Follies Bway Transfer Update - Will They Take The St. James?- Page 2

[ljay889]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 5:44pm

^ I'm almost certain the original "happy" London production of FOLLIES was a success.

The last revival on Broadway was 2001. It's been 6 years. Very quick, but not as quick as Les Mis, which was only 3 years.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 8:42pm

Also I'm pretty sure that bringing back a show that played for 16 years only 3 years after it closes is A LOT different than a show playing for less than 2 years in 1971 and less than a year in 2001. Either way, I'd still say that PalJoeys three points are absolutely certain.

[ljay889]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 8:47pm

^ Yeah. But people also never thought Encores! would do follies.

So I think anything is possible, or should I say everything is possible. Pun intended.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 8:50pm

Yeah, but if you have no expectation, you can never have a disappointment. That is my mindset around revivals I'd hope too strongly for, but just don't see happening.

[ljay889]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 8:51pm

but if you have no expectation, you can never have a disappointment.

- One of my favorite Sondheim lyrics. And you're right, it relates wonderfully to this topic.
Updated On: 2/14/07 at 08:51 PM

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 9:24pm

Haha, speaking of Donna Murphy...

I would LOVE to see her in this. I have never seen her live, but her Passion performance alone paints her as one of the most talented working theatre actors. Brilliant voice, brilliant acting, just totally brilliant.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 9:30pm

Though I don't think she (or any actress of her generation) could do anything as brilliant as what she did with Fosca, her Phyllis was superb in every way possible. I don't have enough words to rave about her performance.

[IssaMe]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 10:33am

Talk talk talk.

It comes down to this.

Lots of meetings and discussions HAVE taken place!

But :

Would Mel Brooks give up the St. James for the transition period between The Producers and Young Frankenstein which is only a couple of months. Not likely.

There is no Shubert house available for the minimum 9 month run needed for Follies - so that eliminates a lot of theaters of the scale necessary for this show.

Major producers have looked at the figures and after initial excitement due to favorable reaction to Encores! already said "no" to a transfer.

Basically, only the Weisslers still interested.

But there would have to be a long term commitment by the two leading ladies at a Weissler salary scale---- so wouldn't hold my breath on this one. The chances fade daily.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 10:37am

The Weisslers pay their leads big money.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 10:39am

They would have to get a bigger name to replace Murphy (and perhaps Baranski) if it were to ever even remotely make sense to transfer - even for a limited run. And most of the people everyone has touted for the role of Phyllis over the years: Sigourney Weaver, Annette Bening, etc have all turned the role down repeatedly. Ah the elusive FOLLIES!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:17am

"Also I'm pretty sure that bringing back a show that played for 16 years only 3 years after it closes is A LOT different than a show playing for less than 2 years in 1971 and less than a year in 2001."

You're right, it makes more sense to bring back a hugely successful show than one that has flopped twice (the last time only 6 years ago).

"I'm almost certain the original "happy" London production of FOLLIES was a success."

The London production opened July 1987 and closed 7 months later, more quickly than the original Broadway production.

If this concert version does transfer, then it is possible it could do fairly well as Follies has always worked better in concert since people only attend to hear the score and not the book, which is entirely understandable.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:23am

"If this concert version does transfer, then it is possible it could do fairly well as Follies has always worked better in concert since people only attend to hear the score and not the book, which is entirely understandable."

If I may respectfully agree: the "people" who attend FOLLIES are by and large fans who will take any mounting of the material they can get...

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 11:34am

What I said about the Les Miserables and Follies runs could be interpreted to mean that it is more financially sound to produce a 21 year strong success worldwide than a 2-time flop in America, which I very much agree with.

However, I meant it more along the vein of, "Why bring back something that has played for that long when there is so much that could be seen of Follies?" I am very aware that it has about a 99% chance of never seeing a profit, but obviously as a fan I'd take whatever I could get just to see that over something that has had its glory.

[mikem]

Posted: 2/15/07 at 3:53pm

I'm pretty sure the London version closed in Feb 1989, which would be a year and seven months after it opened (not just 7 months as was previously mentioned).

[mike L G]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:27pm

I would love to see this happen but i think Polly bergen
should come back to play carlotta she did a terrific job in the
roundabout production and more or less I agree with Elaine s
Strich's theory about who should be singing the song, no offense
Polly .

[D2]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:33pm

The London production ran longer than the original Broadway production - over 600 performances. Despite that, it did not make it's money back. And it was awful.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:36pm

"FOLLIES can't play at the St. James, because Christine Baranski is opening there in MAME. Right after the productions of HAIR and BYE BYE BIRDIE from Encores open."

Mame needed that revival. So do Birdie and Hair.

"Would Mel Brooks give up the St. James for the transition period between The Producers and Young Frankenstein which is only a couple of months. Not likely."

Sadly.

Re-open the Hellinger. Rename, refresh, and reopen the beloved and underused theatre.

Broadway needs more theatres to hold more shows = more money and more long runs. Here's an idea for the Weisslers:

When, you want to open a show, buy the Hellingerand put in a revival and have it run for about a year and not worry about doing short runs between shows.

[D2]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:39pm

The Mark Hellinger is sadly not available. It was dumb to have let it go in the first place, but I doubt they'll ever be able to get it back.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:46pm

Isn't it a 10 year lease?

Just don't let it be renewed.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:47pm

Mike L G said:

"I would love to see this happen but i think Polly bergen
should come back to play carlotta she did a terrific job in the
roundabout production and more or less I agree with Elaine s
Strich's theory about who should be singing the song, no offense Polly ."

Whoever thought that Christine Baranski could do the role? She was totally underwhelming and, as the woman in front of me at the Saturday matinee said when Baranski made her first entrance ..." she looks like someone in drag."

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:50pm

I actually liked Baranski during the book scenes, she just didn't get "I'm Still Here" and didn't have the voice to sing it either. However, she was age appropriate for the role.