Mojo

by Jez Butterworth

The smash-hit play which won numerous awards, including the Laurence Olivier Award for Best New Comedy.

Genres: Plays, Theatre, Drama, Fiction, British Literature, 20th Century, Adult

72 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

Reviews

[Nadja · Rating 2 out of 5]

This play won the Olivier Award for Best New Comedy in 1996 and I don't understand why. I did not find anything in it remotely humorous. It's dark with a surprising twist, as usual for Jez Butterwoth. Sadly, I didn't find the play that engaging, it's probably one of those plays that is much more rewarding to see on stage.

[Julie Bozza · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very mixed feelings about this one. The play won all kinds of awards for the writing, and to be honest I can't really see why. Maybe at the time (1995) it stood out as something fresh and different...? Personally, I mostly dislike it, though it certainly has its moments, both on the stage and on the page.

This is another play I've seen recently on the London stage, at the Harold Pinter Theatre. It had a truly awesome cast, and I went - more than once - for the sake of Colin Morgan (who played Skinny). Apart from having the privilege of seeing him act his little socks off in a stunning last scene, I mostly wish I hadn't bothered.

The dialogue was, as with the play Straight by D.C. Moore, staccato and fragmented, which supposedly makes it realistic... I enjoyed this effect more in performance with Straight where it made the characters seem rather witty and on-the-ball, but in Mojo it resulted in a great deal of tiresomeness and shouting over each other for attention. Not my idea of entertainment. Then again, I'm an introvert who avoids scenarios like that in real life... It's easier to read on the page, at least! It doesn't leave one feeling so bruised.

There were bits I liked, I cannot deny that, and much of it (on stage) was very funny - though how much of Daniel Mays' brilliant physical acting and verbal delivery can be credited to Butterworth for creating a character (Potts) that Mays could go to town with? Interesting question to ponder. But basically none of the characters have any redeeming features, or are particularly likeable, and I'm not at all sure what we were meant to take from it. This is just my personal response, I know - but if there's no entertainment value, and no meaning or astute provoking of thought to be had, then where lies the value?

I'm very aware, however, that I'm in a rather small minority! So the three stars is an attempt to be objective. My fellow Colin!nuts all seemed to enjoy themselves immensely. This production got rave reviews in the papers. And it did win all those awards when it was first written... There must be something in there.

Obviously, though, it's not for me. :-)

[Jonathan Daley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can’t imagine how incredible it would have been to be there in the Royal Court when this premiered. Visceral and as tightly wound as a spring - it jumps at you, grabs you and doesn’t let go.

[Pauline Butcher Bird · Rating 4 out of 5]

Since I don't like Harold Pinter's plays or Samuel Beckett, it is not surprising I don't like this one. It is unsettling to be negative about a drama that has received an avalanche of praise and awards. Four male twenty-somethings and one male thirty-something talk mumbo jumbo in the backroom of a nightclub while the body parts of the owner, Ezra, lie in two dustbins on stage, the new rave rock-star, Silver Johnny, 17 years old, is tied up and hangs upside down, and Baby, the son of the owner, thrashes around with a cutlass sword. After a lifetime of buggery abuse from his father, he is unsurprisingly psychotic and has already sliced off the head of the entrepreneur - offstage of course - so who else will he kill? Meantime, I have to get back to my sensible life, my shopping list and visiting my aunt.
Freak Out! My Life with Frank Zappa

[zz · Rating 1 out of 5]

My life makes sense.

[TreforL · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just as the short and squat British cars of the late 1950s and early 1960s sprouted chrome and tailfins in an attempt to ape their longer, wider American counterparts (such as the majestic Buick that is stolen by Baby here), this script reads like a lesser, Anglicised version of Goodfellas.
I dislike both amoral stories of the interface between organised crime and business. However, that's a question of personal taste. I can recognise some merit in Jez Butterworth's breakthrough play, hence the second star in my rating. I wouldn't have guessed it was a hugely successful award-winner, though.
The premiss for the story, set in 1958, is the accidental discovery of a teenage rock and roll star with great potential, whom everyone would like a financial stake in. The action focuses on the hangers-on in a Soho nightclub who do their bosses' bidding, so most of the lines consist of inconsequential speculation and reaction, the real action being elsewhere. While the characters are fairly clearly differentiated, I didn't see any reason to care about their petty squabbles and jockeying for position. This was readable but rather uninteresting. I'm not sure what it was trying to do; it wasn't entertaining, shocking, innovative or evocative of time or place. This could almost have happened anywhere at any time. It had a strong ensemble feel, but no memorable lines.

[Doug · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oddly, Butterworth's debut play, which put him on the theatrical map, was the last of his I read - and it definitely seems to promise the fireworks that were to come to fruition in his latest plays. The debt to Pinter is obvious, and though contemporaries, one can see glimmers of McDonagh also (they both have scenes in which a gagged man is left hanging upside down for most of a long scene!) My only complaint here is that the argot used gets a mite thick for these Yank ears, and I am not always clear on what is going on, or the character motivations. Would have loved to have seen the original London cast 22 years ago though, which featured then unknowns Andy Serkis, Ton Hollander and Aiden Gillen.

[Nathan Lea · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very bizarre play. The structure is crazy with the story itself making the reader/audience have to work a lot out for themselves.

The dialogue at times is really witty and very comedic. The contestant tension throughout act 2 is really well worked and the pace is excellent.

I think the lack of clarity at times threw me off a little, it’s quite hard to keep up with everything. And some lines of dialogue seem to only add the purpose of showing that they’re high on pills (especially at the start) which comes across as filler.

A very interesting play.

[Jon Hewelt · Rating 5 out of 5]

AWESOME!

This is my kind of play. I dig the set-up, I dig the characters. It's nail-biting, darkly comic. If I were to compare it to anything, it'd be early Guy Ritchie, but even then, I think I like Mojo just a wee bit better.

No spoilers, no plot details. It's a quick read, a kick-ass read, and I absolutely recommend it. Check this mother out!

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

My favourite play. Found it so hilarious, gripping and intelligent that I couldn’t put it down. The characters fascinate me, and Butterworth’s writing is brilliant. I love this play so much. Wish I could go back in time to see it performed on the West End!

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

First ⅔ positively crackle—McDonagh-esque. Ending a bit off.

[Cary S · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have a feeling that this is a play that needs to be seen to be believed...

[edward clark · Rating 4 out of 5]

desire to be in/direct this/watch a live version is unreal

[Charlie Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5-4 stars.

This is a good play, with lots of dark humour and authentic dialogue. However, a lot of the characters do feel a little samey. I love Butterworth's writing, especially Jerusalem, and this is definitely one I'd go and see, but I don't know that it's dated as well as his other stuff. Feels so 90s. I don't mean that it seems to be part of the in-yer-face theatre movement that was so prevelant (and brilliant) in the 90s either, it's just like he was inspired by 90s crime films. As if Guy Ritchie wrote the play version of Lock, Stock. That's not necessarily a criticism, just an observation.

If you want a diverse range of characters with emotional depth, this is not the play for you. If you want 2 hours of dark humour and casual violence then this might just be the ticket.

[Carenza · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really like Jez Butterworth’s plays and am enjoying starting to read them. I think Jerusalem is my favourite though.

[Duncan Hendry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mojo was an experience, to be honest, in many aspects of the word. I read this, unlike most plays, in a very broken way over a number of interrupted reading sessions. And it didn't help to my understanding. I would definitely want to see this live but I'd also want to explore others of Butterworth; just reading Mojo wasn't up my street. The names of the characters and the deliberately vague style towards the beginning didn't really help cement the characters in my mind. The first Scend was full of one liners that could have been the makeup of one character but were actually two or three - only Mickey, the oldest of the bunch struck initially in my head - mainly because he was more calculating and was often conspicuous by his absence in conversations whilst very much being in the room. As the play moved on we saw more highlights from Skinny and Baby - past that I didn't really care. The ending was nice and unexpected but I wasn't completely involved. I was recommended this by someone who had seen an all-star cast in the west end and someone else who had actually directed the play himself - but I guess that shows you that theatre is accessible but sometimes not always the same ways.

[Tom O'Brien · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember this being a bit of a big deal when it came out. Not really sure why, having read it now. It's solid in terms of plot and setting but no more than that. Equally the characterisation is decent without being remarkably insightful. The dialogue is strong though and often both funny and/or menacing.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun and bloody play. Lots of hidden agendas, secrets, old rock songs, and men acting like shits to each other.

And I want to play Baby.

[Samuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Visceral, fire-cracking dialogue, characters bereft of empathy and humour so dark it's frightening. A sizzling play from one of the most distinct voices in theatre today.

[Hayley Sprout · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just as bizarre as it was when I saw it on stage a couple years ago. Hilarious & twisted. My kind of show. :]

[Jack Stacey · Rating 4 out of 5]

"It's getting hot. Out in the street. There's people."

[Annelies · Rating 4 out of 5]

lovely play. Saw it twice in two days.
great cast!!

[Bart]

Great play, very interesting characters with a lot of room for actor development. The dialog in this play is what makes it most fascinating, I feel as though it really encourages the actors to work as one whole cast instead of individual characters, despite each one having their own agenda and feeling toward what's going on.

Also really lovely monologue in it which I shall be using for my drama school audition.