FOLLIES 50th Anniversary Reunion

[eddiecantor]

Posted: 4/1/21 at 2:45pm

Follies at 50: A Conversation with the Cast and Crew of the Original Broadway Production is a one-time event featuring a panel of people involved in the creation of one of the most groundbreaking musicals of all time, Follies. In celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the show, 13-year-old podcast host Charles Kirsch has gathered seven important figures in different aspects of the show. And on April 4th at 7 PM EST, this panel will become available on YouTube and then stay up forever, so generations of fans to come will be able to benefit from the insights and stories that will be shared on the 4th. The link for the stream is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzyerrgWa1g/

For the perspectives of the people who actually created roles in the show, beautiful girls Marti Rolph (Young Sally) and Mary Jane Houdina (Young Hattie/Assistant to Michael Bennett) will be joining the panel. While hes waiting for the girls upstairs, Kurt Peterson (Young Ben) will also participate. Michael Misita (Young Vincent) will also lend a dancers perspective to the evening. All of these actors will discuss their relationships with their older counterparts, as well as memories of the rehearsal process and tryout period. We might know some of the cut songs from FOLLIES, but do we know why they were dropped? Or when? I suppose well find out on Sunday. The person who got together this wonderful cast, Casting Director Joanna Merlin, will also be joining us then to remember how she found exactly the right actors to make a theatrical experience that has never been replicated.

Who better to offer insights than the man who literally wrote the book on FOLLIES, Ted Chapin (Production Assistant/Historian). He also had a peek inside some of the creative discussions even the performers were not privy to. People who were around during the original production probably heard about it because of the techniques of Susan L. Schulman (Press Agent), who will talk about how she approached selling this unique show.

All of these veterans will get together, some for the first time in fifty years, and share their memories of Follies, from rehearsal process to closing night. A must-see for any fan of the musical, or any theater buff looking for a historical night where all elements of putting together a legendary musical will be discussed. By the end of this panel, youre sure to agree with Dee Dee when she says You know what? We should do this every year!

Backstage Babble is a podcast interviewing professionals in the theater industry about themselves, their careers, and the people theyve worked with along the way. It aims to paint a vivid picture of the Golden Age of Broadway through conversations with some of its leading players. It is available at https://cbroadwaypodcast.podbean.com, and on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Check out previous episodes with Broadway legends like Chita Rivera (Chicago), Joel Grey (Cabaret), Brad Oscar (Something Rotten), Michael Rupert (Falsettos), John Weidman (Assassins), Penny Fuller (Applause), Chuck Cooper (The Life), Josh Bergasse (On the Town), Charles Busch (Taboo), Tom Jones (The Fantasticks), and more.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 4/1/21 at 4:05pm

To this day, the ORIGINAL production of Follies remains my all-time favorite theatre going experience, flawed and all. I have to admit that I was wishing Mr. Novack was still sending out pictures on a show's 50th anniversary, as I would have loved looking back to those.

The score. The direction. The choreography. The orchestrations. The sets. The costumes. The lighting. The performances. Everything about this show was incredible, except

The book.

But, the musical numbers were so incredible. I am not sure that I have ever seen a show with so many great numbers. I am sure that I am in the extreme minority, but my favorite number has always been 'Waiting for the Girls Upstairs', because of the brilliance of the direction. While much of the show shadowed the current people with their former selves, I think none did it as brilliantly as this number did, even Who's That Woman, one of the great production numbers of all-time.

I have no doubt that I will never see a musical production as brilliant as this one was. At least as evidenced by the five other productions I have seen, the second best IMO being the Papermill Playhouse production.

Having seen the original production 5 times, at least I still have great memories. I even remember the melodies and some of the lyrics from two songs cut before NYC, 'Can That Boy Foxtrot', replaced by 'I'm Still Here', and 'Uptown Downtown', replaced by 'Lucy and Jessie', one of my favorite numbers ever, especially when done in the Encores Production with Donna Murphy, the best Phyllis that I ever saw.

I hope that the long promised film version comes to fruition while I am still alive. It will never be up to the original stage production; but with the right director, it certainly has the potential to be a great movie.

[eddiecantor]

Posted: 4/1/21 at 4:09pm

I'm envious of you for having the chance to see the original production--I can only imagine how wonderful it must have been.

[ggersten]

Posted: 4/1/21 at 4:35pm

I saw the first tour stop at The Muny in St. Louis in 1972 - but we were in the free seats, so waaaaaaaay back where my mom would share opera glasses with us -  and I was young, and I remember nothing except the ghosts/shadows of the younger selves following the older actors.  Sigh.

[eddiecantor]

Posted: 4/1/21 at 4:38pm

Exciting that a few of the OBC younger selves will be on the panel! The opera glasses must have helped with the ghostly appearance.

[Owen22]

Posted: 4/1/21 at 4:55pm

You know, I have heard for years the "problems" with the "Follies" book.  After finally getting a copy of the libretto and seeing the London production (the closest recreation of the original book and structure) I don't get what is wrong with it. After reading this and two New York Times articles today saying how problematic the book is. I. Don't. See. It.  It works extremely well for me, both in it's design and character illumination. 

[ggersten]

Posted: 4/1/21 at 7:21pm

eddiecantor said: "Exciting that a few of the OBC younger selves will be on the panel! The opera glasses must have helped with the ghostly appearance."

The "younger selves" would be in their 70s or older. The actors who originally played the older Phyllis, Sally, Buddy and Ben are .... unavailable. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 4/1/21 at 11:45pm

Owen22 said: "You know, I have heard for years the "problems" with the "Follies" book. After finally getting a copy of the libretto and seeing the London production (the closest recreation of the original book and structure) I don't get what is wrong with it. After reading this and two New York Times articles today saying how problematic the book is. I. Don't. See. It. It works extremely well for me, both in it's design and character illumination."

I can't see calling the London production the closet recreation of the original book and structure, if you're talking about the 1987 production. The entire original script thrown out (not one line survived), Loveland radically changed, I believe an intermission introduced. Numbers dropped, new ones added. As a sign of how it turned the work into something far more lightweight than the Broadway production, Sondheim called it Hello, Follies!

But I agree with you about the original book. The book is mostly perfect. The ending could be better. I don't mean "more upbeat." The ending for Sally and Buddy is perfect, but the sudden turnaround of an impossible situation with Phyllis and Ben is as patently false as any ending could be. Still the book is, unquestionably, the toughest part of the show. It's a very dark book. But right for the show.

Updated On: 4/1/21 at 11:45 PM

[justoldbill]

Posted: 4/2/21 at 12:03am

This should be interesting. I saw the original production four times, including the NY closing. Over the years, many of the original younger cast members (mainly the dancers) continue to blame the book for the show's perceived shortcomings. I don't think many of them evolved into playwrights. Subsequent productions aside, I think James Goldman got it right the first time. And as brilliant as "Who's That Woman?" was, the highlight of the show for me was always poor, later-abandoned "Bolero d'Amour". THAT'S where Michael Bennett condensed the whole youth-and-age-side-by-side thing. Over the years, I've been able to maintain cordial acquaintances with Stephen Sondheim, Harvey Evans and Ted Chapin from this production, for which I will be always grateful.

[joevitus]

Posted: 4/2/21 at 12:07am

I envy you and Jarethan so much.

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 4/2/21 at 2:49am

joevitus said: "Owen22 said: "You know, I have heard for years the "problems" with the "Follies" book. After finally getting a copy of the libretto and seeing the London production (the closest recreation of the original book and structure) I don't get what is wrong with it. After reading this and two New York Times articles today saying how problematic the book is. I. Don't. See. It. It works extremely well for me, both in it's design and character illumination."

I can't see calling the London productionthe closet recreation of the original book and structure, if you're talking about the 1987production. The entire original script thrown out (not one line survived), Loveland radically changed, I believe an intermission introduced. Numbers dropped, new ones added. As a sign of how itturned the work into something far more lightweight thanthe Broadway production,Sondheim called it Hello, Follies!."

They were talking about the 2017 National Theatre revival that restored the majority of the original book, including cutting the interval and reviving the lines about Sally's attempted suicide. 

 

[joevitus]

Posted: 4/2/21 at 5:03am

imeldasturn said: "joevitus said: "Owen22 said: "You know, I have heard for years the "problems" with the "Follies" book. After finally getting a copy of the libretto and seeing the London production (the closest recreation of the original book and structure) I don't get what is wrong with it. After reading this and two New York Times articles today saying how problematic the book is. I. Don't. See. It. It works extremely well for me, both in it's design and character illumination."

I can't see calling the London productionthe closet recreation of the original book and structure, if you're talking about the 1987production. The entire original script thrown out (not one line survived), Loveland radically changed, I believe an intermission introduced. Numbers dropped, new ones added. As a sign of how itturned the work into something far more lightweight thanthe Broadway production,Sondheim called it Hello, Follies!."

They were talking about the 2017 National Theatre revival that restored the majority of the original book, including cutting the interval and reviving the lines about Sally's attempted suicide.

"

Thank you.

And, sorry Owen, when you read this, for misunderstanding. 

[¿Macavity?]

Posted: 4/2/21 at 9:54am

I watched the NT Live recording of Follies, and maybe my judgement was clouded by how annoying the badly mixed sound was during the songs, but I really loved the book scenes. It may be an acquired taste or something, but I find most of the books to Sondheim's shows to be superbly engaging. Sondheim's collaborators were all exceptional talents, imo. I understand the flaws that are frequently pointed out, but I rarely agree that they are as fatal as some make them out to be. Then again, maybe I've just been spoiled by all the well directed productions of his shows that are preserved on film.

Anyway, I look forward to this reunion! The one for Assassins last month was delightful.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 4/2/21 at 10:24am

My appreciation for FOLLIES has grown over the years. I was young when I first saw it, so it I didn't "get it" - and it didn't "hit me" at that time. I have now entered my middle ages...I get it now: BIG TIME.

I love the score and have read many a myth over the years regarding the fabled original Broadway production from 1972, the what ifs, the would-a, the should-a, the could-as as well as all the obsessive attempts to try to "save it", "fix it" and what-not. 

I am looking forward to the reunion. 

I have my popcorn and wine ready.

BRING IT.

 

Updated On: 4/2/21 at 10:24 AM

[EthelMae]

Posted: 4/2/21 at 12:45pm

Sorry to be tech slow but is this reunion a podcast or will it be a video on YouTube? Couldn’t tell from the press release. Thx!

[Jarethan]

Posted: 4/2/21 at 12:59pm

Owen22 said: "You know, I have heard for years the "problems" with the "Follies" book. After finally getting a copy of the libretto and seeing the London production (the closest recreation of the original book and structure) I don't get what is wrong with it. After reading this and two New York Times articles today saying how problematic the book is. I. Don't. See. It. It works extremely well for me, both in it's design and character illumination."

I have never thought that the Ben / Sally scenes worked.  For me, they have always dragged.  IF I am being honest, I have also never been fond of Too Many Mornings, slap in the middle of those dialogue scenes.

The original production of Folllies had many numbers that stopped the show:  Beautiful Girls, the trio of songs ending with Broadway Baby, I'm Still Here, Lucy and Jessie, and one of the all-time great show-stoppers, Who's That Woman.  Lengthy applause were also given to The Girls Upstairs, Losing My Mind, and even One Last Kiss.  Yet the show only ran for 15 months and lost its entire investment.

There is no question in my mind that the book scenes were responsible for its financial failure and relatively short run.  I am not a librettist, so I don't know what could have been done to make them not slow down the show.  I have often wondered what Peter Stone could have done, he of the 25 minutes of straight dialogue in the award winning musical 1776; or, perhaps, Arthur Laurents, although I will acknowledge that the original runs of Gypsy and West Side Story did not enjoy long runs commensurate with their stature in Broadway musical history.  

It may simply be that the seriousness of the subject matter of the three shows doomed the original productions to shorter runs.  Nevertheless, I just felt that some of the book scenes were a real slog; despite those reservations, it still remains my favorite production ever.  Based on all of the subsequent productions I have seen, it is NOT my favorite musical -- for which I blame the book; that original production was a 'once in a lifetime' event.

[Owen22]

Posted: 4/2/21 at 1:54pm

joevitus said: "Owen22 said: "You know, I have heard for years the "problems" with the "Follies" book. After finally getting a copy of the libretto and seeing the London production (the closest recreation of the original book and structure) I don't get what is wrong with it. After reading this and two New York Times articles today saying how problematic the book is. I. Don't. See. It. It works extremely well for me, both in it's design and character illumination."

I can't see calling the London productionthe closet recreation of the original book and structure, if you're talking about the 1987production. The entire original script thrown out (not one line survived), Loveland radically changed, I believe an intermission introduced. Numbers dropped, new ones added. As a sign of how itturned the work into something far more lightweight thanthe Broadway production,Sondheim called it Hello, Follies!

But I agree with you about the original book. The book is mostly perfect. The ending could be better. I don't mean "more upbeat." The ending for Sally and Buddy is perfect, but the sudden turnaround of an impossible situation with Phyllis and Ben is as patently false as any ending could be. Stillthe book is, unquestionably, the toughest part of the show. It's a very dark book. But right for the show."

Sorry, I should have specified the recent National Theatre production.  I never saw the '87 West End "Follies".   And don't much like the cast album...

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 4/2/21 at 3:28pm

I think I've told this story before... I was 13 years old when I saw the original production during previews at the Colonial Theatre in Boston. My father took me and he hated the show...but I was hooked. Of course I didn't really understand it at all, but it certainly lit a spark in me. Many years later I was working with Sondheim on something and told him that story. He smiled.

When I saw the production, I'M STILL HERE was not in the show, so I got to see Yvonne DeCarlo performing BOY, COULD THAT BOY FOXTROT. 

For me, the Loveland sequence totally blew my mind. When the stage transformed from a decrepit, rundown theatre about to meet the wrecking ball, to the elaborate showplace it had been decades earlier, the effect was jaw-dropping. There are some fuzzy videos of it on YouTube, but seeing it live was absolutely stunning! It has always stuck in my mind and seeing later productions (Long Beach in 1990 with Juliet Prowse, Dorothy Lamour, Yma Sumac and lots more; the 2001 Broadway revival with Blythe Danner and the most recent Broadway production that I saw twice on Broadway with Bernadette Peters and three times in Los Angeles with Victoria Clark) were always a little disappointing in that the Loveland sequence never had the opulence of the original production. I really loved the last revival and, if I'd never seen the original production, the Loveland production would've been fine. I still haven't seen the 2017 London revival...I had tickets, but we were unable to go at the last minute.

I remember getting the Capitol Records cast album for Christmas that year. Later on Christmas afternoon we all went over to my Aunt and Uncle's house for a holiday party and my cousin had received the album as a Christmas gift, too. Some of people at the party had some Broadway connections, summer stock, etc. A good number of them had seen the show and when the album was played, the discussion devolved into an outright criticism of the show's adult subject matter, language, etc. etc. etc. My father chimed in with his dislike of the shown as well...but we flipped the album over after the first side and listened to the rest until it was over. The score was appreciated as I recall, just not the subject matter... My cousin (who was three years older and already a confirmed Sondheim fanatic), loved the album and we both have been Sondheim devotees for life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iK_4ZbXCpY


 
 

Updated On: 4/2/21 at 03:28 PM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 4/2/21 at 4:35pm

Owen22 said: "joevitus said: "Owen22 said: "You know, I have heard for years the "problems" with the "Follies" book. After finally getting a copy of the libretto and seeing the London production (the closest recreation of the original book and structure) I don't get what is wrong with it. After reading this and two New York Times articles today saying how problematic the book is. I. Don't. See. It. It works extremely well for me, both in it's design and character illumination."

I can't see calling the London productionthe closet recreation of the original book and structure, if you're talking about the 1987production. The entire original script thrown out (not one line survived), Loveland radically changed, I believe an intermission introduced. Numbers dropped, new ones added. As a sign of how itturned the work into something far more lightweight thanthe Broadway production,Sondheim called it Hello, Follies!

But I agree with you about the original book. The book is mostly perfect. The ending could be better. I don't mean "more upbeat." The ending for Sally and Buddy is perfect, but the sudden turnaround of an impossible situation with Phyllis and Ben is as patently false as any ending could be. Stillthe book is, unquestionably, the toughest part of the show. It's a very dark book. But right for the show."

Sorry, I should have specified the recent National Theatre production. I never saw the '87 West End "Follies". And don't much like the cast album..."

I was in London on business in 1987 and I excitedly purchased tickets for 2 performances in the week i was there.  It was a mega disappointment.  I remember that a lot of the sets seemed to be wrapped in bubble-wrap, which I never understood.  Dolores Gray was Carlotta and did a great job singing I'm Still Here.  I only saw her in two shows, Follies and Sherry, a late 60s flop; but she was very good in both, singlehandedly filling the stage.

The single most aggregious thing they did was replace Lucy and Jessie, one of my three favorite numbers with either A Country House or Ah, But Underneath, which was a striptease.  I know I have seen both numbers, and that at least one of them was in London...and neither was very good.  Julia Diana Rigg made no impression as Phyllis.  I do not remember who played the male leads; and the fact that I was unfamiliar with the ladies in Beautiful Girls made that great number not as fun.

Also, I remember the stage being cramped...it was in a big theatre, the Shaftsbury, but I do remember it just feeling claustrophobic.  I did not return for the second performance...not because there were still not plenty of delights, but because the production just seemed so wrong AND I was only in London for a week, and wanted to see something else instead of repeating a disappointment.  

[amaklo]

Posted: 4/3/21 at 11:34am

The original Follies was one of my first Broadway shows.  I was eighteen, so the middle-aged angst of the book wasn't very interesting to me.  But oh those performances, the songs, the costumes, the sets!  One of the NYTimes articles on the 50th anniversary says it would cost $30 million to reproduce today.

I also remember being awestruck by the Loveland transformation.  I think it was in Ted Chapin's book where he describes the first time the company saw the Loveland set fly in. Sondheim turned to Boris Aaronson (the set designer) and said "Not bad, Boris".  Ha!

I've seen several revivals and of course none of them comes close.  Nor has any musical I've seen since.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 4/4/21 at 3:34am

how can there be a cast reunion when most of the cast died in the 90s

[BroadwayBreakdown]

Posted: 4/4/21 at 9:06am

I've been doing a series on my podcast going through all of Sondheim's theatrical works and this week happened to be FOLLIES! I didn't plan for it to line up with the week of its anniversary, just a happy coincidence :) If anyone has any interest, we cover a lot-not EVERYTHING, but a lot! Happy 50th!! (Apologies, having trouble making either link clickable :-/ )

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/follies-w-dad/id1260430031?i=1000515270240

https://open.spotify.com/episode/588Gzm0Q9NHiCzpetBUZnS?si=7WySQs1rQnaU1xhFQVgyFA Updated On: 4/4/21 at 09:06 AM

[eddiecantor]

Posted: 4/4/21 at 9:21am

EthelMae, not at all! Sorry for the unclarity in the press release. It is only a YouTube event, at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzyerrgWa1g

It is just moderated by podcast host Charles Kirsch. Thanks all for your interest! I hope you enjoy it.

[binau]

Posted: 4/4/21 at 11:50am

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/4/21 at 8:05pm

Jeeezus. Now it’s a zoom thing. I can’t cast that to my tv so forget it. These things need to be prerecorded and then uploaded to avoid this. People have done this long enough now to know that.