FOLLIES questions — Page 3

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

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

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

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

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

It seems the Follies love is less on the weekends.

---

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

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..

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

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.

---