Michael Bennett's Attempt to Fix "Follies" — Page 2

jv92, now that's just unfair. I didn't say the book was a failure. In fact, it's exactly what the show needed in terms of script. Calling it a nasty piece of work was not an insult, but a comment on the tone of the work, which is intentionally mean-spirited. I don't even have a problem with that, as there are many excellent movies and plays that are mean-spirited. I was merely saying that the show was designed to be on stage, and not to be read. Now, the production I saw (at the Kennedy Center) just wasn't that kind of crazy good production that the original was, so it didn't really work for me as a whole. I wasn't really bored by it, but in the end I just couldn't care what happened. It's a mood piece, and when the mood isn't there, it doesn't really work.

newintown said: "...Some like to see Follies as a parade of old folks strutting their stuff in flashy, old-fashioned musical numbers. But Follies (need it be said again?) is about how life takes us all to places we never expected or wanted to go.

A friend from high school married his first love, had several children, has worked the same respectable job for decades, is now a still-happily-married grandfather; and yet time and again, he'll muse about how he had to abandon his dream of medical school when their first child came so early in his life, and he had to get a job right away. He will always wonder about his life as a doctor, the life that never happened.

That is what Follies is about."

I could not agree more. The 2011 revival of FOLLIES (which I saw 3 times in DC and once in NY) was a great showcase for older talent but I really loved the actors they got for the young counterparts. Not only were they wonderfully talented voice and dance-wise, they broke my heart when you would catch glimpses of what Ben, Phyllis, Buddy, and Sally had been. That's Goldman's writing. Some of the more high profile productions of "Follies" haven't been able to make those book scenes work due to directorial or casting choices that are in contrast with the delivery required. I've too often seen Young Phyllis' that were cold and standoffish from the beginning and I think for the pathos of the character to truly come through, you need to contrast brittle, witty, and wounded Older Phyllis with a softer and more vulnerable counterpart.

I found myself deliciously waiting for 'Could I Leave You' and the following verbal 'cacophony'. The breakdown that precedes 'Loveland' is absolutely chilling and brilliant if done correctly. I was already welling up after the song but the tears would flow unashamedly when Young Phyllis would ask for a baby at the exact time Sally berated her younger self for screwing Ben. It's so intense and I now understand why in every production of FOLLIES I've ever seen, 'Loveland' gets applause. It's from relief.

I'm sure part of that reaction in the original production was Aronson's brilliant sets but, having seen college, summer stock, regional, and Broadway productions of FOLLIES, it's interesting that the visual of decaying theater and miserable people immediately contrasted with colorful scenery and beautifully costumed showgirls is always shockingly awesome - whether done on a grand scale or not.

FOLLIES should be performed more. I'd love to see a MUNY FOLLIES with Beth Level as Stella or Carlotta. Maybe 2017?

Updated On: 11/18/15 at 12:20 PM

Phyllis has some really biting zingers in the original book like commenting on another chorine's outfit- "I didn't know this was a costume party" and "Now THAT was a riveting remark!"

Of course, these days, everyone likes to pretend that everyone thought Follies was amazing, when many very intelligent people didn't. Now I'm treated like an idiot for having the same opinion as hundreds of others.

neonlightsxo, totally agree. And with Fantod blocked, I find this website to be a lot less negative and self-centered.

Guys, guys, guys! FOLLIES is as sacred to me as to anyone. The first time I saw it remains the most thrilling 2 hours I have spent in a theater.

Nonetheless, Fantod is entitled to his opinion.

Unhappy people tend to lash out at others. (I'm talking about the characters now, not Fantod.) Even Sally herself notes the rancor of the evening: "I don't want to fight with you, Phyl." As with VIRGINIA WOOLF, there will always be some people who don't want to spend their evening watching the carnage.

A co-worker at the now-closed FABULOUS PALM SPRINGS FOLLIES was very disappointed with the most recent revival when it came to LA. "What are they all whining about?" he asked me later. "The old people at the PS FOLLIES are all so positive!" I replied, "Of course, they're positive: they're still working in their 70s! That isn't an option for the characters in the play." But he disliked the show because he found its view of aging depressing. Myself, I think he's in denial.

Updated On: 11/18/15 at 06:56 PM

Nowack, those pictures are glorious!

Mr. N, those pictures are wonderful. Actually looking at the picture of "One More Kiss" makes me wonder how Prince/Bennett staged it originally; I don't think it was filmed at all from the countless footage we have gotten.

As others have said, the original production of Follies was a mind bending, game changing experience. I am on team Goldman where the book is concerned. His sardonic comedy would have been at odd with what Simon would have brought to the table. As for the central metaphor, the material is strong enough to read into it what you like. But famously Frank Rich, as a senior at Harvard writing a review in the school newspaper, opined that it was, essentially, about the death of the Golden Age of Broadway. And time has proven him astute. Those old gals coming down that rickety staircase hadn't much farther to go, and the two central couples would go right back to where they came from and...what?...wait to die? Follies made clear that the days of My Fair Lady and Pajama Game and Bells Are Ringing and Hello, Dolly! were over. Certainly subsequent shows followed the blueprints of those predecessors but after Follies, there were new, more profound possibilities.

As much as I love and adore the work Florence Klotz did for all of the costumes in the original production, I think Gregg Barnes' costumes for the ghosts in the Kennedy Center/Broadway 2011 production are the best looking out of all the various productions over the years. I mean look at these, that is drop dead gorgeous! No wonder Barnes won a Tony Award for his work on Follies.

Barnes' costumes were quite nice, but, like the rest of that poorly conceived production, suffered perhaps from being overly-literal. They look more like actual costumes from the Ziegfeld Follies, rather than (as the script suggests) people's exaggerated memories of Follies costumes.

Don't get me wrong, Florence Klotz's designs for Follies are still the best designs when it comes to our main characters, the party guests, the Loveland sequence as a whole, and the ghosts have a surreal beauty to their look. But I can't ignore the beauty, intricacy, and charm that Gregg Barnes had worked so hard on the Broadway revival in 2011. But we can definitely agree that the set designs by the legendary Boris Aronson will never, EVER be topped.

I agree Charley Kringas Inc, I'd blame the direction, choreography, and set design for that. If Bartlett Sher and his crew worked that revival instead of what we got, it would've been a hugely different story.