Possible FOLLIES revival?- Page 2

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 10:36am

The Chicago characters are actually MORE "likable" than the Follies charcters--they are comic murdereses, and you like them on a superficial level. You root for them to "get away with murder."

Follies asks you to take its characters seriously. As such, the fact that Ben and Buddy and Sally and Phyllis have made messes of their lives is inherently LESS involving than it might have been if, say, Phyllis and Sally arrived at the reunion having just shot Ben and Buddy.

("What, Phyl, you too?" "I think he's dead, Sally, but to tell you the truth, I couldn't tell the difference.")

Updated On: 2/10/07 at 10:36 AM

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 10:40am

Although it would be nice. I feel like there would be a lot of scheduling conflicts with the current cast.

[D2]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 10:56am

Pal Joey: Yes, but in 1975 CHICAGO was considered cold, heartless and alienating and there was some distaste about rooting for them to get away with murder. That changed as society changed. As I said, I don't disagree with anything that has been said about FOLLIES. It probably will never strike a chord with the general public in the way CHICAGO has managed to do with its dumbed down revival. Phyllis, Ben, Sally, Buddy et al, for all their theatricality, are not "larger than life" in the way that Roxie, Velma, Billy etc. are, and their problems may hit too close to home to make an average theatergoer comfortable.

But my original point was that it was thought that CHICAGO wouldn't succeed in revival, and it has. That's all.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 10:59am

Scheduling conficts and the fact that many of the most praised performers in this production are elderly and don't live in New York. I wouldn't be surprised if, after the great reviews, there is some chatter about transferring the production - this seems to happen with almost every Encores production that gets great reviews - but it just doesn't make sense.

Best possible scenario - and this is a stretch too - is that the raves convince one of the studios to let Marshall and Condon go forward with their talked about movie version.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 11:15am

Film it in an actual theater about to be demolished would give it a sense of realism & would negate the need of a set for the theater

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 11:21am

Most theatres in the U.S. - the "age" of the theatre depicted in FOLLIES now have protected landmark status - I doubt any of them are going to be torn down soon.

But if they want to tear down the Marriott Marquis for a movie of FOLLIES, I won't complain...

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 11:23am

Downtown flushing - The old RKO Keiths theater is a prime candidate.

in addition, NYC & other major cities have old aabandoned theaters

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 11:31am

Well they aren't abandoned. Somebody owns them. Most are in disrepair because the owners don't have 50 million dollars to renovate them - but they can't be demolished, so they just have to sit there.

It probably wouldn't be hard to find a decaying theatre to film the movie in - but the technical demands of making a film would probably make it too dangerous - rotted floors and walls that wouldn't be able to support heavy camera equipment and cranes.

Plus, I would assume you have to show the theatre when it was still "alive" for the flash back sequences.

Even if they kept a movie of FOLLIES set in a "decaying theatre" - Im reasonably positive they would have to build a set.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 12:20pm

The Kings theater in Brooklyn is absolutely incredible inside.
Ive been inside.
They just LEFT one day
Concession was left, dining tables were left set, handrails, jewels, furnishings, all there.
covered under years of dust, it was amazing.

And there's a stream that flows beneath the theater, which made it one of the first theaters to have a semblance of "air conditioning" (its always where the Phantom lives...)

Sorry about the thread jack, just thought you'd like to know

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 12:39pm

Re The Keiths

It is owned by a developer & it is sitting there tied up with haggling re the local community board. They are now removing asbestos

The theater has been sitting there for 20 plus years. Thanks to a democratic city council & borough president, they turned down landmark designation for all areas except the lobby. Figure that one out. It has been gutted inside by the than owner who fled after being involved with the regular mafia & Chinese mafia. His whereabouts are unknown . Instead of a beautifully restored theater you have a wreck generating zero dollars for the city & being a drain on the neighborhood

Re The Kings

In its day, it was an eyepoppingy georgeous theater. It had 4000 plus seats which was not the norm for a local house . It was one of the 5 Loews wonder theaters. The wonder is they are still standing. Loews sold it to new owners who had the bad luck of showing Exorcist 2 as its first picture. It closed soon after.Parts of it can be seen in the movie Sleepers

Magic Johnson wanted to turn it into a mutiplex years ago but because the way it is configured inside (huge orchestra & shallow horse shaped balcony) he dropped the idea. It is , regrettibly, a wreck inside

Either of these would fit the bill & there are ample pictures of what each looked like in its heyday. The keiths was atmospheric ( blue velvet ceiling, twinkling lights to simulate stars & a cloud machine to project clouds rolling by). The effect was that you were watching a movie outside under the stars

Believe me some have been abandoned by their owners & the city sometimes takes them over for back taxes

Updated On: 2/10/07 at 12:39 PM

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 1:25pm

Magic Johnson exploited an entire community with the Jewel theater, Im glad he didn't get his hands on the Kings.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 1:44pm

Disagree

Had he completed what he wanted to do, at least part of the theater would have been saved & the rest would have been repaired

Right now, it is only a matter of time before it comes down. There is simply to much water damage . I have seen pictures of what it looks like now. The paintings on either side wall are totally gone & there is massive water damage in the auditorium & the plaster has been bleached white. I doubt Magic could have done more damage

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 3:09pm

He may have saved the theater (which I think is a landmark now, but I could be wrong)
but he would have destroyed a community through exploitation.

I think the people are more important than the building, just my opinion

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 5:37pm

You guys threadjack like you've known each other for YEARS...

Off to Follies!