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.

Jane Eyre

Let me preface this post by saying how much I loved Jane Eyre when I first read it in high school for my AP English course.  I was so excited by the book that I proceeded to bring in the soundtrack from the musical of the same name. 

I love Jane Eyre because of it's darkness, suffering, complicated romance, and really difficult ending.  It's a novel in which we are rooting for Jane despite her misfortunes (and there are many).  I also love Jane Eyre because in many ways it's the antithesis to Jane Austen novels.  In my senior English class we talked about how Charlotte Bronte hated Jane Austen and mocked her shmaltzy romantic comedies with the suffering of Jane Eyre.  She also made it very clear that her title character, Jane, was a direct jab at Jane Austen.  I also feel there are so many darker layers in Jane Eyre, especially with the Bertha, Mr. Rochester's first wife.

The new movie adaptation of this novel came out this past weekend and I truly loved the film.  It was dark and the cinematography was absolutely breathtaking (it makes me miss England!).  It is shot very darkly clearly emphasizing the dreariness of the title character and the hopelessness she feels through out the novel.  I also found Mia Wasikowska to be a great pick for Jane.  I liked her interpretation of Jane as very cold, held, and pragmatic.  However, she was a bit difficult to like as my friend pointed out.  And the intimate scenes between Jane and Mr. Rochester were a little awkward.

This film is great because it doesn't shy away from the darkness of the novel.  However, I feel that with any film adaptation details are lost.  My friend had not read the novel beforehand (for shame!) and found it both frustrating and a little confusing to watch.  I, on the other hand, was waiting to see how they would interpret Bertha and how Mr. Rochester's proposal to Jane would play out.  So clearly the story was a little difficult to follow for an unfamiliar audience member.  That said, because the nature of the novel requires the narrator's voice the dialogue was also at times difficult to balance with the silence of the film.  This was a very quiet film.  There were a lot of scenic wide shots and a lot of action shots and not necessarily a lot of dialogue.  I liked this a lot because I feel it gave the sense of "reading" the film, like reading the novel.  However, because the dialogue was so heightened it contrasted with the silence and almost seemed to mock the romantic dialogue normally seen in a Jane Austen novel.  Whether or not this was intentional was difficult to pinpoint.

This film adaptation was smart.  It didn't just tell the story of Jane Eyre it also heightened the stylistic aspects of the novel by making the misery and loneliness apparent through cinematography and silence.  I like that this film made me think even though I knew the novel.  It didn't just carry you along through a nice romantic story.  You, like Jane, had to fight to feel the emotion and fulfillment at the end.  I found myself very absorbed in the film but also interpreting it intellectually much more than other films and I believe this was because the film allowed you to think for yourself.  The silence gave me time and the different styles gave me the foundation to question and make my own decision on the actions on the screen.  The film is in some ways a clash of stylistic themes, but it is also a highly enjoyable and intellectual piece of film, much like the novel.

"I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will."
- Charlotte Bronte,  Jane Eyre

"Jazz Ain’t Dead" at the Joyce Soho

  Most of the professional dance performances I have seen are very well known large companies that perform in huge theatres.  This was my first time viewing a much smaller company in a smaller space.  Jazz Ain’t Dead is a dance and live music fusion group.  They pay tribute to many different jazz styles.  Their current performance at the Joyce Soho is a tribute to Gershwin’s Porgy & Bess, the classic score from the 1930s.  All in all, this was a fun night.  I felt like I wanted to get up and dance to a lot of the music and it seemed the the other audience members felt the same way too.

While there was live music and singing throughout the entire show, the emphasis was on dancing.  Most of the pieces were modern pieces in a large or small group, or in pas de duexs.  I found the large group numbers to be the cleanest, most energetic, and most skilled.  The beginning and ending numbers were upbeat leaving barely any moment of silence or stillness.  The dancers in these pieces were constantly turning, leaping, doing lifts, and switching from sequence to sequence.  I found that the choreographer’s work truly shined in these moments.  The group sequences really allowed different messages (whether it be sensuality, seduction, play, confrontation) to be portrayed while still feeding off of a large group dynamic.  In addition, I found the dancers to be most on top of the moves and most engaged in these moments.  The music was so fast and high energy that the movement required extreme precision.  There was a sense of unity and it culminated in a performance that swept me away.  I felt enticed by their movement and found that the music and their movement to be so complimentary that I wanted to get up and dance with them.

In addition to large dance numbers the night was sprinkled with duets and small group numbers.  These exuded sensuality only accentuated by the music.  One duet was absolutely breathtaking.  This female dancer, all in white, had amazing extensions but also knew how to use the music with the movement.  She was fluid and connected each movement to the next, epitomizing the sensuality of the music.  Her movement informed her acting and communicated so much more than just “sex appeal” but a feeling of loss, deep emotion, and passion.  When she was on stage, I could not take my eyes off of her. 

To me, jazz is most fun in its unpredictability.  While the dance style was mostly modern there was one tap piece.  As a tapper, I absolutely loved this piece.  I do not think that this entire number was choreographed because it seemed like a dialogue between the drummer and the tapper.  In the beginning of the piece the tapper incapsulated the rhythm of the band behind him.  By the end of the piece he was having a “stand off” with the drummer.  Both were doing a call and response with rhythm getting faster and more complicated with each challenge.  This was such fun to watch.  This tapper had been in Bring in Da Noise, Bring in Da Funk on Broadway and was using his tap dancing in a different way than the other choreography.  Tap is about making music with your dancing and this dancer found so many different rhythms and sounds with his feet.  His feet moved so fast that he even chipped the wood off of his dancing platform!

Would I recommend seeing this show?  Yes.  It’s a fun performance that makes you want to jump up and dance.  However, there are aspects of it that are a little problematic: they did have technical issues, the emcee seemed a little off, and I found some of the dancing to be unequal with the the larger group numbers.  But all in all, I had a good time and came away in a good mood.