to see this. Jerusalem is a play for the rich only. Day seats are £15, for the previews they were a tenner. In reach of most people Sonia Freidman is that you? |
|
