Doyle to direct Merrily We Roll Along?- Page 2

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:03am

If it were ever to return to Broadway -- no matter the directorial form -- the book would need some serious help, though

I think the revised book is pretty solid. Merrily will always have a tough time being mounted because it's hard to get out from under the shadow of the mess of the original production.

I've never understood the argument that the time scheme is too confusing. I saw a production about quite a few years ago with my brother (who was about thirteen or fourteen at the time). When it was over, I asked him if he had any trouble with it because of the way it was structured and he said no. I think sometimes that the confusion of Merrily's book is some sort of theatrical meme that was started a quarter of a century ago that doesn't really hold true, but everyone repeats because everyone's been repeating it.

And, of course, I have no bias whatsoever here.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:15am

Kringas has a very good point, the book does seem to be "Fixed" enough that it would make it. If it weren't, why would it have had both a Kennedy Center and Donmar Warehouse mounting in this decade? (Granted, the Donmar did cut "Franklin Shephard, Inc." and "That Frank.")

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:22am

Dommar used the original book, but added "Growing Up" from the revised book (I think).

I don't think "Franklin Shephard, Inc" was cut.

Updated On: 3/8/07 at 09:22 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:41am

The problem isn't that it goes backwards.

Audiences do have difficulty with the story... because it's a major downer. They may not even be able to articulate why. At the "end" of the evening, we see these three hopeful youths, planning their future. The world is in front of them... except we already know what happens to them, and that their lives end up to be total messes. Unhappy and unfulfilled.

Bring down the curtain, and go home.

That's not what audiences want to see. It's too personal to think back on their own youthful, hopeful days, and see where they are now, and think about the dreams or happiness unfulfilled.

THAT's the problem they have with the story... not that it goes "backwards."

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 9:53am

I suppose there's some truth to that, but that's not usually what I hear when complaints are lodged about the show. I usually hear that it's confusing because of the time scheme.

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 10:06am

I would love to see a revival of Merrily. Hopefully sans actors accompanying themselves. And if Doyle does do Barnum at some point he has to wait til Raul,Hugh Jackman or even Norbert can play Barnum.

[D2]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 10:10am

I saw the final performance of the Donmar production, and as I recall "Franklin Shephard, Inc." was included. I'm looking for the program to confirm.

That production was breathtaking and proved that the show works regardless of the backwards motion time scheme. I know there was some talk of a transfer, but Sondheim wasn't happy with the production or something like that. But it was a huge hit for Donmar and it was a beautiful, moving production. I tend to agree that it is easy to blame the show's structure when the real problem may be that most audiences don't want to see youthful idealism shattered. A problem MERRILY shares with FOLLIES. But the audience that night in London couldn't have cared less about the somber message - we were with it all the way and it got a (rare for London) standing ovation at the end.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 10:18am

It was definitely included in Donmar to give you all confirmation, I've listened quite a few times to it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 11:31am

I don't think the plot (or scheme) on the whole is confusing. I just think some of the writing could be better. I was going to ask if the main reason people have with the story is really that it goes backwards, but then I read b12b's post, which makes total sense. I agree that it's hard to own up to those kinds of feelings -- if you don't admit to them, it's almost like you haven't given in to the fact that they aren't there. What you isolated, though, is exactly what I find so moving about Merrily. Of course... I'm young and youthful, and would obviously find a completely different impact in that than would someone else. It's an interesting idea to consider -- what happens when catharsis becomes too heavy. Of course, there probably are people who do find it legitimately confusing, so in that sense, I suppose some rewrites couldn't hurt. The first time I watched it, I did have a little bit of trouble with the transition gaps. I was kind of like "wait, how far back did they go?"

And if Doyle does do Barnum at some point he has to wait til Raul,Hugh Jackman or even Norbert can play Barnum.

I would really like to see Raúl play Barnum. Really really really.

Updated On: 3/8/07 at 11:31 AM

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 11:35am

On the Voldemort site the clip from him singing "...Sucker" from some concert sold me on this idea a while ago. It should definitly happen.


OT but I hope the theatre world never looses Raul to Hollywood, ever, thats selfish I know.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 11:41am

I saw that performance live and and I too was sold. In one song, he had that part nailed.

And me too. Me. too. I don't care if its selfish.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 11:45am

The Voldemort site also has Raul singing "Franklin Shepherd Inc." so let's fight over which play we see Raul in next! (But I have to see COMPANY eighteen more times first.)

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 11:47am

As much as I love his legit voice, I'd kill to see him tap into his Rocky range again. It was just staggering what the man could do with his voice live.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 11:52am

Oh my God, his Franklin Shepherd Inc. makes me laugh so much.

Honestly? I love seeing him sing, but I vote straight play next.

Updated On: 3/8/07 at 11:52 AM

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 11:54am

Acctually if Tooth Of Crime ever gets another major mounting, I'd love to see him in it somewhere. The way he played Riff Raff would be perfect for the character of CROW. That way we'd get straight play and rock music all in one.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 12:04pm

I have no idea what that is, but sounds like a good idea to me. I've never gotten to see him do a crazy, outrageous, over-the-top character live, so I'm hoping he goes back into that kind of territory at least once in the near future so I can have a chance to see it!

It's clearly a selfish day.

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 12:12pm

Tooth is an older Sam Shepard play about Rock Stars in the not too distant future in blood wars over fans and territories. It's a straight play with full out Rock song performances to further the plot. Its wonderful and very absurd.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 12:15pm

Ohhhh. Raúl + Sam Shepard. What a wonderful match of zany possibility.

Updated On: 3/8/07 at 12:15 PM

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 12:22pm

I find the same factor in Merrily that I do in Follies about youth--->troubled adulthood with regrets about what went wrong down the line. The fact that I am young and starting off in adulthood makes me slightly uneasy watching this and seeing what can happen. The fact that I am also anxiety-ridden a lot doesn't help . The difference here that I see, among other things, is that Merrily We Roll Along details the journey by traveling through time and playing the action backwards just makes it more fun!

I love them both though, they are two honest works with fantastic music and the guts to go there and be unafraid to encapsulate a theatrical evening with things that challenge the viewer.

Updated On: 3/8/07 at 12:22 PM

[D2]

Posted: 3/8/07 at 12:28pm

I agree with you, C is for Company, and the interesting thing about both works is that my appreciation for them has not changed even though my perspective has. I became aware of FOLLIES around the same time MERRILY opened on Broadway, when I was in my early 20's - and as I've gotten older and experienced many of the the things that are dissected in both shows, I am amazed at how relevant both shows are to an ever-changing point of view. That is what makes them both works of genius, IMHO, despite their perceived flaws.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 3/9/07 at 1:29pm

I am a newbie when it comes to Merrily We Roll Along, and I can see that, like Follies, older audiences might find the darker message harder to take. But I would give almost anything to see the Doyle production. Isn't Watermill where his "concept" started? Presumably it is on a stronger financial footing so that he now doesn't have to use it unless he wants to.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 3/9/07 at 4:12pm

b12h definitely hit the nail on the head concerning why audiences seem to have problems with Merrily We Roll Along. I thought that the book for the Kennedy Center production was pretty strong, and it sounds as though the Donmar was as well. The problem is that the show can leave a bitter taste in many people's mouths. I've always regarded it as ironic and cautionary, and one scenario that plays out because of missteps when there could have been many other, happier ones. The fact that you get a taste of what might have been at the end of Act II is what keeps it from being completely cynical. Playing backwards isn't a gimmick because it's totally necessary -- the story wouldn't work otherwise. I think that it's a wonderful piece, but it's one of those that's flawed, perhaps "unfixably" so, by the very nature of the story and how it is often received by audiences. It's challenging. I'd love to see a good production, but the story itself is probably more problematic than the structure. Updated On: 3/9/07 at 04:12 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 3/9/07 at 4:16pm

First - I love Merrily. One of my faves.

However... the book and execution can be confusing and mix in people playing their own instruments and I would think it would just increase that exponentially.

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 3/9/07 at 4:46pm

If Doyle chooses to use the concept of actors/instruments again I would have to come to the conclusion that he enjoying beating something to death. Enough already! It worked wonderful for me for Sweeney, not so much for Company.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 3/9/07 at 4:52pm

He has since done Mahagonny without it so if it is not financial necessity he may be relieved not to HAVE to do it. He is too bright to be a one trick pony.