Follies 1987 London Production (and general Follies thread =] ) — Page 9

The movie 1971FolliesFan made was wonderful and this thread is perfect for it. It seems like only yesterday when I was reading the boards when the 2011 revival happened and it's good to know that a lot of us FOLLIES fans are still here after all this time.

While I sort of liked the 2011 revival; I sincerely (as a broken record mind you) hope that Broadway will assemble this team: Bartlett Sher as the director, Christopher Wheeldon as co-director and choreographer, Michael Yeargan as set designer, Catherine Zuber as costume designer, and Donald Holder as lighting designer for a 50th anniversary revival at LCT.

That team alone proves that Broadway isn't dry or absent of great talent that uses creative imagination to it's fullest.

Thanks so much for posting this!

---

Once again, there are ghosts among us.

---

Bump for the divine InappropriatePatti.

---

I bought tickets to see the production at the Shaftesbury Theatre twice in one week, very early in the run. I LOVED the original production in Boston and NYC, and got tickets to see it twice on a business trip. The first time, I invited three friends from work who were traveling with me. I had told them how great the show was, I was dying as we were watching it (admittedly overdramatically), because it just couldn’t compare to the original. First, the sets were ugly, the sides of f the stage as I remember were essentially wrapped in a see-through plastic, which didn’t work for me.

Diana Rigg, who I thought would be great, was lousy, never more than when Phyllis needed to sing and dance. My favorite number in the show has always been Lucy and Jessie, which was cut in favor of Country House, a mediocre number in which she did a faux strip-tease; I seem to think that one of the other Follies numbers was different, also, but I can’t remember for sure.

I didn’tknow why 40 plus years ago, but I cringed through many of the dialogue scenes, thinking that the book was worse than the original. Most importantly, it did not have the original Harold Prince direction. I don’t remember the choreography. At the end, I remember almost apologizing to my friends for the buildup because no one, including me, liked it at all.

I wasted the second ticket and went to a different show. In retrospect, I probably should have begun to think that it was the original production, rather than the musical Itself, that was IMO to this day.one of the greatest.. Stephen Sondheim and Harold Prince and Boris Aronson did some of the greatest work in the theatre on that show, but the book was never great, and the changes in the London production were All for the worse.

It was not as bad as the production at the Belasco, but almost.

Jarethan said: "It was not as bad as the production at the Belasco, but almost."

I don’t remember too much about it but I remember loving the production at the Belasco. I think previous versions I’d seen (Leicester and the Festival Hall semi-staging) had very bare sets and the design and direction of the Matthew Warchus’ mouting reached right out to the back of the orchestra (SRO) and just pulled me right in. Also I felt like I was seeing a cast of legends that befitted the piece (Marni Nixon for goodness sake!) I’m aware it’s not a popular opinion in Broadway circles but I am VERY glad I saw it and it is the one (of the five productions of Follies I’ve now seen) that I’d love to be able to revisit; Though Mary Millar (OLC Mdme Giry) made for the most heartbreaking Sally I’m ever likely to witness and her presence is VERY much missed.

PalJoey said: "devonian.t said: "PalJoey did you see the National Theatre production?"



Only on video, where most of the performances seemed overblown. I'm told it was more effective live, but I have accepted that I will never like another Follies, having been so obsessed by the original as a teenager.

I have definitely reached that conclusion. The greatest musical production in my lifetime of viewing, and it will likely never be repeated, even approached, in greatness.

PalJoey: Are my eyes deceiving me? Is this for real?

---

Updated On: 8/31/22 at 09:56 PM

PalJoey said: "Hi, folks, we bring you, direct from Phoenix, live and in person...PALJOEY!"

Thank goodness......... i've missed you

---

The bad news for me, I guess, is that I'm much too young to have seen the original show, although I'm not sure I would have appreciated some of its themes as much had I seen it as a teenager..

The good news is that I have discovered it more recently, both in various online incarnations - including more than I expected in clips from the 1971 musical - and have had a chance to see a regional production this summer at the San Francisco Playhouse.

I have seen the musical twice, and am a little tempted to back a third time because it's closing on Saturday. My wife didn't care for the "Loveland" portion of the show, though the music person in her was pleased that she recognized the similarities between "Losing My Mind" and Gershwin's "The Man I Love." (I am too thick, apparently, to hear it.)

I can sort of see her point, but I wasn't bothered by it as much, because the show is so brilliant and sad in its deconstruction of the appeal and trap of nostalgia. Sally Durant Plummer, in a play, probably wouldn't be as sympathetic a character, aside from the show's feminist take on the dilemma in which she finds herself. But in a musical, Sally feels like one of the most tragic characters in musical theater history. I'm not sure if we're really supposed to believe that Phyllis and Ben will make a serious go of it, but they leave with a little hope, and Phyllis in particular has gained something.

Sally, however, is totally bereft by the end. While the references to suicide that I guess were in the original show are gone, that doesn't make her future look much brighter. Buddy doesn't seem much better off. Reading this thread has been fascinating, because I didn't realize all the different incarnations the show has been through over the years. (Some of the changes seem very misguided, but I guess it's understandable, given the inability of Follies to turn a profit. It's another Sondheim show people are always trying to fix, I guess.)

During the musical, of course, there are such wonderful songs that work even if you don't know all the references Sondheim was going for. "Broadway Baby" feels like such an old classic that it's surprising that it was a new song in 1971. "Who's That Woman," which was staged and choreographed wonderfully given budgetary limitations, feels like the musical's bittersweet but triumphant centerpiece.

I appreciate all the video of the shows, the documentary of the concert performance, and other things I've found. But as with all theater, it's just different to see it live.

Updated On: 9/9/22 at 02:39 AM

Just listened to the London cast recording for the first time in years and enjoyed it well enough. The changes are peculiar to be sure, but I wish I could have seen Maria Björnson’s designs. Also never knew Mike Ockrent directed it.

This thread was and remains one of the highlights of my Broadwayworld experience when I was posting regularly here many years ago. The shared knowledge and experience of Follies enhanced my own understanding of why the show means so much to me.