James Goldman's book to Follies — Page 2

There is a chicken and egg aspect to this. There is the nostalgic view, expressed by bk, that no one has matched the original and therefore there is nothing wrong with the book. And there is the practical view that, as often happens, a great production and great performances can occlude the deficiencies of the book. I was not old enough to see the original, but I have spoken to a lot of people who did, and read the observations of even more. While the show has its defenders of course, it is ludicrous to suggest that those who saw it (and one of the individuals with whom I have discussed it at some length not only saw it but was intimately involved) are uniformly uncritical of the book. That's just intellectually dishonest. 

Intellectually dishonest - well, my goodness.   I've talked to many more people who were intimately involved in this show than you and not a one of them hated the book - they loved the characters and they loved playing them (talking about the actors) but I don't think Mr. Prince would have said it was a bad book, at least he hasn't to me.  They didn't sit around discussing deficiencies back then.  Now it's a fun little parlor game that I might say was intellectually dishonest - then again, I would never use a phrase like that, so there's that.  I have no doubt that some back then hated the book or found it dreary - that's how it goes.  I just know what I think and what the people I've talked to about it think, and that, as you know, includes many members of the original creative team and cast. 

But I don't want to be intellectually dishonest anymore, so have at it in your usual way. 

Updated On: 8/28/17 at 01:29 AM

One could hold the opinion that one responds in kind?  Condescension is a two-way street. :)

Baker, have you heard the original soundboard recordings? I know it's not the same as having seen the production live, but those finale lines are absolutely chilling when recited by Dorothy Collins and Janet Blair in the Los Angeles transfer. If you're only reading them on a page of the script, you're not going to get the power of those lines as recited by two gifted actresses. 

Honestly, I'm just excited for the year 2057 (if we still exist by then) when I get to tell people that all their criticisms of The Antipodes are irrelevant because they didn't get to *see* Nicole Rodenberg's performance and they have no idea what it was like to see the mysterious lunch containers. Or that their criticisms of John don't matter because they never got to see Georgia Engel pulling that red (or purple depending on where you saw her!) curtain closed in such an eerie fashion that one almost felt like time had stopped. I think then it will make me feel young and cool and much better than every young person that I talk to. Maybe if I act like having lived when I lived is inherently a virtue, it will make the fear of death and irrelevancy less overwhelming and it will finally make the screams stop.

@ljay889 yes.

Baker Willian's wrote: "Honestly, I'm just excited for the year 2057 (if we still exist by then) when I get to tell people that all their criticisms of The Antipodes are irrelevant because they didn't get to *see* Nicole Rodenberg's performance and they have no idea what it was like to see the mysterious lunch containers. Or that their criticisms of John don't matter because they never got to see Georgia Engel pulling that red (or purple depending on where you saw her!) curtain closed in such an eerie fashion that one almost felt like time had stopped."

 

You needn't wait until 2057. The Antipodes, John, Follies, so many others ..... They all belong to that elite canon in which absolutely no criticism is allowed at any time in any era. And if any people have the temerity to dare try, they can only expect to be met with condescension, scorn ---- or worse.

bk said: "Intellectually dishonest - well, my goodness.   I've talked to many more people who were intimately involved in this show than you and not a one of them hated the book - they loved the characters and they loved playing them (talking about the actors) but I don't think Mr. Prince would have said it was a bad book, at least he hasn't to me.  They didn't sit around discussing deficiencies back then.  Now it's a fun little parlor game that I might say was intellectually dishonest - then again, I would never use a phrase like that, so there's that.  I have no doubt that some back then hated the book or found it dreary - that's how it goes.  I just know what I think and what the people I've talked to about it think, and that, as you know, includes many members of the original creative team and cast.  "

You attempted to discredit opinions based on not having seen the original. Truth is, those intimately familiar are not good barometers of what worked and didn't because they were too close. They are also defensive, like you are. You implied that those who saw the original knew it had this wonderful book. That's intellectually dishonest whether you like it or not. Pure lazy (and faulty) logic.

Funny thing about the theatre that maybe you also don't like: it's ephemeral. The measure of a great book is that it endures and works without regard to who is using it. A book that requires a nostalgia trip to hold up is not doing the job it set out to do. Give a copy of Hamlet to a class  of 12 year olds. Let them rehearse for a month. What they do will take your breath away. Warts and all.

 

@After Eight. Odd, there is plenty of criticism in this thread, and except for one poster who seems to get off on it, and ironically, like you, is intellectually dishonest, no scorn or condescension. Maybe the problem is you are not capable of participating in an intellectually rigorous discussion. That's not my guess, however; I just think you are the same posturing troll you've always been. 

bk said: "But all the people complaining about the dreary old book haven't seen the original production.  My favorite, of course, is when people, in order to look like they know whereof they speak, lie and say they did, even though one later finds out they weren't even born then :)  (And yes, that's happened.)  The book scenes played brilliantly in the original production because the actors were amazing, spoke the lines well, and had co-directors who knew what they were doing.  I don't want to hear criticisms of the book based on any of the revivals because there has yet to be a revival that's come anywhere near the original production - maybe London this year will change that - I remain ever hopeful.  But I just roll my eyes at the complainers of the book who then admit they are basing those complaints on the recent revival or the Roundabout revival - neither of which DID the original book.  And it's not enough to just read the old published script - the actors and directors made it work beautifully.  I will defend it forever. "

BK, you are raising an interesting point.

I certainly didn't see the original production of FOLLIES so I can't say if the book worked in that production or not.

But the implication of what you are saying is still unpersuasive.  It seems that what you are suggesting is that unless one saw the original production, one can't possibly have an opinion about FOLLIES.   Taking to absurd levels, it might follow from your suggestion that there is no reason for anyone to have any opinion about any work unless one saw its original production.  And, taken one step further, since it is often the case that works receive what to many is their definitive due not in their original productions but in a subsequent one, that one can't reach a valid opinion about the worth of a libretto unless one has seen every rendition of the show.  Which is an impractial hypothesis, as no one ever sees every rendition of a show since shows continue to be produced and reinterpreted (for better or for worse and usually for both) long after each of us our dead.

Isn't a better way to think about this that we all see what we see, think what we think, and, at our best, try to keep an open mind about the value of a work as we and the various interpreters of a work revisit it?

I know I try to do that.  My opinion of several shows - and as it happens, many Sondheim musicals - has changed over the years for the better because I've seen what I felt were productions which finally "got" it in a way that made it gel for me.  Sometimes this is a result of how I've changed, often it's a result of how the work has been interpreted and presented, and sometimes it's been a combination of the two.

While I have yet to see that "come-to-Weissman" moment happen with FOLLIES, I am certainly willing to keep an open mind and hope that one day this musical finally breaks through for me.  In fact, at present, I'm somewhat optimistic from reports from London that the National's production might achieve that.

But what I can't agree with, if in fact you are suggesting it, is that if one hasn't seen either the original of FOLLIES, or for that matter any apotheosis-considered production of a any musical, that one has no authority to speak about the value of the work based on one's own experiences of it.

 

Updated On: 8/28/17 at 09:40 AM

 

I agree with bk that one shouldn't judge the inherent value of a work based on productions that do not display it in the best possible way. I agree with him that the original production of Follies did that, and that all other productions I have seen have not. That said, I still thought the show's flaws were pronounced. But imagine if one were to pass judgment on The Glass Menagerie  solely based upon the botched production presented on Broadway this past season!  One is not allowed to say that it's a better play than what we saw on that stage, and that earlier productions displayed it to better advantage?

What I don't understand is why people take such umbrage when someone says an original production was superior to a later one. In many cases, it was. So what? I found the original production of Hello, Dolly! superior to the current one, and I loved the current one. And if it indeed was, what's the big deal, anyway? Are we supposed to pretend that people like Laurette Taylor or Carol Channing never existed, or resent/dismiss those fortunate enough to have seen them? Or claim that nothing of worth existed before one was born? Let's not be so childish here.  It's no crime not to have been able to see earlier productions of a show. But it's equally no crime to have seen them, and to state they were better than later ones. 

After Eight said: " What I don't understand is why people take such umbrage when someone says an original production was superior to a later one. In many cases, it was. So what? "

I think this comes from a place of jealousy -- if you love a revival but keep hearing that the original was better, then you get a little miffed that you weren't around to just see the original. 

Carlos Danger said: "

Sometimes perfection is not what make shows like "Follies" great."

 

I love this! It's so true. 

I connected with Follies as a young teenager. Even though I obviously couldn't relate to the leads, I was so enamored by the entire show and its history. "Everything Was Possible" was such a great resource for me as  I tried to learn everything about the original production as I possibly could. I remember frantically trying to read it between classes in high school. I loved and still love that the show isn't a happy fairy tale, I think I was attracted to the sadness and desperation of the leads. I wouldn't want a brighter or more optimistic Follies, that's not what the show is, and that's why the original London production is considered such a misfire. 

While I got to see and enjoy the Encores staging and the Kennedy Center and Broadway production multiple times, I always knew the original production would not be topped.That's the gold standard. I think one could still love and respect the original production without having been alive to see it. The multiple soundboard recordings, rehearsal footage, silent footage, "Everything Was Possible," and the original published script are all imperative resources to discover everything you can about the original production. Also, our very own Pal Joey is a wealth of knowledge, I hope he posts in this thread. 

Updated On: 8/28/17 at 01:58 PM