Merrily We Roll Along directed by Maria Friedman — Page 2

Jarethan: Re Mary, I don't want to infer too much...are you also saying that Mary's arc could have been a little clearer or more fleshed out?

I think I mean that once in a while there's an updatey detail about her work -- for example, that she started a book, or some other quick detail about her writing -- but that while there were a number of those updatey details throughout the show, none of them had substance. I didn't know how she felt about any of them, or anything else about them beyond that single detail. It's also possible I missed some things -- I know I sometimes miss things when I see a show only once! But I ended up feeling that although the show is ostensibly about the the three of them equally (or am I wrong about that?), I found the show to be about Franklin and Charley socially/emotionally AND professionally, but about Mary only socially/emotionally. Her career is sprinkled in via tiny details. You used a good phrase for what I mean: nothing about her career/jobs is fleshed out.

Updated On: 9/16/17 at 06:10 PM

Saw this show last night (tried the TodayTix lottery but didn't win but they offered $40.00 + $5 fee tickets). Seats were in the orchestra.

Really enjoyed this production. Had only seen the Encores production. There seemed to be some sound issues in that whoever was working on the sound was late in turning up the mics before people spoke.

Some random thoughts on the production:

The actor who played Franklin reminded me of Benedict Cumberbatch.

Jarethan said: "I found the show to be about Franklin and Charley socially/emotionally AND professionally, butabout Mary only socially/emotionally. Hercareer is sprinkled in viatiny details. You used a good phrase for what I mean: nothing about her career/jobs is fleshed out."

I tend to agree. In the Encores production it seemed more about the three while this production I paid more attention to the Franklin and Charley. I also thought that Mary had a bigger role in my mind.

The costumes were great.

I heard a number of people complain about the smoking on stage (and people have taken to commenting on the Huntington's FB page to complain about it.

In this production I thought a number of the staging sequences reminded me of Company (which I saw there quite a few years back) and how many of the songs are similar to Into the Woods, SITPWG both in melody and sequence.

While maybe a little long, the structure of the play is brilliant in the backwards nature of the show. You could hear the audience gasp when certain things became clear in the past.

I just loved Damian Humbley as Charley. But all the actors did a fine job.

Someone behind me complained "I like the show but tired of the repetition of the melody between scenes"

I sort of wish they had used the top of the set for the last scene.

I think I might try the lottery again to see if I can see it a second time while I'm in Boston. The last two rows and side front rows of the orchestra were empty on a Tuesday night. Not sure what the Mezzanine looked like.

Jarethan said: "A few more thoughts:

-- All of yesterday, I kept on returning to this show. I couldn't get it out of my head. That really is rare for me. I STRONGLY recommend that anyone who can get to the Huntington theatre do so. There were a lot of empty seats in the mezzanine, so I can't imagine that it would be that difficult to get tickets.

-- Remaining flaw: I thought the role of Mary Flynn was not fleshed out enough. The show is ostensibly about the three of them, and they takethe last bow together; but, as I watched the last bow,i pretty much felt that the women playing Gussie and Beth belonged there. They were both more central to the story than Mary (largely an observer) was. I was actually surprised at how large (and good) Gussie's role was, and Beth had a few moments in the show that, for my money, were more powerful than anything Mary had.

What do we know about Mary: she falls in love with Franklin almost from first sight, she is smart, she is timid, she never stops loving him, watching on as he progresses through marriages and affairs, shebecomes an alcoholic,she sees Franklin and Charlie'srelationship falling apart, but is powerless to do anything. I am not clear on the following: she is a writer who seems to have writer's block, she does publish a book??? and it is a success / failure??? ... and she becomes a critic (I missed that in the show, picked it up here). No delving into why she has writer's block. It may have been me...alot is covered in intricate Sondheim lyrics...I may have missed some. Haven't listened to the cast recording in a long time.


I have already discussed (without seeing this production) of how I can't see Eden Espinosa playing the Mary of this revival. And though the writing is the same, I'm sure the staging as well, this revival's heart was all about Mary. Jenna Russell is the face I kept going back to when I would think of this production at the Menier. And I have seen revivals where I do agree there is something lacking in Mary. But it's amazing how a performer can sometimes fill in the blanks...

Saw this tonight and really enjoyed.

I recommend sitting as close as your can find. I was in front row and it was perfect. The orchestra pit really creates some distance from the audience.

I also agree that smoking was unnecessary irritant.

If you were thinking of going but don't have tix yet, there's currently a discount code. From Huntington email: "Use code ROLLBACK and save 25% on tickets."

rcwr said: "If you were thinking of going but don't have tix yet, there's currently a discount code. From Huntington email: "Use code ROLLBACK and save 25% on tickets.""

Beat me to it! Just convinced my mother to attend with me on the 5th with the discount code. Thrilled she'll get to see it, I think she'll really enjoy it.

Some random thoughts. It's been a long time since I saw the original in previews -- 1981? At any rate, Although I have always listened to the music of the 3 recording that I have, I have only seen the show once, until last night.

I thought dumping the graduation framing device in the beginning and end was an improvement. "Our Time" also worked better than "Hills of Tomorrow" at the end.

I was just looking at the CD of the original and noticed that Franklin originally sang "Not A Day Goes By' in the first act. Beth now sings it in the divorce scene. Have to listen to all of the recordings again and compare.

I was so confused at the original that I barely heard the music. It is so much better using older actors with actual costumes. I also heard dialogue that I had completely missed the first time. For instance: Charlie went on the win a Pulitzer after his split with Franklin. In response to an earlier post. Mary did have a best selling novel but apparently didn't have much success after -- maybe because of her drinking???

All in all, this version, although not perfect -- works quite well. The music is fantastic and most of the problems of the original have been solved. I always knew there was a good show somewhere in that story -- it just needed someone with the right vision to put it together!

Saw this show again last night via the lottery ($25.00 and 7th row, one in from the aisle) Noticed things I missed the first time around and because I knew all the actors playing the characters. One of the things I noticed is that when you see repeated viewings of the play you miss that "first time viewing" so things that you know are happening (because you saw it so many times) are sometimes missed the first time you see the show. it's hard to have the "first timers" eye when seeing the show which could explain some of the difficulties this show has had playing to audiences. How many times do "normal" people actually go see the same show? If there was ever a show to see repeatedly or at least twice, this one is it.

Again, thought that the show is really about the two male leads. I think if Mary was incorporated more in some of the other scenes it might have been of a trio but the director seems to have chosen to have Mary off stage when there is more stuff going on with Franklin and Charles. Also felt the same way about the two men throughout the show and notice very subtle touches and looks that seemed to back up my assumptions (everyone sees things from through their own eyes and experiences)

Would try to see it a third time but you can only win the lottery once. the house was more full last night than last week. Also, since much of the Huntington theatre's audience is subscriptions, they're going to have trouble financing their productions in a few years when they all die off. There were very few under the age of 60 in the audience. it was like being at a matinee performance. The older gentleman on the side of me fell asleep during the first act and a few people left at intermission not sure what was going on with the show.

If you're a fan of Sondheim see this show. it is worth the trip.

Saw this Saturday night - went up from NYC just to see it (as I've done the last two years for the Huntington's Sondheim productions) and had seen a simulcast of the London production in movie theaters a few years ago - and this is a top notch production well worth the trip. There are already so many well-articulated reviews and thoughts by other posters, I only wanted to second a few of those thoughts. First, Maria Friedman's direction really does succeed, as much as possible (given the well-discussed limitations of the book, which is frequently glib), in making these characters sympathetic and poignant, keeping the more satirical humor, and not succumbing too much to the self-indulgent bitterness. She really makes poignantly clear how Frank's key decisions - his wrong turns - are as much the result of the manipulative self-interested pull of those around him who claim to love him as his own weakness, making his growing idealism as he gets younger increasingly poignant. The three leads are excellent. Umbers manages to make Frank appealing throughout (even in the early going - no easy task), although I have to admit that I found his attempt to make his voice grow "younger" sounded a little bit like Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent. Minor quibble. As for Eden Espinoza as Mary, I think she succeeded for the most part in humanizing Mary, and making her feel integral to the central threesome rather than just a bitter appendage, although I think her love/longing for Frank could have been more convincing and palpable.

Go see it if you can.

raddersons said: "^^To be honest, I've always struggled with the romance that Mary has forFrank. On a first viewing, it really seems like it's thrown in for the sake of adding a romance b-plot. On a second viewing it makes much more sense in the very first scene, especially considering Charlie isn't there -- this is basically the only reason she's maintained contact with him. If it weren't for that, then she would have cut him off like Charlie.

But it's almost impossible to convey that for people watching it for the first time,since in that first sceneMary is drunk, and doesn't really have an opportunity to talk about her feelings for Frank... without it coming out of left field and seeming like the central plot of the show. You don't know these characters yet.I mean, itisthe first scene, you don't want this to be building up to be the a big romance in a show where the first time yousee the romantic lead, she sings her lament about their marriage (Not a day goes by)

Wow I'm jealous of everyone getting to see this. I watched the telecast of the London castthree or four years ago, and I was absolutely blown away by it."

This is what I was trying to get to. Seeing it a second time gives the audience different eyes to see these characters through. The first time I saw it here, in the last scene when Frank says "There's the girl I should marry" the audience sorta gasped or sighed finally getting it. The second time the audience was swayed either way at that last scene.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but Franklin is the one who cuts everyone off. After the TV interview he talks about a tribe where you cut off people like they never existed (paraphrasing) and during the first scene Mary states that she wouldn't ever be invited back.

As an exercise I wonder if any directors ever play the scenes in reverse order to give the actors room to flesh out their characters in a linear fashion. I was thinking about this last night as the first scene was going on an it was so angry and confrontational that it gets hard for the actors to turn the audience to their side even though the "ending" it more upbeat and promising but then you stop and think what happens to them all and it's Follies all over again.

ok...I'm obsession on this show. Listened to my old cast recording (2005) again after awhile and this current production could very well be the most perfect production of this show. Saw that the Encores production is on itunes but I really didn't care for Lim's Charles when I saw it live but the ensemble numbers sound as good as the Huntington's production.

Feels like a transfer that would be good for Roundabout.