Follies Entr'acte

Hello, I was wondering if the 2011 Revival of "Follies" added an Entr'acte since it was divided into two acts. I know when the original production had two acts during Try-outs and Previews they added a brief Entr'acte, but it was eliminated when they made the show into a one-act. Any help would be loved!

In the score, it's measure 109 to the end of Too Many Mornings. Oboe feature on melody, Violin takes over on final phrase.

To be fair (and I agree there's plenty of criticism to found with the revival), that's now the established act break all around. It's where it's placed in the script now and it's where the Paper Mill and the Roundabout productions ended it.

I hate the show with an act break, period, but ultimately I've come to the decision that it works best where it is than anywhere else. A production I did once ended the act with "I'm Still Here," which was kind of inexplicable. There's something to be said with having it end with "Who's That Woman," since that's a rousing and crowd-pleasing number, but the end of Too Many Mornings has Buddy and Young Buddy discovering Ben and Sally as the song ends, so at least there's some sort of conflict.

The only reasons it "needs" an intermission are:
1) Many actors love to pause and drag out their lines to get as much stage time as possible (this was really in evidence in the most recent revival)
2) Many directors/choreographers can't stage a show so that the momentum and excitement build so inevitably, no one wants an intermission.

"yeah I guess it just seems sloppy to me that they start with the exact music they ended with... like they couldn't be bothered to figure out a better way to start the second act.
it's just sloppy."

My god.

1. Obviously the reason it is done this way is to cover up that there was an intermission/make it clear that not a second of time has passed in the story - which is usually the obvious implication of an intermission in many many many musicals (Sweeney Todd, Gypsy, Sunday in the Park etc. I mean it's impossible to list)

2. As you might know, this revival actually removed the intermission for a few performances during previews to test it out. The cast recording also hides the fact that there was an intermission by breaking the discs at the end of "who's that woman". The fact that the intermission stayed is not a reflection of how 'misconceived' the production apparently was at all.

---

Speaking of the 2011 Revival, since they did "Follies Lite", what was cut/changed/moved (From the Recording, it sounds like Sally's closing scene was moved to after Phyllis', which I actually like better right before the Finale)?

Interesting idea, Joey, but wouldn't Act I be infinitely weaker without "Who's That Woman" taking its rightful place after "In Buddy's Eyes"?

I'd happily see Act I end on the high note of "Who's That Woman", and then leave it to a powerhouse Carlotta to yank the audience back to attention with "I'm Still Here".

I'm too lazy to check my live audio--how long did the show run, time wise, in its original production? I seem to think that, like Pippin in one act, it ran around 140 minutes, which I suppose many would think is pushing it. (Chorus Line, IIRC comes in at a pretty tight 2 hours.)

I'd happily see Act I end on the high note of "Who's That Woman", and then leave it to a powerhouse Carlotta to yank the audience back to attention with "I'm Still Here".

I like that even better.

But the show doesn't work with an intermission. It only works without one.

And it doesn't really work without one either.

That is the paradoxical and bitter truth about Follies.

One of them, at any rate.

---

It's the greatest show I ever saw, but, no, it hasn't ever "worked"...meaning that despite my love for it in 1971, everyone I brought to it was left cold by it. (Except the bf you mentioned and my cousin Arlene, who was an art student.)

For decades, I treasured my memories of the original production and felt like I was the only one who loved it, then I came to BroadwayWorld and met others who loved it--and some who had memorized every moment of it through soundboards and videos.

Then the Paper Mill and the Kennedy Center revivals happened and lots of people loved it.

But, no, it doesn't "work" with an intermission, and it doesn't work without one.

It's still the greatest show I ever saw and probably the greatest show I'll ever see.

---

I love how the plot always thickens with FOLLIES.

I talked in another thread about the difference between productions, the show you see in a place, at a time, with a cast, and shows, the texts and materials that provide the bones around which the production is built.

Follies, I believe we are arguing here, can succeed as a production more than as a text. You can see a good Follies or enjoy seeing Follies without saying that Follies works. It's the intellectual equivalent of what Wicked is for flash and spectacle, and Pippin is for dance ingenuity- the show doesn't work, but the production can make or break your opinion nonetheless.

The 1987 London production did actually move I'm Still Here to the opening of the second act, where I think it really belongs. If you're doing the show with an intermission (which isn't the best choice), I think that I'm Still Here should open the second act because in its current slot, it can easily be a much bigger moment than Too Many Mornings.

What exactly do you all mean when you say that the show has never really worked? And why? Is it because of the almost plotless nature of the show? I don't think we can come to an objective answer, though. Opinions of this show, like all good art, are just opinions and not facts.