"Follies" Questions- Page 2
"Follies" Questions
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#25re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/2/07 at 6:59pm
THe London production last year, from friends who saw it, proved just how strong the material was. I was certain they stillhad to use some parts of the revised script but I'm happy if I'm wrong.
Anyway I agree with everything you say. I know it's hideously illegal to say but I think if I ever did this show I'd try to sneak in the original script (I *know* I would for Company)
E
Kringas
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/27/05
#26re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/2/07 at 7:04pmSame here. They do the show no favors with the revised script.
#27re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/2/07 at 9:03pm
i actually kind of like that she doesn't say that she still feels for him. it's sort of showing how cold things can be become. how much goes unspoken... it's more of a play of the whole show altogether.
but then maybe i feel that only because i never saw the original.
#28re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/2/07 at 9:54pmI can see Kringas' point of view, but I also feel that at that point it isn't necessary to overstate that Phyllis truly love Ben. I've only seen the Encores! concert so my opinion isn't that well-informed, but in that production I felt just the way Murphy looked at Garber while helping him stand said everything that needed to be said. I also feel that unlike Sally, Phyllis doesn't need to be a romantic to portray her feelings for the man she loves, and that is the kind of partner that Ben needs.
Boq101
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/20/06
#29re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/2/07 at 11:49pmI would like Furth or Wheeler take all the follies' scripts in existence and just make uncredited changes into one better script than either two, while the first one did seem to score, the book is a bit of a mess and could be tightened, someone talented like Furth or Wheeler can do that easily. I know it won't happen, but I CAN DREAM...
Boq101
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/20/06
#31re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/2/07 at 11:57pm
Well I'm dreaming...lol
Had no idea...I just got sad all of them sudden...
Anyway, if I had to choose one of the scripts I'd go for the original.
#32re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/3/07 at 10:55am
I saw the original and the absence of an intermission really hurt it.
I know Hal Prince wanted the audience to feel like they were at the reunion with the cast but I just felt so trapped in my seat watching a never ending musical. It was a surreal nightmare. I never felt so trapped in a seat for 3 hours in my life except on an intercontinental flight. I think someone in the audience committed suicide in this one. So much for the original Broadway Production. (Although I admit the cast recording is a joy!)
The London Revival in the 80's was far superior. It was involving, had a great cast --Diana Rigg, Julia McKenzie, Delores Grey replaced by Eartha Kitt and the young Buddy-
Can't remember his name but he became the lead in the Musical
My Favorite Year was a stand out. The sets were lighter and glittery and fun. This made sense because even if the theatre was being torn down, they would have glitzed it up a bit for a party. When the glitter came down, you saw the decay of the theatre. A great choice for a set so that you saw the transition. The addition of an intermission helped it so much. To me, it was a great night in the theatre. Follies never looked and sounded so good.
I did not see the Papermill Production with Donna McCechnie,Dee Hoty and Ann Miller but I heard that was superb.
I also detested the last revival with Blythe Danner--the one where the director said let's make a dark musical even darker. None of the leads could sing and the darkness and ugliness of theatre was downright depressing. No transition at all from party to decay. You don't go to the theatre to be hit in the head with depression right out of the starting gate just to let the proceedings get more and more depressing-you know the theme of getting stuck in the folly of your life's choices. This was the dreariet revival of Follies ever.
I also caught a Reprise revial in L.A. that was kinda fun if not perfect with Vikki Carr and Patti Duke.
Point is---the show needs an intermission and a light touch with an essence of transition for the set from party glitz to decay.
Boq101
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/20/06
#33re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/3/07 at 2:37pmI still felt that papermill scored with the tone better than any other production, I suppose after seeing the original follies the london one might seem better, but in fact I thought it was too much glitz, I feel like the party needed some decorations, but i think in London it was like Bennet's vision won over Prince's so it was a fun night when it should have been more than that.
#34re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/3/07 at 2:45pm
Guys, I'm sure you will all know about this but there is a website called "bluegobo.com" which has clips from the London production. Most interesting is the LOVELAND scene so you can enjoy the transition! There is an awards show recreation of WHO'S THAT WOMAN which is also fun.
Enjoy!
#35re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/3/07 at 4:09pm
It's funny because I just finished reading the Chapin book, and then I read the recently published libretto twice. I have often found rare old libretti at used bookstores, so I'm definitely going to keep my eye open for an older FOLLIES. I've found A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN and OF THEE I SING . . . FOLLIES has gotta be there somewhere!
I actually, for practice, started to revise the ending of the show so that it all comes together better. I really wish I could see a copy of the original libretto!
I've just started a blog, and if I can work up the courage, I might post my ideas for changes there and why.
Anway, I walked into the revival a young pup, and I had no background knowledge on the show itself. I thought it was amazing. I loved it. And I loved the condition of the Belasco, and how you felt you were in the crumbling Weismann.
I actuallu bought the Chapin book used over a year ago. I finally got to it, and it was well worth it. At first, it seemed like just a detailing of the making of a Broadway show, but somehow, it became a fascinating story. I wanted to read faster to see what was going to happen even though I pretty much knew the overview of the history of the show.
Broadway Mouth's Broadway Blog: A Hopefully Intelligent Discussion
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#36re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/3/07 at 7:39pm
Good blog, man! I'll bookmark it.
I felt the same way with CHapin's book, as I mentioned here I think. I didn't expect it to be as involving as it was.
The Broadway revival just seemed so... ordinary design wise to me. I didn't see it "live" though 
so....
It's interesting from what I remember about the intermission in the Chapin book at first Sondheim and others wanted no intermission but by the end Sondheim was one of the ones who wanted an intermission the most--he just seemed ot have gone with Hal's idea. I knwo they tried to keep it at 2 hours but never quite suceeded--I think it's hard to keep ANY audience seated for a live show for over 2 hours (the intermissionless musicals I can think of--Chorus Line, Pippin, Passion all come in between 95-and 115 mins or so)--I dunno why, god knows people sat in movie theatres for much longer but... So Follies seemed to have just struck the inbetween mark. I do get why Hal thought ultimately you needed to keep the tension going--but Sondheim was right (and Bennett) that with an intermission break the audeince comes back refreshed and often more invested in what's coming up--when they've had a bit of time to process it. It's hard to know.
I agree that for London Follies, Bennett's vision definetly came thru stornger than Hal's original--it was more like a good old time reunion. And ya know, as a fan I find that fascinating
and not a bad thing. For me it sits better as an alternative than the current script which is kinda stuck in the middle of wanting to be both things at the same time.
Many have said the London Follies was a hit--though I also know it didn't recoup it's money. I do think Follies deserves (even if the recent London revival proved it doens't NEED) a fairly extravgant production--nto just design but a full cast and orchestra, etc and Mackintosh definetly gave it that. And Maria Bjornson's designs--from the little I can see of them, are gorgeous and perfect.
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#37re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/3/07 at 7:43pm
More from the London souvenir booklet (Again it doesn't give a good idea of Bjornson's sset or how she used scafolding and construction plastic covering to look depressing and scary and then for dreamland translucent and magical--the plastic covering use in particular is astonishing) but you do get a good sense of her gorgeous costumes
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#42re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/3/07 at 7:48pm
Millie Martin as replacement Phyllis in Ah But Underneath
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#45re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/3/07 at 7:51pm
Bob Avian restaged Bennett's original Who's That Woman (which Papermill likewise restaged from the original and IMHO it's a crime that the Broadway revival decided to rechoreogph such a famous and important number--for the worse of course)
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#47re: 'Follies' Questions
Posted: 6/3/07 at 7:54pm
Diana Rigg in the Underneath dress from above before it started to "come off" for the striptease (which IMHO is such a great visual metaphor for Phyllis' character--perhaps better than the simpler straightforward dance number with chorus facing back from the original)
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
Videos