FOLLIES- National Theatre Live- Page 3

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 11/19/17 at 6:10pm

Broadwayboy, did you watch it? She isn't wearing green.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/19/17 at 9:41pm

 

Ugh, again. I don't think I can bear to see this show shat upon again.

 

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 11/19/17 at 10:48pm

I haven't seen it in the theatre yet but there are some clips on a certain website and in the one of Too Many Mornings her dress looks green.

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 11/19/17 at 10:56pm

Okay I just looked at the production photos and her dress is indeed blue. The lighting in the video capture makes it looks green though.

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 11/20/17 at 1:38am

Overall I really enjoyed seeing the taped production and the more I think about it the more I liked it. It haunts, the way productions of Follies should but seldom do. The main four were great and really lived those characters. The use of the ghosts were VERY effective, and I was so happy that the ghosts were such great actors. Those lines of Sally's "No, not now Ben not Ever!" and "You can't play with my feelings!" have always come off false and kinda maudlin from the actresses that have been cast in other productions I've felt.  The ghosts felt as real this time as their older counter parts and I felt invested in their story arc too. And the scene where they all scream at their younger selves before Loveland always seemed to me like a gimmick to make an on the nose point but this time it felt earned and very scary and unsettling. I feel in this production, everyone's infidelities within the party and what they talk about outside made them all seem so much sadder and more pitiful. You really get this theme of sex being like alcohol or drugs to these people. Just something they turn to so they don't completely destroy themselves. (Phyllis's "That's a neat trick" was devastating) 

The casting of Carlotta I loved. Her demeanor and voice and attitude is straight outta a Dick Cavett interview in the late 60s early 70s. A leftover from the old Hollywood like Bette Davis or something who just tells it like it is now. Made the song "I'm Still Here" feel very personal to the character, and to have the dynamic go from her story time with the party guests to her own monologue of affirmation was brilliant. 

Imelda I liked more and more as it went on. Her Sally I had to get used to. She was so manic and I think I hadn't experienced that character that way before so it threw me. It makes sense with her character's choices to play it that way and she was utterly captivating in both "In Buddy's Eyes" and "Losing My Mind". I will want to see it again knowing that Sally this time round isn't "Sweet and delusional mid life crisis housewife" and really "Someone who's been teetering with mental illness for a long time" Her last moment is depressing and I don't say that as a bad thing. I felt this sense of dread for what comes next for her that was VERY effective, as apposed to the edits in later editions of the book where they try to suggest a light at the end of some tunnel for her. This time, I really don't know. Also "Too Many Mornings" is fabulous, it was lower? Sure, maybe a few steps but...who cares? 

Is it just more or did it seem like the rotating set actually helped the pace? Like the night was a dizzying merry go round for them, and it mirrored their continual drunkenness. 

I agree, Buddy is very likable this time round. I think making Buddy more heavy set is a good choice. Phyllis and Ben had great chemistry with their bitter repartee.  

MY QUIBBLES

The orchestra was gorgeous but when they would go to forte the mics would be drowned out completely. Almost every number that had a big finish, the last note couldn't be heard over the orchestra.

I questioned some of the literal choices in the Follies portion at the end. Even though I loved "Losing My Mind", I wanted the complete departure from reality. Her holding a glass felt like we weren't fully immersed in the torch song fantasy. 

And then this is just a Follies issue in general for me. SOOO MUCH STILTED DIALOGUE. These actors are so great and they do their best but some of the writing is just so "Why?" to me. Like, James Goldman was trying to keep up with the pathos of Sondheim's lyrics and couldn't. I dream of a book writer to come in and make some of the dialogue more natural. You could argue George Furth's dialogue is stilted for the shows he did with Sondheim but at least with him there's a consistency of style to his book. It feels organic to the world of the show. Some of the characters' waxing poetically in this show will just never work for me. And not to mention, the book doesn't offer enough moments of levity or humor. Especially for Phyllis who as a character lends herself to being able to land punchlines more. 

"Rain on the Roof, Ah Paris, Broadway Baby" felt tired. They all looked tired. 

 

But in conclusion very happy to add this one to the canon of solid Sondheim pro shot productions. Also gotta mention, how lucky are we? We have NEARLY every one of his shows now preserved professionally on film for everyone to see. You actually can't say that for a lot of other Broadway composers. I'm just very thankful that while Sondheim still feels niche to the theatre world, we have preserved phenomenal productions of Follies, Company, A Little Night Music, Pacific Overtures, Sweeney Todd, Merrily We Roll Along, Sunday in the Park with George, Into the Woods and Passion. 

I mean, my god that really just leaves of Forum, Assassins and Road Show in terms of his work. And I would squeal with delight at getting a great pro shot of the next Assassins. 

 

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 11/20/17 at 6:55am

Looking forward to seeing this tonight. I booked second row and hope were not too close to the screen. Never been in this performance space before

[jewishboy]

Posted: 11/20/17 at 9:48am

Great to hear everyone’s thoughts! I have such vivid memories from seeing this at the National.

Regarding Imelda, and I know this sounds like a huge cop out, but I just watched In Buddy’s Eyes on YouTube and the big screen certainly exaggerates her manic qualities. Or maybe the performance changed a lot, but in the theatre it read more vulnerable than crazy (at least for me). Even her eyes in the filmed version add a layer of crazy that just doesn’t translate in the theatre. I still think her singing is perfect for the song and role.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 11/20/17 at 10:12pm

I'll post more about this later, but seeing this tonight, what a huge production. Some fabulous performances and overall great staging.

I had to post quickly to ask who was responsible for the filming and editing of this, though, because it was one of the most nauseating experiences I've ever had watching a filmed stage performance. They cut around to different angles of the theater every 4 and a half seconds, zooming in and out and up and down at breakneck speed. They also used the balcony-level camera when they really should have been intimate and close with the performers so many times. The sound mixing was also just really subpar. Terrible, terrible film job for a production I otherwise mostly enjoyed.

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 11/20/17 at 10:23pm

Glad I saw it but...was slightly disappointed after all the raves here.  It seems I liked many of the things that other people didn’t and vice versa.

Agreed with the orchestrations being way too loud which overpowered most of the actors except for Ben.  He was really the only one you could hear clearly.

I wasn’t fond of Imelda Staunton in Gypsy and unfortunately, didn’t care for her performance in this either.  Like Jewishboy said, it could be the closeups, but she just read too crazy although I did enjoy her “Losing My Mind”, she was much more subtle. 

Not sure if it’s the role of Phyllis but she is my favorite character to watch and every woman I see play her seems to play her well.

I also enjoyed the transition to Loveland and the use of the ghosts throughout the show.

We saw it at the NYC Skirball and spotted a few performers in the crowd.

Updated On: 11/20/17 at 10:23 PM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 11/20/17 at 10:40pm

Is it playing anywhere Wednesday in NYC

[Ravenclaw]

Posted: 11/20/17 at 11:19pm

Marlothom said: "Slightly confused by Imelda's Losing My Mind. I've read a lot about this show, seen several productions, etc. and always thought the Loveland sequence/songs are supposed to be performed as though they were numbers in the "Follies" and not as dramatic interpretations. For example, Losing My Mind is an homage to a torch song, and usually performed with Sally just standing there, singing the song (this is the way most professional productions have handled this number).
[...]
I am excited to see this when it comes to town because I adore the score - but a bit worried as I found Imelda's Rose to also begin at a "10" in crazed energy. Sounds like she plays Sally in a similar way."

I completely agree with you--her Mama Rose and her Martha in ...Virginia Woolf? were playing the end at the beginning, and so there was nowhere for either character go, making the arc unsatisfying to follow. Same problem with her Sally, although she is balanced by more grounded costars. Her Sally was manic and unhinged from the start. I remember years ago when I took my mother to a production of Follies, she said "I love how when you first meet the characters, you think you know exactly who they are, but then as the story moves forward, you learn that you were so wrong about them all." This was the same problem I had with Bernadette's Sally--not to mention the much-criticized on here red dress she wore in the Kennedy Center mounting which was replaced for Broadway. (Hey! Remember when we learned that the people at the Kennedy Center were reading this board and taking our notes? I also seem to recall quotes from the message board in advertising that pillow...). My favorite Sally I have seen was Susan Moniz, who I found to be absolutely revelatory in the Chicago Shakespeare production which, to me, was the closest I'll see to a perfect production any time soon.

Also, the framing of Losing My Mind in the production didn't work for me. It wasn't a naturalistic staging--she was in a kind of fantasy boudoir--but she should be fantasizing that she's having a breakdown. The brilliance of the Loveland sequence is the balancing of the form being total pastiche while the content is dark and biting. An ensemble member in a beautiful dress comes downstage carrying a giant letter "D" saying "D is for the doubts that never die!" in an optimistic voice. Sally should live in the emotion of the torch song, playing the form not the content. Allowing her to have a total breakdown also undermines the impact of Ben's breakdown not ten minutes later--it makes the show climax too early.

For me, the most interesting choice this production made was to set different scenes in different parts of the theatre--I've never really seen that done before. In some cases, it made sense (of course Sally and Ben would seek a little privacy for "Too Many Mornings" while in other cases it made less sense (Why are "Rain on the Roof," "Ah, Paris!," and "Broadway Baby" in entirely different locations? Aren't the performing for each other? And aren't these songs diegetic?).

The pacing and the use of the ghosts gave this production a big leg up on the last Broadway revival for me. The director had a clear take on why the ghosts were there in each moment they were there, and they had a constant presence that was always purposeful. And this production really clipped along, whereas the Broadway revival really dragged--the delivery of dialogue in that production became so slow as the show went on that not including intermission, it ran almost 20 minutes longer than the concurrent Chicago production!

Overall, there were many things that I liked and many choices I disagreed with, but however much I complain, I am always thrilled whenever I am able to see a production of Follies. There are so many difficult things to wrestle with that any try is admirable. Also, so many of us on this board love and know the show so deeply that we could nitpick any production for ages. It's great that we have a production so worthy of nitpicking! 

One last thing, because I haven't seen it mentioned in the threads about this production: If you have not done so before, read the book Everything Was Possible: The Birth of the Musical "Follies" by Ted Chapin. It's one of the best books about the theatre there is.

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 11/20/17 at 11:34pm

See, I have always felt that when Sally was played sweeter, her knee jerk expectation for Ben to marry her after "Too Many Mornings" didn't feel earned. Suddenly, this character is acting irrationally for the plot. Imelda's portrayal makes you feel like that moment is organic to her. It's manic and impulsive the way she has been all evening. Also, to portray her dealing with potentially borderline or manic depressive and have it going untreated adds realism to the time period of the show.  

Updated On: 11/20/17 at 11:34 PM

[Ravenclaw]

Posted: 11/21/17 at 1:00am

People dealing with untreated mental illness are not just walking bags of crazy. There should be more nuance (as there also should have been in her Rose and Martha). I think it totally should be jarring when Sally asks Ben to marry her--after trying consciously to hold herself together, once she finally has Ben within reach she lets her guard down and lets herself make an impulsive choice. That should be the moment when we realize Sally is dealing with a much bigger mental health issue, not the first moment she walks onstage.

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 11/21/17 at 1:31am

I didn't see Imelda's Sally as crazy the very second she walked onstage. I actually thought she was funny, excited, and childlike. She just seemed like a sweet lady, but her demeanor seemed to slip further into insanity as the show progressed. Her portrayal of Sally definitely seems to be manic depressive or bipolar. It makes her performance really heartbreaking, especially her delivery of the final scene. I have to say that many actresses have sung the role better than her, but I don't think anyone has ever acted the part better.

Her Rose was another story....... Maybe it read better in the theatre. Her Martha in Virginia Wolfe really was phenomenal however.

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 11/21/17 at 6:47am

Just to point out that in the published vocal score of the show, it states that Losing My Mind takes place in "a boudoir in Loveland."

[JBC3]

Posted: 11/21/17 at 7:40am

As with her Rose, the Staunton Sally played less large and manic when seen on stage.

[BJR]

Posted: 11/21/17 at 8:10am

I though this production was equisite.

This one nailed what the previous didn't: the ghosts. So many times, my eyes welled up and all the small moments of their shadows following them.

I happened to love the film documentary crew conceit. Such a simple and effective way to get each person to give their 3 lines to what already seemed like a prompt. An inobstrusive directorial touch that worked with the text.

And I disagree about Loveland. I thought Sally's folly worked great set in a film-musical style boidoir. Imelda's Sally was never a torch song crooner, center spotlight with a gorgeous gown, and it would've been ridiculous. Plus, vocally, it wouldn't have worked. A glammed-up housewife taken to drink in a silk robe and great-set hair was perfect.

As for Lucy and Jessie, I think that's the best version I've seen. I loved the Rita Hayworth style number dancing with her younger self. I found it cathartic and exhilarating.

And I echo so much of what others said. One More Kiss stopped the show, the set was stunning.

Far superior to the 2011 revival. I loved it.

[Marlothom]

Posted: 11/21/17 at 10:25am

Ravenclaw, I also saw the Chicago Shakespeare production and it remains one of my favorites.  

I never thought the Loveland #s were to represent the types of numbers these characters did in their youth.  Maybe I am wrong, but Sally and Phyllis were chorus girls, not featured - and Ben/Buddy did not perform at all.  

At any rate, still excited to see this.  

[phan24]

Posted: 11/21/17 at 12:29pm

Barring the unbalanced audio mixing that drowned singing voices, this production was top-notch, had tears in my eyes all throughout, it clears up so many ambiguous (for better or worse) things about the book.

I loved it so much that I just bought a ticket to see it again tonight (at the Beekman), highly recommend it!

[JVJ93]

Posted: 11/21/17 at 12:39pm

Do we think there’s any way this production could come over to NY? Don’t think it belongs on Broadway, but a run at BAM or Park Ave Armory would be amazing. Though I have Heard Imelda is indeed doing Gypsy next season

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 11/21/17 at 1:29pm

I remember Imedla barking at Buddy the second they had a scene together. That seems like playing the end from the beginning to me. Sally had no arc, no plot development. It reminded me or Rachel Weiss in "Plenty", a show supposedly about the slow mental deterioration of a woman over 20 years. Rachel was crazy the second she walked on stage. As was Imedla. Say all you want about Bernadette, there was a beautiful hopefulness about her opening monologue, and she attempted to hide her disdain for Buddy at the beginning. Imelda was having a breakdown the second she entered the theatre and picking fights fromher first scene.

And I'm still not over how cheap the costumes and Loveland looked. I think the National should be banned from using that turntable for a few years. Bring back some genuinely creative staging.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 11/21/17 at 2:12pm

Saw this last night at Skirball and 90% loved it. For me, the book has always been the downfall of FOLLIES. The pathos of the piece, by and large, comes from Sondheim’s music and lyrics and the book feels more interesting in theory than practice. But - oh - that score.

My big negatives had more to do with the filming than the production itself. Some odd, counterintuitive camera moves and a bit too much busy-ness while trained close up. And the sound mixing was unfortunate. Saw a lot of people around me shaking their heads during several moments when the lyrics were all but inaudible under the (glorious) orchestra. As for the production itself, I was indifferent to the Rain/Paris/Broadway Baby trio and it’s purpose. Because the director clearly gave so much care to the spine of the piece (the quartet of lovers and their ghosts), the rest feels sort of pushed aside. Thankfully, two of those “extra” numbers absolutely soar: the shattering “One More Kiss” and Tracie Bennett’s 5-course meal of “I’m Still Here.” Both numbers as are thrilling as any musical moment I’ve ever seen performed live.

The MVP of the night, for me, was the fabulous Janie Dee. Her “Lucy & Jesse” was thrilling and “Could I Leave You?” was searingly honest. (I wish I had the pleasure of seeing her as Margery in HAND TO GOD.) I really enjoyed Imelda Staunton. I’m still trying to find the pleasure in her specific, manic style of acting on stage - she sure does play a lot of basket cases, huh? - after strongly disliking her Mama Rose and Martha. But starting her Sally at an 11 actually proved a brilliant choice, given how little time we have to get to know her before she’s singing “Don’t Look at Me,” which always struck me as aggressively manic for so early in the evening. The men were very good, especially Philip Quast who delivers a wonderfully simple “The Road You Didn’t Take.” Peter Forbes is done no favors with the direction of “The Right Girl” and it’s half-hearted dance section, but his “GWDYLM Blues” comes across significantly better.

I thoroughly enjoyed myself seeing this. The pace never wavered and the true stars - the score and the performers - shone bright. It will likely be a very long time before we see another FOLLIES of this scale and quality, so thank you, NT Live, for broadcasting it.

[JBC3]

Posted: 11/29/17 at 8:06am

Saw this again twice on stage in the past few days, and I have to say it is thrilling beyond belief. The pathos of choice, love, loss, and regret come through in ways unlike any other production I have seen. The set, the revolve, the dancers as true mirrors of their older selves instead of wandering ghosts, and much more made the experience so robust.

Plus that orchestra and cast size!!! Good heavens. Experiencing them live the sound is deafening and wondrous, particularly given the sightlines and intimacy a large space like the Olivier can still engender. Solange was a total weak link every time I saw this and Hattie does not get the laughs in her number that came in the last Broadway revival, but moment for moment, I would willingly see this every single day.

While not a total Imelda fan, I think her choices here work because her Sally actually attempted to kill herself. She truly feels her life is not worth living without Ben. And her aching rasp at the end of Losing My Mind got the tears flowing every single time.

In figure skating, some skaters go from jump to jump with little intentional artistic impression to weave their performance into a coherent whole. What the directorial team has done here so effectively is to mine all of the in-between ones in ways that create an artistic completeness and a most satisfying night of theatre.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/29/17 at 4:56pm

Okay, let me  preface this by saying that I did not see the original production, which may explain why I've never truly understood all the praise heaped upon this show.  I have seen numerous productions, both live and on video, listened to every cast recording, and read books on the subject in a Herculean effort to perhaps one day experience something that even faintly resembles the superlative magnificence that is often bestowed upon a show that has become legendary to the point of fanaticism.  With all that in mind, this production has come closest to assembling a work that offers me an indication of the show's legendary potential.  Luckily, I don't approach it with the nit-picky perfectionist expectations, but in comparison to other productions I've seen, this is the most comprehensible.  That the material, as-is, will allow, at least.

I still have issues with the disjointed and awkward book.  I can't believe we still have so many of those corny dated jokes that would sound more appropriate in the original book for Applause than in this show.  So many of the transitions are still so clumsy or abrupt, leaving the issues to be ironed out by each director with every production.  Only visual spectacle can distract from these weird moments and luckily, this particular staging does a good job of covering most of that, though I still struggle with the present-day timeline of events that lead to the Loveland sequence.  

Why are "Rain on the Roof," "Ah, Paris!," and "Broadway Baby" in entirely different locations? Aren't the performing for each other? And aren't these songs diegetic?

Perhaps, but the whole sequence just sort of happens and overlaps at the end in a way that never made sense.  One of the biggest WTF structural issues I've always had with this show.  Rain on the Roof and Ah Paris seem entirely erroneous.  Then you have the various monologues delivered to various people in a variety of ways that starts off making sense and then just sort of meanders into incongruous vignettes.  If this disjointed narrative is an attempt to depict the deterioration of reality within the real-time events of the party, then it's a failed attempt in the book.  If the pastiche numbers are being performed for each other as a part of the event, there's not enough overlap in the dialogue and staging to clarify this.  One More Kiss just suddenly "happens". Though it was ultimately a STUNNING depiction, much like the Rain/Paris/Baby sequence, it didn't feel quite connected to anything.  Book? Staging?  Both?

As for Staunton and Dee, I thought both were perfection in their roles.  The best I've ever seen them played.  Staunton's nervous energy and giddiness at the top of the show, in conjunction with her behavior toward Buddy was the very definition of a woman who has spent DECADES waiting for this one fleeting opportunity that she sees as not only her escape from her own imprisonment, but that will somehow magically make up for years of lost time and potential happiness.  People keep saying "crazy", but I say "desperation" and "excitement", which is precisely what is required.  She's been dreaming of this moment her entire adult life and when she finally clutches it, it's as quickly ripped away from her.  I don't think she could have played any second of it any better, especially in a theatre that size.

And Dee was what I always hoped to see in Phyllis.  From the start, she's emotionally poised like a gunslinger in the center of town at dawn, ready for the inevitable adversaries with her hand twitching next to her hip.  She's filled with focused intensity and it's engaging and chilling.  

Everyone else was quite good.  I don't care for The Right Girl and I don't think I ever will.  I don't like the structure or the melody or anything about it.  Who's That Woman and I'm Still Here were quite effective.  The Loveland sequence?   Excellent.  Especially Losing My Mind, which put Sally right into the center of a visually stunning tableau, which to me, is much more reminiscent of a Follies number than a bare-bones park-and-bark.  To me, what makes Loveland so interesting is watching the characters being FORCED to participate (in varying degrees) in the Follies of their lives, which is why we watch their confusion at the start of the sequence.  Sally's breakdown should not be downplayed, considering how insanely high she placed the stakes for herself, at the expense of Ben's number (which is less of a breakdown than it is an awakening).  I loved the manic excitement of Phyllis and the exhaustion of Buddy in their respective numbers.  But as in every production, Ben's Loveland number is really his only interesting scene.  We see a bit of character in Too Many Mornings, even though it really has more to do with Sally than Ben, especially considering this pivotal scene is deflated as quickly as it happens.  Sure, we get some business with Sally running around planning her new wedding (in a way that almost implies bigamy), but the emotional tension is blown for the audience immediately after the song and we're only left to pity Sally and perhaps hold Ben in (familiar) contempt.  By the time we get to the "I don't love me" realization, the impact is sorta meh, mostly because my response is "well, duh...you're an a-hole".

Because the director clearly gave so much care to the spine of the piece (the quartet of lovers and their ghosts), the rest feels sort of pushed aside.

I thought the director made the most out of it, considering the book really relegates them to asides as well.  Who's That Woman, I'm Still Here and One More Kiss work theoretically in a meta-theatrical way not unlike the Emcee numbers in Cabaret, though it's never really clear given the other peripheral character numbers are inconsistently placed in the book.  Not to mention that the use of pastiche and signature Sondheim contemporary stylings are inconsistently used as well.  Most of the peripheral characters are given songs resembling pastiche...EXCEPT I'm Still Here, which sounds as if it was meant to recreate the successful Ladies Who Lunch of Company, still fresh in the minds of the 1971 audiences.  And the present-day core four are given intricate contemporary work typical of Sondheim, though the treacly belty quality of Too Many Mornings straddles the line of operetta.

For me, the production was successful in that it was the first time I was truly captivated by the show and this is actually the first time I ever truly felt like discussing it in such detail and analysis.  BUT...I still think the structure and book are fatally flawed.  And while I find the women quite fascinating, the main four characters are all still horrible people and I don't care what happens to them.  I think double murder/suicides would be a more appropriate ending.  And the rest of the characters only exist to serve the setting and atmosphere, the same as the ghosts (with the exception of the Young core four), so I really just view the show as an interesting exercise in form, but unrealized as a finished product.  I'm glad to see a production that I *gasp* enjoyed to an extent, and will perhaps watch again.  But dear God, I'm really burned out on Broadway Baby, I'm Still Here and Buddy's Blues, so I'll probably fast-forward those in addition to The Right Girl.

Updated On: 11/29/17 at 04:56 PM

[JBC3]

Posted: 11/29/17 at 6:35pm

I think you mean Dee for Phyllis, not Bennett. She played Carlotta.