FOLLIES: Thoughts... — Page 6

Let us please try to remember a few things. Theatre-goers have different tastes, different likes and dislikes, and different backgrounds. These differences influence how we see a show or a performance. And these differences of opinions (and this is still an opinion board, right?) have been going on for ages. Who was better: Mary Martin or Ethel Merman? Who was the best Dolly? In Sunset Blvd. rank Buckley, Paige and Close. (And don't forget Lupone!) And then, the age-old quarrel: Bernadette vs. Patti. Some people on this board even compare different understudies' performances. Obviously, they need to get a job. Not everyone is going to love everything. And that's ok. Not everyone loved West Side Story back in 1957. Not everyone loved Evita. There were even people who hated Cats. Can you imagine? I remember years ago seeing Nine. I thought it was stunning, and recommended it to a friend. She HATED it. Same thing happened with Sunday in the Park. Aren't you just glad we have this opportunity to discuss these shows with each other? Do we have to be so hard on these performers and so sarcastic with each other so much. These Broadway shows we love so much open one night, blaze with such fire, run their course, and close way too quickly. Then they're gone. Gee, I'd love to be able to see Gwen Verdon in Sweet Charity or Chicago, even if she had a cold. Or see Chita Rivera again in Spider Woman, even if she drops her cane. Or see Harvey do Edna one more time. Theatre is live. It's here. Then it's gone. Colds and sinus problems happen. Lighten up. Follies is going to open next month and all too soon this production will be history. Enjoy it while it's here.

Updated On: 8/17/11 at 04:20 PM

There's another difference between the original and most of the revivals:

Bennett utilized the Ghosts not just as recreations of the past, but as spirits who seemed like they were trying to will the leads to change their situations. Therein was the conflict: will the leads change their lives to make them better or will they just stay the same?

They, especially Young Sally, Phyllis, Ben and Buddy, would weave into the scenes looking like they were trying to influence their "real" people to change. That's why it's poignant at the end when the ghosts say: "Hi Girls...Ben...Sally". All of the tsuris and they never change a thing. Loveland is an interesting portrayal of their individual challenges, but in the end...nothing changes. And it seems like the ghosts are disappointed. And that they're trapped in a purgatory with no resolution.

At least it felt that way to me in the original.

As for this revival. Oy. Direction is still all over the place. Even the basic blocking is bad. Elaine Paige does "I'm Still Here" like "Rose's Turn". Stop yelling! Mary Beth Piel cuts a fine figure, but she's only vaguely French. More like Art Gallery Montmartre. Jane Houdyshell is just loud. Ben finding her sexy once upon a time is a BIG stretch. Everyone is playing a bit broader than in DC. Except for Danny Burstein. He's pretty much perfect, except maybe a bit young. At least Bernadette's voice is stronger here.

The lighting is offensive. Especially when you remember the original. The ghosts come in and they're lit with blue. Come on! That set is just lazy. And all that black masking of the inside of the theatre? To make you feel like you're inside a broken down house? Didn't work for me.

Choreography is just ugly, confusing and almost seems unnecessary. I mean, why bother if all it does is clutter the stage. "Who's That Woman?" is a mess. No focus or build. "Waiting For The Girls Upstairs" should actually be choreographed. Not staged in an ugly manner. There's been much conversation about the criminal "Lucy and Jessie". And on and on. Bennett is truly tour j'ete-ing in his grave.

And, you ask, why see it in NYC after hating it in DC. One can always hope it will be fixed, can't one?

To Skip2: Isn't it great to talk about how special and perfect all the old original shows were and that none of the revivals can touch them. The problem is that not everyone has the chance to see an original production. I saw the original Chorus Line. It WAS brilliant. MY sister was too young. She saw the revival 4 years ago. And she thought IT was brilliant. I got to see Annie Get Your Gun with BP and loved it. I've also heard people say "It couldn't touch the original." So what! I still loved it. I don't expect Follies to duplicate Michael Bennett's show. Bennett was a genius. And they don't come around too often. I've never seen Follies. I'm just glad I will finally get to see it.

Is Carlotta still sitting down for the first half of I'm Still Here? I don't know if the video I saw was from DC or Broadway, but I really hated the staging. I always thought I'm Still Here should be a physically stationary song, since the movement is in the lyrics. Having her sit down and sing directly to the boys just seemed a little bit "Getting to Know You."

---

Bennett utilized the Ghosts not just as recreations of the past, but as spirits who seemed like they were trying to will the leads to change their situations

Nicely put, Skip. That's why there was such electricity between the ghosts and the older counterparts in the original.

That's also what made Bennett's "Who's That Woman" so brilliant: Every other choreographer since has had the ghosts come
in as "better" than the older women. But when Bennett had the the ghosts come, they actually made the old babes look better.

He and Prince also had the older counterparts sometimes almost see the ghosts, as if they were trying to figure out what went wrong back then. But only for a fleeting moment, the way a memory darts into your brain one moment and then is gone the next.

And I felt the same way about the original Chicago (hated it) and the Reinking revival at Encores (loved it).

---

Joey: I'd forgotten those moments. When the ghost would come right up to the leads and both would stare at each other. Chilling and wonderful!!! The original really was a ghost story - not just a story with ghosts.

No--Bennett tried to make it work and the empty space never read as anything other than a mistake, so he nixed it. Here's the original "Who's That Woman," if you guys (and RippedMan) have never seen this faded video:

http://youtu.be/nhQeVQ6677A

---

He used wonderful sentences like, "In all my years of theatergoing" - and then I met him. Fourteen.

And then Chris Hanson walked in?

---

Curious to know if the set change into Loveland is still handled the same way as it was in DC? Eight leads arguing down at the footlights, grey drape flies in (why?), grey drape flies out to reveal the 3 bed-of-roses portals preset upstage with the mini-proscenium downstage center. It's obvious I thought the sequence was a very community-theater solution to the one great set-change requirement of the show. Here's hoping they've improved things for New York...

Thanks for the reminder, joey! While we are rightly singing Benett's praises, can we take a moment to remember Mary McCarty?

Originating this number and Matron Morton in Chicago, surely McCarty belongs in anybody's Broadway Hall of Fame. (And for film fans, there's always "Pillow Talk.")

I loved her voice: no tricks, nothing special really and not always precisely on key, but she sent every word bouncing off the back wall. (Despite the rough recording, it's amazing how clear her diction is. Actually clearer than the faster version on the OBC album, I think.)

Re: henrikegerman

Thanks for your reply.

I agree that a show that merely manages not to bore you isn't a good show. But that's not quite what I was talking about.

Put it this way: I submit that Follies is a great show; that it doesn't merely avoid being boring; that it's exciting, often funny, and ultimately very powerful. And I agree that all the great moments are in the songs. But I also submit that the songs wouldn't have the same impact if they were simply arranged into a song cycle. The context of the book, and the way the book moves from one song to the next, makes them more powerful.

You might argue that it would have been possible write a book that achieved that, but also had some book scenes that were interesting for their own sake. Maybe. But maybe not. Theater history is full of plays where all the individual parts are brilliant, but that somehow fail to combine into an effective whole. It very hard to identify what makes a play work or fail to work as a whole. So I'm very hesitant to dismiss any part of a play that, taken as a whole, achieves greatness.

Well, I'd argue that the fault can't lie entirely with James Goldman. It was Harold Prince's show; if he really thought Goldman's book was undermining the show, he could have fired him. And if Sondheim really thought Goldman's book was undermining the show, he could have begged Prince to fire him; and there's no indication that he ever did. (On the contrary, he's gone on record standing up for the book.) (Michael Bennett, of course, did hate the book.)

I'm not saying that James Goldman's book for Follies is perfect. I am, however, saying that it might be close to the best book possible for that particular show. (I say "close to" because I'll agree that the show probably wouldn't lose anything from deleting some of Goldman's not-nearly-as-clever-as-it-thinks-it-is dialog.) I suppose when the copyright runs out, people can start writing alternate books and prove me right or wrong.

Updated On: 8/18/11 at 11:25 PM

I was not alive when the original production was running.

All I know of the original production is the cast recording, along with photographs, anecdotes, and videos of dubious quality.

The production I saw last week at the Marquis was one that moved me, one that I found beauty and pain in, and one I will remember and talk about. I did not find the lighting offensive, the choreography criminal, etc. etc.

I feel as though this will forever be a running theme in theatre- a revival comes, there will be the camp that saw the original and stands by it, the camp that has only seen the revival and stands by that, and then the people indifferent to the whole thing.

---