Jesse Green's review of the revival in the New York Times has nagged at me, because I don't think I agree about his assessment of Frank.
“Merrily” is thus no longer, as it seemed in 1981, the story of the gradual, almost inevitable dimming of youth’s sweet illusions but rather the story of their falsity in the first place. Frank is only devoted to Mary and Charley when he doesn’t have access to anyone more useful. To think he turned into that monster is a mistake: He always was one, as Sondheim clearly understood. 'That’s what everyone does,' Mary sings once the three-way friendship has collapsed. 'Blames the way it is/on the way it was/On the way it never ever was.'"
Let's set aside my annoyance with the inevitable comparison to the 1981 original version that only a few people like Jarethan actually saw. Merrily hasn't been that show for a long time. Green supports his arguments both with true statements (Frank's friendship with Mary and Charley is increasingly one-sided, although they cling to it) and with a quote from "Like It Was" that makes his strongest case.
But was Frank a "monster" the whole time? He's ambitious, absolutely. He's less concerned with the purity of art for its own sake, certainly when he's poor and then when he takes a huge financial hit in the divorce. He's drawn to the glitz and glamour (and money) of success. What's worse, and this is not emphasized in the revival, he has no relationship with his teenage son. Frank, in the original version of the show, is just a sellout, in the parlance of multiple generations of artists and fans.
But in "Franklin Shepard Inc.," Charley is the first to acknowledge that Frank's business acumen has helped make him and his growing family rich. "But he makes a lot of money, and a lot of it for me - Right?" Charley sings, tossing off a line about his "little sailboat." His gripe with Frank is that, while Frank is good with money, he's squandering his gifts in his preoccupation with it. Other people "do [the money thing] better," but no one does music better than Frank. That's what he is upset about, that Frank is leaving him so he can do things he isn't as good at. Charley ends up just fine. After the breakup, he writes a Pulitzer Prize-winning play that is apparently doing well on Broadway. Charley has the artistic and (apparent) financial success that he had with Frank, while Frank is "celebrating" a lousy movie with hangers-on and wondering how did he get to be here.
The story of Frank isn't that of a jerk who was always a jerk and just ended up a rich jerk. Who would care? It's a poignant story of a hopeful, talented young man who makes rational - but often selfish - decisions that lead him to a sad, empty life despite his material success. Jonathan Groff's skill at showing that in the opening and closing scenes is what makes the show hit so hard and why it's such a terrific revival.