FOLLIES: Thoughts... — Page 8

Tevye is one of THE most beloved characters from musical theater across the world! His struggles with faith and progress and politics are universal. You, sir, have no soul. (But you are entitled to your opinion.)

---

^^^^

Kad: "Beside the point" in show after show after show? When do we finally acknowledge that the work speaks for itself?

***

Dramamama: Was the personal attack really necessary? Myself, I don't find Tevye's demands on his daughters particularly likable. But I understand that Tevye is doing the best he can in the context in which he finds himself, and I fully acknowledge that he is important in terms of what he reveals about such tendencies in all of us.

I don't feel a need to berate you for having a different opinion.

I don't agree that Brecht was "never able to do so." In plays like Galileo and Mother Courage, I think he does so very well. (And speaking of plays with "unilkable" characters...)

But back to Sondheim, we should beware taking any writer's assessment of his own work as gospel. Tennessee Williams was still rewriting Streetcar at the time of his death; I would argue Williams was wrong if he thought it required improvement.

In my opinion, Sondheim is more Brechtian than he likes to admit. This may well be due to the influence of Prince and Lapine, but I don't think Sondheim has ever denied his affinity for "comment" songs. And such songs are, in my view, Brechtian in nature (only because Brecht defended the practice, not because he invented it--he did not, of course).

I don't know how one looks at a show like Follies--where more than half of the songs stop the action entirely to comment on the characters (including many who don't contribute to the narrative) and American values--and then say Sondheim only wants to tell a story.

Updated On: 8/20/11 at 08:26 PM

I think we actually agree here, Kad. We shouldn't take Brecht's word on his own work too literally either. It's true his plays do not always achieve the impact he claimed.

What I'm saying is that Sondheim readily uses the same techniques used and explained (at some length) by Brecht.

I absolutely agree with you that Sondheim's aim is to reveal psychology where Brecht's aim is to create political awareness. IMO that is their primary (but not only) difference.

But no matter how much Sondheim may talk the talk of a true Hammerstein protege, at the end of the day, shows like Anyone Can Whistle, Company, Follies, Sunday in the Park and, arguably, even Passion and Into the Woods are based more on comment than plot. Even in a farce such as Forum, Sondheim readily admits his songs are intended to interrupt the plot, not further it. Nobody will confuse Forum with Chalk Circle, but that doesn't mean songs aren't used in a similar way in terms of their structural relationship to the narrative.

Obviously, Hammerstein tried the same thing in Allegro, but it isn't the "integrated" musical narrative for which he is famous and which describes most of the rest of his shows.

I didn't berate or attack you. It was a slight attempt at humor, thus the message in the parenthesis.

Sheesh.

---

People keep talking about the inadequacies of Goldman's script. He was right to leave the "heavy lifting" of the show to the direction and the choreography. But that's not really an accurate statement because, in the case of FOLLIES, all the elements did their job. The libretto is part of the impressionism of the show. That's why subsequent productions aren't as memorable. The direction and the movement were just as integral to the show as was the dialogue. Along with the costuming, set and lighting. EVERYTHING really did work together. Like pointillism. All the dots worked together to create the whole. Just when Goldman's dialogue would trail off, Bennett's movement or Prince's staging or Aronson's set would take over and fill in the completeness of the piece.

And as for the ending not working - it DID in the original. Musser's stark daytime lighting and Aronson's set revealing a jagged rip in the back wall were like throwing cold water on a drunk. After we are stunned and slightly confused by the outrageousness of Loveland, visually we are yanked back to reality where we realize that NOTHING is going to change. And the ghosts are left to remind us that the past is still trapped in our memories but in the present all we can do is to keep on keeping on.

Heart breaking, but strangely reassuring.

And I just remembered that it did feel like we were yanked back to reality because it's constructed thusly: Ben starts forgetting where he is in "Live, Laugh, Love" and the whole number falls apart. Then the whole stage starts convulsing. Set pieces start moving up and down...the side scaffolding starts moving in and out. Performers start to appear on the set reprising some of their numbers. Ethel Shutta pointing at the sky. Fifi D'Orsay prancing around. Ghosts are doing parts of their dance numbers. At one time I think one of the actors was in drag running down the set. The lighting is popping and at times you can barely see what's going on and then it's in stark relief. And then, just when you think you've gone crazy, everything suddenly rightens, the performers are gone and all you see is Ben in dark blue tuxedo with the tie untied and Phyllis standing center with her back to the audience on the now stationary set. The back wall reveals a jagged pointed opening (which you don't see in the nighttime) and behind it is daylight with the back of a Times Square building revealed.

And the scene goes on from there.

Stunning.

Updated On: 8/20/11 at 10:04 PM

Skip2, I can't agree more, and you describe it so well, I have nothing to add.

That's exactly how I recall it, Skip. Though I must admit I've never thought Ben forgetting his lyrics really works. I don't see how we are supposed to know it is the character who stumbles, rather than the actor.

It's certainly jarring, deliberately so, either way. But I wish there were a way to make it clear that Ben can't find the words, rather than John McMartin (or whoever plays the part).

Gaveston2, your posts are for the most part very enlightening and interesting, but they are also voluminous and sometimes seem to take over a THREAD. Your somewhat startling feelings about Tevye called for a reaction and that is what Dramamama gave you. You seem to have been hurt by his remark and felt the need to "make up", which you both have now done. But, after all, Dramamama's remark about your having no soul re. your remarks on Tevye was not such a big deal. There was no need for your over-reaction.

---

Updated On: 8/21/11 at 05:05 AM

Gypsy9, I wasn't hurt by dramamama's post and the remark in question didn't prompt me to reconsider my opinion. But when a poster strongly disagrees with me, I do think about why. In this case, I decided my own opinion was unreliable and thought it only fair to say as much.

I probably should have conceded the point more briefly, without the personal anecdote. But doesn't everybody have a scroll bar?

Yours is now the second post telling me I overreacted, when all I said was a personal attack seemed unnecessary. Yes, I now see that I misunderstood, but who exactly is overreacting?

Updated On: 8/21/11 at 06:36 AM

I've enjoyed reading everyone's observations and insights. Really interesting stuff.

I've been thinking a lot about this show since seeing the revival, and it brings up all the reservations I've had about it since the original production. Aside from the structural problems, the main problem is deeper than just a bunch of unlikable characters you don't care about. It's the authors' attitude towards both the audience and life in general that rankles here.

Basically, it's a kind of snarky pleasure in dashing cold water not on an audience's illusions, because no one in the audience is dumb enough to believe that marriage or life itself is just a bowl of cherries, even though they enjoyed the cheery songs that stated as much. No, this show is dashing people's aspirations to happiness in general and the very notion of hope itself. I think audiences subconsciously recoil at that and reject it, as well they should. For any psychologist will tell you that a positive outlook is healthier than a negative one, even if one knows that life is as tough as hell. One makes fun of Oscar Hammerstein's outlook as reflected in "Walk on walk on with hope in your
heart," but his is better than Sondheim's, and truer too.

There's also something unpleasant about mean spirited people who like to spoil other people's joy, even if what they say happens to be true.

To me, these are the deeper problems of Follies, and of Company as well, and these can't be resolved no matter how dazzling the production.

After Eight, you may have just hit the nail on the head for why I don't like this show, overall. Nice post.

And I definitely don't blame Goldman exclusively for its problems. No scapegoating here. It's a creative group effort, and Sondheim is just as responsible for its failures. Perhaps even more so, since the majority of the show is his.

I still love the individual songs (well, most of them at least), but when these parts are added up and strung together in context, dramatically, it doesn't work as a show. It's "off" and (to use a musical metaphor) strikes a wrong chord with me. It even strikes a phony chord with me, in the sense that you described, After Eight.

---

Updated On: 8/21/11 at 09:19 AM