Then there is Johnny himself. He is feckless, deceitful, deeply dodgy, but Christ, I rooted for him throughout: yearning for him to have a proper relationship with his young son, cheering his tirades against Wiltshire county council, which once put a stop to him jumping over Stonehenge. In today’s terminology, Johnny Byron would be held up as a figure of toxic masculinity, an accusation hurled at one of the other great characters of British theatre, Jimmy Porter (from Look Back in Anger). 

Yet playwrights need to be brave enough (and given the green light) to create these characters, and allow audiences to relish their ambivalence. Johnny might be a tinpot dictator, but he is far more sympathetic than the pallid, supposedly truthful creations I have seen on stage since. It will be interesting to see whether Rylance has fine-tuned his performance for this revival – will there be pressure on him to bring Johnny’s darkness to the forefront and suppress his twinkling roguishness?

Jerusalem is also a very male play; the female characters, though well caught, rarely get the limelight, and it is ultimately a gathering together of very male antecedents – St George, Shakespeare, Brutus of Albion, stirred together to explore the play’s central themes. Imagine the Royal Court allowing such a triumvirate to be a play’s driving force now.

The thing is that the new Jerusalem will be a box-office smash. In fact, the Apollo Theatre’s website currently suggests it’s completely sold out (although there will be day seats and, every Monday, 300 tickets will be relased for that week’s performance). Much of this is down to the pulling power of Rylance, but it is equally a testament to great writing. Current theatremakers should take note of the appetite for this piece, and not be afraid to make art as brave as this too.