National Theatre: Follies- Page 9

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 1:15pm

The new key of "Too Many Mornings" is embarrassing.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 3:15pm

devonian.t said: "So nobody thought to dress up to attend that party?"

It's 1971, That WAS dressing up then.

Not as I remember it!  And not as they dressed it in the original show...

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 3:31pm

henrikegerman said: ""As Phyllis, Dee is brilliantly sardonic in her withering put-downs but when it came to the climactic The Story of Lucy and Jessie, where she dances alongside Strallen, I realised that this is a song about a divided self." Billington in the Guardian

If this somehow a new realization? If not that,exactly what did Billington formerly think the song was about?"

Billington starts his review speaking of the original 1987 London production, which he also would have reviewed for The Grauniad since he's been the critic there since 1971. Therefore he may not have seen Follies performed with The Story of Lucy and Jessie as it was replaced in that production by Ah But Underneath. He's only grudgingly a Sondheim fan.

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 3:44pm

IdinaBellFoster said: "The new key of "Too Many Mornings" is embarrassing."

When Dorothy Collins reprised the role she sang in in this key and she was 10 years younger than Imelda 

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 3:57pm

well the reviews are in and ..."it's a Hit!"...

VARIETY

THE INDEPENDENT

THE GUARDIAN

the STANDARD

even BWW.COM...has loved this version...

Updated On: 9/7/17 at 03:57 PM

[Itonlytakesajourney]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 4:07pm

Those production photos look beautiful! The sets are perfect, the Weissman Theater's set is how it should be done. Preferably always. I thought Imelda wouldn't fit into the role, but she looks great as Sally. Hate to say it, but this honestly looks better than the 2011 revival in every way (bar Bernadette). 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 5:33pm

Scripps2 said: "henrikegerman said: ""As Phyllis, Dee is brilliantly sardonic in her withering put-downs but when it came to the climactic The Story of Lucy and Jessie, where she dances alongside Strallen, I realised that this is a song about a divided self." Billington in the Guardian

If this somehow a new realization? If not that,exactly what did Billington formerly think the song was about?"

Billington starts his review speaking of the original 1987 London production, whichhe also would have reviewed for The Grauniad since he's been the critic there since 1971. Therefore he may not have seen Follies performed with The Story of Lucy and Jessie as it was replaced in that production by Ah But Underneath. He's only grudgingly a Sondheim fan."

Point taken.  But isn't "Ah But Underneath" also clearly about "a divided self?"

 

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 5:58pm

imeldasturn said: "IdinaBellFoster said: "The new key of "Too Many Mornings" is embarrassing."

When Dorothy Collins reprised the role she sang in in this key and she was 10 years younger than Imelda"

And she reprised it in stock, not a major revival.

I think Imelda is a great fit for Sally from what I've seen and heard, but I think it's ok to admit that the new key is awkward. She's not a strong enough singer to make this new key sound impressive. When Bernadette sang the original key, she revealed a surprising soprano register that not many were sure she had in her, but she did, and sounded lovely. Imelda doesn't sound bad, but I 100% maintain that the key is awkward, and does not soar like the original. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 6:42pm

For what It's  worth, I thought live in the theatre the key sounded just fine- the number was still thrilling and of course Staunton acted it beautifully.

Sondheim is not a purist about musical keys. I think it bothers his devotees much more than it does him when his keys are changed to fit the strengths of the actors. 

[David10086]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 8:35pm

There's always been the question as to why this was never turned into a movie in the past 45 years? A great vehicle (especially now) for Streisand. 

[jewishboy]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 8:36pm

I'm a devotee, and care about the original keys, and think the way Staunton sang the song was indeed thrilling, beautiful, and sounded better than Bernadette did in the revival. I do think her beginnng sounded a little off. I think she sings to the top of her register which is important and similar to Dorothy Collins. I think Bernadette did too, but in her case it did not have the same effect (for me). I heard a more broken, squeaky, sound from Bernadette which did not translate into as good of an interpretation (at least in my listening). 

However, I totally understand the opposite point of view. 

Cheers! 

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 8:52pm

David10086 said: "There's always been the question as to why this was never turned into a movie in the past 45 years? A great vehicle (especially now) for Streisand."

Huh?  Sally's supposed to be 49.  Streisand is 75 and her voice is in rough shape, plus her face is nearly completely immobilized from having so much plastic surgery.

 

[binau]

Posted: 9/7/17 at 11:35pm

jewishboy said: "I'm a devotee, and care about the original keys,and think the way Staunton sang the song was indeedthrilling,beautiful, and sounded better than Bernadette did in the revival. I do think her beginnng sounded a little off. I think she sings to the top of her register which is important and similar to Dorothy Collins. I think Bernadette did too, but in her case it did not have the same effect (for me). I heard a more broken, squeaky, sound from Bernadette which did not translate into as good of an interpretation (at least in my listening).

However, I totally understand the opposite point of view.

Cheers!"

So I decided to 'spoil' myself and listen to Imelda's Too Many Mornings. I agree that once the song progresses Imelda sounds pretty reasonable for the Soprano climax notes towards the end, even if I find it a little jarring to hear in the slightly lower key. There was something a little bit squeaky and uncomfortable watching Bernadette do these notes at times and it felt like she was really stretching her voice to its maximum capacity. This was one of the moments that Victoria Clark really outdid Bernadette. I can understand why you might have felt more comfortable listening to Imelda in that moment.

But what is awful in Imelda's singing (and I think you've noticed this when you say she was off in the beginning) is the "how I planned what I'd wear.." lines  She is barely singing at all - kind of speak-singing. It's truly awful. And the "my fears were wrongg" note was so weak. Bernadette's soaring "wrongggg" note here was very, very good. Almost as good as Victoria Clark's. The difference between Imelda, and Bernadette and Victoria Clark's voices here is substantial. It does expose weakness in Imelda's voice. I SUSPECT this same issue will impact Imelda's performance of her "Buddy's Eyes" but I'm going to resist listening to it (or watching the NT Live Broadcast) until I see the show live in January.

 

 

[jewishboy]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:07am

THAT'S exactly what I'm hearing qolbinau! And for me, I prefer Imelda's vocal interpretation AND limitations vs Bernadettes interpretation and limitations because I LOVED the climax of Staunton and Quast's version much more than Peters and Raines (the two times I saw it). And over Victoria Clark and Victor Garber's version for that matter.

Overall Staunton and Quast's singing has been the most emotional affecting for me in the whole dramatic scope of the show and character's journeys (maybe this is an instance in which the no intermission helps?). 

I haven't listened to this bootleg, does Quast's last note sound as good as it did in the theatre? 

Updated On: 9/8/17 at 03:07 AM

[ChessMad]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 4:56am

Long time lurker here and a big Sondheimfan. I saw the production on Broadway with Bernadette and now the National Theatres production this last Friday, 1st of September. I will compare it with the Broadway production as that is the only other Follies production I've seen. Do forgive my English if something sounds wrong, as English is not my native language.

This text will also contain A LOT of spoilers as the memory of the production still is so fresh and I want to write down the details I'll likely forget in the future.

I am by no means a Follies expert. I simply love the show and am writing my own thoughts and impressions of the show.

The production looks GORGEOUS. The sets are really that beautiful. The start of the show really sets the tone of the show. High up on a platform stage right a Follies "ghost" simply just shows up, without any "welcome" or "turn off your mobile device" anouncements. This made it take quite a while before the whole audience noticed her.

In the Broadway production I think there were several ghosts on stage already when the audience entered the theatre. With just one ghost appearing it made it very eerie. I felt the audience were put in the "Follies-mood" right away with this simple staging.

The whole opening is incredibly staged. The director must've spent weeks on this part alone. As every Follies star enters the theatre, their younger counterpart approaches them and looks at them in awe (or horror). The ghosts then follow the stars around during most of the opening with incredible details put into the blocking and choreography. I had goosebumps during this whole 20 minute segment.

All of the party segments have also been incredibly staged with the help of the revolve and the huge middle set piece. The big "Weissman" sign has visible broken lights that flicker throughout the show. Very atmospheric.

In some parts the book drags on and on. After the "Broadway Baby"-trio the scenes are quite slow. I don't remember it being this slow on Broadway. I read some of you guys' comments about them adding cut lines. Could this be where they were added?

"Who's That Woman" is a fantastic number. After having seen some clips on THAT site of older productions, I didn't like the choreography of the Broadway productions number. I kind of feel that the National Theatres "Mirror Mirror" is a bit worse than the Broadway productions. When the ghosts come in the newer versions simply leave the stage and let the ghosts have most of the dance number to themselves. I understand it has to do with the age of the cast, but I wish some would still try to do the mirror effect that has been done in some productions, where the older versions stand downstage and the ghosts upstage mirror their movements. In the Nationals version they do an impressive kickline while turning the huge revolve.

Tracie Bennet does an incredible rendition of "I'm Still Here". It ends very tragically. I've never seen the number being performed with this kind of twist at the end. Very heartbreaking. The audience roared after the song!

Josephine Barstows "One More Kiss" is heartbreakingly beautiful. I have never heard of her but I can hear what a great soprano she used to be. This is the essence of Follies I feel. I always cry at "all things beautiful must die".

In the middle of "Could I Leave You" a phone started disturbing the sound system which kind of killed the whole song. Janie Dee as Phyllis pulled through like a TOTAL professional. MAJOR kudos to her for getting through without forgetting any lines as the phones ringtone rang out through the theatres soundsystem. This made me sad as this is one of my favorite songs. Janie Dee struggles a bit with her higher notes but sounds great overall. She is a very convincing Phyllis and her dancing in "The Story of Lucy and Jessie" is impressive.

The "Loveland" transformation is quite boring. I read about the criticism for the Broadway productions reveal, but the Broadway productions reveal is very impressive compared to the Nationals. Basically they drop two curtains down with a painted procenium on them. Very underwhelming. The costumes during the "Loveland" sequence is very beautiful however.

The Follies part is done very well. Hilarious "You're Gonna Love Tomorrow/Love Will See Us Through". The younger main cast is very impressive.

"God-Why-Don't-You-Love-Me.." is very funny with two men in drag as Margie and Sally. Very funny! Peter Forbes as Buddy is very good here.

"Losing My Mind" is staged very dramatically with Sally sitting in front of a huge makeup mirror looking miserable. This song which was performed so well and simple in the Broadway production was IMO overstaged here.

Imelda Staunton is a great Sally. She comes off as very nervous and then descends into madness incredibly realistically. I did not quite care for her singing that much. It's fine, she hits the notes, but it doesn't quite soar the way you want it too after having listened to the OCR or the great Barbara Cook in the Follies concert. Both "In Buddys Eyes" and "Losing My Mind" is so so. She talksings some parts and I felt she did this with most of "Losing My Mind".

Philip Quast is good. When we saw it I don't quite think he had quite learned the whole score and lines as there were tiny wrong sayings and missed ques here and there. Nothing too disturbing if you don't know the score and book that well. His acting in "Live Laugh Love" is very well. Great acting here by Quast.

I feel that this show is not quite better than the Broadway production, but the staging and the acting (in some parts) totally are. What a gorgeous production it was! The National Theatre has totally gone all out with this production. DO NOT MISS IT! Feel free to ask if you have any other questions.

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 7:30am

Thanks for posting your review! It was interesting to read someone compare it closely with the Broadway revival. 

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 10:39am

It kind of makes me sad to hear that Imelda isn't slaying Losing My Mind.  She's more of a belter then anything and I feel like she should be able to handle it. Still I'm excited to see the broadcast. Follies has rapidly become one of my top  favorite musicals. I would be interested to see/read a script from the "murder mystery" version of Follies. 

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 11:14am

While we're comparing the two revivals, I know people are really enjoying the 21 piece orchestra in the NT production, and it does sound great from what I've heard, but just a reminder that the 2011 revival had a stunning 28 players, like the original production. Now the Roundabout orchestra was a measly 14 players, what a travesty.

Updated On: 9/8/17 at 11:14 AM

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 12:38pm

New York Times review: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/arts/follies-sondheim-national-theatre-london.html?smid=tw-nytimesarts&smtyp=cur

[LittleCheno]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:42pm

Totally random question, but does the National Theater use Playbills? Or another form of program?


Thank you!!

[Callum_brown1]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:54pm

LittleCheno said: "Totally random question, but does the National Theater use Playbills? Or another form of program?


Thank you!!"

Yes they have a large glossy souvenir programme with production photos and essays for £5. A similar one was produced for Angels.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:48pm

henrikegerman said: "Point taken. But isn't "Ah But Underneath" also clearly about a divided self?"

The Story of Lucy and Jessie is a song of sharp contrasts between who Phyllis was and who she is now. Ah But Underneath is much more nuanced; it's about how someone doesn't necessarily reveal who they are in the first instance. In the 1987 London Follies, Phyllis wasn't so much a divided self as she was someone putting on a front to cover her lack of self-confidence.

Without wishing to defend him too much, I can understand why Billington saw Phyllis and the whole show at the National in a different way to the sepia-tinted Follies he would have seen at the Shaftesbury 30 years ago. 

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 6:25pm

well i have to say personally with all the somewhat negative words here about this production i for one am still VERY EXCITED to be seeing this on my trip to London...the Brits LOVE Sondheim and make his works work better than we here in the states...

[David10086]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 7:03pm

GeorgeandDot said: "David10086 said: "There's always been the question as to why this was never turned into a movie in the past 45 years? A great vehicle (especially now) for Streisand."

Huh? Sally's supposed to be 49. Streisand is 75 and her voice is in rough shape, plus her face is nearly completely immobilized from having so much plastic surgery."

You really think age matters that much? If that were the case, Glenn Close, 70, would never have played 50 year old Norma Desmond again on stage at the Palace, and wouldn't be considered for the movie.

Streisand herself would have never been cast as 'Dolly Levi' in 'Hello Dolly' at 27 years old. 

Diana Ross played 17 year old 'Dorothy' in 'The Wiz' at the age of 34 with a few tweaks to the story. 

Streisand could play the part no matter how old Sally is 'supposed' to be, As for her voice - it's fine for another musical. 

[justoldbill]

Posted: 9/9/17 at 1:14am

ChessMad mentions how "The 'God-Why-Don't-You-Love-Me' Blues" is performed with two men in drag as "Margie" and "Sally". For those unaware, that was how the number was first performed in Boston in 1971, the two performers being John J. Martin (Max Deems) and Dick Latessa (Major-Domo).  They also cavorted in their drag costumes during the chaos of Ben's breakdown at the end of Loveland.  In fact, that part of the blocking of the chaos was never altered; the drag "Margie" and "Sally" were still cavorting through the chaos on closing night.