FOLLIES questions- Page 3

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 10:33am

What a fascinating find, yet I don't know whether to take it as an error or that she'd truthfully double-team two roles. I'd imagine that would take a lot of running around, going from the mirror number, into Too Many Mornings, than into another costume change during the Right Girl to be ready for One More Kiss. Then back into the other costume for the fight, then into dress for Love Will See Us Through.

Definitely possible, but wow I'd be pissed if I was her. Not really, I actually think she's a lucky bitch for performing SO many of the good parts.

Don't you think the audience would recognize her though? She is prominent as Young Sally and having her portray someone else younger and sing a song, I think that would seem too obvious as well as confusing.

Updated On: 3/15/07 at 10:33 AM

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 10:50am

You know, I never even considered that she'd play both at the same time. I just figured if she did indeed wind up playing Young Heidi that someone else would have taken over for Young Sally and it just wasn't listed.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 11:01am

Hmm, I'd read this and think again.

"[RobertArmin] And I remember that when Follies went to Los Angeles, Marti actually played both Young Sally and Young Heidi!"

http://www.robertarmin.com/Evans.htm

Very interesting interview chat with Harvey Evans. He mentions that it was done in L.A., I could imagine it being implemented in NY.

edit; Perhaps anyone with a Playbill from 1972 could shine some light and see if she is credited as both?

Updated On: 3/15/07 at 11:01 AM

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 11:49am

Thanks for finding that, CifC! That's really fascinating. I guess it really wouldn't be all that confusing for the audience, though, depending on how the "One More Kiss" scene was staged and lit, etc. You figure that Young Heidi is going to be in a very old fashioned costume and wig, so I bet many audiences didn't even notice it was the same actress.

I wonder why they choose to do it that way.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 11:55am

It would save a salary ... Young Heidi is virtually only used in that one number.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 12:03pm

But wouldn't Rolph have to be paid more for assuming another role?

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 12:06pm

It would make for one less person in the Loveland sequence as I've seen pictures of Victoria Mallory paired off with a cavalier. Not important really, but I still feel it causes less distinction between the two roles with her voice being prominently heard so much, I mean I'd recognize her.

But I see the productions reasoning and that must have been a lot of fun to do for her! Plus with her playing Sally in a pretty well noted production that garnered so much favor and attention because of how ingenious it was for them reuniting to play their older selves.

edit; I think that the minimum they paid for Mallory is still more than what they'd have to play Rolph for taking that song.

Updated On: 3/15/07 at 12:06 PM

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 4:02pm

Yeah, you're probably right about the money thing.

I'm not so sure about the general audience being able to notice that it was the same actress, though. Young Sally only sings once in before "One More Kiss" and it's mostly in a lower register. If she was made up and in a different costume, I don't think most people would know the difference. We lunatics on this thread would, though.

I'd still love to know how it came about, whether it was out of necessity or whether Rolph requested it, etc.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 4:06pm

There's always a story left to tell somehow

Funny, even with Chapin's book, a courtesy to a show rarely ever awarded, I still want MORE. Reading stories and just that cast makes me want to insatiably know more.

What I find weirder than passing the role onto Young Sally or even cutting Vincent and Vanessa in favor of just doling that one dance over to the Whitman's, is why change the name from Christine Crane to Sandra Crane. During the run too, I don't understand that.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 4:12pm

I know! That was a head-scratcher for me, too.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 4:18pm

Perhaps they were not in favor of the alliteration after a while? She was still named Christine when Jan Clayton took over the role so it wasn't some change after Ethel left.

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 11:34pm

One thing that I can't help thinking about is how it seems that every musical gets a coffee table book. Lord, I wish that they had been doing that back when "Follies" was running...

One thing about "Make the Most of Your Music", I read that originally the song had a group breakdown for the four principals. The setting for the song was a huge piano (out of which popped the chorus). Sondheim said that originally, Ben was to get his foot caught in the piano wire and Phyllis, Buddy, and Sally were to come out and try to free him, arguing all the while.

This had been planned, specifically, on the piano being able to rise up and disappear into the flies. (If you go to "the site that dare not speak it's name", you can see the "Loveland" number and see how they rise up on a platform during that number to get a rough idea of what I'm talking about.)

Well, they get into the theater and Maria Bjornson's set piece for that number is too heavy to be lifted the way it had been planned. So, Sondheim had to re-write the number to have a traditional ending, instead of having the group breakdown.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 11:41pm

Interesting. Do you know how they transitioned from Loveland back to the real world, then?

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 11:43pm

Ohh, the image of a massive and beautiful bound book filled lavishly with pictures as bountiful and elegantly elaborate as Loveland. All the colors brought out the way they should through such nice prints, everything documented photographically as well as printed. If ever a musical deserved such rich treatment, I'd imagine it be one that looked even half as good.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 2:35am

Does anyone else think that a breakdown from all four characters is unnecessary?
I never saw the London production but when I saw the Encores! concert I almost cried when I saw Victor Garber dropping his cane, flubbing his lyrics, and finally falling to the floor and creating that deafening silence throughout the theatre with his "Phyliiiiis!" as Victoria Clark tried to help him and Donna Murphy came up to him and we had that incredibly touching moment between Phyllis and Ben. It made such an impression on me.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 2:54am

I think an image like that brings to mind mass hysteria, which it most certainly is not, just each one of them facing a struggle, mostly inner. The only people I would ever even imagine breaking down would be Ben or Sally. I do love some of those London sets though, very elaborate and almost Heavenly-looking Loveland.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 10:01am

I just hate hate hate the 87 London version of "Loveland." I can't even put my finger on exactly what it is about it, except maybe that I thought the original version was perfect as it is.

Personally, I find it problematic when the real world characters are introduced in "Loveland" (Rosoce in the London version, having Carolotta, Solange etc reciting the couplets in Papermill), etc. Having folks from the "real" world appear in "Loveland" almost makes it seem like they were somehow in on it, if that makes sense. I've said it before (but when have I ever shied away from saying something again?), but I also hate the revised ending of the book in which the party goers reappear in the final scene. Once "Loveland" hits, it should be about nothing but the psyches of the main four. It's what the entire night has been leading up to and the rest of cast really is superfluous after that.

Speaking of "Loveland," has anyone ever tried to really pick apart exactly what's happening there in a literal sense? Does the theatre really swallow the main four up? Are they having some sort of group hallucination? I know that ultimately you just have to go with the flow and that the why isn't the point, but it's something that my overactive imagination thinks about from time to time.

[mr. crawford]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 3:36pm

Updated On: 3/17/07 at 03:36 PM

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 4:21pm

It seems the Follies love is less on the weekends.

Updated On: 3/17/07 at 04:21 PM

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 9:57am

No one puts the Follies thread in a corner.

Updated On: 3/19/07 at 09:57 AM

[mike L G]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 11:12am

I think the role of callotta is the only strong force emotionally
in the show because she let's it out. the other's are living
in denail about thing's that should be shearded , but I think
it may be a little 1970 for some of these question's which
I never thought of before . Only a few would walk a way before
then,afraid of denial of ect..

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 5:53pm

I think the only thing that could make this show better than it being remounted with the same cast, costumes, and sets tomorrow would be for Donna McKechnie to have been Young Someone. They put Tick Tock in and have her dance it. It would be fantastic, through all the goods in one basket! Donna as Young McKechnie!

Kringas to start up some discussion, I simply must say that I think that during Loveland physically in real time is a fight, their memories take hold and we see what is going through their minds. We see their memories taking hold of what their current state is and play it out exaggerated, as a folly. What the people themselves are doing is I'd imagine emotionally explode at each other and we don't see much of that going on for long. They each probably storm off in their own ways, Sally collapsing, Phyllis rushing off, Ben staying where he is and breaking down, Buddy cooling off in a corner.

I personally think that what the audience is shown is far more exciting than any traditional fight. I mean if I was arguing with someone in real life, I'd much prefer acting out my own folly than living through the bickering and seeing only one side. The not-fantasy side....

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 7:55pm

A Coffee table book would be amazing. Ofr a long time I never had a good sense of how intricate Boris Aronson's set was ultil I finally got the expensive but gorgeous book of theatre designs of Aronson--it has much concept art, a number of photographs of the stage and of models and you realize how many different platforms and levels (many fo which moved) it had.

While the London production is much less interesting to me I do wish I could find pics that clearly showed Maria Bjornson's set--for instance she did Phantom the same eyar and I always wonder if there was any similarity to how she did the "theatre reviving" in the overture of Phantom with the Loveland part of Follies (not to mention there may be some overlap with the original production as Prince did FOllies and Phantom...)

E

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 11:20pm

I simply must say that I think that during Loveland physically in real time is a fight, their memories take hold and we see what is going through their minds.

I think that's valid. When I was first got into the show I think that's similar to the line of thinking I had about Loveland, but as time has passed, my personal feeling is that it does happen in some kind of alternate reality and not just in their minds. I don't know if it's because the theatre is haunted or possessed or what, but I feel like at that moment the trumpets blare, it's really happening to the four of them. I think the original ending (when no one but the four main characters are seen after Loveland) makes a stronger case for this, though.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 11:32pm

I prefer the choice of seeing only the 4 after the evening crashes into daybreak. However, after seeing it at Encores, I really feel as though seeing everyone else again puts the night into the perspective that I hold of it. They are in existence among others we have seen that evening and we can tell that what just went on was nasty. It feels harsh and real as opposed to this fantastical 'reality' we see with only them there.

Perhaps the original kept it more in the sense that there could be debate on whether the events that occurred had a deeper meaning in the proceedings. I mean it is pretty glaring while viewing their numbers that the action has an impact on their current state and comes directly from it. To examine that does some justice to the material which I feel is pretty flexible to interpret at that point.