Memories of FOLLIES from the NY Times - Page 2

[jv92]

Posted: 8/27/11 at 12:45pm

"And most importantly, its tenets are truer; those in Follies are simply specious and mean-spirited."

I love CHICAGO. It's a terrific show. But to say that the characters in FOLLIES are mean spirited when you're "comparing it" to CHICAGO is utter nonsense. Roxie Hart has no motives other than the need to succeed in showbiz and to trample everyone else in her way. Billy Flynn doesn't really care about love. Neither does the Matron. Even the discarded characters were schmucks! (The Agent who sang "Ten Percent")

Funny, I watched the movie of CHICAGO the other day and found it almost laughable on the screen. It works very well onstage because you're painting in broader strokes onstage, but the story on screen is pretty corny. Visuals, performances (sans Zellweger) and music are still wonderful though.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/27/11 at 2:05pm

"But to say that the characters in FOLLIES are mean spirited when you're "comparing it" to CHICAGO is utter nonsense."


I'm not talking about the characters in these shows, I'm talking about their creators' attitudes towards them and the audience. In Chicago, that attitude is satirical, stylized, even cartoonish. Both the creators and and the audience are in on the joke, and as is often the case, the cartoon conveys many a truth. In Follies, that attitude is serious, superior, and snarky, lecturing and finger wagging at the audience, with the content of the lecture being entirely specious.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/27/11 at 7:27pm

Just to be clear, I love CHICAGO and saw the original Broadway production many times. I see no reason to "choose" between CHICAGO and FOLLIES.

But, After Eight, your arguments about these shows strike me as highly contradictory. FOLLIES says we are so dazzled by show business that we make foolish choices and ruin our lives; CHICAGO says we are so dazzled we let killers go free.

I fail to see how one is more cynical than the other, except that Follies allows us glimpses at the real lives of its characters and offers a smidgen of hope in the end. CHICAGO simply sneers at us one more time by giving us murderers in sequins, whom we wildly applaud.

You claim CHICAGO is different because it's a cartoon and the audience is in on the joke. If anything, that merely confirms what I said about the unpleasant messages of FOLLIES. Despite its own "razzle dazzle", FOLLIES doesn't sugarcoat what it has to say about romantic delusions. Of course, it is never going to have the mass appeal of SHOW BOAT, SOUTH PACIFIC or WEST SIDE STORY, in which tragic events may happen, but love conquers hate and racism in the end.

[newintown]

Posted: 8/30/11 at 10:29am

But back to MacDermot and his rivalry - if indeed the man has no interest in theatre, why did he continue to work in the theatre, churning out mega-flops like Dude, Via Galactica, and The Human Comedy? No one will deny he clearly puts a greater premium on the pop world, but he also clearly has had a significant attachment to musicals.

Speaking solely from the point of view of music theory, MacDermot's scores are as sophisticated as nursery songs, generally using only the most simplistic of structures and harmonic progressions (much like the work of Danny Apolinar, another "rock" theatre composer of his time). Many audiences prefer this kind of music, as it takes no work at all to appreciate. But I would imagine MacDermot is aware that Sondheim possesses talents and has developed skills that Galt has chosen to abnegate in his own work. And I wouldn't be surprised that he resents the fact that musicians acknowledge that greater skill and talent are at play in Sondheim's work.
Updated On: 8/30/11 at 10:29 AM

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 8/31/11 at 11:19pm

^ As someone who knows Galt: waxing musicological, you may be correct, but from a personality point of view, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Significant attachment? Get real. Dude was an obligation to Gerry Ragni (it originally started as another MacDermot/Rado/Ragni collaboration, the sequel to Hair, but due to personal and creative differences, Rado and Ragni drifted apart, and Dude and Rainbow were the results), and The Human Comedy was fulfillment of a similar obligation to Joe Papp. As for Via Galactica, I defy you to find anyone who can explain what the hell they were doing with that except avoiding unnecessary puns (Ken Mandelbaum's "Up!" Uris joke still gives me titters).

Do not presume to speak for Galt MacDermot. You have no clue what his motivation was.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/31/11 at 11:30pm

Ave. Q is a musical that has tenets. RENT, too. I mean, technically they're squatters, but there's hope.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 9/1/11 at 3:24am

gvendo is right: most of us don't know MacDermott and words like "bitter" and "resentment" (at least one of which came from me) are too personal and too harsh.

But MacDermott sets himself in opposition to Sondheim in his own remarks. So it isn't such a stretch to assume MacDermott sees himself at odds with the composer of Follies. It may be entirely a culture/counter-culture issue that has nothing to do with personal resentment.

By the same token, however, MacDermott may not be the most objective authority on Sondheim's work in the early 1970s.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/1/11 at 1:19pm

Exactly - it's something like a Salieri/Mozart thing - the successful yet pedestrian mediocrity publicly decrying the genius. True, none of us knows if MacDermot is smart enough to (in private) recognize that his talent is a mouse to Sondheim's lion, but it's far from impossible.