FOLLIES: Thoughts...

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 12:23am

FIrst time seeing Follies - ever. First time hearing most of these songs - ever.

So. I finally saw Follies. I've been excited/anxious about seeing it ever since it announced its transfer. I was weary of Schaffer's direction as I've seen his shows in DC, and while I think he has a great eye for style and stage pictures, he isn't the best with motivation and actors.

I'm still putting together my thoughts, but I'm not sure I liked it. I don't know if it's an age thing, but the whole show was puzzling. The characters were all 2 dimensions. They just kept seeming to whine about their problems, but they're all horrible people, so why should I care in the first place? All they did was bitch and moan about how horrible their lives are and how trapped they felt or how unhappy their marriage is, all while making out or getting with another character.

Is the show nothing more than a showcase for great older female talent? The first act just felt like a parade of solos from people who just disappeared in Act 2. And who the heck was the woman with the man voice in Act 2 and why was her song there in the first place? She had this great, grand entranced that made it feel like some sort of dream sequence, but then it didn't go anywhere.

I'd like to hear thoughts on other productions. I think the direction here just left the actors meandering. I felt like actors would walk on, hit center stage, deliver their scene, and walk off to opposite exits. They did a lot of roaming around an empty stage or walking together and then crossing apart. I remember one scene where Buddy and Phil are talking and they're essentially on opposite ends of the stage.

That said, I thought the performances - for the most part - were great. Burstein as Buddy was fun to watch, in great voice, and gave a great performance. I just wish he had more to work with.

Maxwell was the standout for me. She gave a stellar performance, and her "Could I Leave You?" was worth the price of admission alone.

I didn't think Peters was all that great. Her voice was a little shaky, and her acting just felt very flat and "seen it." Excuse my ignorance, but what is up with the character of Sally? Is she suppose to be disillusioned and a little crazy? Hence "Losing my Mind?" 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.

The Loveland sequence was a little out of left field. Again, the show felt like a song cycle to me rather than a show, which maybe it is. It's my first exposure to the show, so I didn't know what to expect. The songs were great in that sequence, but I was a little let down with "Losing My Mind." Maybe because I had nothing to invest in the 2-D characters? I wasn't invested in what they were going through, so I had no emotion invested into that moment?


I liked the atmosphere and set of the show. It was creepy and haunting in all the right ways, I thought. And I thought the band sounded wonderful!

Any other thoughts on the various productions/directions/concepts?

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 12:32am

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

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 1:11am

The depth of the characters in the show seems to be a somewhat divisive issue. Some, like you, find them two-dimensional, while I personally find them all interesting and relatable. I was incredibly emotionally invested in the show when I saw it in DC, and can't wait to see it again in a few weeks on Broadway. I think that people either get who these characters are and connect to them on a personal level, or just don't see eye-to-eye with them, so to speak, and find them uninteresting and whiny. I just feel lucky that I feel such a connection to these characters and can love the show because of it. Yes, Sally is slightly deranged, Ben can be a jerk, Phyllis might be icy to a fault, and Buddy is always at a somewhat pathetic fever pitch, but, at each of their cores, they're just trying to make their lives okay despite mistakes in their pasts. Who can't relate to that?

[theatrefreak0109]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 1:15am

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.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 1:28am

There's something about this show that just intrigues me. While I have not been fortunated enough to see it live, I have seen a couple bootlegs. The first time I saw it I was a little confused as to who all the characters were and I found myself referring to the wikipedia synopsis a lot to help me keep track of everyone. I have since then purchased the book Everything Was Possible and obtained a copy of the libertto. I am going to do some reading before I watch the show again for sure. I am definitely interested in this show, and I want to know more about it and the characters in the story.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 1:34am

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."

[redmustang]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 2:02am

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.

[redmustang]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 2:04am

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.

[redmustang]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 2:07am

Sorry for the double click. I told you I was losing my mind.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 3:20am

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.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 5:32am

redmustang, I first saw the original Follies when I was only 17 and it instantly became my favorite Broadway musical and has remained so ever since.

But I must admit I look back and wonder what was wrong with me that I had no trouble identifying with all those middle-aged characters talking about loss. Maybe it had to do with growing up in the 60s. The world (and the Broadway musical) changed a lot during my teens.

Charley is right: whether you identify with Follies has more to do with personal experiences than with chronological age.

***

I think it's important to note that Follies isn't just about how bad stuff happens. It's about how our illusions (and the way we cling to them) MAKE bad stuff happen. (This was particularly poignant by 1971 when it had become clear that our willful blindness had led us to defeat in Vietnam. It ought to be poignant again after a costly decade in Afghanistan.)

***

Oh, and kids: I hate to be the one to tell you, but most people end up quite like one of the Stones or Plummers. (Thanks to Phyllis Rogers Stone for correcting my poor recall of the characters names.)
Updated On: 8/13/11 at 05:32 AM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 11:53am

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.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 11:59am

Oh, and kids: I hate to be the one to tell you, but most people end up quite like one of the Stones or Rogers

I'm sure you mean the Stones or the Plummers, but either way - most people? Not most married people? Even that qualification seems like a bit of a reach.

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 12:01pm

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.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 12:06pm

The "old lady solo" (to use your parlance) comes right after Phyllis has been kissing the younger man. They talk--Phyllis laments not having had a child--and then they kiss and part. The song's lyrics seem to comment on this ("Dreams are a sweet mistake / All dreamers must awake / On, then, with the dance / No backward glance / Or my heart will break") as well as on Sally and Ben rekindling their passion for each other, however briefly. We know in the end that everyone is going to go back to their life (and spouse) at the finale, and possibly never see each other again. To me, the song speaks with poignancy to that end.

And you may not care for Rosalind Elias's voice, but on a technical level, she sounds AMAZING for an 83-year-old woman who has been singing opera since the 1940s. The fact that she's able to do eight performances a week and still sound the way she does is unbelievable. She also still performs operatic roles occasionally and originated Mrs. Lovett in the Prince NYCO staging back in 1984.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 12:48pm

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?

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 1:06pm

Having her re-enter through the doors is...odd. I liked the way they handled it in the 2001 revival. As Danner and the young actor finished their scene, the lights went up on Joan Roberts, sitting center stage, where she had been the whole time. Very simple but quite effective.

The only plausible explanation I can think of is that Heidi is wandering around, lost in a dream-like stage, but that doesn't really work for me.

And if you want to hear a DEEP voice singing "One More Kiss," give Yma Sumac (in the 1990 LA production) a listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os6X8aqCysg

Updated On: 8/13/11 at 01:06 PM

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 2:08pm

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.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 2:21pm

I've always said songs, 10, book 3 for Follies. But I'm seeing it tonight and hoping I have a different opinion. Your post, Ripped, is making me less optimistic that I might have an experience similar to the one I had at the Lincoln Center Company, where Lonnie Price's interpretation was a revelation, and has caused me to completely reconsider and up-grade the value of the libretto.

I've always found Goldman's book to be shallow and predictable, with the characters coming to full life, only in song. Of course that's not unusual in musical theater, but the disparity between what the Follies characters reveal about themselves, their relationships and conflicts between their scenes and their songs is jarring. Updated On: 8/13/11 at 02:21 PM

[redmustang]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 3:09pm

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

[Kad]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 3:58pm

"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."

Donna Murphy's version is wonderful, but it is also out of context.

In context, Sally is performing a torch song in a fantasy follies. All four of the characters are both themselves and also not themselves but rather performers in this sequence (except for Ben at the end of his, when fantasy and reality collide).

So, on the surface it's a superficial song (as are the other three numbers), but on a deeper level it's an exploration of Sally's psyche.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 10:55pm

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

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/13/11 at 11:12pm

Rippedman, maybe I don't understand what you mean by "fully rounded" characters.

When Sally is alone with Ben again for the first time in 30 years, she sings "I should have worn green. I wore green the last time. The time I was happy." (In "Too Many Mornings.")

Can you tell me one lyric by Dolly, Fanny Brice, the Phantom or Christine that is as "fully rounded" or as specifically human as that line?

Is it possible that what you are missing isn't fully rounded characters but dramatic action? Like Company, Follies is Brechtian in nature (though Sondheim insists he hates Brecht) and is based in commentary rather than action.

The characters of Follies aren't two-dimensional, but they are stuck--unsure what to do or where to go next. And the structure of the play reflects the quagmire of the characters.

Most musicals romp forward in time (and Sondheim argues this is partly a function of the momentum inherent to music). But Follies specifically fights this urge and in doing so creates a different kind of dramatic tension.

It isn't the only musical to do so, but it's far from the norm of what we expect from musical theater.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/14/11 at 12:43am

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?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/14/11 at 1:33am

Gaveston2: I think you hit the nail on the head. It's funny though because I'm so drawn to Brechtian work and work that reverses typical musical theater ideas, but then when I actually see them I long for the typical book musical.

All this discussion, believe it or not, has got me itching to see it again.

PalJoey, to answer our question, I'm not sure. I know when I first heard the chords to Sunday in the Park my heart melted. When Dot sings "We never belonged together, and we should have belonged together" I cried like a baby. Maybe this is the connection everyone has to this show, and I just didn't have a similar experience. Maybe I haven't lived through the experiences the characters have, so I can't connect with them on that level.

One question though: Why couldn't Sally and Raines' character be together? Is it simply that he loved Phil instead of Sally? I guess I sort of missed all that, which I know is a major plot point. I def. need to see it again, now that you've all made some excellent points. I'm def. analytical about shows, and I like to dissect them and see what makes them so good, etc.