"Because some of us knew Porgy & Bess before Diane Paulus disemboweled it."
I said I didn't want to debate the point, but here goes.
I knew Porgy and Bess before this production. I disagree that she disemboweled it. I think the production was a mixed bag, but I still found it extremely moving and beautiful with three out of four extraordinary lead performances (McDonald's, Grier's and Boykin's), the intimacy and editing well suited for the immediacy of a contemporary Broadway performance, and I felt I was experiencing this show with an audience that was generally enthralled with it. In fact I found I was more critical of it (I found Lewis lacked passion) than most of my friends who saw the production.
I knew Follies before this production. I think Follies was always a mess. And this Follies was especially a mess. Peters is by all account giving an extremely uneven performance, some nights great, according to some, some nights faltering. A testament to her being a trooper and always going on and at times being ill no doubt. I found her constant beyond neurotic take on Sally to make this distant show antiseptic. Raines was good. Maxwell very good. Burstyn superb. Houdyshell and White standouts. I loved Elaine, not everyone did, and she is said to be giving an erratic performance. The audience was not nearly as enthralled as the Porgy and Bess audience for what that's worth the night I saw it (of course the audience is older).
More importantly, judging the production, apart from Peters odd take on the role, and her not having what I call the kind of voice Sally needs for this beautiful, soaring score (one certainly can't say that for the singers in P&B), and I do think one reason one goes to see both of these shows is to see a great singer, a Collins or a Cook, a Price or a Dale, sing roles made to be sung beautifully, the show had one major added deficit:
(btw I understand that Peters ballsy interpretation of the role is loved by many, and found to be justified - I give her a lot of credit for going there, but i don't think it helps to make Follies a better show about everyman middle-aged angst (which, sorry, to me, is and will always be its theme and cause d'être) to make its heroin a complete loon, just my opinion).
It was clear to me that if I didn't know Follies, there are moments at the beginning, during the Broadway Baby/Ah Paris/Rain on the Roof set up, that if I didn't know this musical, I wouldn't have a clue who these people are or why they were bursting into song. A testament to the first act's direction being inept. And a huge problem for a show already burdened with characters that, except when they are singing, are extremely difficult to give a crap about. To give it credit, the second act, was much better than the first.
Finally, if Porgy and Bess, had nothing more than Audra's last scene, when she confronts her addiction, it would still have one scene that will remain one of the indelible moments of my theater going experience. As it happens, as I've stated, I think Porgy and Bess had a great deal more to offer than that one scene. Nothing in Follies comes close to being one of the indelible moments of my theater going experience.
As has been said, neither is what I would call a revival I can be unconditionally glowing in reviewing. But I have no question that I agree that Porgy is leagues beyond Follies.
Updated On: 3/24/12 at 10:23 AM
