A FOLLIES flim being developed by Sam Mendes and Aaron Sorkin?- Page 2

[TomMonster]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:07pm

And FOLLIES is not a bunch of vignettes with songs...?

[B3TA07]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:15pm

"Follies" is so perfect, it's flawed.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:19pm

Double post.

Updated On: 12/15/07 at 03:19 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:20pm

The problem with Company is that it might become a bunch of music videos ala "Evita".

The other problem is that the actor has to sing "Being Alive". It can't be cut. The pool of star names that could pull that off is slim. I would say Patrick Wilson or Eric McCormack but would they have as much box office draw as Brad Pitt?

Tick Tock could be used in a scene where Bobby and Paul have a bachelor party at a strip club. Parts of the dance could then be replayed in Bobby's mind when he is with April.

[americanboy99]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:24pm

Ewan McGregor, although all wrong for the role of Bobby, could pull of "Bobby".

Also, I'm not against dubbing. Some of the greatest musical movies feature dubbed casts (WEST SIDE STORY, MY FAIR LADY, etc.).

[LadyRosecoe]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:27pm

Could Follies recreate an ethereal scene of ghosts on camera standing beside their counterparts while making at least a slight distinction that makes the audience get it? I just imagine it being easier to understand the scenes happening onstage than if they were on film. I could see it now, having them with white makeup on their faces or using some blur around them to differentiate alive from non-existent. It would have to be completely tweaked and stretched more than just a bit.

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:34pm

i think anything is possible with the right blend of creative talent!
i dont know if mendes & sorkin are sensitive enough for FOLLIES.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:35pm

I think FOLLIES has more of a plot than COMPANY. I can't think of a moment in COMPANY that equals the suspense and emotion of TOO MANY MORNINGS, with Buddy walking in on Sally & Ben.

I also find the 4 leads in FOLLIES far more developed and interesting than any character in COMPANY. Don't get me wrong though, I still love COMPANY. Updated On: 12/15/07 at 03:35 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:37pm

mateo - that's actually kind of ridiculously sexy.

... and that was a hell of a lot of qualifiers. But yeah.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:40pm

I don't think Follies has a broad enough appeal outside the theatre community to be a successful film at all. Even the theatre community is divided on it.

Personally, it's far from my favorite Sondheim show, but in saying that, I'm referring primarily to the subject matter and the "book."

It's way too maudlin, self-aware, self-pitying, dated, and theatrical. The songs, as stand-alone pieces are little gems... but the parts, in this case, are far greater than the whole. I think it would be a dreadfully boring film.

But I could see Bill Condon's idea of adapting Ted Chapin's book "Everything Was Possible" much more than adapting the show itself.

As far as Company, I don't think the dated, bossa-nova and '60s-style score would play well in a film today. The Ladies Who Lunch would come off as an overwrought, Ultra-Lounge meltdown. The sentiments toward couples, relationships, pot, alcohol and the sexes in general would also seem like a "very special episode" of That Girl. The impact would be lost or trivialized for 9/10 of the film.

Into the Woods and Sunday In the Park, have enough of an eclectic "timeless" sound to the music that each could be adapted for film with much greater success. Plus the emotional ideas and themes that each explores are timeless as well.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:40pm

I hope Sam Mendes can develop FOLLIES better than he directed the Bernadette Peters production of GYPSY. That was a lackluster production, very disappointing to me, the least successful of any of the Broadway GYPSY's going back to 1959's original directed and choreographed by the genius, if unliked, Jerome Robbins, who Ethel Merman referred to as "Teacher".

To digress, Robbins never had Gypsy Rose Lee go on about being an ecdysiast which Laurents added to the script for the Tyne Daly production and the Bernadette Peters production. I frankly think that Laurents's additions are plain boring, though they are meant to be humorous, as Gypsy Rose Lee was in real life. Instead, Robbins had an uproarious Minsky's Salute to Christmas (not the Garden of Eden) in which there was a giant Christmas tree decked out with some ten showgirls, with Christmas ornaments covering their boobs, all singing a comical religioso ahhhaaahahahaaaa. Then, Santa Clauses dragged out a giant Christmas Box out of which popped Louise. It was all tacky beyond belief and it was funny, very funny. It was also a very expensive scene since the showgirls were not used in any other scene, except for Extras at the beginning of the Burlesque House scenes.

I'm sorry that this post has almost nothing to do with FOLLIES. I got carried away. GYPSY does that to me.

[desiree armfeldt]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:52pm

I think both could easily be made into films.

Company is definitely more conceptual than Follies. In Follies, we see more of a plot, I think. In terms of a Follies movie, I think cutting out some of the songs would be crucial. Songs like Ah, Paris and Rain on the Roof wouldn't push the plot forward as much as it would need to be. Ditto to Broadway Baby and One Last Kiss. Who's that woman could stay though...maybe like All That Jazz in Chicago, where we see it through Roxy's eyes, we could see Who's that woman through the eyes of each of the older showgirls: seeing how they were when they were in their prime, a simple memory.

[LadyRosecoe]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:55pm

But see, if a song like One More Kiss would be deemed to be cut, a song which upholds the major themes of the musical, then why make one of this show at all?

[americanboy99]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:57pm

Cutting "Broadway Baby", which is definitely the show's most popular/famous song would be a big mistake. IMHO.

[americanboy99]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:57pm

Cutting "Broadway Baby", which is definitely the show's most popular/famous song would be a big mistake. IMHO.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:04pm

My idea for TICK TOCK is that this dancer is on a late night variety show, playing in the background of Bobby and April's love making. The TV is the only light source, and casts an eerie blue glow over the two bodies and rustling sheets.

That does sound awesome.

But now I have this really weird image - curse you, John Doyle - of Bobby and April underneath the sheets with their suits still on.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:11pm

But now I have this really weird image - curse you, John Doyle - of Bobby and April underneath the sheets with their suits still on.

lol.

[nmartin]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:11pm

I have read that there was talk shortly after the Broadway and LA run to make a movie of it resetting it in a movie studio that was closing. Some of the names bandied about were Henry Fonda, Elizabeth Taylor, Shirley MacLaine, Gene Kelly and, in lesser roles, Bette Davis,Joan Crawford and , I think, Debbie Reynolds. I wish it had happened.
Updated On: 12/15/07 at 04:11 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:14pm

Why not have the dancer be Kathy? I'm not sure her profession is ever really mentioned in the original script, and it would be just Bobby's style to have a fling with a chorine. That would give you the opportunity to cut from say a television performance to her in the studio dancing it. Put her in a huge soundstage with enormous colored light panels behind her.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:16pm

I think Kathy was more than a "fling," though. If she were to be ascribed a profession, it couldn't be something that'd pull her out of that "one who got away" place in Bobby's life. Not saying allowing her to be the dancer would do that, but treating her like a mere "fling" takes a lot of weight away from seeing her interact with Bobby.

Updated On: 12/15/07 at 04:16 PM

[mateo]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:18pm

I couldn't find my final TICK TOCK concept drawing.

But this is the first one I did.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:19pm

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:23pm

Oh I agree Emcee - I just meant I could see Bobby have a relationship with a dancer. Part of the problem with cutting "Tick Tock" is that it really takes Kathy out of the story.

I'm not talking about just that the character no longer gets a solo musical piece, but usually, when I've seen it, Kathy's dance is partly a physical expression of the act of lovemaking but also Kathy's personal feelings that as she's dancing, she's also somehow more and more *aware* that Bobby is actually having sex with another woman and not her.

The number ends with a kind of passionate anger, I've always thought. But of course I could be reading way too much into it

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:28pm

Oh, I agree. I could absolutely see him with a dancer.

I see what you mean about the ending of Tick Tock. It intensifies at the end to a... frustration, almost. Which could be representative of Bobby, too. Since being stuck is frustrating.

And it is definitely an issue that losing Tick Tock reduces Kathy's presence in the story, but at the same time, if you do see it that she's this sophisticated, lovely, perhaps perfect girl that he allowed to get away, you could argue that that's sort of right. I think there are ways to make it work either way on film, though -- with Kathy as the dancer or with just a dancer.

I said this to Mateo in a PM with reference to my first two posts in this thread. It's not that I wouldn't want Company to be made into a movie, or that I don't think it COULD. Quite the contrary, I would love to see it happen and I think it could be beautiful, but the resistance comes from a bit of mistrust in Hollywood, and a fear that it'd end up in the wrong hands. That show is the love of my life, and I'd hate to see it treated without the care it deserves.

Updated On: 12/15/07 at 04:28 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:32pm

It would need a visionary director for sure. Its definitely not a Joel Schumacher kind of thing...