Mark Rylance is realllllllllyyyyyy awesome.

So I saw the play Jerusalem on Broadway yesterday.  I first heard about this play when I was living in London last year but it was completely sold out and I kept on kicking myself for not getting tickets.  So, when I heard it was moving ro Broadway I was ecstatic.  It also took me many months to finally get my act together to see this great show.

Firstly, I. LOVE. MARK. RYLANCE.  I saw him in Boeing Boeing a few years back.  That show, a farce, was hilarious because of the theatrical form, but mostly because of Mark Rylance's impeccable comic timing and physicality.  I remember that my voice teacher from Stella Adler told us that this was the most relaxed performance she had ever seen.

In Jerusalem, Mark Rylance plays a drug dealing social outcast whom thinks of himself as a king in his own right.  This show had its comic moments but was a far cry from the light heartedness and ease of Boeing Boeing.  Jerusalem is a very complicated play.  There were two articles in the Playbill about this show, clearly showing how much this play has stirred up New York audiences.  But one of the articles really highlighted how the convoluted, allegorical form of the play wasn't necessarily intended to evoke homage to the great writers and characters in the English literary canon.  The playwright was particularly surprised that the New York critics viewed his play as a social commentary utilizing the famous literary figures throughout time including Falstaff, Fagan, Byron, Shakespeare, and the like.  While I don't intend to dissect the full meaning of what I believed the play to be about, this was clearly a play about the current English state of being and the problems within the English society (and I specifically say ENGLAND because of the English flag present, NOT the Union Jack).

There was a time when I would spend HOURS pouring over what a complicated play like Jerusalem meant.  I would try to dissect every meaning underneath a word that resonated or a specific name of a character.  I don't know if it's just pure mental exhaustion or just acceptance of a play for what it is - but I don't intend to dissect this play into some sort of allegorical meaning.  In some ways, that analysis strips the beauty of the play's mystery.

But what I want to talk about is MARK RYLANCE.  This man is the actor's actor.  He uses language in a way that so few actors do nowadays.  The ending of Jerusalem was breathtaking because I could see how connected he was with his language.  His specificity is not really seen a lot today.  And that's what makes him so watchable even when a play or the dialogue may be unclear.  In addition to language, my GOD does this man know how to use his body.  He is so connected with his body.  And I've realized that connection with the body is not just how an actor physicalizes a character (which Rylance did impeccably-he makes tiny adjustments that speak millions of words), but how an actor holds himself in stillness and in relation to other actors.  In Jerusalem, I found Rylance's control over his body allowed his body to speak a message about the character in a specific moment.  Mark Rylance makes the audience's work easy.  He knows his characters so well that we can just watch this man LIVE in the men he plays.

Mark Rylance truly is a tour-de-force.  I could watch him all day.  And even though his character in Jerusalem was tragic, I couldn't help but love that at the curtain call he started doing a short gleeful jig.  This man LOVES what he does and does it so well.  That is a true gift.

Strauss-Kahn and Misleading Feminism

In the New York Times an article entitled "After Strauss-Kahn's Arrest, Frenchwomen Speak Out" the writers propose that French women feel Strauss-Kahn's arrest will fuel women's rights in France, particularly concerning sexual harassment.  The article itself is hopeful, siting the American Justice system directly correlates to American Feminism.  It implies that because we openly prosecute an extremely important man for allegedly attacking a woman that Feminism is more actualized and recognized than in France.  I see two problems with this: firstly, there's a big difference between the procedures of the American Justice system and how Feminism is perceived in America.  Secondly, what is Feminism?  (And I don't mean to spark a tiresome and overdone debate on the definition of feminism.)  I do not believe that "Feminism" can be seen as merely how a country deals with sexual offenders.  Feminism is a belief in certain values that are not limited to the legal system.  I also believe that Feminism can only be seen as successfully integrated into a culture when these beliefs are present within culture and NOT just through the legal system.  The article implies that Feminism is both respect for women in terms of prosecuting sexual offenders and also a culture of respect for women in general.

These are two VERY different ideas.

Prosecuting a man for his sexual harassment of women IS a reflection of the country's view on women.  In America, as the article implies, this means that an attack on a woman is unacceptable no matter whom the offender is (the other issue is the fact that women are discouraged from speaking out because of the powerful roles certain men have-the issue of discretion is another one I am not looking to address).  But prosecuting a man for attacking a woman doesn't necessarily mean that Feminism is completely actualized in America compared to France.  In the article, a woman mentions how "flirting" does not bother her at all because it's a complement.  The article implies this sort of flirtation in France objectifies women.  But doesn't this happen in America too?  Nearly all of my friends, including myself, have been harmlessly cat-called by construction workers on the street or passers by.  I sure as hell view this objectification as disrespectful, but you can BET that I view it as a big fat complement.  My point?  In this respect, we are not that different in terms of our progress on objectifying women.  Furthermore, the article also says that in France if you're a "Feminist" you are viewed as "unfeminine."

My eyes bulged out of my sockets when I read this.  While the article never fully states that in America Feminism is accepted as "feminine", it implies that America is more progressive in viewing Feminists more favorably.  I'm sorry to say I have to disagree.  Despite a supposedly successful Feminist Revolution, calling oneself a Feminist in this country still evokes a stereotype of desexualized, ball-busting, and pants-wearing women.  I was educated at all women's institutions and there was still a stigma around identifying oneself as a Feminist.  More practically, at my graduation ceremony the speaker, Sheryl Sandberg, emphasized the fact that the "glass ceiling" of gender inequality is still there.  Women are still paid less than men in this country, and there are still more men whom are tenured professors, business executives, and scientists.  I am not one to say that to "break the glass ceiling" women must pursue these fields.  Hardly.  But if we're going to measure gender equality by pay and the ratio of men to women in certain fields, America is hardly a model for gender equality and Feminism.

What the Strauss-Kahn Arrest emphasizes is that legally and publicly we as a country respect women by prosecuting perpetrators of sexual harassment. But legally prosecuting perpetrators cannot infer that American Feminism is more progressive than French Feminism, at least on the surface.