"Follies" on Film- Page 3

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/21/06 at 3:57pm

>> Seanmartin, it's ALL about the money. Don't believe for a minute that it isn't.

That's true, but the money aspect works two ways. Sure, the studios want the blockbuster that will generate billions in revenue. But the studios also want the pictures that will *lose* money for those always needed tax write-offs. Amd those are usually your "prestige" films, made by smaller studios then distributed by the big ones simply for the fact that they wont turn a profit but they'll look real good come April 15. Would FOLLIES fall into that category? Damn straight.

But... is this a 100-mil film? No way. No way, guys, no way whatsoever. TITANIC was a 100-mil film, with almost a third of that money going into the special effects. FOLLIES would be low-rent by comparison, even with the big lavish numbers. My serious bet is that this could be pulled off for 30-40 mil and still be a stunning piece of work.

Is the script that much a mess? In some respects, yes, but it's not unsolvable. And the storyline is nowhere near as banal as some of the other things coming out of LA these days (LAKEHOUSE, anyone? And *that* puppy pulled a profit out of the hat.). I mean, hell, look at the story line for MOULIN ROUGE, and tell me that's any more riveting. MOULIN has dazzling camera work, a thrilling design, and a score that was all appropriated songs that most of the audience were clueless about. FOLLIES has something that's not known all that much outside NY, but it would also have the media push that could send it walking quite nicely. A producer with sufficient vision and a director with a firm hand on the material could make this thing just as exciting as CHICAGO.

True, it wont have Ethel Shutta or Fifi DOrsay or Yvonne DeCarlo. But as wondrous as those performances were (and I saw them in LA during the show's trimmed run there), the play doesnt depend exclusively on them. Yes, there was a certain indescribable magic to seeing these old-time performers out there for one last strut -- but that's seeing the material through a theatregoer's eyes, the people who understand and appreciate the Ethel Shuttas and the FifidOrsays. For a movie, you have to set that aside and think in more general terms for the casting, which opens the field a lot more. Personally, I think it would be a howl to see someone like Rosie ODonnell singing "I'm Still Here" or Madonna in the Alexis Smith role. But that's just my fantasy casting at play, nothing more. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that the pool of talent for something like FOLLIES could come from literally anywhere and work.

I doubt it'll get made, but my doubts are based more on the public's reception to the *themes* of FOLLIES, not the fact that it's a "musical about old people" (Yeah, fifty, that's old.).

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/21/06 at 4:19pm

What's Mitzi Gaynor doing these days?

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/21/06 at 4:49pm

PalJoey---You said it much better than I did or could have.


I'm wondering if a new script could be fashioned from the book "Everything Was Possible: The Birth of the Musical Follies," as someone suggested Condon might be interested in adapting...

We would have modern high-profile actors PLAYING Yvonne De Carlo playing Carlotta, etc.

I really think that's the only chance it has. Taking movie audiences on a journey... a window into that world that can "never be" again.

But you couldn't do this as cheaply as Michael Bennett thinks. Without dazzling production values at least as eye-popping as Dreamgirls and Chicago, it wouldn't stand a chance... plus you'd lose the "lavish" legendary quality of the Follies, and this particular Sondheim show... and an "Our Town" budget just ain't gonna cut it.

And I still think it wouldn't muster any more business than, say, "Topsy-Turvey" did. And it would cost a hell of a lot more.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 12/21/06 at 7:46pm

"Titanic", were it to be made today would cost WAY north of 200,000,000. "Superman Returns" cost 204,000,000. Hairspray will all in cost 80,000,000 plus at least 30,000,000 for P&A (prints and advertising, at 1,000 per print of the film for about 3,000 screens). That's the reality of modern Hollywood.

There is no way to produce "Follies" for less than 80,000,000. It just can't be done. No small company is going to pony up that type of money, so the studios are the only games in town.

In addition, "Follies" worked, as was said before here, because the show had real live stars of the past, back for one last hurrah. Who would you get now? The period corresponding to 25-30 years ago from today does not offer many big names. Do we really want to do a musical with Deborah Harry and Madonna? Those great stars are dead and buried. "Follies" is a wonderful dream of the past.

Let's get back to trashing Wicked.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/22/06 at 7:39am

>> In addition, "Follies" worked, as was said before here, because the show had real live stars of the past, back for one last hurrah.

Tell that to Papermill. Their production rocked, and it didnt have "real live stars of the past", just performers who turned in good performances.

The rest of your post? Sorry, just shows you have no vision when it comes to thinking outside the box on a project that's way outside the box to begin with.

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/22/06 at 8:16am

What about Streisand as Sally? She may be a little too old, but doesn't the film become much more marketable with her, especially with Streep as Phyllis? I know I'd love to her her sing Losing My Mind, In Buddy's Eyes, etc.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/22/06 at 9:30am

SeanMartin--the Paper Mill production did not "rock" in comparison to the original--it just made me sad--and it was probably as good as a production as could have been done at the time. The Follies-in-Concert was as good as it could have been, the London production was as good as it could have been and the Encores will undoubtedly be as good as it can be...but every production since the original can only be a pale imitation of the magic of the original.

You seem not to have learned the lesson of Follies: that it's dangerous to live in a nostalgic dream of some glorious past. Sean Martin--somehow you seem to be living in a nostalgic dream of MY glorious past.

Follies is not like Oklahoma or Porgy and Bess. It can not be "re-imagined." It was a flawed script and a glorious score created in a moment in time. But when you really analyze the situation, you have to understand that it was magical only to a relatively small segment of the theatergoing public. I found this out bitterly each of the 5 subsequent times I went to see it (in the $2 balcony seats Hal Prince used to set aside for people who couldn't afford the theater)--I would drag another friend or relative with me, and only one of them liked it anywhere near as much as I did.

I prefer to find my magic in new productions, rather than go back to the well of Follies and expect it to be as magical as it was then. Shows like Lion King, Jersey Boys, Avenue Q--even Wicked!--have left me exhilarated. Maybe NOTHING will ever leave me as exhilarated as the first time I saw the original Follies, but every time I go to the theater, I hope it will.

I'm seeing Drowsy Chaperone next week. I don't expect it to be Folliwes, but I think it will probably be a bright spot in my holidays. Until the next Follies comes along, shows like that will have to do.

See you at Encores.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/22/06 at 10:44am

PJ---Your perspective on Follies is very refreshing.

And as I have worked my way through the theatre world and spoken with several others who felt the same magic as you experienced seeing the OBC, they too have pointed out many of the things you've said.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/22/06 at 10:48am

>> You seem not to have learned the lesson of Follies: that it's dangerous to live in a nostalgic dream of some glorious past. Sean Martin--somehow you seem to be living in a nostalgic dream of MY glorious past.

LOL -- get over yourself, hon. At my age, I know all too well the lesson of FOLLIES. I also know that there's more to life than trying to recreate the magic of a first *anything*. But that shouldnt stop us from at least trying... which, if you remember from the final scene of the play, is ALSO the lesson of FOLLIES.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 12/22/06 at 10:54am

Thanks PalJoey.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/22/06 at 4:14pm

Seany, if I haven't gotten over myself in 50 years, I'm not likely to do so at your behest.

But I agree with your point about the final lesson of Follies, so, by all means, keep trying!

Look for me at Encores and I'll buy you a glass of their cheap Champagane and we can toast to the spirit of Mary McCarty by clicking our plastic flutes together and saying, "Hit it, boys!"

Updated On: 12/22/06 at 04:14 PM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/22/06 at 6:39pm

> Seany, if I haven't gotten over myself in 50 years, I'm not likely to do so at your behest

It aint my behest I'm thinking about, but that's neither here nor there.

It's doubtful I'll be at Encores, but should that ever happen, I'll take you up on it.

Hmm... Deborah Harry singing "One Last Kiss".........