I got a chance to see "Jerusalem" too - I just blew a ton of cash on a NYC Arts Tour through my college, saw "Warhorse", "The Motherf*cker with the Hat", "Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo", "Peter & Wendy", "The Intelligent Homosexual's Guide to Captialism and Socialism with a Key to the Scriptures" (Tony Kushner's new play in development), "Jerusalem", and "The Lion King". It was my first time seeing theatre in a big city and it was quite the heady experience. We also got to go backstage on "The Lion King", and our class got to have a private talk with Oskar Eustis (!) in Central Park who took us us to see a rehersal in process at the Delacourt, because my theatre professor is awesome and has connections. Though I think I made Mr. Eustis uncomfortable because I asked him a question about the similarities in "The Intelligent Homosexual's Guide..." and Mr. Eustis's personal life, i.e. if Kushner was drawing on that for inspiration.
I was thinking about seeing "Acradia" as well, being that it's one of my favorite scripts, but deterred by reviews that called the production miscast and misguided, so I decided to see "Bengal Tiger" instead but was underwhelmed. "Jerusalem" and "The Intelligent Homosexual's Guide..." were definetly the stand-outs on the trip and the hype surrounding Rylance is very much justified.
So at the end of "Jerusalem", the rumbling, what do you think - was it the giants or the bulldozer?
Actually concerning "Bengal", I thought Williams turned in a fine performance, and the Turkish Translator was great, but I had problems with the script and I really didn't like the actors playing the two American soldiers. What qualities did you feel an actor should have taken to Williams' role that Williams failed to?
Considering that the title references William Blake, I felt the play was about the death of English pastoralism of which Blake was so fond. So I felt that the audience was supposed to immediately assume that the rumbling was the giants, but upon further introspection conclude that it was instead the bulldozer. Giving the ending, and Rooster by extension, a heartbreaking, bittersweet, quixotic tone.
About Robin Williams -- I thought he played only one emotion, one level of energy, one level of stakes, during the entire performance. Basically, he played himself. I would have liked to have seen much more variance in his work.
I've been catching up to my reading lately and stumbled upon Jerusalem's text - loved it. Normally, these types of weak-plot plays I dislike but the lead character's voice is so distinct/compelling and you are constantly wonder what he's about to do next.
I may have read 100+ plays in 2011 and must say Jerusalem is probably top-3 simply for the originality/zaniness without being cartoonish like in a TV skit.