Possible FOLLIES revival?

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 3:32am

As we all know, Follies seems to be doing really well at Encores! and it got me thinking, could there possibly be a revival of this production on broadway soon? I'm thinking along the lines of how the Chicago revival went from an Encores! revival to a broadway revival. Do you think it could or will possibly happen?

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 3:39am

The main reason Follies is doing so well at Encores! it's because it is playing for a limited number of performances and it has stars that would not committ to do any sort of long run. The last revival was in 2001 and it was very much criticized, I doubt we'll see a Broadway revival of the show in the next decade.

[Julian2]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 3:47am

Although, most likely, this production will be preserved in the Theatre on Film and Tape archive. Silver Lining.

[scott68]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 4:57am

Personally I'd be thrilled, but I can't imagine it would ever seem (or be, really) economically feasible. I just have my fingers crossed that the rumors that Bill Condon had his eye on it for his next movie-musical project might be true...

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 6:24am

Follies has always been a difficult show. They're no way they can do a paired down staging (Roundabout's revival proved that). It's an extremly expensive show to produce and has always been a money loser in long-term engagements.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 6:39am

As much as I would love to se it live again, I doubt it. The Papermill production, arguably one of the best looking revivals, was supposed to come to Bway, but there were contract issues (as I understand).

You could do a stripped down production, but you'd have to pay a little more attention to colour and form. Thats where Roundabout screwed up: it was almost like every member of the design team worked in solitary, because some of the colour work (like the quartete) was so jarring as to be unwatchable.

[DryMartini]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 8:49am

Possible Follies revival? Yes, please!

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 9:07am

SeanMartin-
The contract issues would be Weidman's wife. For two reasons:
1) Dislike for some ensemble members
2) By the time the Papermill production was going, and rumor of it's transfer started, Roundabout began sniffing. Roundabout offered more money, and we know how that turns out.

Oh well.

[madbrian]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 9:07am

For the reasons mentioned above, this is a difficult show to do well. The recent Broadway revival didn't do the material justice, and the outstanding Papermill production showed what could be done with a strong cast for a short run. I think it has possibilities for an outstanding artistic (if not commercially attractive) film.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 9:10am

madbrian-
There was originally going to be a big movie (done by MGM, I think), that was going to be a reunion with the old Hollywood musicals, with songs from those shows, in place of the "Loveland" section. Joan Crawford was to play Carlotta!

(My details on the film are kinda sketchy, Margo, or MB, or B12B, know anymore?)

[WOSQ]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 9:57am

For Follies to work, it must have spectacle and no production since the initial Broadway production has given real spectacle. Paper Mill came closest, but the set had no personality and if anything, Boris Aronson's scenery for the original was like a character itself.

In the original production there were 65 people onstage and you need that many to make the ensemble numbers work and to have enough bodies to make it look like a party.

Who's That Woman used 8 young dancers and 7 older counterparts. A space was left for one of the girls who had died. It is little things like that that the audience can't get if there are 4 young and 3 older.

Posted: 2/9/07 at 11:10am

After seeing this magnificent production, i would love for a revival but only with that aast, save a few people though. Great show, but I can see the dificulties in making profitable, you would have to have three big bway names in the three main female roles, and even then it seems risky.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 11:14am

No way. There is such a limited audience for FOLLIES that even with all the fans of the production seeing the Encores! production multiple times, they still can't sell it out completely.

And most of the cast can't/won't sign on for an extension. Take it as a beautiful moment: not every production with theatrical magic makes sense to transfer.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 11:16am

I dont know what the problem people had with the Roundabout production, I adored it.

Granted, I had never seen any other production, but I thought it was excellent with excellent performances.

Lots of people seem obsessed with sets here. Id rather see good singing with no set.

Who cares about the stairs? Personally, I think its not necessary. Im not the hugest Sondheim fan in the world, but Follies and its music is good enough to be done on a bare stage, in my opinion.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 1:20pm

Rob Marshall was there last night. It'd be great if he reunited with Condon for a Follies film.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 3:05pm

The only problem with the Roundabout production was that it got everything wrong.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 3:17pm

PalJoey,

With all due respect, that answer to my question contains no real information.

And whatever they got "wrong" I had an incredibly enjoyable evening, from the moment I saw the flashlight right through Blythe Danner's Jekyll and Hyde inspired Lucy and Jessie and beyond.

Polly Bergen was amazing, as was the entire cast, especially Judy Ivey and the previously mentioned Danner.

I wish they had recorded it iin it's entirety. I think it was around the same time that Fynsworth was releasing those full recordings of Copenhagen and Beyond Therapy and I wished they had done the same thing with Follies.

I've always wanted to hear the BBC radio presentation.

[madlibrarian]

Posted: 2/9/07 at 6:34pm

Husk_charmer, what's this about Weidman? Isn't the Follies book by Goldman? Is that what you meant? Was Weidman involved? Who's Weidman? Etc. Details, please.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 7:26am

The eternal FOLLIES problem: The score is as brilliant as the book is banal.

Updated On: 2/10/07 at 07:26 AM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 8:15am

>> Who's That Woman used 8 young dancers and 7 older counterparts. A space was left for one of the girls who had died

Sorry, no. This was an idea that Prince and Bennett talked about, but they could never figure out a way to make it communicate to the audience, so they left both lines intact. Look at the production photos: both lines are complete.

>> Lots of people seem obsessed with sets here.

You had to see the original to understand. Aaroson's work was truly amazing, a constantly shifting unit set that took you all over the place, capable of making the stage huge or shuttering it down to a tiny little area -- and when we went into the LOVELAND sequence, it was like a paint box suddenly exploded on the stage. The physical production was one of the most remarkable things about it, and it was one of the key things that Roundabout got hopelessly wrong. The revival tried to skimp on something that -- if youre doing FOLLIES anyway -- you CANT skimp on. They simplified instead of distilled, and it showed. And, as I noted, it was like every member of the design team worked in solitary: LOVELAND has all this magenta in the set, and what's everyone wearing? Bright, pure, primary colours. There was no connection between the set and the costumes, and it ruined the moment.

>> The score is as brilliant as the book is banal

And the irony of that is that if you look at the subject matter in light of the title of the show, it's *supposed* to be banal. It's all about four people living small lives and thinking they;re more than they actually are... and I dont know how you capture that without making it banal. These people have to be frighteningly *ordinary* if the LOVELAND sequence is really going to work. And that's a tough one to work out.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 8:43am

Frank Rich said is his famous Merrily review that "to be a Sondheim fan is to have your heart broken regularly." (Or was that Pacific Overtures?)

The Follies book problems McZ is referring to are similar to the problems with Merrily We Roll Along: The essential story is of characters who do not engender the audience's sympathies, which makes the overall evening tedious, despite the brilliance of the writing/staging/performances/design etc.

By the old triple rubric of criticism--(1) "What was the artist's intention?" (3) "Was the artistic intentions worth attempting?" and (3) "How was that artistic intention carried out?"--both Follies and Merrily intend to tell the story of jaded, bitter and disappointed main characters.

It is possibly these stories are simply "not worth attempting," despite how brilliantly they were carried out.

No one loves Follies more than I (well, maybe Kringas does), but by the time you get to Loveland, you want to slap all 4 of them. That is the authors' intention, it is done perfectly...but, ultimately, was it worth doing?

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 8:52am

"And that's a tough one to work out."

I want to care about Ben, Sally, Phyllis and Buddy, but I never do. In every production of FOLLIES I've seen (admittedly not many) there was no chemistry between the couples, and without that, the show remains for me little more than a breathtaking string of dazzling specialty numbers.

Seeing FOLLIES made me want to re-visit COMPANY. Bobby fascinates me the way the FOLLIES foresome doesn't.

Updated On: 2/10/07 at 08:52 AM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 9:01am

For FOLLIES to work, all the stars and planets have to properly align. That happened with the original production, successful or not. Everything about the original production was perfect for the show, from Flo Klotz's assistants to the cast itself.

Read Everything Was Possible - not only the FOLLIES bible, but the book about the making of a show I've ever read. From reading that book alone, you could tell it was magical experience - one that could never be repeated.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 9:07am

>Who's That Woman used 8 young dancers and 7 older counterparts. A space was left for one of the girls who had died.<

I'm seeing statements like this all over the web. The above was Sondheim's idea for the number, but Bennett wasn't ever able to make that concept work. There's no "space" in Bennett's staging.

[D2]

Posted: 2/10/07 at 10:26am

I pretty much agree with all of you that a transfer/revival of FOLLIES won't happen and why. But I do want to point out that the original production of CHICAGO was large, lavish and dark, focusing on people who are also not inherently likable, and it was largely considered to be unrevivable unless done in it's original trappings and even then only the theater cognescenti would really care. Then Encores brought it back, despite many raised eyebrows as to it's suitability for their mission. And we all know the result.

In no way do I think the same will happen with FOLLIES, as per the reasons stated in previous posts. But after that review in the Times and all the buzz, it does seem a shame that at least a limited transfer/extension can't happen. But then, that's the
nature of theater. "It burns bright, and then it is gone."