Come, you drunken spirits. Come, you battalions

The second in a (very) occasional series of play reviews...

Jerusalem : Apollo Theatre

I’m such a cultural chap, aren't I?  I booked this ages ago because I quite fancied going to see it last time it was on (ten years ago now!) given all the rave reviews it got – and obviously I never got round to it.  So when I saw it was coming back with Mark Rylance reprising the main role, I got it sorted out quickly.  And then I obviously forgot exactly when I was seeing it until last week when it popped up in my diary – fortunately it was only mildly inconvenient for everyone else.  I also knew it was quite a long play but didn’t know it came in at over three hours - including two intervals, which was a first for me!

So the play starts with a girl in fairy wings singing a song – can you guess which song it is?  And just as she’s coming to the end of the song, the curtain raises on a rave scene, complete with loud music, disco ball and much revelry – this continues for a minute or so until it abruptly stops and the stage is plunged into darkness.  And very quickly, the lights come up and you hear the audience gasp because the scenery is completely different – yes, it was obviously there all along but you really weren’t expecting it.

And so we’re introduced to Johnny “Rooster” Byron (Mark Rylance) as he stumbles from his caravan after what was obviously a heavy night and he starts his day – which includes doing a handstand on a water trough with his head underwater and then drinking a raw egg.  And, over the rest of the first part, we meet various other characters, plenty of whom are also recovering from the night before – including one of them who appears from within the sofa after approximately half an hour!  The characters are all obviously from the rougher and more characterful side of life and, for the most part, considerably younger than Rooster – but this section of the play consists of mostly good-natured, but reasonably trivial banter revolving around tall tales spun by Rooster, often taking the form of lengthy monologues.

The second part introduces more depth with characters being given a bit more depth and/or peril – including an unexpected son, an emigration and a disappearance.  The group format is somewhat replaced by lengthy conversations between pairs of characters – again often featuring lengthy monologues, but the mood remains relative upbeat, which you suspect is unlikely to last.  

And it’s fair to say it doesn’t – in the third part, most of the cast completely disappear as the mood gets much darker with Rooster on the verge of eviction from his caravan whilst also being threatened by some menacing characters.  And he finishes off with a very lengthy monologue indeed, which I’m perfectly happy to say I didn’t really understand any of – but it didn’t seem to matter as you knew there was some serious acting going on.  And then it ends with a very ambiguous ending indeed.

The play hinges on the central character and performance and it won’t surprise you to hear that neither lets you down.  It’s both a very charismatic and physical role and Mark Rylance completely inhabits the character.  I can’t say for sure, but I believe he’s supposed to embody “England” across the centuries and he’s a mix of bullshit, bravado and myth – and it’s not always clear which he’s bringing to the fore at any particular time.  A lot of his actions are extremely dubious, but you can also see there is the potential for goodness behind (at least some of) them and also the potential for “that’s just the way it’s always been” – I suspect the thinking is that he is neither good nor bad, he just is.  But let’s face it, I’ve no idea and I’m sure there were as many opinions on the night as there were audience members.

The rest of the cast do a fine job – I’d call out Mackenzie Crook as Ginger and Alan David as The Professor as the stand-out support.  I think it’s fair to say it’s not a play that serves its female characters well – partially that’s not really the point because male (and by extension, England’s) weaknesses are on show, but it does feel like slightly more effort could have been put into giving the ladies a bit more depth.   The chickens on stage got more lines than some of them (although they were building up their part somewhat) – and the goldfish also gets a surprising dramatic plotline.

For a lengthy play (which ran closer to 3.5 hours on the night), I would have to say it doesn’t drag at all – even when you don’t really have the faintest idea what’s going on, you’re still engrossed.  It was also considerably funnier than I was expecting – although possibly not quite as funny as some of the other audience members around me were making out.  I’m also going to mention the ambiguous ending again – it’s the sort of thing that could prove annoying for some, but I’d have to say I liked it.  And the scenery is amazing - I think it was real grass and dirt on the stage and I'm really glad I don't have the job of resetting the stage every day!

Overall, it’s a theatrical tour de force which I’m really pleased I went to see – I doubt there will be any tickets left for this run, but if it gets extended you might like to consider going.  Otherwise you’ll just have to wait ten years for them to decide to put it on again - and I'll certainly be making an effort to go and see it again.

The Human Voice - a slightly odd play
The Glass Menagerie - a classic piece of theatre, dah-ling