FOLLIES performed with no intermission tonight! — Page 3

Intermission or no, I've always found that if I use the restroom at the restaurant or hotel room just before leaving and then use it again when arriving at the theatre, I'm usually safe. I got through the two acts (as done in the Spacey revival) of Iceman Cometh without any undue stress and if you can make through that play, you can make it through anything. (PS: Iceman is one of my favorite plays -- just commenting on the call of nature.)

---

good to know that FINALLY that was the fix to make the cult classic work, no break for the weary.

I really want it left that way. I saw it with the intermission and it was fine, but now I want to return and see it without and get the flow of the piece.

I saw the original production without an intermission and the audience seemed less than pleased. People were getting up and coming back thoughout the Loveland sequence, which was a distraction to everyone else, and really disupted the mood of what was happening on stage.

So if the show can't hold an audience without an intermision, and doesn't work with one, the only solution would have been/would be to make it shorter. On another thread, I suggested cutting Loveland entirely. Failing that, one could do without several unnecessary/redundant songs like Rain on the Roof/ Ah Paris/ Broadway Baby, One Last Kiss, Don't Look at Me, The Road You Didn't Take, and The Right Girl. The last is so awful it should be cut with or without an intermission.

Wow, after eight, you're really of the scorched-earth school of thinking, aren't you? Cut Broadway Baby, One Last Kiss, The Road You Didn't Take et al, and what's the point of doing the show in the first place? And The Right Girl has an incredibly beautiful middle section (Hey Margie...) that I'd hate to lose, no matter how insistent my bladder may get. If all you want is a string of blockbusters you'll have a very monotonous evening, dontcha think?

(Though I kinda sorta agree with you about Rain on the Roof...)

Updated On: 8/24/11 at 08:37 PM

Saw it this afternoon, and as someone who wasn't familiar with the show prior, I feel mixed about the no-intermission decision. I don't think I would have lost anything with that break there, but it does keep you in the right state of mind for the remainder of the show. Excellent production, though.

---

Glad you finally experienced it, Zepka!

And I'm glad you saw it without the intermission. Now watch these and imagine me at 15, transfixed by unbelievable stage magic:

Who's That Woman (1971)
http://youtu.be/nhQeVQ6677A

Lucy/Jessie (1971)
http://youtu.be/AmexU4Qd0HM

---

Thanks, PalJoey! Wish I could go back in time and see the original cast in person.

Loved watching Lucy and Jessie- I am such a huge Jan fan, so it was cool to see the original there!

---

Yes, PJ, it is highly likely that I will see this show more than six times. I adore it, and although I do not really associate myself with any of the characters yet, I can certainly see how many can. It will be interesting to see this show again 30 years from now when I'll be approaching 60. I have really enjoyed reading the reactions of all ages to this show.

Just to set the record straight, I am by no means rich. I make a modest salary, and my monthly expenses are rent, cable/internet and food. I spend ALL of the remainder of my income on going to the theater and purchasing window cards, souvenir programs, cast recordings, and old playbills.

I am by no means bragging about how many times I've seen the show, and I am nowhere near A-List. If my post sounded like I was being "high and mighty," that is not what I was going for. I just want to add to the enthusiasm about this show and hopefully encourage others to go as well. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I really thought your comment was uncalled for.

(and I have seen the show once in DC and three times in previews in NY so far - four total)

Obviously it is unlikely he is paying $130+ 4 times when discounts and rush are available. But even if he is, the intention wasn't to show how much money he is spending (I didn't think of that aspect at all when it was posted), but rather how many times he has experienced the show - if that makes sense?

You kind of just scream of jealousy and to use the word 'disposable income' is kind of condescending when people work hard for their $$$ and can choose what they want to spend it on.

But my main point is the first one, that WithoutATrace's intention wasn't to show how much money he is spending but how many times he has seen the show (which has implications on what kind of attitudes he wants to portray that he has towards the show etc..)...if he has seen it 4 times it means he loves the show, not that he has a lot of money to 'throw around'...

EDIT: obviously with the suspiciously blank post above me, the poster has removed their post..

---

Updated On: 8/25/11 at 12:52 AM

INSIDER2--Who the HELL do you think you are, sounding off like that?

You don't know ANYTHING about WAT--or about any of us.

Some of us work, long hours, at jobs that are usually far from our dreams, to make enough money so that we can survive--and so that we can buy theater tickets.

Why? Because we LOVE it. Because WE LOVE THEATER. Because theater gives us pleasure. Because it helps us deal with the crap in life, like bad health and unemployment and difficult relationships and problems with parents and problems with jobs and problems with having to live in a world with ASSHOLES LIKE YOU!

Maybe we go to shows over and over again and post about it here because we're obsessed. OKAY? Maybe we go because it fills our empty voids--OKAY?!? But even if those are the reasons, who the F*CK are you to judge us? What the F*CK do you think gives you the right to come onto BROADWAYWORLD (of all places) and judge us for how many times we see shows? Who the F*CK do you think you are? WHO THE F*CK ARE YOU, ANYWAY?

We spend money on tickets that other people spend on clothing, on food, on vacation, on cars, on sports equipment, on rock concerts, on clubs, on bars, on beer and liquor and drugs. Some of us spend money we should be spending on doctors or dentists or therapists maybe...but how we spend the little money we have is NONE OF YOUR F*CKING BUSINESS.

To come on here with your cheap, facile "there are starving children in a double-dip recession" cliche...GIVE ME A F*CKING BREAK.

Do we give to charities to help those who are less fortunate? IT'S NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS IF WE DO OR NOT. But I have a feeling we do more good for the world in a day than a bitter thing like you has done in your nasty lifetime.

I won't even go into how multiple-ticket theatergoers help the economy, because YOU DON'T DESERVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION--ABOUT ANYTHING.

We all have problems in this bad economy. Many of us, including even WAT possibly, have struggled more than you could possibly have known before you decided to sound off so irresponsibly. BUT WE DON'T OWE YOU AN EXPLANATION.

Your holier-than-thou attitude carries no water around here. Get lost, creepy troll.

We've got important things to talk about.

We're talking about Sondheim.

---

Updated On: 8/25/11 at 01:00 AM

My county ranks in the top 5 nationally in terms of unemployment. We're all unemployed out here and my 44-year-old stepson just had to move back into our guest room.

Sorry to add on, but I thought WithoutATrace was simply expressing his enthusiasm for a work that many of the rest of us already love. Good for him! I couldn't be happier to see him share some of the pleasure Follies has given me. In fact his enjoyment gives me pleasure and it doesn't cost me a dime.

I managed to see Sweeney Todd umpteen times while I was an undergraduate in New York. If one lives there, there are ways to make seeing the shows you love more affordable.

But regardless of ticket price, there will always be somebody somewhere who can't afford dinner. If that means we can't enjoy the theater, then this entire board should be shut down.

Updated On: 8/25/11 at 01:20 AM