JV92 Sees Follies- Saturday Afternoon- Page 2

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 2:50pm

Perfect perspective on that Pal, really makes you think even deeper into the approach Clark took. She certainly didn't come off as the sweet victim of yesteryear, but really was more brazen and made me sympathize more with Buddy than I ever would have thought to before.

[sundaymorning6am]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 3:37pm

Random question -
What's the running time of the show?

Thanks!

[D2]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 3:39pm

2:30 with intermission

[jv92]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 3:59pm

God, the show was long. The original was only 2 hours. They didn't need that intermission.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 4:03pm

Can anyone here tell me which version of Loveland that was? It wasn't the original nor was it the Papermill, but I LOVED it. I was laughing at how sarcastic and satirical it was towards the characters and love in general.

What was it? "L is for the lies you learn to perfect," "A is for the aims that are never met," "N is for neglect.....", and D was death?

[jv92]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 4:08pm

I believe it was the Roundabout version. I'm sure they would have used the original, but of course, to recreate Klotz's original costumes, or at least to make one similar, would have cost a fortune.
Oh, and I've just read Barnes' "review" for The Post and it's one of his stupidest ever. He completely missed the mark with Clark, though I was glad he liked Murphy. I'm going to pretend it's 1971 and say "Send him back to England!"

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 4:12pm

Do you think Hal Prince is going to take out another full page ad against him and praising the show?

I think I'd actually love him even more if he did that again!

[D2]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 4:29pm

JV92: I didn't find it that long - the time just flew because I was so absorbed. But I do agree that it doesn't need the intermission. It interrupts the flow.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 4:33pm

I wish I could feel that Vicki Clark Sally love, but I don't.
I loved her in PIAZZA and in her concert appearances, but not here. Her Sally always seemed too darn well-put together and genial to be the passive agressive bitch Buddy tells us she is.

Updated On: 2/11/07 at 04:33 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 4:55pm

Funny. She seemed more passive-aggressive than any other Sally ever has.

[D2]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 5:02pm

Many passive agressive people can be excessively well-put together and genial. That's one of the most effective weapons in their arsenal.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 5:08pm

Glad you kids enjoyed her so much. Wish I could say the same!

Canvassing my friends who have gone, Clark is the one member of this FOLLIES foursome people are most divided on.

Updated On: 2/11/07 at 05:08 PM

[Horton]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 5:39pm

I loved Victoria Clark (who can stop a show looking at the audience, making them want to kiss themselves) and I agree with you about what was said. What did everybody else think about the men of the production, my personal feeling was that they were both kick ass. However V.G is getting older, and is not what he was.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 5:47pm

I was also at yesterday's matinee and I agree with almost everything said on this thread.

I thought Donna Murphy was simply sensational. Going in, if I'd heard that Phyllis was going to have more warmth than you'd expect I'd have thought it was a terrible idea, but I loved what she did with the part. Her "Could I Leave You?" may be the best I've ever heard.

I've never been too keen on Victoria Clark, but I thought I agree that she was an outstanding Sally.

I really don't have any kind words for Baranski. I know a lot of people have said that they thought she acted the role well, but I found her Carlotta to be way too icy for my taste and I found her "I'm Still Here" to be inexplicably hostile (even before those last terrible notes).

I guess hearing in advance that Garber was a little lackluster lowered my expectations for him, because I really didn't think he was half-bad. It took me a while to warm up to McGrath, but he'd won me over by the end.

While I would have preferred the original "Loveland" lyrics, I was happy the choice was made to not have the older women to pop out to speak the rhyming couplets (as in the 1985 concert and on - I think - the Papermill recording). I thought the entire Loveland/Follies sequence was outstanding.

My quibbles are minor and nitpicky and not even worth going into.

All in all I thought it was a terrific production. In the words of Sally herself, I'm so glad I came.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 5:49pm

I wasn't crazy about Garber's Ben. I expected he would brought to Ben more of the slightly smug swagger he brought to his terrific Wintergreen in OF THEE I SING and instead he seemed more generally defeated and glum from the start. But I've since heard that Garber has been really under the weather this week (that's the reason he wasn't at the talkback on Saturday) so I'll give him a pass.

I liked Michael McGrath's Buddy.

Updated On: 2/11/07 at 05:49 PM

[keen on kean]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 5:54pm

I was at the Saturday matinee (as you can tell from my question earlier). This was my first chance to see FOLLIES performed and I was blown away by every minute of it. I can only echo the earlier reviewers on the subject of both Murphy and Clark - I was too far away to really catch a lot of the acting subtleties but what I did perceive was an amazingly well-rounded characterization of both Phyllis and Sally. I personally thought Sally was manipulative but in a delusional way - unhappy with her life and thinking that things would have been different had she managed to marry Ben instead. I adore Victor Garber but Ben is such an unsympathetic character! His breakdown was so convincing that audience members around me did think it was Garber fluffing and not Ben decompensating! Garber has such a beautiful voice but he seemed to be congested (clearing his throat noticeably a couple of times). I still think he did full justice to all of his songs, and "Too Many Mornings" was particularly touching. Michael McGrath was just fine - although it was hard for me to get Mandy Patinkin's "Buddy's Blues" delivery (from the 1985 documentary) out of my head. All of the "mature" ladies were fabulous - having the time of their lives evidently and showing a lot of style and talent - especially Mimi Hines and Joanne Worley. All of the "young"s in the cast were wonderful, too - during the talkback afterwards I just kept looking at them sitting on the stage, thinking how lucky they were to be part of something memorable at an early point in their careers (early compared with this cast, in any case).

The talkback was amazing - an absolute gift to have Sondheim there, looking (at least from a distance) healthy and relaxed. He again made sure early in the discussion that Jim Goldman get credit for the book - we know how concerned he is that things be labelled "Sondheim" as though he does everything. He even wrote a letter to the NY Times after COMPANY opened last fall to make sure that George Furth got adequate rewcognition for that book. There was a lot of discussion of all the different FOLLIES productions, and it seemed like Sondheim was anxious to point out that productions contain changes that are necessitated by those productions so that in effect there is no "definitve" production. As someone noted earlier, he changed the Lucy and Jessie song in London because the London Phyllis was a stronger singer and a so-so dancer. He also discussed the language in the book which he said is not realistic - he called the dialogue "arch" - intentionally - for heigtened effect, something the reviewers didn't all get/like. He specifically credited Prince and Bennett as co-directors of the original production. He talked about the changes in the Loveland couplets necessitated by the costumes - the original couplets had references to the visual content of the showgirls' huge costumes. Once the costumes were simplified, the couplets no longer made sense. He was asked if there would ever be a movie of FOLLIES - apparently there had been development talk in the dim past but nothing currently. He was asked about the possibility of recording this production and he said "only illegally" which got a tremendous knowing laugh from the audience, but he said that there are so few companies that are interested in recording show music any more and this production had the disadvantage of beng such a short run that there would not even be the chance of on site, lobby sales of the recording which ongoing Broadway shows have. He mentioned psclassics as one of the last cast album producers, and mentioned, with a wink and a smile, that psclassics recorded both SWEENEY and COMPANY which he plugged as coming out this week! If I can remember anything else, I'll continue later. But it was an amazing day at City Center for me -

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 5:56pm

I just found the 1987 clips of the London production on that site, they have "Who's That Woman?" with very similar choreography to the original, Eartha's "I'm Still Here" and "Loveland" which has different lyrics from any other version I've heard, but it does have the "L is for the" lyric that the Encores has.

Okay so for Encores Loveland the opening was the same as 1971/Papermill and the second half was the 1987 London.

[folkyboy]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 5:56pm

C is for Company, were you sitting next to me?

[keen on kean]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 6:08pm

We've got to get a secret handshake or something - there must have been lots of BWW-ers there but how does one know?

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 6:26pm

I sat in rear mezz J 118, which was the second row of the rear mezz in the center with Broadwaygirl107. I don't know if anyone was there or not from here that saw me...

[folkyboy]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 6:28pm

oh no then i didn't sit next to you. i sat Rear Balcony K 104 so i guess not i sat next to someone who looked like you though!

[D2]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 6:32pm

Keen: One clue might be people who are posting on their Blackberries as they exit the theater and walk down the street. Not me, I don't have a blackberry - but I did see several people on their blackberries "typing' feverishly as I was leaving last night and I wondered...

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 6:36pm

I was in the rear mezz, too. There was a lot of commotion from different area just as the show was starting. A lot of odd hollering, and then the woman behind me tried to steal my scarf off my seat. It was the oddest thing.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 6:44pm

Were you forced to smackabitch?

Luckily not ONE cellphone went off the whole time! I actually got the feeling that everyone actually wanted to be there, even the children were well-behaved and the candy wrappers opened before the top of each act. It was like a dream!

[keen on kean]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 7:51pm

I was in M 107 in the rear mezzanine, and that early commotion had me worried the whole performance would be like that - but you're right - wish most Broadway audiences were that attentive/appreciative.