Doyle to direct Merrily We Roll Along? — Page 2

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

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.

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.

---

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.