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

[peerrjb]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 5:12am

Thanks for all the interesting posts on this one.
I don't have any "soundboard"-type stuff, only my recollections of seeing the original production twice back in 1971.
I think that the saddest part of all this is that because the show didn't slam-dunk the critics (Walter Kerr's: "Yes, Yes, Alexis! No, No, Follies!" being damnably foremost at the time) there was, amongst the production folk, a lotta lotta thinking that they needed to FIX it.... Hence, the reprehensible mess of changes before they took it to London, where so many talented folks were strapped with all manner of ill-conceived rewrites.... then that "Follies In Concert" dealio which, in retrospect, proves to be more an apologisia than a celebration... and on and on.... It would be interesting if perhaps the new production might do what the "South Pacific" revival did.... Realize they have gold on their hands in the original formation...appreciate that the audiences and critics in 1971 weren't ready AT ALL for what they were shown...figure that those good people who created it had a CLEAR vision in mind -- and "Who's That Woman?" will probably never be as insanely, frighteningly, and wildly effective as the Mary McCarty & Co. version, but what the hell, why not TRY -- and create a production of the show that the creators KNEW they wanted. Sigh.
But in a world where the princes are lawyers, what can anyone expect except to recollect....Follies as it ought to be?

[AnythingGoes2]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 6:12am

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"

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 8:26am

peerjb--have you ever seen this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhQeVQ6677A

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 10:18am

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

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 10:47am

^ Thank you so much for taking my post seriously! I really agree with everything you wrote.

I also hate how this Ben line is cut from the revised ending

BEN: There has to be a way...I won't face one more morning feeling- despair: I'm so sick to goddamn death of it.

I know I should be grateful for this upcoming production. But I am going to be so disheartened if we get to the end and we have the Roundabout ending. All those chilling lines missing. All the power gone. Instead we have the supporting crew going on about a nightcap, as PRS wrote.
Updated On: 9/20/10 at 10:47 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 10:52am

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.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 10:59am

The thing about the Cabaret tinkering is that it seems like every version has an entire scenes of dialogue that are different from the previous and as far as I can tell no one but Joe Masterhoff is ever credited with the book. Curious.

Smaxie would know better than anyone about the problems with the Widow Goldman. I'm not quite sure how long the reach of her grasp is, or if she's been more of a scapegoat for things not going the way certain producers may have liked, but she gets the brunt of the criticism for book related issues.

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 11:04am

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.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 11:13am

I didn't see Schaffer's last production so I'm not sure he did the final scene exactly as it was written for the Roundabout production (see directors tendencies to tinker above) but I know, more or less that he used the Roundabout script. Perhaps somebody saw it and can comment on that.

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.

I agree that the cuts damage the piece though and take out a lot of necessary character development and explanation. And so yes, it is ia shame.


I love your passion LJay. You should write Eric Schaeffer a letter and make your case. You never know... Updated On: 9/20/10 at 11:13 AM

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 11:18am

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

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 11:23am

Passion is more inspiring than eloquence. Write a letter to Bernadette Peters while you're at it. If she fought to have those lines included, I imagine they would be. And at least you'll have peace knowing you did all you could to preserve a show you love dearly.

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 11:29am

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

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 2:42pm

loved the Encores! choreo and the little change they made before the big finale (around 4:40 in this video clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8DPF_BOzTQ, before the counterpoint "mirror Mirror on the wall" and "who's that woman") much better than the original arrangement with just that little change.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 4:43pm

"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.

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 5:28pm

From a review of the Roundabout libretto on Amazon.com.

Worst of all, the ending has been completely changed. Buddy and Sally's heartbreaking final exchange (Buddy: "Come on kid - let's go home and make plans for tomorrow" Sally: "Oh dear God, it IS tomorrow") has been deleted, changing the tone of the whole show. In the original published version, Sally's line - "Oh dear God, it IS tomorrow" had a piece of stage direction that I will never forget as long as I live - it said simply, "There is no hope". A far cry from the revision, where Ben offers a simpering apology to Sally and she contends, "I'll be fine". In short, some of the most witty, funny and poignant moments from the original show have been altogether deleted, all for the sake of proffering a show that could be more easily digested by middle America. The revisions produced a musical that is far more banal and nowhere near as touching or tragic as the original that was so beautifully presented to Broadway audiences 34 years ago. My understanding is that Mr. Goldman was never happy with the fact that the play didn't have a "happy ending" and he needed to revise the characterizations substantially to give us something that mainstream audiences would be more comfortable with. I wish he had been able to leave it as it was. He never found any reason to tamper with his other masterpiece, The Lion in Winter (it's a funny coincidence that my favorite film of all time - The Lion in Winter, and my favorite Broadway show of all time - Follies - should both be written by the same man). The bottom line is that I firmly believe that this piece has suffered terribly from Mr. Goldman's inability to simply leave well enough alone. Fans of the show who want a complete rendering of the lyrics to Stephen's Sondheim's glorious songs will not be badly served by this edition. But if you are lucky enough to find a copy of the original Random House edition, you will also have a much better libretto for Follies in your library.

I agree 100%.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 9:35pm

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.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 9/20/10 at 9:43pm

I agree the original ending is exactly the ending FOLLIES requires. Based on the way this piece is constructed, it is really the only possible ending.

The changes were made for subsequent productions because so many of the show's critics and even some of its fans have contended that the script - particularly the ending - is far to bleak.

Maybe it WAS too bleak for 1971 audiences, but for modern audiences it seems far truer than the tacked on "happy endings" of the revised editions.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/21/10 at 10:44am

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?"

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/21/10 at 10:59am

I think an audience should leave FOLLIES un-nerved and unsettled. I think thats the power of the entire work - the folly of choices made, decisions regretted, relationships that may have either hope (Phyllis and Ben) or hoplessness (Buddy and Sally) at the core their future. I also think the original book makes an incredible statement about the disillusionment of those forging an existance after the promise of a glorious life following the second world war.

Did audiences get it in 1971? Maybe not? Was it probably too close to home for many? Bet your ass.

It may not be at the Kennedy Center production, but I imagine once the writers (or Mrs. Goldman if that is who is insisting on the happier rewrites) are gone - you'll see a lot of revivals of FOLLIES being given a much darker exploration.

I also tend to agree with newintown in his questioning of the dancers at the Michael Bennett discussion. Goldman's sketchy book was the perfect way to tie in the almost dream-like, stream of conciousness concept of the original production.

I think those arguing that FOLLIES book isn't strong enough are probably largely those who think there should also be literal chiars and tables and buffet service on the stage (a la the Roundabout production) rather than to see it as a sort of machiavellianistic fantasty on the playground of the mind.

[Boq101]

Posted: 9/21/10 at 11:12am

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?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/21/10 at 11:20am

I'm trying to find the quote, but haven't yet. If I remember correctly, last I read Sondheim had been saying that Goldman's contribution was underappreciated and that he was unfairly maligned for the book.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/21/10 at 11:27am

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.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/21/10 at 11:32am

Sondheim, as much as he defends Goldman's book, is also far from averse to permitting changes to his work, when convinced that it makes the work more approachable or relevant - witness the currently licensed version of Company based on that utterly awful Roundabout revival, with inferior orchestrations and vocal arrangements, and the redundant addition of "Marry Me A Little," a song that merely repeats the same idea as "Someone Is Waiting" (i.e. "I'm ready for the kind of relationship that doesn't exist").
Updated On: 9/21/10 at 11:32 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 9/21/10 at 11:44am

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

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/21/10 at 11:49am

Almost every major revival of a Sondheim show has hand some tinkering with it -- whether its the addition of cut songs, or book re-writes, and frankly I'm not sure any of them have been improvements.

I admire artists who aren't precious with their work and are open to trying new things with their properties, but it becomes a problem, I think, when theatres aren't allowed to perform a show as originally written.

If writers have made changes to a work over time - I personally feel they should allow theatre companies the choice to choise the original or revised form for production.