Your hero's biggest mistake?- Page 2

Posted: 9/10/05 at 11:48am

Agree with JudasIscariot and lamentingenvelope. Jonathon Larson died waaay too soon and he could've written a lot more stuff. And yeah, I admit that I have a crush on Anthony Rapp, which is a little bit of a problem...

[Conor]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 12:12pm

Kristin Chenoweth- Bewitched. oi vey

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 12:30pm

Let's also remember that the original production of Follies was one of the most dazzling in Broadway history (and the most expensive ever at that time). Michael Bennett and Hal Prince created a musical staging which many call the greatest they've ever seen. I was too young to have seen it, but I have older friends and relatives who've told me that, among other moments, "The Mirror Number" ("Who's That Woman") was the most extraordinary piece of theatrical magic they've seen in 40 and 50 years of theatre-going. Add to that the classic performances, stunning design elements and one of Sondheim's greatest scores and I wouldn't call the show a mistake -- certainly not by Sondheim. He didn't write that morose, depressing and meandering book that weighs down the whole project like an albatross; James Goldman did.

Sondheim is blame free -- in 1971, his work here solidifed his reputation as one of the finest musical theatre composers in history. If you want to point fingers of blame as to why the overall show can be less than satisfying in performance, look no further than Goldman (and perhaps, Prince, who oversaw the book scenes --while Bennett did all the musical staging -- and should have had a firmer hand in guiding Goldman through edits and rewrites).

Updated On: 9/10/05 at 12:30 PM

[ForTheLoveOfLea]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 1:27pm

Vivien Leigh smoking 4 packs a day on the set of Gone With the Wind. She died way too young.

[lildogs]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 3:09pm

Margo, I'm assuming that Follies is not on tape at Lincoln Center?

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 3:16pm

"He didn't write that morose, depressing and meandering book that weighs down the whole project like an albatross;"

Hooray for Brit Lit! I actually understand that reference!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 3:46pm

I've heard that the Foliies tape at Lincoln Center is incomplete and doesn't have sound

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 3:54pm

Norbert Leo Butz...sleeping with his step-daughter!?...thats not true..is it?

[WickedJerseyGirl]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 4:00pm

WOODY ALLEN (He slept with his step-daughter, not Norbert)

Updated On: 9/10/05 at 04:00 PM

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 4:03pm

...

[yipper]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 4:36pm

First... In my book, a hero is someone who does something selfless and courageous. An artist is something different...

Second... I am getting tired of pompus windbags spouting out that FOLLIES is brilliant in spite of its book. FOLLIES is brilliant BEACAUSE of its book. It expertly creates a the mood and addresses a reality about aging that is at once poetic and heartbreaking... The Score gets all the credit for the emotional impact of FOLLIES, when in fact it gets its substance from expanding and comment on the emotional elements contained in the book.

Whenever FOLLIES book is altered to be more "up." The score starts to become about outdated broadway style numbers, rather than the characters truths being presented in dramatic, expolisive musical language.

Updated On: 9/10/05 at 04:36 PM

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 4:38pm

i love Follies, i love it all.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 5:08pm

Goldman's book creates an overly melodramatic angst-ridden scenario of two middle aged couples in the midst of mid-life crises which threatens to break them apart. He has them tell off each other in dramatic fashion, announce they're all leaving one another, takes them to Loveland and then returns them to reality to ........... all then just reunite and leave arm and arm as if nothing had ever been said or ever happened in the preceding two and a half hours. Huh? Why on EARTH do those couples get back together with nary a word of consternation or reconciliation at the end? Goldman took the scenario all the way to its climax and then lacked the ability or know-how to conclude it logically or satisfactorily. It's a cop-out that makes NO SENSE, and one that I find infuriating after sitting through hours of such banal whining and bathos. If he had a point to make about regrets and mistakes and marriage and the past and relationships and "the road you didn't take," he forgot to write it down in the book and instead left it to Sondheim to give voice and meaning and resonance to all of those issues. What he did write was clunky overwrought soap opera which damages what otherwise is a masterpiece in Sondheim's oeuvre.

Updated On: 9/10/05 at 05:08 PM

[WildhornFanatic]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 9:05pm

My idol is Frank Wildhorn. Only because of the glorious music he writes. Just him at the piano, no lyrics. That's gorgeous music to me and that's what I admire about him.

His biggest mistake was cheating on Linda Eder.

[lildogs]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 10:31pm

Thanks WickedJerseyGirl...jeez...i thought that was clear...guess not...does Norbert even have a stepdaughter?

[jonartdesigns]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 11:47pm

mr. esparza for appearing in chitty. When he was first announced i really hoped it was a typo and he was playing the childcatcher. the man is amazing but the quality in his voice that makes it so interesting works much better on creepier characters.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:37am

Who let Margo out of her cage? She hasn't been declawed yet! Meow darling and thanks for that post on the book, I completely agree.

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:40am

Norbert Leo Butz...taking Fiyero in Wicked.
Johnathan Larson...well, dying of course.

[yipper]

Posted: 9/13/05 at 9:47pm

The artistic choice as to who will dramatize what points in the story are the authors choices. Therefore, it is NOT that Goldman's book is insufficient, but rather the authors felt that the contrast between the bitter present day couples scenes and the musicalized memories/fantasies/false memories was in itself a dramatic enough device. A device that symbolized two eras in America's history, one of forced and naive optismism vs. cold present day realities. Goldman offers no solutions to the problems of relationships as in the traditional musical comedy formula.. that would defeat the purpose. These couples have had there illusions about the world and themselves shattered. The ending is ambiguous. We don't know if they will stay together. But we do know that they have shared an experience of honesty with themselves that they never had before. Much like COMPANY, FOLLIES doesn't prescribe, but describes. The antithesis of traditional musical comedy...but it does it by musical theatre banalities into new and shocking dramatic forms.

From what I understand, this is a debate that has gone on since the show opened. I always find myself respecting the insights on other subjects from those who find FOLLIES brilliant. I'll stick to this camp... I'm in good company...Sondheim, Hal Prince, Frank Rich... the list goes on.

If I am passionate about the book. It is because I love to share things I find brilliant with other people. This show speaks to me in a way no other has. It changed my entire perspective on the possiblities of musicals. If other don't like it, fine, I suppose, but I can't help think you are missing out on something so many people find hearbreaking,movning, and enlightening.

[broadwaybelter]

Posted: 9/13/05 at 10:14pm

margo you are my hero!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/14/05 at 12:08am

I never said that FOLLIES isn't brilliant -- I think it's one of the the greatest musicals ever written. But the book is flawed -- I'm sorry there's no arguing that. If it were as perfect as you suggest and weren't flawed then why would Sondheim, Prince, Goldman, and later after Goldman's death, Goldman's widow Bobbi have actively participated in working on extensive, wholesale rewrites of the book on at least two separate occasions? If the original 1971 version really was exactly the "vision" they were going for as you claim, then why on earth do they keep changing and rewriting it and making it less morose and cliched with each major revival?

The fact is that Bennett never liked the book at all and Prince and Sondheim themselves ahve expressed various reservations about it over the years (which is why Sondheim has participated in the rewrites).

From "Harold Prince and The American Musical Theatre" --

"Yet despite the theatrical archness and the sting of much of the dialogue, the sophisticated cynical veneer that Prince and Sondheim were drawn by, Goldman's book ultimately can't carry the show. Too often the characters, who 'sing more naturalistically than they speak,' as Sondheim says, define themselves in flat bathetic terms ..... As a character study FOLLIES is more often platitudinous than penetrating......."

The overall show in performance can be extraordinary -- despite a book which has always been a muddle and has defied repeated attempts at fixing by the original creative team.

Updated On: 9/14/05 at 12:08 AM

[yipper]

Posted: 9/14/05 at 2:57pm

I don't recall ever using the world "vision" But is stands to reason that in 1971 that WAS their "vision." Why did they rewrite it... well first, I don't know of many if any shows where the book is flawless. I contend that the problems in the FOLLIES book are more ambious, groudbreaking, and interesting then the problems in most other so called tradtional well made musical theatre books.

Sondheim has said often that the reason he has participated in the rewrites was out of respect to his collaborators and wanting to see the show done again. He has repeatedly said that he prefers the orginal book to any subsequent rewrites. I understand Goldman wasn't satified with the original book... but attempts to make it more "up" in tone, turn the show into something about old people singing old timey songs. All the intellectual and most of the emotional punch are taken out.

As for Foster Hirsch finding the dialouge between the four principals "theatrical archness." I simply don't find it so. FOLLIES is not supposed to naturalistic ...most muscials aren't. But FOLLIES takes it to new level and reveals something about a shift in thinking about ourselves using musical theatre conventions while at the same time working against musical theatre conventions. I find the tension dramatic.

Finally, I don't understand the need of others to reject the genunine reaction of people to piece of art. I know there are those who are out there who find FOLLIES lousey... some have mixed feelings... I belong in the category of people who put in the brilliant category; able to apprecieate all of its elements as they contribute to a theatrical experience that , for me, hasn't been matched and continues to reveal depths and levels.

My suspicion is that people who don't like the show and blame the book... don't like what the show says. In many ways FOLLIES is the anti-musical, Musical. I find it devasting and enlightening.

Updated On: 9/14/05 at 02:57 PM

Posted: 9/14/05 at 5:22pm

Ok... I am breaking down and putting in my two cents.

Yipper, boy do you love "Follies." I don't know the show but now I gotta see it . You should teach musical theater appreciation

Margo, you know a lot of stuff about the history of musicals. You also want everyone else to know that you know a lot. I think you sould teach musical theater nastiness.

Yipper, I'm sold... what is the best way to get familiar with the show?

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 9/14/05 at 6:15pm

Margo isn't nasty! You must be a complete idiot to hold such an insane opinion. You have the right to yours and I'm going to give you mine. Margo is the most informed, most logical, most fair, most helpful poster on this board. She has done more for the character, quality, reputation and respect of this board than any other member. Margo is consistenly listed as the most revered historian of theatre on this board. You have no right to come in here with nothing to post, nothing to say, nothing to give only to rip on one of my personal heroes. Shame on you.

Posted: 9/14/05 at 7:48pm

Listen here A**HOLE... I'll say whatever I damn well want to!
I think Margo is nasty... I also think YOU are nasty...I've been reading these posts for a few weeks now and Margo comes off as a pretentious show off, more interested in sounding smart than helping people understand theater better... If you don't like the way I think...TOUGH!