National Theatre: Follies — Page 12

I saw the European premier in Manchester in 1985 with my late parents, which used James Goldman's original script. We found it such an astounding experience that my father came out of the matinee and immediately booked for us all to see the show again that evening.

A couple of years later, we also saw the 1987 London production, which, sepia-tinted and watered-down and despite its lavish production values and starry cast, felt underwhelming in comparison.

And I've seen four other productions since including one in a room above a London pub at which the audience played the party guests (I guess that is what's called immersive theatre), all of which have had their merits and their problems.

So it's now my turn to see the National Theatre production today.

I'm taking my copy, or rather my late father's copy, of the (Random House) book in case I need to check references to determine whether it is the original script they're using.

Will it be birds in spring or hara-kiri?

This is probably going to be one of the most important theatre-going experiences of my life.

Well, that was astonishing - I've never seen so many American gay men in the National Theatre!

And, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it was the best production of Follies I've seen. The book they used seemed to be an augmented version of the 1971 original. All the great dialogue was there; there were no wtf moments when something you expect to hear doesn't happen. And I saw and understood in a way I've never seen before just how well integrated the whole piece is: each scene informs the next song and that song informs the next scene so that there is that clear and driving momentum to the whole work, and when the drum roll for Loveland started I heard it in the innermost core of my being. All the songs were in the order they appear in the Random House script and the only change was, as observed earlier, the use of the London Loveland.

There were some augmentations to the Random House script that I hadn't heard before. Some brief dialogue between Weismann and Heidi that suggests he wants to rekindle something they may once have had. Perhaps this was to contrast with his "...I could have them for a smile..." monologue to the waitress, which usually gets a laugh for the man's foolhardiness but, in view of Weinstein's follies, was greeted here with uncomfortable silence.

There was also some new dialogue about two thirds of the way through for Emily Whitman, Deedee and Christine leaving the party, which seems to suggest that when Ben sees them in the cacophony they are in his own imagination rather than actually before him.

Ben's breakdown happened exactly as in the Random House script and did not feel rushed as has been suggested elsewhere. And Imelda's delivery of Losing My Mind sounded so different from the soundboards circulating that I struggled to believe it was actually her. Not that I have a problem with those soundboard recordings. There may have been more beautiful voices to have sung the song but her interpretation was nonetheless compelling.

As was Tracie Bennett's interpretation of I'm Still Here. And fresh too. Not staged as a cabaret song but starting out as reminiscence to other party guests who then melt away as the song became a personal insight of both determination and vulnerability. One of my companions-in-theatregoing observed that this is what great direction and staging can achieve.

Was Loveland "cheap"? Compared to the 1987 production, maybe. But the Olivier has that huge revolving drum under its stage and they could have used that, to achieve the same effect, if they'd wanted to. But, as was suggested thirty years ago, the Ziegfeld Follies were probably never as lavish as the Cameron Mackintosh production. The budget was self-evidently spent recreating the derelict Weismann Theatre of 1971, particularly necessary since the Olivier auditorium and the National Theatre are nothing like the theatres Weismann would have known. Phyllis was moved back from her bubble-bath-in-a-champagne-glass to her honky-tonk (whatever that may be) whilst Sally was moved back from her arbour to her boudoir, and a very nice boudoir it was too. Scripps2 would like to have such a boudoir in Scripps Towers.

So I agree with the superlatives that have been lavished on this production. Is it perfect? No, of course not. But is it better than anything that I've seen? Bet your arse.

Updated On: 10/29/17 at 05:34 PM

I agree, it definitely was the best production. I still prefer Jan Maxwell's Phyllis and no one can touch Danny Burstein's Buddy for me but man was this production beautiful. Imelda's Losing My Mind was incredible and Tracie Bennett's I'm Still Here was the highlight for me. Just incredible. The show still has a lot of boring bits to me; it takes a good 20 minutes to get going and so much seems slow and unnecessary. So much faff. But I think that's Follies in any incarnation. Not one of my favorite shows but this production really is beautiful.

Well, that's why I mentioned DAMN YANKEES- I've always been fond of the song, "Two Lost Soles".

Updated On: 10/30/17 at 08:55 PM

Thrilled to see that Joanna Riding is replacing Imelda Staunton as Sally. Frankly, I thought Joanna should have been cast when the production was first announced.

And this will be something of a 'real' reunion for she and Janie Dee who is playing Phyllis. Twenty-five years ago, they both won Olivier Awards for playing Julie and Carrie in CAROUSEL at the National.