My biggest wish for the Kenendy Center's FOLLIES... — Page 2

My biggest wish was to see this production period, so all good for me. Is I was allowed one more wish it would that Julie Andrews sings "Im still Here"

I could be wrong, but I think the script licensed to stock and amateur productions is the 1971 version, but I'm not sure. I know the Roundabout script was published, but I still think it's 1971 they license. Not that that matters with a pro production. It's like Cabaret - how is every script in every professional production different? Is there like a 1000 page Cabaret tome that the pros pray to and have a script tailored just for them?

The original Follies script and the revised Roundabout group script are essentially the same, except it's almost as though the original was deliberated stripped as much humor as possible and that any sort of hope for the end has been extinguished in the new version (more on that in a minute). Like ljay, I think the original book is the show's strongest. All the subsequent changes made to the material weaken the material instead of strengthen it.

The London script is virtually rewritten. There are a few lines that are similar to the original, but it is essentially a complete rewrite of the show. The tone is considerably lighter than the original, and the ending that's in place for the production seems to serve as the blueprint for the ending in all the subsequent versions of the script. This version has never been legally published for performance outside of the London production as far as I know. Besides the script changes, "The Road You Didn't Take" is out and replaced with "Country House," "Live Laugh Love" is replaced by "Make the Most of Your Music." "Loveland" the song is rewritten and the Loveland sequence is changed, splitting the young four into two separate duos that come at different times. This is also the first time "Ah, But Underneath" makes an appearance. In this production, the older characters are much more aware of their younger ghosts throughout the entire show than they are in the original. At one point Buddy is actually speaking to Young Buddy and someone asks who he is talking to and says "I'm talking to myself."

The Papermill starts bringing things back closer to original, but there are still vestiges from the London detour in there - Sally and Buddy arrive together (Sally enters first, as in the original, but Buddy is off parking the car, she hasn't run off on him), the "Rain on the Roof" trio is clearly happening in real time, as opposed to the sort of ethereal "are they or are they really not doing this" feel you're supposed to get from the original. This version has never been legally published for performance outside of the Papermill production as far as I know. All in all, it's still a much "brighter" telling of the tale than the original, although brightening up the presentation while gutting the actual hope from the script leaves the show at odds with itself, something some may argue was always the case, but I think it's a problem that gets stronger with each revision.

The Roundabout script (which is an amalgam of all of them, but takes its structure from the 1971 original) gets you back closest to the original script, but a lot of lines have been gutted. Maybe asides - a lot of the wry crack, etc - have been toned down or eliminated, again making the piece a lot drearier than it should be.

As ljay has noted - ALL versions of the script after the first one really rewrite the hell out of the final scene. Sally's comments about trying to have killed herself multiple times have been dropped and it just becomes harder to fathom why Buddy decides to stay with her. I agree that the empty platitudes ("take good care of him") don't ring true. That may have been the point (the Chapin book mentions a similar ending that was cut, and I've always wondered if what is used now is just one of Goldman's originals). As damaging as the Buddy and Sally stuff is, I think the cuts to Ben and Phyllis are the most damaging. Besides the "hope doesn't grow on trees" line, the most important lines of their final scene are gone:

BEN: I've always been afraid of you. I keep thinking, it isn't possible It can't be me she loves.

Phyllis: Well, think again. Come on, we're going home.

Ben: You're really something, aren't you?

Phyllis: Bet your ass. (Which - should be noted, was something she sang at him in a rage during "Could I Leave You?", although this time it is said with love and affection. Or at least understanding)

Despite the proceedings of the evening, it's always been (or it WAS always) clear that Phyllis always has and always will love Ben, and Ben is finally realizing that, as Phyllis said, he's had the love he's been searching for. The revised version still has them leaving together, but without Phyllis's reassurances that she still loves him, and always has. Sally and Buddy get their edges smoothed and Ben and Phyllis has theirs sharpened. I've never understood this revised ending in the context of "improving" the show.

Then there's the interruption of the final scene with the exit of the partygoers, something that started with London and has remained since. Besides breaking the tension, it grounds the evening in too much reality. I think the ending is much stronger when Loveland ends and no one but the main four (and their younger selves) are seen at the end. It casts a whole "what really happened" air over the whole evening, something that's lost by having the reality of the party guests hooting and hollering about getting a nightcap and other pointless drivel.

Updated On: 9/20/10 at 10:18 AM

I for the record don't think its Goldman's widow who is necessarily the one behind the many script changes. She is, apparently, the person who was the initial hold out on allowing permission for the Paper Mill production to transfer, though Sondheim, as he is prone to do, kind of sheepishly took her side when push came to shove (the idea of the production at the Roundabout featuring stars more-or less, and for better or for worse hand selected by Sondheim himself was more appealing to him…)

It is correct that the 1971 script is still the one licensed by MTI, although every major revival since the late 80s has used some rewritten version of it. I'm not sure if this is happening because Sondheim/or Mrs. Goldman are stepping in and requesting the revised scripts, or if the directors themselves are tinkering (a la whats happened to CABARET).

To the best of my knowledge there has been no production since the London premiere that has been allowed to use any of that script ("Ah But Underneath" has of course made some return appearances).

When Eric Schaeffer directed FOLLIES last time in DC, he used the Roundabout script.

Most of the productions, it should be noted, that have used the Roundabout Revision have perhaps done so to take advantage of its streamlined casting demands.

Even though the Kennedy Center is going all out on the production, it does appear that Schaeffer is again using the Roundabout revision, based on the casting notice, which includes only the characters Sandra Crane and Dee Dee West, but not Christine Crane, Sandra Donovan, Meredith Lane, Chet Richards.

Even though the Kennedy Center is going all out on the production, it does appear that Schaeffer is again using the Roundabout revision, based on the casting notice, which includes only the characters Sandra Crane and Dee Dee West, but not Christine Crane, Sandra Donovan, Meredith Lane, Chet Richards.

I'm going to cry. I really think the Roundabout ending is damaging to the piece. Oh well.

Sally's lines in the final scene ("I should have died..." etc.) appear to have been missing from major revivals for a long time. Clearly somebody strongly doesn't want that section in the script, so I doubt we will see that at the Kennedy Center.

That is such a shame. I find those lines so powerful. But I'm not even sure Bernadette Peters could deliver them like Dorothy Collins did. But I also love Buddy's "Home, friends, some money" part. Shame we'll probably never see that either.

I love your passion LJay. You should write Eric Schaeffer a letter and make your case. You never know...

Thank you. Maybe I should. I just don't think I am the most eloquent writer when it comes to expressing my opinion. It can come across scatterbrained sometimes.

Updated On: 9/20/10 at 11:18 AM

Thank you, MB! I have lots to think about.

"I can hear it too thanks to the glorious soundboard."

Ha Ha. Me too!


"I love your passion LJay. You should write Eric Schaeffer a letter and make your case. You never know..."

Yes, do. It will have more effect if it comes from someone young rather than those of us who can remember productions from the 80s and/or 70s.

Whilst you're at it, write to Trevor Nunn too.

That's how I felt for decades. But recently, at the Dancers Over 40 tribute to Michael Bennett, I came to realize that the piece suffered from Goldman's inability to match the genius of his collaborators.

The dancers who were in the original production still carry a lot of anger toward Goldman. They idolized Michael and knew he and Hal were creating something that looked and moved like nothing ever had before. They knew that the score was astounding, with gem after gem after gem. They knew that the scenic, costume and lighting designs were the pinnacle of those crafts at the time.

But they knew that Goldman's book started out the weak link and never got better. And they (quite rightly, I now think) place the blame for the failure of the show squarely on Goldman's shoulders.

So I no longer think it is in any way "fixable." The book leaves the musical as just a lesser creation than the sum of its elements, simply because that one element--the book--never worked and can't be fixed.

---

Since when were dancers experts on dramaturgy?

The original book is a glorious, gorgeous, perfect thing. Yes, it's sometimes hard as stone, often cold as ice, and always sharp as the sharpest knife. This is what makes it unique among musical theatre books (its only equals may be those for Sunday in The Park With George and Sweeney Todd).

Phyllis (after speaking about her passion for her lover): I thought it answered everything. But these things pass. And I have thirty thousand dollars worth of Georgian silver in my dining room.
Buddy: What happened to you, Phyl? Where did you go?
Phyllis: I went my own damn way. And don't make waves!

Does it lay out exactly what they're thinking? No. But does it tell you something about Phyllis that a more prosaic line would miss? Definitely.

It may be true that mass audiences will never feel comfortable with the brilliant, utterly unsentimental book Goldman initially wrote. But rather than blaming this work of art, perhaps they should look within and ask "Am I such a genius, I know better?"

I wonder why such a complex discussions hasn't ever come accross to Sondheim before in his many interviews. What is Steve's opinion of the revised librettos and which one does he feel works best for the show?

Goldman's book is underpraised because its the dialogue in FOLLIES that is unsettling and uncomfortable. Sondheims' score is deceptive because its pastiche and on the service feels robust and nostalgic. Bennett created eerie stage pictures but also a lot of feel good incredibly satisfying dance sequences.

But its the book that gives FOLLIES its blistering edge. Without it, the show would have some impressive music and staging without any of the underpinnings that have haunted people for forty years.

Hell, he allowed all those changes to the London follies, including the execrable "Country House."