Follies and 1972 Tony's Questions

[Kevinoes]

Posted: 3/1/26 at 8:21pm

Hey,

Doing some research on "Follies" and wanted to reach out to some knowledgeable people.

"Follies" (and other shows nominated in 1972) didn't perform on the ceremony. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't "No, No, Nannette" from the previous season perform that year? It also seems subsequent Tony's in the 70s also didn't always have nominated shows perform on the ceremony. "The Wiz" in 1975 comes to mind. (Funnily, Alexis Smith got to do "Lucy and Jessie" at that ceremony.) Is there any particular reason or practise to explain this.

Also, any thoughts or insights on "Two Gentlemen of Verona"'s Best Musical win? I know "Follies" had mixed critical reception (better than "JCS"'s decidedly sour reception) but does anyone have anything to share or offer about that win that year?

Thanks in advance. 

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 3/1/26 at 8:57pm

 

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 3/1/26 at 9:03pm

Kevinoes said: "Any thoughts or insights on "Two Gentlemen of Verona"'s Best Musical win? I know "Follies" had mixed critical reception (better than "JCS"'s decidedly sour reception) but does anyone have anything to share or offer about that win that year?

Thanks in advance."

According to Peter Filichia's book, Strippers, Showgirls, and Sharks, it seemed that many Tony voters at the time weren't ever sure of what they saw during the long intermissionless show. Some had trouble catching on to one of the musical's most dazzling concepts where most of the characters who were attending the reunion were followed by younger versions of themselves. To make a long story short, Tony voters were either left confused by Follies when it first premiered or felt that the story was too cathartic for them.

Unlike Sondheim and Prince's previous collaboration at the time, Company, that show at least had its main protagonist somewhat optimistic about becoming a husband (likely due to him having never been married). Although when the 1972 Tony Awards took place, Company had already ended its Broadway run about three months beforehand. Despite winning Best Musical the previous year, the show never necessarily became a big hit at the box office. So there probably was a feeling among voters at the time that if audiences weren't crazy about Company, then they'd likely respond even less to Follies. Not to mention that the latter show at that point had been running for over a year and was losing momentum at the box office. We’ve seen in the past how Tony voters don’t usually like to waste any major awards on a production that’s been struggling. With Follies being as polarizing as it was at the time, there was no point for the industry to give it Best Musical and encourage ticket buyers to see something that they likely weren't going to get.

[ScottK]

Posted: 3/1/26 at 10:37pm

Tho I was VERY young at the time, I did see TGoV--and it was FUN. My parents made it our semi-annual show outing--so either there were particularly good reviews or good word of mouth.  And tho I never really listened to the album after, peers of mine (similar age) consider it one of their early favorites! (and, one is now a theatre writer)

[joevitus]

Posted: 3/2/26 at 9:53am

Jeffrey Karasarides said: Company, that show at least had its main protagonist somewhat optimistic about becoming a husband (likely due to him having never been married)."

Weirdest parenthetical ever, considering Bobby is no unaware innocent, and has been observing all his friends' marriages all along. It could even be argued that the marriages are better and more solid than depicted because we are only witnessing them through is very biased anit-committment perspective. He's not "somewhat optimistic" at the end because he has no idea what's in store for him. He's hesitatingly open to sharing his life because he recognizes how biased his attitudes have been and because he realizes going it alone is even tougher than going through life with another person beside you. 

 

[joevitus]

Posted: 3/2/26 at 9:56am

I love that John Guare had invested in Follies. It suggests a stronger community spirit among the Broadway creators of that era than we see today.

Updated On: 3/2/26 at 09:56 AM

[goldenboy]

Posted: 3/2/26 at 10:30am

I saw Follies in its original incarnation. Without an intermission, the show felt tedious and endless. I remember dying to get out of my seat! 

When I listened to the recording at home, I realized what a great score it had. Being forced to sit for almost three hours with middle age people whining about their lives  was difficult to sit through.

Then  the London  production happenned. And London added an intermission for Follies.  And suddenly the show worked. It also didn't hurt to have Delores Grey, Eartha Kitt, Julia McKenzie and Diana Rigg!

Follies lost the Tony because there was no intermission and it seemed interminable. Two Gentlemen on the other hand was fun, lively and based  on a Shakespeare play. Much more enjoyable in its original incarnation than the overly long Follies. Verona also had a song about "Summer, Summer" which was repeated so many times that you couldn't help but hum that number.

So in my opinion the lack of intermission killed Follies in terms of a Tony, enjoyment, reviews and original appreciation.

We now know its brilliant.