Michael Bennett's Attempt to Fix "Follies" — Page 3

Having seen both the original and the most recent revival (by the time it got to LA), I have to agree that despite the beauty of the most recent sketches, there really was no comparison between the costumes for the ghosts. (For one thing, the ghosts in the revival didn't seem 14' tall, as they did in 1971.) In the original, the ghosts were clearly ghosts; in the reveal, one might have mistaken them for actresses Waxman had hired to dress up his party.

Part of the problem wasn't the costumes themselves, but the set. The original set often moved as the ghosts walked, making the entire image dreamlike, even "ghostly". In the 2011 revival, the use of an essentially empty stage left the ghosts to cling to the back wall in the dark, where it wasn't entirely clear whether they were ghosts, party decorations, or ladies who had the bad taste to show up in their old outfits.

That said, I don't agree with those who deem the 2011 revival a disaster. I can't speak for Broadway, but by the time Victoria Clark sunk her teeth into Sally--especially by the end of the LA run--the result was not just moving but devastating.

P.S. to Wilmington: you are seriously misreading the ending of FOLLIES. The fact that Ben cries out for Phyllis and she is instantly at his side IS the resolution and it is not at all hopeless. The two have finally set aside their defenses and admitted their need for one another.

Buddy and Sally end with more ambiguity, if only because Sally seems so deranged at times. True, she says, "There was never any Ben for me." But who knows what she will say five minutes later? IIRC, the staging in LA for the 2011 revival did NOT suggest a reconciliation with Buddy was likely.

But in either case, the characters are hardly going to home to "wait to die", as you put it. Their futures are uncertain because they know they can no longer count on plans they trusted in their youths.

As for FOLLIES being "about the death of the Golden Age", that's a very academic point of view, one I might have written myself while in college. But one could make the same argument for GYPSY, that the decline of vaudeville is simply a metaphor for the decline of the R&H-style musical. I strongly doubt that such meta-theatrical themes were on the minds of any of the creators of these shows. Because in the end, one cannot stage or act "the death of the Golden Age"; one still has to stage and act characters in a dramatic situation.

I do agree with you, Master, about the sets and costumes. (And lighting, too, since for some reason it was deemed necessary to keep the ghosts in the shadows along the walls. In 1971, they wandered right through scenes without ever losing their ghostly, black-and-white quality) But I swear I forgot all about those shortcomings with Clark playing Sally, and singing duets with Ron Raines. When the two of them sang, it was if the Follies were threatening to burst into grand opera, which gave the production a somewhat different feeling of "unreality".

I assume there was some issue of money, because I can't imagine a professional designer not wanting to go wild with such a property.

I'm hoping we'll see a Lincoln Center Bartlett Sher helmed revival with Kelli O'Hara and Laura Benanti in 10 or so years. Maybe that high caliber of a team (& Laura in particular) could persuade Patti Lupone to sign on for Hattie. I'm sure she'd never consider it but by that time she'd be the right age and she'd slay in the role.

The 2011 revival wasn't a disaster, far from it. When it opened, it was actually exceptionally well received. There was a lot to love about it: the 27 piece orchestra, Danny Burstein's devastating Buddy, Jan Maxwell's stellar Phyllis, some beautifully staged and performed numbers. And then there were problems: the unimaginative set, some clunky staging, some frustrating dances, some weird or stiff acting choices. For every beautiful ghost costume Gregg Barnes designed, there was a Follies costume that didn't fit right or a party guest who's look was fine, if on the nose and not terribly imaginative.

I, personally, found the greatest asset in the design was Natasha Katz'z lighting, which found character and shadows in the sets and costumes where there sometimes weren't and was able to punch up dance numbers that weren't working. Katz's lighting gave a build to "Who's That Woman" and made Jan Maxwell the focus of "The Story of Lucy and Jessie" when Warren Carlyle's choreography didn't do either. Her lighting found mysteries and hidden ghosts where Eric Schaeffer's staging and Derek McLane's set did not.

I remember when the revival opened, there was a bit of a divide on what exactly was right and/or wrong about it. I believe it was PalJoey (who else COULD it have been?) who eloquently stated that the key to a good production of Follies is that the director has to know what the ghosts represent. Are they real? Do the main characters see them? Do they see the main characters? Hal Prince and Michael Bennett knew the answers to these questions and it didn't seem that Eric Schaeffer did.

In regards to Michael Bennett trying to "fix" Follies, in Kevin Kelly's biography (which I'm sure has inaccuracies, but paints a pretty vivid picture of Bennett), Bennett didn't think Follies was bad. He DID want it to be a huge commercial success, though. Bennett was never one to be content with a small group of devoted fans or being a critical darling with no box office clout. He wanted his musicals to be big hits as well as well received. He would eventually find that balance with A Chorus Line, but he really wanted Follies to be the musical that did that first. We wanted Neil Simon to contribute jokes and a plot that would be more recognizable to a mainstream audience, but Prince/Goldman/Sondheim didn't want that. They created the Follies they wanted: a masterpiece and a mystery that overwhelms, bewilders and isolates audiences to this day.

---

Updated On: 3/12/16 at 10:29 AM

SidebySidebyLogan said: "I'm hoping we'll see a Lincoln Center Bartlett Sher helmed revival with Kelli O'Hara and Laura Benanti in 10 or so years. Maybe that high caliber of a team (& Laura in particular) could persuade Patti Lupone to sign on for Hattie. I'm sure she'd never consider it but by that time she'd be the right age and she'd slay in the role."

This! Kelli O'Hara and Laura Benanti are the perfect Sally and Phyllis for a Bartlett Sher directed production.

PalJoey said: "

Yes, the lack of a truly original ghostlike atmosphere was my overall disappointment with Schaefer and Carlyle's work. (That and the horrendous blunder of putting Sally in red initially and forcing Elaine Paige to sing to the chorus boys and a criminal failure to provide Jan Maxwell with star-protecting choreography.) "

Yes, I remember how badly Carlyle threw Maxwell under the bus with "Lucy and Jessie." At first, I thought that Carlyle was just too limited by Maxwell (I adored Carlyle's work on Finian's Rainbow and didn't want to believe it might be a one-off work), but as I reviewed the rest of the production in my head I realized it was quite the other way around. The entire show I sat there thinking "Jan Maxwell is going to win the Tony." And then "Lucy and Jessie" happened and I thought "Jan Maxwell just lost the Tony." Such a shame, because it was clear she was having a ball up there, but Carlyle's choreography just did her no favors.

Musical Master, I don't totally believe that Sher alone can do Follies. He's a wonderful director, but he isn't invincible nor is he versatile. What Sher excels at is simplistic spectacle (or extravagant minimalism, you decide on the terminology). What I want to see is a combined effort of 4 directors for Follies: Bartlett Sher, Nicholas Hytner, Sam Gold and Casey Nicholaw.

Give Sher all the scene work, Hytner the musical scenes ("Waiting for the Girls Upstairs", "In Buddy's Eyes" etc.), Nicholaw the dances and Follies numbers, and Gold all of the transitions and ghost work. And give John Tiffany and Steven Hoggett the Prologue. And a set by Bob Crowley. THAT'S the Follies I want to see.

---

Okay wickedfan, I like this idea of Bartlett Sher teaming up with another director but 4 directors are WAY TOO MUCH, it would result in different directors clashing visions on one another to the point where it might end up becoming a hot mess. I would suggest that Bartlett Sher directs with co-direction and choreography by one man who could do something interesting with this difficult musical: Christopher Wheeldon. I think Wheeldon has the talent to tackle such a project with Sher as his director partner.

As much as I like Bob Crowley's work, I think Michael Yeargan is more of an interesting choice because of what I saw of Light In The Piazza and The King and I, I think he could do something interesting that honors Boris Aronson's beautifully dilapidated, but drenched in shadows set design while giving us his own take as well. Besides, it's only when Loveland comes in where the over-the-top exaggerated lavishness unfolds.

Betty Buckley sang a stellar I'm Still Here at the Royal Albert Hall, I wish she could reprise the role in a fully staged production with a good director.

wickedfan said: "I believe it was PalJoey (who else COULD it have been?) who eloquently stated that the key to a good production of Follies is that the director has to know what the ghosts represent. Are they real? Do the main characters see them? Do they see the main characters? Hal Prince and Michael Bennett knew they answers to these questions and it didn't seem that Eric Schaeffer did."

I think this is what really threw me off on the revival (which, admittedly, being a penniless west-coaster I've only seen through bootlegs), and it was really apparent in the Follies numbers. The revival Follies felt like an in-joke, kind of cynically comical and too friendly to the audience. In the original production (also seen through bootlegs), there was a creepy, almost supernatural detachment that was thrilling but not inviting. You sensed in the follies numbers that they were no longer characters but caricatures, forced to do exactly what they're doing forever in a hell of their own creation.

Bennett's choreography did a lot of the legwork here (I'm particularly fond of the faceless chorus in Lucy and Jessie), but the extravagant sets helped a lot in creating a surreal atmosphere. I forget where I read it (probably Everything Was Possible) but there was a discussion about having Buddy's start high up on the curtain at the beginning of his number to establish the total unreality of what was to follow, which is the kind of detailed consideration that seemed to be lacking from the revival.

I feel like I'm just bitching now but I do think the differences are kind of a fascinating thing to examine. Of course, the revival was also mounted right after the big economy crash, while the original came just before the oil crisis and stagflation and whatever else Nixon did. Amusing: if Follies is a show about the death of the golden-era musical then it's also a show about the death of the glamorous post-WWII America (bring on the Whip Inflation Now buttons).

I am so grateful for the FOLLIES revival, even the red dress incident was hilariously satisfying to follow here, if only for what felt like (but was probably not) a gasp when Bernadette walked out on the Marquis stage for the first time in her new pink dress.

Get what you want from Follies. For me, I value most the story telling (mainly one of exploring extremely interesting, troubled characters given there is no real plot) and with that cast and that creative team I thought they did a terrific job. It's going to be a while before we every see something like that again. I'd be first in line for an Ohara/Bananti/Lupone (as Carlotta) sher revival in the future though. I wasn't sure what kind of cast could even begin to compete but that may be it.

---

Updated On: 11/20/15 at 04:01 PM

A Tiffany/Hoggett revival is the best thing I've heard in a long while.

PalJoey said: "Let's veto Tony Danza in favor of Tony Yazbeck."

Works for me. Love him.

Updated On: 11/21/15 at 02:19 PM