Merrily - which version is it?

[Polka Dot2]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 11:58am

I couldn't find this on the City Center page, and I'm curious - does anyone know if this will be the original Broadway version of Merrily? Or since James Lapine is directing it again, would it more likely include the changes that were made when he directed it at La Jolla Playhouse?

Thanks!

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 12:25pm

I'm pretty sure Sondheim indicated that it would NOT be the original 1981 Broadway version--most likely, it will be the '94 version.

[artscallion]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 12:57pm

I have a friend working on it. i believe he did say it was the '94 version.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 8:06pm

I'd bet money it's the '94 version, perhaps with some changes or elements from other ealier revisions (after all James Lapine directed the first major revision back in '85 I believe and is involved again).

[Matt2]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 8:13pm

I hope they use "Rich and Happy" over "That Frank." The latter song just a watered down version of the former.
The original show may be flawed, but I love it's cast album.

[Owen22]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 8:39pm

I think the last time the original 81 version was done (with a few of the 93 add-ons) was the Donmar Warehouse, only because they supposedly tricked Sondheim and Furth by letting them assume they were doing the revamped show, but secretly did (mostly) the original version. I had only seen the revamp up until then (though of course knew the original score from the OCR) and was really amazed how much better the older version (with revisions) was. What did Sondheim see that I didn't? Rumor has it the show was to transfer to the West End but the writers refused (they were, somewhat rightfully, pissed) The cast (Daniel Evans, Julian Overdon and Samantha Spiro) made names for themselves from the show and I have measured every Merrily I've seen against the Donmar's and all have paled. I would hope someday that version would become the standard (and was hoping against hope that it would be the version Encores was using).

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/26/12 at 8:48pm

Musically That Frank totally is a watered down Rich and Happy--I always want to belt out Rich and Happy instead when listening to it--it's like they even took the energy out by using much of the same music but in a different way.

But lyrically it does suit the revised version more. Rich and Happy is far more pure stereotype--very much what the concept of kids putting on this morality tale would see the situation as (of course other changes could easily be placed into tThat Frank--ie in the original everyone says secretly that the movei's terrible, but in That Frank it actually apparently is pretty good...)

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/26/12 at 8:57pm

I really don't care for the revision, and I discovered it first, so it's not a case of nostalgia. It had me turned off to the show, until I listened to the original cast album and saw the Donmar's production (which, I believe without permission, mostly reverted to the original version).

The problem with the revision is the same thing that has me worried about the Carrie revival. It took a show that was hugely problematic, but also hugely ambitious and extreme, and whittled it down into a competent bore. To a lesser extent (because the original was even more problematic than Merrily or Carrie), the same thing happened to Spider-Man when it was "revamped" into "Spidey 2.0."

As a fan of musicals, and storytelling in general, I'd rather see a show that fails big with its heart out than something decent and conservative and forgettable.

And I agree that That Frank is a "watered-down" Rich and Happy. Rich and Happy is a little silly, but it's a great number, and gives us a much clearer idea of what Frank has become at this stage in his life.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 1/26/12 at 9:03pm

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 09:03 PM

[CurtainCall]

Posted: 1/27/12 at 10:23am

But the point about the revised opening is that whilst Frank maybe outwardly successful, compared to his promise 'to change the world', he's conformed to an artistically mediocre and unexceptionable life - even the crisis of his affair with a starlet, is a cliché. His life has been a compromise he could have avoided - that's the tragedy, rather than, he wasn't a successful film producer.







Updated On: 1/27/12 at 10:23 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 1/27/12 at 10:27am

"I just don't understand that if Frank is happy and successful at the end of his life, why do we need to go back?"

It's irony, baby, irony. The song is called "Rich and Happy," but no one is actually happy. Get it?

"The story is about friendship. The story is about growing up. And the story is learning that it's never too late to follow your dreams."

Boy, I really think you missed the boat here - this show is about none of those greeting card clichés - it's about betraying your dreams, choosing the wrong opportunities, making the wrong choices, taking the wrong road. It's a hyper-dark cautionary tale, not a feel-good love-fest.

I've seen productions where the audience sit unhappily watching this unhappiness, but, like good little sheep, they suddenly forget everything they saw before "Our Time," and think that song is the entire show. This lets them walk out of the theatre smiling, saying, "hurray for those cute talented kids who have their whole lives ahead of them!"

Updated On: 1/27/12 at 10:27 AM

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 1/27/12 at 1:34pm

Matt2...ME TOO!...why cant they just redo the original version and try to correct the faults within the original book...the OBC recording is my all time favorite Sondheim cd...i have seen a staged version of the so-called "newer" adaptation and I HATED IT!...

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 1/27/12 at 3:35pm

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 03:35 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 1/27/12 at 3:54pm

"Are you an idiot?"

No, I don't think so; perhaps if you had specified the song to which you were referring in your post, I wouldn't have made a mistake, and you wouldn't have flown off the handle. However - water under the bridge.

I still disagree, though - "That Frank" is pretty clearly an ironic number, showing (in a less obvious way than "Rich and Happy," granted) how superficial and terrified these people are - Mary's pointed barbs within the song make that rather clear, even if one can't read between the lines.

I suppose if you've only seen a version of the show done with actors who didn't know how to play anything more than the surface sheen of the lyric (rather than layers of meaning), I could understand how you might think "That Frank" is a song about a group of happy, fulfilled, well-adjusted people. Or perhaps if you never saw the scene that accompanies the song.

But, really, like "Uptown, Downtown" and "Lucy and Jessie," they're just variations on the same theme.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 1/27/12 at 4:04pm

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 04:04 PM

[CurtainCall]

Posted: 1/28/12 at 1:48am

'And we have NO idea that was his goal when the show starts at the party. You don't know that until later. It's a flaw with the revised version. When he brakes down at his high school in the original version, we get that things went sour.'

We get things have gone very sour at the end of the first scene in the revised version - a man who appeared to have everything at the beginning of the scene, is left on his own with no friends around him at the end. We are also given to understand from comments throughout the scene, especially Mary's, that his life, tho' superficially successful is deeply flawed underneath, personally and professionally. Why does it happen? It's a more elegant, less clunky and time-consuming way of explaining it.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/28/12 at 3:39am

I just had a long post but Newintown said it all.

[Owen22]

Posted: 1/28/12 at 9:25am

You know, in the end, either version of the show, "Merrily We Roll Along" is an intellectual conceit. We meet these characters at their worst. We never have a chance to warm to them (and by "we" I mean the general viewing public, not those of us who love the characters because we've studied and know the whole show). We never care for them. As reported in Sondheim and Co. when someone is asked if the new revised La Jolla version is an improvement, the retort is "Its still backwards." The show will never work in a traditional, commercial sense. So why not just do the original version? Most opinions have it as the better show.

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 1/28/12 at 10:13am

Owen22: "So why not just do the original version? Most opinions have it as the better show."...i so agree with you, and i have a thought about what the answer must be...it must be SONDHEIM himself not wanting the older version to be revived...there is now with Furth's death no other reason for keeping this older, but in many eyes, better version from coming back...was Sondheim so traumatized by the failure of this show in 1981 that it had to be changed at any cost?...i wonder...



Updated On: 1/28/12 at 10:13 AM

[Owen22]

Posted: 1/28/12 at 10:33am

possibly. Sondheim comes off so well-adjusted and pragmatic in his writings and interviews but industry friends who have had dealings with him indicate he can be very petty and close-minded in regards to people's opinions of his work. That as much as he is worshiped as "God", he is very thin-skinned and sensitive. All writers are, of course, but his is somewhat extreme.

[Hest882]

Posted: 1/28/12 at 11:21am

I think this thread seems to have reached a consensus that the original is the better show, but I don't believe Sondheim thinks so. I doubt the suppression of the original has anything to do this his "insecurities" but because he genuinely believes the original was deeply flawed and the newer version fixed some of those flaws.

I actually don't have a strong opinion around the party song either, but:

And we don't get ANY of that with the revised opening. We have NO IDEA that Frank feels he's made the wrong choices in the new opening. Only Mary, who is the only person introduced better in the revised piece. The show simply doesn't work if Frank isn't given a catalyst to look back.

I'm not convinced "That Frank" is supposed to signify a Frank that would do it all over again if he had the choice. I see a Frank who has lost his soul, who believes he made some stupid singular choices, and is wondering why everything is falling apart, but I *don't* see him as deeply regretful of his life and someone who triggers the backward structure of the musical. He is not the one looking back; we are ones watching how the emptiness of his life happened.

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 1/28/12 at 11:31am

in reading over the 'Merrily' section in Sondheim's "Finishing The Hat", it seems that James Lapine had a major influence in the new direction the opening of the show would take in it's revised production in 1985...and with that Sondheim seemed more satisfied about the whole structure of the musical...so while there are those of us who may not agree with the man himself, it is his musical, and he sees it in the rivised production, not the original...i personally would give anything to see the orginial production done again...i moved to NYC in 1982, and the show had just closed in Dec, 1981...damn!

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/28/12 at 9:32pm

I don't get a strong sense that Furth was really behind the changes made to update either Company or Merrily... As for the consensus--while maybe people in this thread prefer the original over all, the critics certainly didn't, and I don't think it's an accepted truth, even if I agree.

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 1/28/12 at 11:07pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m5ViVUfv6k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_RvOJ6sW8A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIRGxJfBOhw

I really love this show, and ushered there in 1981 show for the 6 wks, whatever....anyway, some of it's foggy to me now , however, I remember, watching it every night was REALLY confusing, the backwards/forward thing. After a wk, I asked the sound guy to explain.Thank you, sound guy. Remember, the audience had NO idea what they were gonna see, and the "simplistic set/costumes, etc. "annoyed" them. Them were the days of the GLITZY Musical. Anyway, I sorta remember during the previews, the characters were wearing their names on their shirts, which was kinda disconcerting...!? Anyway, decided to seek out some Youtubes tonight, and Voila! some bootlegs! Quality sucks, but the best thing about the production was the ORCHESTra/sOUND. In person, that is. GLORIOUS. eSPECIALLY the overture. i JUST love THE OVERTURE.. Sorta has traces of Leonard Bernstein influence, which somehow I hear in most of Sondheim's stuff. Anyway, enjoy.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 1/28/12 at 11:14pm

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 11:14 PM