FOLLIES: Thoughts...

and who the heck was the woman with the man voice in Act 2 and why was her song there in the first place?

That was Rosalind Elias, an opera legend from the Met.

Updated On: 8/13/11 at 12:32 AM

my first time at Follies as well and here is what i thought

first the atmosphere is incredible, it is unlike any show i have ever been to.

the music is very interesting at first i didnt really love it or hate but as more time passes the the music is getting more and more addicting to me.

i thought the entire cast is phenomenal. Personally i felt that Ms.Peters did an incredible job with the role of Sally, she found a good balance (not to crazy, not too mopey). Maxwell is an absolute gem in this production and i agree the her rendition of "could i leave you" is without a doubt worth the price of admission. Bernstein and Raines were both incredable in their respective roles.

I never found any of these characters unlikeable. I believe the reason they behave as such is because of the heightened atmosphere of the reunion.with such an icon of their past being destroyed it is forcing the characters to deal with the ghosts of their past giving them reasons to act as such.

and in regards to your statement "She makes out with a guy then says "let's get married" and walks out of the scene. That seems a tinge crazy to me." i dont think that is crazy at all we are talking about Ben Stone, Sally's first love, a man who she has never stopped loving. To the point where her obsession (to me at least) is causing her mental harm.

thank you so much for sharing your thoughts you have made me think long and hard about the show.

It was my first time seeing the show on Wednesday, although I was familiar with the score.

I didn't find the characters two-dimensional at all. Now, these characters are all more than twice my age. But I could see the pain that they were in- regretful and disappointed in what their lives had become when compared to the promise they held in the past. Ben and Sally put up very good fronts about their lives ("The Road You Didn't Take" and "In Buddy's Eyes"), but you are acutely aware they're putting on a good face, or trying to spark some feeling in the other. Are they all "good people"? No. But I found them extremely human. They are people I could find counterparts to in my life. I am reminded of a scene in the movie Fargo, a scene that baffles many audiences- the scene in which Marge meets with an old schoolmate, and then discovers that he had been lying about his entire life to her to hide his loneliness, desperation, and regret.

I did walk out of the show thinking, "I resolve to never let myself become like them."

---

I may just be a broadway baby, but I feel like I'm losing my mind. In a nutshell: I believe that to truly comprehend and enjoy Follies, one must be of a certain age and must have experienced life's ups and downs. You've had to examine the road you didn't take. You've had to look in the mirror and ask who's that woman. You've had to awaken too many mornings looking for the right girl and wondering if you'll ever taste one more kiss. I've looked in buddy's eyes and he's turned from me saying don't look at me. I've stood there saying love will see us through but feeling the god why don't you love me blues and asking myself could I leave you. I've been waiting for the girls upstairs, those beautiful girls, and I'm still here waiting for someone to tell me you're gonna love tomorrow. Maybe I should move away. Ah, Paris. I wanted to say all this in a nutshell, but it's become longer than the story of Lucy and Jessie. Anyway, to all of you: enjoy Follies. Live, laugh, love.

Follies can be a tough show. The first thing I'll say is that you don't have to be of a certain age to enjoy it. To get the nuances you probably do have to have some key experiences (love, hate, regret, etc) and it helps to be familiar with "traditional" musicals and songs from the Ziegfeld Follies era, but it's not totally necessary. The second thing I'll say is that I haven't seen this production so I'm not familiar with its ups and downs. The third thing is that Follies has many facets and layers.

On one level it is an atmospheric mood piece, a documentation of a party. The anecdote goes that Sondheim and Goldman were having trouble with the show's book, in which the "plot" kept getting pushed further and further back to allow for more of the party sequence. One night, at an actual theater party, they went and sat in the house to watch the people on-stage. Somebody walked to the edge of the stage with a half-eaten sandwich and, having no place to dispose it, dropped it into the orchestra pit. Sondheim turned to Goldman (or vice-versa) and said, "There's our show". This is the atmospheric base of the show and it's arguably the key to the rest of Follies. If the director screws this up, the rest of the show can't function as well as it should.

On another level it's a sort of funereal tribute to the musical theater of the follies era. It's a lost, some say golden period of carefree shows and bubbly music, living on only in sheet music and increasingly distant memory, which makes the pastiche numbers so important. You referred to a song with a woman with a "man voice" in the second act and I'm assuming you're talking about "One More Kiss". This is a significant number for a variety of reasons. One is that it was the first number Sondheim wrote for the show and it set the tone for the rest of the score. This is really more of a retrospective thing but it's worth noting. Another reason is that it's the last pastiche number before the main characters enter Loveland. The character who sings it is the oldest woman at the party and the song is about an acceptance of finality. The lyrics are everything here, and you can find them online. "All things beautiful must die", "All dreamers must awake", "Now that our love is done, lover, give me one more kiss and goodbye". It's sort of the "statement of theme" song and it's all about moving forward from inevitable loss, which applies both to the characters and the era from which they have departed.

The next level is the "plot" level, a sort of crossed-lovers Who's-Afraid-Of-Virginia-Woolf dirty-laundry-airing catastrophe. Every one of the main characters enters loaded with years of personal pain and tragedy, dysfunctions and illusions. As the show goes on they gradually transform, losing the outer shell that they maintain for others, revealing, bit by bit, the real truths at their hearts. Unfortunately, this doesn't make them very friendly or inviting characters, and your complaints are essentially the same ones critics had of the original production. They're very difficult characters and I can only imagine the acting challenge they present. It's all about subtext, and the way the actors play that is of utmost importance. It's the difference between a bitchy character and a tragic character. The Loveland sequence is not only a sort of coup-de-theatre but a mass breakdown. The walls are completely removed and we are finally allowed to see the characters for who they are. Unfortunately, this happens at the very end of the evening and in a way it makes Follies a show better to be seen again than for the first time. It's more interesting to watch and analyze the characters than to try to put together the mystery.

You don't have to like Follies. That's important. Nobody will hold you to anything for disliking it. It's a show that plays to a relatively specific audience and not being part of it isn't a criminal offense.

Hm. I'm still not getting that they are fully flesh-out characters. Every character seems to be an idea, or a stereotype, but nothing really fleshed out. Buddy is the loser husband, Phil is the trophy wife, etc. The only thing I get is that they are all 4 unhappy in their lives, but I didn't really feel bad for them for it. I understand the idea of a first love who doesn't love you back, trust me, but I don't know. Maybe I haven't loved and lost enough to grasp that idea.

And the old lady solo just seems to come at such a random place in the show. None of the other characters from Act 1 are really showcased in Act 2, so it feels weird to have this woman come out that we haven't been introduced to yet. I don't even remember her from Act 1.

I don't know. I didn't think Peters was really making any strong choices. I felt like she was just saying the lines. After listening to Donna Murphy's "Losing My Mind" on YouTube, I can understand how heart wrenching that song is, and maybe it's a case of vocal preference, but I didn't think Peters was really digging deep with her rendition.

Follies can be a very difficult show to get, and this production has some weak direction in parts which does not help.

That said, to say that the four main characters are only ideas or stereotypes is (to me) crazy. They are four of the most complex characters ever created, and these 4 actors brought such depth to them. Once again, my opinion.

---

My only problem with Elias's number (who I agree, has a gorgeous voice, especially for an 83 year old) is with the way the beginning of it is staged. Why is she coming in the doors? She already arrived. Did she step out for a smoke break?

And to address the question of why "One More Kiss" is the only Act II number not sung by one of the 4 principals (or their younger selves), remember that the show was planned with no Act break at all-- without the intermission there would be a natural build from "Who's That Woman" to "I'm Still Here" to "One More Kiss" in a continuous arc of aging divas looking back.

I was just having some fun with the song titles. My bad.

Is my face red! Thanks to Phyllis Rogers Stone for the correction, which is apt because apparently I stole Phyllis' maiden name and gave it to Buddy and Sally.

PRS, I think Follies uses marriage as a tool to look at illusion and its risks, but I don't think it only applies to married people.

And, yes, I believe the majority of people get to middle-age and question at least some of the choices they have made. And I hope most people have enough wisdom at 50 to recognize some of their follies at 20.

Updated On: 8/13/11 at 10:55 PM

RedMustang, that was very well done.

RippedMan--you got it. You didn't like it, but you got it. You asked "They just kept seeming to whine about their problems, but they're all horrible people, so why should I care in the first place?" You're absolutely right: You shouldn't. And then you asked "Is the show nothing more than a showcase for great older female talent?" It definitely is that, and maybe, in the end, not much more.

So if that's all Follies is--Horrible people who whine about their problems and a showcase for older female talent--and I'm agreeing with you on both counts, not disagreeing with you--why do you think so many of us think it is one of the all-time great musicals?

I was 15 when I saw the original production multiple times (which I'm sure you've heard was legendary) and I've never had another theatrical experience that matched it.

Now that you've seen it and analyzed it to a T, why do you think we all love it so much?

---