FOLLIES: Thoughts... — Page 9

I think one can agree with most of the comments above and still not think Follies is a failure.

Yes, it is more demanding than most of the musicals that came before it. Unless you're an investor, what's wrong with that?

No, it isn't focused on attractive young people with unlimited potential and possibilities. Follies' young people are ghosts and we know they don't live happily ever after.

But that doesn't mean Follies' purpose is simply to throw cold water on the hopes and dreams of the audience. Like all of Sondheim's work, Follies deals with how false hopes betray us.

After Eight says nobody is dumb enough to believe marriage is a panacea, yet oddly that is the very story of Western comedy for the past 2,500 years. Follies asks us to reconsider the tropes of American musical comedy by placing those ideas in a different context.

It's interesting that posters seem to care more about Buddy and Sally than Ben and Phyllis. Americans have always had conflicting feelings about the elite. So we get a member of the patrician Bush family pretending to be a cowboy in order to get elected. Follies was written on the heels of the Kennedy "Camelot", when an interest in fine art and the latest trends in design weren't considered un-American. Audience members could respect Ben's and Phyllis' social climbing while also recognizing what it cost them.

Updated On: 8/21/11 at 04:52 PM

I'm equally surprised, Henrik. The ending never seemed the least bit ambiguous or vague to me. Obviously, the characters are tentative, but since they barely take action in the preceding 2 hours, it wouldn't be believable if they suddenly became firmly decisive at the curtain.

She's been having an affair with a married man! And one that's nearly 2x her age. She deserves to suffer!

Here's a question....of the four characters, do you think any of them will have actually LEARNED anything from this experience? (You know, if it or they were real.)

---

Dramamama, I think all four have learned something or they wouldn't have numbers in the Loveland sequence identifying their follies for us.

And I have no doubt Ben is profoundly changed when he reaches out to Phyllis in the final moment. And Phyllis recognizes the gesture and reciprocates. I believe I said pages ago that I am sure their marriage is greatly altered and for the better.

I think the futures of Buddy and Sally are more difficult to predict. When I first saw the show I believed that Sally had recognized the foolishness of pining for Ben and was sincerely reaching out to Buddy (rather than merely "settling"). Nowadays I'm not as sure that Buddy's and Sally's respective revelations come soon enough in life to do them much good. (ETA EXCEPT that perhaps they will find some contentment in recognizing the folly of false hopes.)

Updated On: 8/22/11 at 07:57 AM

Mama, I don't know when you first encountered the material, but i wonder if Sally hasn't come to seem increasingly deranged over time.

In 1971, women's liberation was still fairly new and most narratives (film, TV or stage) still assumed it was "normal" for a woman to center her life around a man. Of course, Sally's folly was to be obsessed with the wrong man and it was clear she was having a breakdown when she suddenly decided Ben was going to drop everything to marry her.

But on the whole, her dabbling in gardening and water colors while pining for Ben 24/7 wasn't that different from the behavior of most heroines.

Nowadays, I hope most of us believe a woman needs her own interests to be a healthy person (and a well-adjusted wife), so Sally seems crazier than ever and, as you say, in desperate need of medical intervention.

Then maybe you know what I mean, dramamama. (I wasn't condescending to you, just acknowledging that if the show were relatively new to you, you wouldn't have an opinion as to how the characters have been received over time. I try not to make assumptions about anyone's age here.)

I feel bad for Margie, but frankly, I question her judgment. It's hard to see what she sees in a sadsack like Buddy. And it's easy to see what Sally doesn't like about him!

No onstage appearances.

---

She may not be onstage, but she is discussed in the text, and her presence looms large in the lives of Buddy and Sally.

"But there's a wide gap between our involvement with on stage and off stage characters, don't you agree? "

No, I don't. It's too blanket a statement. In Racine's Bajazet, for example, the offstage character of the sultan Amurat casts a threatening shadow over the entire play, and is more powerful and menacing a presence than anyone on stage.

As for Margie, I have more sympthy and interest in her than in any of the four principals in Follies.

Racine is French, so I trust his plays are presented in a French literature class. They are also performed on stage, including Bajazet.

Gaveston2,

And here I thought we were friends.

I say I did/do care about Margie. You refuse to believe me. There's no way I can convince you. So how can there be any discussion in a situation like that?