FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
#1FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 2:51pm
It seems that many of the posters on the FOLLIES thread are basing their opinions on recordings of the show. FOLLIES indeed has a magnificent score.
However, in the original production on Broadway, FOLLIES was boring, dreadful and shockingly sleep inducing.
With all the songs that we have come to know (I'm Still Here, Broadway Baby, etc.), none of them were at all impressionable two weeks into the original Bway run without having heard the songs repeatedly before (we usually fall in love with a Sondheim score after hearing the recording repeatedly.) Anyone I know that was at FOLLIES during the first production, was very disappointed and some would say they hated it. THERE WAS ONLY ONE TRUE SHOWSTOPPER. That was Gene Nelson (who got Tony nominted) doing THE RIGHT GIRL. The choreography and performance were thrilling. Mr. Nelson had to wait quite a while for the applause to subside, we could see him breathing deeply after the workout he just had, before the show continued after his performance of THE RIGHT GIRL. The original production of FOLLIES was done without an intermission and dozens of people left during the performance. I have been told that dozens of people left the show at the Kennedy Center also. I love FOLLIES, because I have fallen in love with the songs from the many recordings. However, there is a good reason FOLLIES did not win the Tony for Best Musical the year it was nominated. It was tedious to sit through and the show was a monumental bore. I was glad when it was over. And yet, when I bought the OCR, like many others, I fell in love with the masterpiece score.
#2FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 2:57pm
"However, in the original production on Broadway, FOLLIES was boring, dreadful and shockingly sleep inducing."
Sez you, Blanche.
bwayfan7000
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/28/09
#3FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 3:00pm"Who's That Woman?" is amongst the best showstopper numbers I've seen in any show. And, from what I can tell, it was as much a showstopper in 1971 as it is today. You're entitled to your opinions, but many (me included) will strongly disagree with you on this count.
Ed_Mottershead
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
#4FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 3:03pmI think I said this before, but I feel it belongs with Porgy and Bess, Candide, and several others that were not appreciated by the majority of people at the time, yet have become at the very least cult classics. Porgy, at its very best, contains some of the finest (and also some of the most elongated) music ever written for the musical theatre, but didn't really catch an audience until the 1942 revival; Candide has never overcome its book problems, but there's always that overture and Glitter and Be Gay; and Follies, well, it's still here. And I venture to guess that these three will be here long after anyone's ceased to know or care about some of the more "popular" shows around.
#5FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 3:10pm
I'm sorry you don't have a Tony <3
#6FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 3:38pm
"However, in the original production on Broadway, FOLLIES was boring, dreadful and shockingly sleep inducing."
"Anyone I know that was at FOLLIES during the first production, was very disappointed and some would say they hated it."
I am confused. Were you there in 1971 or are you basing the first stament on what you heard and making it sound kind of like it is a fact? And was FOLLIES in its own production?
Phyllis Rogers Stone
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
#7FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 3:40pmI had a Tony once. We always fought over who was the boss.
#8FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 3:44pmPhyllis, did he drive a Taxi?
Phyllis Rogers Stone
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
#10FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 3:46pmI was going to get a toni, but my hair was already curly.
"In Oz, the verb is douchifizzation." PRS
#11FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 3:47pm
Was he also deceptively producing theatre in New York City to much harsh criticism?
AHHHHHHHH... See? See?!
Is it Tony Georges or Tony Danza now?!
BOTH APPLY.
#12FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 3:49pmI bet he lived on Hudson Street.
#13FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 3:56pm
However, in the original production on Broadway, FOLLIES was boring, dreadful and shockingly sleep inducing.
No.
#14FOLLIES' Only Showstopper
Posted: 9/13/11 at 3:57pmBlasphemy.
#15FOLLIES Had Nothing BUT Showstoppers
Posted: 9/13/11 at 4:04pm
The original "Who's That Woman," for those who have never seen it.
http://youtu.be/nhQeVQ6677A
#16FOLLIES Had Nothing BUT Showstoppers
Posted: 9/13/11 at 4:24pm
Love it or hate it, only boring, dreadful, and shockingly sleep inducing people would think this about the original production.
#17FOLLIES Had Nothing BUT Showstoppers
Posted: 9/13/11 at 4:39pm
One need only click on WISHIHADATONY's profile to find that he said the same thing (almost verbatim) about SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE (posted 10/15/05):
SITWG is also great to see in the theater as a sleep indusive. It is dreadful and boring.....SITWG, plays much, much better on video and on cd than it does in the theater............I suspect if you are anxious for a revival you could not have actually seen this show in a theater.......Do not mistake the love of a show from its video or its cd for the fact that you will love the show in the theater...........I suspect the new Sweeney Todd revival starring Lupone will not last very long on Broadway......Word of mouth kills faster than anything......Reality is, most folks, especially "theater civilians" find Sondheim shows, live and in person,,,,,,,,terribly, terribly complex and boring.
Of course, we've since had a highly acclaimed Broadway revival of SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE and that SWEENEY revival that he predicted would close quickly played for nearly a year and recouped/earned a profit. Some people can't help singing the same old song, I guess.
#18FOLLIES Had Nothing BUT Showstoppers
Posted: 9/13/11 at 5:16pmI'm still confused about how Tony Danza stopped the show with Who's That Woman.
Gaveston2
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/11
#19FOLLIES Had Nothing BUT Showstoppers
Posted: 9/13/11 at 5:35pm
Yes, bwyfan7000, "Who's That Woman?" stopped the show in 1971. It was perhaps the second TRUE showstopper (I.e., one where the audience literally prevents the performers from continuing) I ever saw. (The first was Ethel Merman and Russell Nype singing "You're Just in Love" on tour - 7 encores!)
But "Broadway Baby", "I'm Still Here", "Could I Leave You?", and almost all the Loveland numbers also got huge hands.
The poster who started this thread thought he was being smart by knocking a show so many of us revere (whatever its problems). But by admitting he only likes Sondheim shows after listening to them on CD he merely proves his ear isn't sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate our "greatest living theater composer" (to quote Audra MacDonald) after one hearing.
Updated On: 9/13/11 at 05:35 PM
Skip2
Featured Actor Joined: 12/17/04
#20FOLLIES Had Nothing BUT Showstoppers
Posted: 9/13/11 at 7:22pm
What a funny post.
The Right Girl? Really? A great thing, though, about that number is that in the middle of it, Nelson grabbed a pole which supported one of the scaffolding platforms and flew himself around the pole and over another platform before coming back to his starting position. Startling.
But, yes, "Who's That Woman" was the showstopper.
And the Montage got a pretty big hand.
Gaveston2
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/11
#21FOLLIES Had Nothing BUT Showstoppers
Posted: 9/13/11 at 7:58pm
^^^^
Indeed. Ethel Shutta took stage like she thought she was Ethel Merman. Adorable!
#22FOLLIES Had Nothing BUT Showstoppers
Posted: 9/14/11 at 10:17am
Why are you being hard on someone who has a difference of opinion than yours and the "current" mainstream. Why must everyone love and revere the same musical or play that you do?
Yes... we as theatre lovers have come to revere Follies due to its theatricality, brilliant score and chance for Old timers to shine. We have come to appreciate its mirror of the past and present. We have come to thrill at its themes of regret and nostalgia.
He is correct in that many people felt the original Follies was a disappointing snoozefest with a weak book. Just look at the reviews from that era. (See Barnes in the Times)
He is also correct that it is difficult to really appreciate a score on first hearing.
It had and still has a weak and strange book with main characters that are lugubrious and hard to care about. It also had some thrilling moments (The Right Girl, Whose that Women, Could I Leave You, Broadway Baby) as mentioned by others.
People DID fall in love with it after hearing the score repeatedly...including myself. I fell in love with Follies not only after hearing the score but also after
seeing the much "lighter" version in London that didn't hit you over the head with regret, sturm and drang.
This gentlemen is not off base. He tells it as he sees it.. and as others have seen it.
We are here to discuss theatre. Not bash people for opinions different from yours or the mainstream.
After Eight
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/5/09
#23FOLLIES Had Nothing BUT Showstoppers
Posted: 9/14/11 at 11:28am
"We are here to discuss theatre. Not bash people for opinions different from yours or the mainstream."
In an ideal world, that would be the case. But the world we live in is far from ideal, especially when it comes to criticism of Stephen Sondheim.
And the OP was right on about Sunday in the Park, as well.
#24FOLLIES Had Nothing BUT Showstoppers
Posted: 9/14/11 at 11:52am
Life is just a bowl of cherries.
Videos