FOLLIES: Thoughts...- Page 8

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 6:30pm

I don't love Tevye (no more than I liked Zero Mostel, who was a terror backstage, in my personal experience of him during a revival). But I understand Tevye's struggles (and some of Zero's), just as I understand the struggles of the characters in Follies. (I'm not saying they are all equally well developed, just that being likable isn't the issue for me with any of them.)

***

I want to add to my comments on "onion peeling" above that the point of Follies isn't just what the characters learn about themselves, but what we learn about ourselves while watching them.

Obviously, "Losing My Mind" is inspired by a long history of Broadway torch songs, including "The Man I Love." But given to the often pathetic and ultimately loony Sally, it becomes the show's answer to "What's the Use of Wonderin'". An engaged viewer will not just question what is wrong with Sally, but what is wrong with himself that he is moved by these musical exercises in masochism.

(And that is how Sondheim is like Brecht, no matter how much he denies it. Where they differ is in Sondheim's disdain for political cliches.)

If one wants to feel for Sally the way most people feel for Julie Jordan, one will be disappointed. Follies is a very different type of show.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 6:59pm

Tevye is one of THE most beloved characters from musical theater across the world! His struggles with faith and progress and politics are universal. You, sir, have no soul. (But you are entitled to your opinion.)

[Kad]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 7:19pm

That doesn't make Sondheim like Brecht, because it is not Sondheim's goal to achieve that introspection in audiences. That he does achieve that is beside the point.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 8:10pm

^^^^

Kad: "Beside the point" in show after show after show? When do we finally acknowledge that the work speaks for itself?

***

Dramamama: Was the personal attack really necessary? Myself, I don't find Tevye's demands on his daughters particularly likable. But I understand that Tevye is doing the best he can in the context in which he finds himself, and I fully acknowledge that he is important in terms of what he reveals about such tendencies in all of us.

I don't feel a need to berate you for having a different opinion.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 8:17pm

Sondheim has made it very clear time and time again that all he wishes to do is tell an engaging story. Ironically, his method is arguably more effective in inspiring introspection than Brecht's, who tried extremely hard to achieve something like that but was never quite able to.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 8:26pm

I don't agree that Brecht was "never able to do so." In plays like Galileo and Mother Courage, I think he does so very well. (And speaking of plays with "unilkable" characters...)

But back to Sondheim, we should beware taking any writer's assessment of his own work as gospel. Tennessee Williams was still rewriting Streetcar at the time of his death; I would argue Williams was wrong if he thought it required improvement.

In my opinion, Sondheim is more Brechtian than he likes to admit. This may well be due to the influence of Prince and Lapine, but I don't think Sondheim has ever denied his affinity for "comment" songs. And such songs are, in my view, Brechtian in nature (only because Brecht defended the practice, not because he invented it--he did not, of course).

I don't know how one looks at a show like Follies--where more than half of the songs stop the action entirely to comment on the characters (including many who don't contribute to the narrative) and American values--and then say Sondheim only wants to tell a story.
Updated On: 8/20/11 at 08:26 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 8:44pm

Sondheim is Brechtian in the way that a great deal of theatre following Brecht has readily adopted elements Brecht used, whether it be songs that comment rather than move, lack of evocative scenery, lack of fourth wall, anachronism, etc. Brecht freed up those things for writers and directors to readily use, to the point that they are now almost expected. They're just tools that are now added to the amalgam of styles and schools of thought that is theatre now is.

Brecht interrupts the action for songs to either A) deliberately to halt the action or B) impart a moral lesson, often both. Songs do not often organically occur in Brecht's plays out of the action (and the action itself is often deliberately slow-moving or scattered). Creating fleshed-out characters was not his forte, nor was commenting on their psyche. Fleshed-out characters create empathy, which means audiences will invest emotionally in the characters and not focus on what Brecht wanted to say. Sondheim would rather explore characters and psychology.

I would say Sondheim and Goldman, when they set out to write Follies, did want to tell a story, but not a story in the "this, then this, then this" that is the standard. They wanted to create a web rather than a line. They wanted to do a mural. What resulted is... both linear and nonlinear storytelling. So a bit of a mess.

(As for Brecht's unlikable characters... nearly all of his main characters are, on the page, supposed to be unlikable. Another of his techniques for assuring no one got invested emotionally in what was going on. But in practice... not so much).

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 8:57pm

I think we actually agree here, Kad. We shouldn't take Brecht's word on his own work too literally either. It's true his plays do not always achieve the impact he claimed.

What I'm saying is that Sondheim readily uses the same techniques used and explained (at some length) by Brecht.

I absolutely agree with you that Sondheim's aim is to reveal psychology where Brecht's aim is to create political awareness. IMO that is their primary (but not only) difference.

But no matter how much Sondheim may talk the talk of a true Hammerstein protege, at the end of the day, shows like Anyone Can Whistle, Company, Follies, Sunday in the Park and, arguably, even Passion and Into the Woods are based more on comment than plot. Even in a farce such as Forum, Sondheim readily admits his songs are intended to interrupt the plot, not further it. Nobody will confuse Forum with Chalk Circle, but that doesn't mean songs aren't used in a similar way in terms of their structural relationship to the narrative.

Obviously, Hammerstein tried the same thing in Allegro, but it isn't the "integrated" musical narrative for which he is famous and which describes most of the rest of his shows.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 9:08pm

In reality, Brecht was probably too skilled of a writer to achieve the complete lack of emotional connection he sought. Or it was just a lofty goal that is completely unfeasible when you utilize emotionally evocative things, like motherhood (honestly, how can you not empathize with Grusha in Chalk Circle?) or love.

But, yes, Sondheim's idea of 'story-telling' is vastly different from that of his mentor's, or the generation before him. His idea of a story is taking a clock apart and putting it together- or, more appropriately, creating a puzzle.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 9:16pm

I didn't berate or attack you. It was a slight attempt at humor, thus the message in the parenthesis.

Sheesh.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 9:54pm

Kad, as I'm sure you know, Brecht himself realized the problem in his attempts to "estrange" (I think the word "alienate" misleads English readers) what was on stage. He writes that viewers quickly adapt to estrangement devices and go back to identifying with the characters, and that the playwright/director has to keep trying new devices to keep the audience thinking.

I think we'd both agree that Sondheim is less concerned with keeping the audience in a critical frame of mind and so his shows are more "unified" than Brecht's, no matter whether we use Aristotle's, Wagner's or Hammerstein's definition of unity.

But if we think of Sondheim's shows as puzzles and the audience as puzzle solvers, then we are very close to the critically engaged audience that Brecht seeks. That's really what I meant in the first place.

[Skip2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 10:04pm

People keep talking about the inadequacies of Goldman's script. He was right to leave the "heavy lifting" of the show to the direction and the choreography. But that's not really an accurate statement because, in the case of FOLLIES, all the elements did their job. The libretto is part of the impressionism of the show. That's why subsequent productions aren't as memorable. The direction and the movement were just as integral to the show as was the dialogue. Along with the costuming, set and lighting. EVERYTHING really did work together. Like pointillism. All the dots worked together to create the whole. Just when Goldman's dialogue would trail off, Bennett's movement or Prince's staging or Aronson's set would take over and fill in the completeness of the piece.

And as for the ending not working - it DID in the original. Musser's stark daytime lighting and Aronson's set revealing a jagged rip in the back wall were like throwing cold water on a drunk. After we are stunned and slightly confused by the outrageousness of Loveland, visually we are yanked back to reality where we realize that NOTHING is going to change. And the ghosts are left to remind us that the past is still trapped in our memories but in the present all we can do is to keep on keeping on.

Heart breaking, but strangely reassuring.

And I just remembered that it did feel like we were yanked back to reality because it's constructed thusly: Ben starts forgetting where he is in "Live, Laugh, Love" and the whole number falls apart. Then the whole stage starts convulsing. Set pieces start moving up and down...the side scaffolding starts moving in and out. Performers start to appear on the set reprising some of their numbers. Ethel Shutta pointing at the sky. Fifi D'Orsay prancing around. Ghosts are doing parts of their dance numbers. At one time I think one of the actors was in drag running down the set. The lighting is popping and at times you can barely see what's going on and then it's in stark relief. And then, just when you think you've gone crazy, everything suddenly rightens, the performers are gone and all you see is Ben in dark blue tuxedo with the tie untied and Phyllis standing center with her back to the audience on the now stationary set. The back wall reveals a jagged pointed opening (which you don't see in the nighttime) and behind it is daylight with the back of a Times Square building revealed.

And the scene goes on from there.

Stunning.







Updated On: 8/20/11 at 10:04 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 10:08pm

No problem, dramamama. I recognize your hat, certainly, and I know I enjoy your posts; but I don't know you well enough to always know when you are joking.

And all I said was that didn't seem necessary. I didn't go complaining to a moderator or assume you and I were now feuding. No harm done even before your explanation and no hard feelings on my part.

***

But back to the issue. Upon reflection, I'd like to concede this point to you and withdraw Tevye from my list of "unlikable characters." I saw Fiddler with Herschel Bernardi when I was a kid, but my last significant experience with the show was the pre-Broadway tour of the 1977 revival starring Zero Mostel.

I was the Production Coordinator at the last pre-Broadway stop (Miami Beach) and by the time the tour reached us, Zero had added a full half-hour of schtick to the show. He did a good five minutes playing with his milkman's ladle, a pantomime that finally ended with Zero pretending to stab some other character to death. Yes, the audience laughed, but it was reminiscent of how audiences laugh at that one kid in every high school production who realizes he can upstage the show with some sort of nervous tic. Awkward and uncomfortable.

The producers had already arranged to bring in Jerome Robbins during the NY previews on the belief that Robbins was the only one who could control the star.

In addition, Zero was very difficult to deal with personally and I was 23 and ill-equipped for that level of abuse. (Nothing criminal, just unpleasant.)

All of that probably unfairly influences my view of the show and leading character. I THINK the show is excellent, objectively, but don't care much for it subjectively.

So my view of Tevye is almost certainly unreliable.

I'd like to withdraw Tevye and replace him with Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett. We can understand Todd's impatience and rage, and there is no end to Lansbury's charm as a performer, but neither character is likable on his or her own merits.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 10:13pm

Skip2, I can't agree more, and you describe it so well, I have nothing to add.

[Skip2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 10:32pm

Gaveston2: I added a recollection of the end of Loveland to my previous post. Do you remember that moment?

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:34am

That's exactly how I recall it, Skip. Though I must admit I've never thought Ben forgetting his lyrics really works. I don't see how we are supposed to know it is the character who stumbles, rather than the actor.

It's certainly jarring, deliberately so, either way. But I wish there were a way to make it clear that Ben can't find the words, rather than John McMartin (or whoever plays the part).

[Skip2]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:43am

I know what you mean about Ben's forgetting moment. And in the present version, Raines just stumbles once and then the next time he stumbles for only a second and then goes into "No I don't love me." And then he goes on about hating himself, etc, etc. To me it's not as effective this way. I like to see Ben getting very regretful and self-loathing. And stumbling through that. And, I think in the original, McMartin took that section a bit longer so the scene could dissolve slower into the complete mayhem that comes a bit later.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 5:05am

Gaveston2, your posts are for the most part very enlightening and interesting, but they are also voluminous and sometimes seem to take over a THREAD. Your somewhat startling feelings about Tevye called for a reaction and that is what Dramamama gave you. You seem to have been hurt by his remark and felt the need to "make up", which you both have now done. But, after all, Dramamama's remark about your having no soul re. your remarks on Tevye was not such a big deal. There was no need for your over-reaction.

Updated On: 8/21/11 at 05:05 AM

[indytallguy]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 6:31am

Thanks skip2 so much for sharing this recollection. It helps me understand just how powerful this scene can be when all of the contributing elements is each doing its work.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 6:36am

Gypsy9, I wasn't hurt by dramamama's post and the remark in question didn't prompt me to reconsider my opinion. But when a poster strongly disagrees with me, I do think about why. In this case, I decided my own opinion was unreliable and thought it only fair to say as much.

I probably should have conceded the point more briefly, without the personal anecdote. But doesn't everybody have a scroll bar?

Yours is now the second post telling me I overreacted, when all I said was a personal attack seemed unnecessary. Yes, I now see that I misunderstood, but who exactly is overreacting?

Updated On: 8/21/11 at 06:36 AM

[Skip2]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 6:41am

No prob, indy:

It's fun to recollect those wonderful moments. Although bittersweet when the revivals never match any of those original moments - even on their own terms with new viewpoints.

I didn't hold out much hope for this newest version after seeing Schaefer's previous version at the old Signature in Virginia. Not much originality or surprise there. But I am a bit shocked at how little effort has been made to make the piece shine in any measurable way - especially in such a high profile Broadway showing. And, in fact, I feel it's been made a great deal less than it could be even on a smaller scale. Great, interesting, magical theatrical art can be done on any scale with skilled, creative artists. (see David Cromer) But, alas, we'll have to wait for his version, done in the old St. Ann's Warehouse, in 2020. (Can we hope Gary Griffin will rescue the old gal in his next Chicago production? Well, yeah, we can HOPE...)

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 8:01am

I've enjoyed reading everyone's observations and insights. Really interesting stuff.

I've been thinking a lot about this show since seeing the revival, and it brings up all the reservations I've had about it since the original production. Aside from the structural problems, the main problem is deeper than just a bunch of unlikable characters you don't care about. It's the authors' attitude towards both the audience and life in general that rankles here.

Basically, it's a kind of snarky pleasure in dashing cold water not on an audience's illusions, because no one in the audience is dumb enough to believe that marriage or life itself is just a bowl of cherries, even though they enjoyed the cheery songs that stated as much. No, this show is dashing people's aspirations to happiness in general and the very notion of hope itself. I think audiences subconsciously recoil at that and reject it, as well they should. For any psychologist will tell you that a positive outlook is healthier than a negative one, even if one knows that life is as tough as hell. One makes fun of Oscar Hammerstein's outlook as reflected in "Walk on walk on with hope in your
heart," but his is better than Sondheim's, and truer too.

There's also something unpleasant about mean spirited people who like to spoil other people's joy, even if what they say happens to be true.

To me, these are the deeper problems of Follies, and of Company as well, and these can't be resolved no matter how dazzling the production.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 9:10am

When I said "likable," it was shorthand for a character the audience feels compelled by or roots for.

With the major characters of tragedy (Hamlet, Oedipus, Lear, Othello, Richard III), you can't use words like "identify" or "root," but the audiences are drawn in.

With Follies, only Sally has anything like the classic "I Want" song in "Don't Look at Me," but the other 3 characters don't: Buddy and Ben get songs expressing frustration ("The Right Girl") and regret ("The Road You Didn't Take"). Phyllis's song ("Could I Leave You"?) happens later in the show, after the audience has made up its mind about her.

All are great Sondheim songs, but Only Sally's provides the kind of connection with the audience that is necessary for the audience to care. With the other 3, the audience was engaged on a critical and intellectual level--and in 1971, at least, we were dazzled by the physical production (which seemed to brilliantly underscore the themes of the show) and the pastiche numbers (some of which did so too).

I cared about the characters in 1971, but each time I brought people to see the show, they were left cold. With each revival, there was a larger percentage of people having my reaction, but overall, the show still engages the audience on an intellectual level, but with less physical dazzle and less brilliant staging.

It was Goldman's failing that he didn't insist on clarifying the characters' needs and goals and strengthening the confrontation. It was Sondheim's and Prince's failings that they thought Goldman's book was good enough. Bennett was the only one who acknowledged the problem, even if his proposed solution was probably the wrong one.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 9:19am

After Eight, you may have just hit the nail on the head for why I don't like this show, overall. Nice post.

And I definitely don't blame Goldman exclusively for its problems. No scapegoating here. It's a creative group effort, and Sondheim is just as responsible for its failures. Perhaps even more so, since the majority of the show is his.

I still love the individual songs (well, most of them at least), but when these parts are added up and strung together in context, dramatically, it doesn't work as a show. It's "off" and (to use a musical metaphor) strikes a wrong chord with me. It even strikes a phony chord with me, in the sense that you described, After Eight.

Updated On: 8/21/11 at 09:19 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 9:20am

I agree wholeheartedly, Pal Joey -- well said.

I think I root for both Buddy and Sally. Buddy because he was settled for and knows it and just wants to be loved...but he wants to be loved by Sally.