FOLLIES performed with no intermission tonight! — Page 4

There's really no need to comment on Insider's rant, as I'm pretty sure that has been expertly done by others in this thread. But I don't understand his assertion that the lack of an intermission is because the producers lack faith in the audience. The use of an intermission is often an artistic choice, and in the case of Follies, no intermission is used because doing so interrupts the flow of the show. The choice has nothing to do with the expectations of the audience- merely the effectiveness of the production. If anything, the producers of Follies (or whoever made the choice to remove the intermission) should be applauded for honoring the artistic intent of this piece.

---

"if he has seen it 4 times it means he loves the show,"

Not necessarily, since Without a Trace has expressed having seen multiple times shows that he has hated, eg. Pirate Queen.

And that is his right. He can see a show as many times as he pleases, and spend his money however he pleases, and relate it all here as many times as he pleases. Nor does he owe anyone any justifications for how he spends his time and money.

But by the same token, I understand the point that Insider was making. If someone accuses another of bragging, and that was not the poster's intent, then the problem is one of presentation and expression. Those are areas one might work on, if one is concerned about how one comes off.

And there's also the matter of seemliness, also raised by Insider. I think that is also worth considering, rather than dismissing.

But I do think it is great that Without a Trace loves the theatre to the extent that he does, and supports it with the passion he does. Even if I am one of those dregs of the earth he categorized for having liked Rock of Ages. :)

Updated On: 8/25/11 at 02:59 AM

AfterEight, writing something doesn't necessarily make it so. Yes, if one is accused of something one should take the opportunity to see if the comment has any validity. But the problem here isn't necessarily in WAT's "presentation or expression."

He was just expressing his opinion. Why so angry. What was with all the F-bombs? Ya know, words can hurt.

Like 95% of the words Insider2 used to excoriate WAT, a longtime and very well-liked poster here who couldn't be further from the way he was described? PJ has even more of my eternal respect for what he wrote than he already had.

---

AC-Hear, hear!

WAT... just caught up on all these emails. I stand by you 100% - you are the best!!!

Insider-- At least he's spending his extra money on a great theatrical experience. Stop being an ass. Thanks. :)

Nice to see there are still crazies around here telling us all how to live our lives and spend our money. I guess they're the financial advisors of BWW. What would we do without them?


I am looking forward to seeing this production without an intermission. It makes more sense this way.

---

WithoutATrace is a very, very dear and close friend and in all of our years of friendship he's never, EVER bragged about seeing this show so many times, and that show so many times, etc. He's not that kind of person. He's very passionate about seeing Broadway shows, and when we have seen shows together, we always have a great time.

How is going to the theatre - doing something that you clearly enjoy, and spending money during a bad economy, a bad thing?

Insider2, when you say everyone was complaining that there was no intermission. Do you mean everyone.........every single person in the entire theatre - Orch, Mezz, Cast, Crew & Orchestra? So because a total stranger said that the show has no intermission, the producers don't know what they are doing?

Who cares if someone said something about that? What difference does it make? You had a choice - either stay or go.

Updated On: 8/25/11 at 01:40 PM

If Bertolt Brecht were alive today, he would no doubt make an argument that ALL commercial theater--certainly everything on Broadway--is bourgeois indulgence that not only wastes economic resources but tranquilizes the viewer into a stupor that blinds him to way the elites "game" the system and defraud the rest of us.

I took a graduate seminar from Oskar Eustis, current head of the Public Theater and a key influence on my view of theater. I don't know if he's changed his mind now that he's producing commerical production of Hair, but 20 years ago when I was pursuing my MFA (and Oskar was at the Taper), Oskar's argument were much the same as Brecht's.

And they have a point. But on that basis, we should close this board, boycott Broadway and write Lehrstücke to be performed by farm collectives. Probably not going to happen (especially since Brecht himself decided the Lehrstücke didn't work).

I think what set people off here was singling out WithoutATrace, who was not bragging but illustrating his enthusiasm for a particular show by telling us he has seen it four times. I took his point to be that he was willing to sacrifice for repeat viewings of Follies, not that he was rich and ticket prices didn't matter.

Right now I can't afford to fly to New York and see Follies once, much less multiple times. But damn if I wouldn't if I could!

I think there is a conversation to be had about rich people spending $240 dollars for tickets because they can't plan in advance or sit in the back. That's strikes me as a sort of "Gilded Age" obscenity. But that isn't what WithoutATrace said he was doing.

I hope WAT gets to see Follies four more times and reports back after each performance.

^^^^

Swell! I think it's obvious I am living vicariously through the poor guy.

We are here to discuss our Broadway experiences. I think if Withoutatrace wants to share his experiences seeing the same show again and again, we should graciously listen. I'm sure each time was a different experience since Follies continues to change. If he wants to spend his money on Broadway, it's none of our business. It's his passion like it's ours. It's people like him that keep the shows open. He wasn't bragging, he was excited and sharing. I hope we hear more from him.