Merrily - which version is it?

I'm pretty sure Sondheim indicated that it would NOT be the original 1981 Broadway version--most likely, it will be the '94 version.

---

I'd bet money it's the '94 version, perhaps with some changes or elements from other ealier revisions (after all James Lapine directed the first major revision back in '85 I believe and is involved again).

I think the last time the original 81 version was done (with a few of the 93 add-ons) was the Donmar Warehouse, only because they supposedly tricked Sondheim and Furth by letting them assume they were doing the revamped show, but secretly did (mostly) the original version. I had only seen the revamp up until then (though of course knew the original score from the OCR) and was really amazed how much better the older version (with revisions) was. What did Sondheim see that I didn't? Rumor has it the show was to transfer to the West End but the writers refused (they were, somewhat rightfully, pissed) The cast (Daniel Evans, Julian Overdon and Samantha Spiro) made names for themselves from the show and I have measured every Merrily I've seen against the Donmar's and all have paled. I would hope someday that version would become the standard (and was hoping against hope that it would be the version Encores was using).

I really don't care for the revision, and I discovered it first, so it's not a case of nostalgia. It had me turned off to the show, until I listened to the original cast album and saw the Donmar's production (which, I believe without permission, mostly reverted to the original version).

The problem with the revision is the same thing that has me worried about the Carrie revival. It took a show that was hugely problematic, but also hugely ambitious and extreme, and whittled it down into a competent bore. To a lesser extent (because the original was even more problematic than Merrily or Carrie), the same thing happened to Spider-Man when it was "revamped" into "Spidey 2.0."

As a fan of musicals, and storytelling in general, I'd rather see a show that fails big with its heart out than something decent and conservative and forgettable.

And I agree that That Frank is a "watered-down" Rich and Happy. Rich and Happy is a little silly, but it's a great number, and gives us a much clearer idea of what Frank has become at this stage in his life.

But the point about the revised opening is that whilst Frank maybe outwardly successful, compared to his promise 'to change the world', he's conformed to an artistically mediocre and unexceptionable life - even the crisis of his affair with a starlet, is a cliché. His life has been a compromise he could have avoided - that's the tragedy, rather than, he wasn't a successful film producer.

Updated On: 1/27/12 at 10:23 AM

Matt2...ME TOO!...why cant they just redo the original version and try to correct the faults within the original book...the OBC recording is my all time favorite Sondheim cd...i have seen a staged version of the so-called "newer" adaptation and I HATED IT!...

"Are you an idiot?"

No, I don't think so; perhaps if you had specified the song to which you were referring in your post, I wouldn't have made a mistake, and you wouldn't have flown off the handle. However - water under the bridge.

I still disagree, though - "That Frank" is pretty clearly an ironic number, showing (in a less obvious way than "Rich and Happy," granted) how superficial and terrified these people are - Mary's pointed barbs within the song make that rather clear, even if one can't read between the lines.

I suppose if you've only seen a version of the show done with actors who didn't know how to play anything more than the surface sheen of the lyric (rather than layers of meaning), I could understand how you might think "That Frank" is a song about a group of happy, fulfilled, well-adjusted people. Or perhaps if you never saw the scene that accompanies the song.

But, really, like "Uptown, Downtown" and "Lucy and Jessie," they're just variations on the same theme.

'And we have NO idea that was his goal when the show starts at the party. You don't know that until later. It's a flaw with the revised version. When he brakes down at his high school in the original version, we get that things went sour.'

We get things have gone very sour at the end of the first scene in the revised version - a man who appeared to have everything at the beginning of the scene, is left on his own with no friends around him at the end. We are also given to understand from comments throughout the scene, especially Mary's, that his life, tho' superficially successful is deeply flawed underneath, personally and professionally. Why does it happen? It's a more elegant, less clunky and time-consuming way of explaining it.

You know, in the end, either version of the show, "Merrily We Roll Along" is an intellectual conceit. We meet these characters at their worst. We never have a chance to warm to them (and by "we" I mean the general viewing public, not those of us who love the characters because we've studied and know the whole show). We never care for them. As reported in Sondheim and Co. when someone is asked if the new revised La Jolla version is an improvement, the retort is "Its still backwards." The show will never work in a traditional, commercial sense. So why not just do the original version? Most opinions have it as the better show.

possibly. Sondheim comes off so well-adjusted and pragmatic in his writings and interviews but industry friends who have had dealings with him indicate he can be very petty and close-minded in regards to people's opinions of his work. That as much as he is worshiped as "God", he is very thin-skinned and sensitive. All writers are, of course, but his is somewhat extreme.

in reading over the 'Merrily' section in Sondheim's "Finishing The Hat", it seems that James Lapine had a major influence in the new direction the opening of the show would take in it's revised production in 1985...and with that Sondheim seemed more satisfied about the whole structure of the musical...so while there are those of us who may not agree with the man himself, it is his musical, and he sees it in the rivised production, not the original...i personally would give anything to see the orginial production done again...i moved to NYC in 1982, and the show had just closed in Dec, 1981...damn!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m5ViVUfv6k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_RvOJ6sW8A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIRGxJfBOhw

I really love this show, and ushered there in 1981 show for the 6 wks, whatever....anyway, some of it's foggy to me now , however, I remember, watching it every night was REALLY confusing, the backwards/forward thing. After a wk, I asked the sound guy to explain.Thank you, sound guy. Remember, the audience had NO idea what they were gonna see, and the "simplistic set/costumes, etc. "annoyed" them. Them were the days of the GLITZY Musical. Anyway, I sorta remember during the previews, the characters were wearing their names on their shirts, which was kinda disconcerting...!? Anyway, decided to seek out some Youtubes tonight, and Voila! some bootlegs! Quality sucks, but the best thing about the production was the ORCHESTra/sOUND. In person, that is. GLORIOUS. eSPECIALLY the overture. i JUST love THE OVERTURE.. Sorta has traces of Leonard Bernstein influence, which somehow I hear in most of Sondheim's stuff. Anyway, enjoy.