The Official Kennedy Center FOLLIES Thread- Page 11

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 1:49am

I think that AH PAREE is not as appreciated as other numbers in the show because even back during the original run the idea of the comedic French chanteuse was not well remembered or even known in the US. They sang rowdy, naughty simple songs about how sexy Paris is. Sondheim, of course, made the song a verbal challenge by commenting and exageratting the rhymes and references, "ruins of Rome, igloos of Nome" and if French is your first language, good luck with that. But I believe the author, composer, directors and choreographers were setting the show up here. Here's what you're gonna see tonight, examples of the personalities and acts that were these people's lives. When RAIN ON THE ROOF, AH PAREE and BROADWAY BABY end up in what the kids today would call a mash up, we as an audience say, whoa, what just happened? The songs coming together say, the sounds and visions are indeed "being blurred", also setting up how the scenes between the young and old central characters will mash and collide. It's a creative way to set the tone and mood of the whole piece. The thing I look forward to the most in seeing this production is the difference in myself when I saw it in my foolish youth and how I see the world now.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 3:19am

In the event this may transfer, I vote for PJ directing Elaine Paige's number and drilling the lyrics into her. Just amazing!

[wickedfan11]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 8:07am

Who signs at the stage door after matinees?

[lizabombs]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 9:30am

I've always wondered, actually, why the trio of songs at the beginning -- "Rain on the Roof/Ah Paris/Broadway Baby" -- seem to be written differently than the other pastiche songs. If you look at the lyrics, most of the other pastiche songs start off as old-time Follies numbers, but then halfway through switch to something else entirely. Think of "Beautiful Girls." After the intro, and the parade of ladies, the lyrics are clearly written to be old characters looking back on the past, not lyrics literally from the past: "Beauty can't be hindered/From taking its toll." Now, clearly those weren't the lyrics when Roscoe sang "Beautiful Girls" in the show's fictional Follies, right? And "Who's That Woman?": "The vision's getting blurred/Isn't that absurd?" In "I'm Still Here," obviously, the lyrics about being called a pinko and commie tool can't be from Carlotta's original Follies number, right? By contrast, the trio of songs (and even "One More Kiss") could have been written in the '30s and '40s without one change. Has anyone read Sondheim explain why he chose to do this?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 11:49am

Thank you, givendo. I offer my services to Elaine and any other Carlotta gratis and with no expectation of credit. I just want the number performed well with no flubs.

And lizabombs--you have hit on the essential question of Follies: Who are they singing to: themselves? the people at the party? the Follies audiences they remember in their minds?

I personally do NOT think "I'm Still Here" should be sung to the people at the party. I think that makes is small.

And there is a double-meaning to "Beauty can't be hindered from taking its toll": The first is the one you are hearing: "Beauty fades." The second is determined the next line: "You may lose control. / Faced with such Loreleis, / What man can moralize?"

In other words, "Beauty can't be stopped from affecting YOU, Mister-Tired-Business-Man-Audience-Member. You may be aroused by these beautiful girls, despite your feeling above it all."

So, yes, Roscoe COULD have sung those lyrics in the real Follies. It was a common point made in Irving Berlin-type opening numbers to Ziegfeld shows: These girls are so gorgeous, you may lose yourself to them.

That's what makes the show (and Sondheim!) so rich and wonderful. It operates on so many levels. Too many levels for 1971.

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 5:06pm

Just saw the matinee! There is a lot to love, but it's not a perfect production. I have now come to terms with the fact that there will never be a perfect production of the this amazing musical.
First off, this is NOT the original book. It IS the encores book, which is better than the Roundabout book. But it's still not as powerful as the original.
Cast is very good. Peters is still doing some Desiree, but her singing was nearly perfect, though she cracked slightly on the final note of Buddy's Eyes.
Maxwell commanded the stage with comedy and emotions. Raines's breakdown did the job. And Burstein effectively worked his shtick into Buddy's Blues.
Paige messed up the ending of "the song" but it was still a fierce interpretation of the song.
Lavin's Broadway Baby was pretty amazing! Though I miss the montage ending.

They are using the truncated The Right Girl, and there was no pause for applause, which left me cold.
I don't get all the fuss over the Loveland set. I think it could be much improved if there is a transfer.

Will be seeing the evening show too. More thoughts later.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 5:30pm

Thanks for that Ljay.

Very interesting to note it's not the original book.

Looking forward to more thoughts later.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 6:00pm

Also saw the matinee today - and sorry kids, I'm afraid I can't join the parade on this one. Aside from some very nice performances and a fabulous orchestra, this is on the whole an uninspired production plagued by the same flat, literal minded concept and direction that plagued the Roundabout revival.

A few positives - the four leads are all solid, with especial kudos going to, yes the goddess Jan Maxwell and Bernadette Peters who if not completely at home in this role is incapable of not shining moments of truthful insight into any of her performances.

The costumes for the showgirl Ghosts are stunning - maybe topping Flossie's designs of the original.

What musical theatre delight in hearing this score played by a such a full, fabulous orchestra. Is there even a theatre in the city that could still house that many musicians?

But given the resources, and the budget, this should have been a FOLLIES for the ages and its not. And I have to place the blame at the feet of Eric Schaeffer, who has just made an err in judgement in conceiving, like Matthew Warchus, FOLLIES as a literal reunion set in a literal theatre rather than the impressionistic landscape of the emotional mind Bennett, Price and Goldman created breathtakingly in the original.

Instead of Aronson's fascinating multilayered fan of platforms and endless black corridors, Schaeffer's production is first off landlocked in a tight boxed in theatre set - complete with brick back wall and piles of realistic rubble. If the show had been staged in the Opera House, perhaps this wouldn't have presented such a lumbering obstacle. Entrances are either stage right or stage left - no magic - no surprise. There are three (flat) levels on the back wall, poorly utilized (mostly reserved for the showgirl ghosts who are stuck hanging out there the entire evening).

But there is nothing haunting about Schaeffer's vision here. In his pursuit for reality, Schaeffer eschews all surrealistic beauty - all double layered subtext of the 'we' haunted by the ghosts of our ever livingt past. Unlike Bennett's brilliant staging, the ghosts of the party guests are barely even present. For those of you unfamiliar with Prince's concept, each of the women in that production had a ghost counter part that shadowed, mirrored, commented - ever attached to their still living, breathing, decaying modern selves. Except for a brief turn in "Who's That Woman" (completely uninspired here - enter right, exit left) the ghosts of the past are generic moths hanging from the rafters.

Its a major part of the original concept that in excising, removes almost instantly and fussily a lot of the magic in the construction of the evening -relegating the dialogue to a seemingly unlinked and unfulfilling episode of randomly connected one liners.

As ljay mentions, this production does indeed use the Encores script - which removes some of the most insightful lines from the original, a problem made greater here because of the lack of subtextual depth in this literal interpretation.

But nothing here is given the kind of detail work, FOLLIES needs to haunt its audiences. The costumes of the returning party guests look like they did a run at TJ MAX. With the exception of Jan Maxwell's stunning gold hourglass, none of what they are wearing say anything about who these characters are or have become. Peters looks lovely in her red dress. She should wear it to the after party, but its not an organic fit for the character of Sally.

Ditto - Jan Maxwell's "Lucy and Jessie" dress that is oddly unflattering on her (and it must be noted as wonderful an actress as Miss Maxwell is, she would have been much better served by the non dancing"Ah, But Underneath" -

She's not especially helped by a Loveland set that consists of three proscenium arches of tissue flowers. Not exactly a transporting experience.

Its a shame because a lot of the talent on stage here are nearly ideal for these roles. Elaine Paige (who did get through "Im Still Here" without flubbing the lyrics) is a glamourous Carlotta. Linda Lavin (a little too glamourous as Hattie) knocks "Broadway Baby" out of the park. Danny Burstein is a likable Buddy (though again, "The Right Girl" really does require a dancer or there is no there-there) and Ron Raines sings like the ghost of Alfred Drake as Ben. The four younger counterparts are eerie in their likenesses.

Some good things for certain - but not good enough. Perhaps my standards for FOLLIES are too high and Im too haunted by what I know about the original production -- but this production at the Kennedy Center should have been more.




Updated On: 5/14/11 at 06:00 PM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 6:09pm

I was also at the matinee (and also going back tonight).

This was my first time seeing a full production of this show- I had only ever seen the Encores concert before.

Here are my (scattered) thoughts:

Jan Maxwell will not have to be taking anyone's Tony and putting it in her bag if this transfers. What an absolutely perfect performance. I can't think of another working actress right now that moves as seamlessly between comedy, drama, musicals, and plays. She's just outstanding here- at times bitchy and at times heart-breaking.

I also was pleasantly surprised by Ron Raines who makes a strong Ben. Nice voice, big presence, and did well in the dramatic scenes.

Terri White and Linda Lacin shined in their small roles. Elaine Page's role is essentially about one song and she nails it.

Bernadette was quite good, but she's not going to win many converts with this performance. She has tones down the mugging but it's still there. I was actually very much reminded of her Night Music performance because in that show she did a lot of mugging and then threw it all away and delivered a gorgeous Send in the Clowns. She does the same thing here with Losing My Mind which is by far her best number (she struggled with the end of Buddy's Eyes today).

Of the four leads, I was least impressed with Danny Burstein, who does a lot of his standard "schtick" though he does a great job with his scene in act 2.

I think there's the makings of a really great production here, especially if Schaeffer can reign Bernadette in. I definitely enjoyed myself.

On a slightly related note, I am I looooooove with the Kennedy Center and this neighborhood of DC. Gorgeous venue and charming neighborhood. I'd love to come back here again!
Updated On: 5/14/11 at 06:09 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 6:13pm

I was also underwhelmed by the "Who's That Woman" choreography. I preferred at Encores!
As MB said, I too missed seeing the younger ghosts in the pastiche numbers.
Lavin was definitely a bit too glamorous/sexy, but my god can that woman sell a number.
I completely agree that Maxwell should be performing "Ah, But Underneath." Her dancing is too wooden here.
And i'll say it again, the Loveland set/drops are a total disappointment.

Updated On: 5/14/11 at 06:13 PM

[wickedfan11]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 6:14pm

ljay- Did you go to the stage door?

[JMVR]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 6:17pm

aasjb4ever, there were about fifteen people at the stage door. You can make it without rushing. Most performers just take a leisurely walk across the street to The Watergate, so unlike NY, they are not rushing out the stage door. BP did have a car waiting but since again, unlike NYC the car is not on the street taking up one lane but in the Kennedy Center's huge motor lobby, she was in no particular hurry. Good luck!

[morosco]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 6:21pm

I would love to have seen what Tommy Tune could have done with this show.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 6:23pm

I was there this afternoon as well. It was my first exposure to Follies (with the exception of knowing a couple of songs). To start off, I thought the costumes were absolutely exquisite and the orchestra played to perfection.

As I had nothing to compare it to, I really liked the production a lot. I realize what the Act 2 Loveland sequence is all about, but at the same time it kind of took me out of the moment.

To the person who asked about who came out after the matinee: Linda Lavin, Susan Watson, Elaine Paige, Florence Lacey, Terri White, Danny Burstein were the leads I recognized.

Updated On: 5/15/11 at 06:23 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 6:29pm

I would be shocked if this production actually transferred ljay. Aside from the astronomical costs required to do so (with a very limited audience appeal) - I honestly don't think its good enough. If Sondheim and Goldman's widow nixed a transfer of the Papermill Production which was leagues better, I can't imagine they would let this one come in.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 9:15pm

Michael Bennett, I have always respected your opinion--and still do, very much. I guess we just disagree on this one. I do appreciate your insights though, so thank you for sharing your knowledge and perspective.

I just can't wait to see this production again!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 9:22pm

I was told Broadway contracts were already drawn up/signed before the production started. Who knows what'll happen though.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 11:29pm

Goddamnit.

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 11:39pm

^ To which part, PJ?

Has anyone heard anything about a possible further extension at KC?

[darreyl102]

Posted: 5/15/11 at 3:46am

How long did it take for everyone to come out- Specifically Bernadette and Elaine ? How crowded was it? and also were they posing for pictures?

[Simon4]

Posted: 5/15/11 at 8:21am

Michael Bennett, I enjoyed this production much more than you did, probably because I didn't have the original production in my mind as a reference point. However, almost everything you say does accurately describe the show I saw last Saturday. The more I reflect on the show, and the more I read about the 1971 production, the more I recognize the shortcomings of the KC production in overall direction, staging, and design.

[aasjb4ever]

Posted: 5/15/11 at 10:04am

What a night. Overall, a very solid production (the first one I've seen in person), with some minor things here and there.

I was so happy to hear this score that's been near to my heart played by a live orchestra in such an intimate venue.

Scattered thoughts:

Jan Maxwell's performance is a master class in a tortured character. If it transfers, the tony is hers, no question. Side note, I didn't know her voice was that high. Hmm.

Bernadette was spectacular, and her "Losing My Mind" had me in tears. Her "In Buddy's Eyes" was a little weak, but she didn't seem to be struggling to be getting the notes out.

Danny Burstein gave a standout performance, and again, his Tony should just be engraved now.

Ron Raines was a nice surprise, his belt could have leveled the theatre.

Follies women: Terri White...oh my what a voice in her! Jesus. Linda delivered Broadway Baby very well, but as others have said was a little too sexy. Elaine was fine, but "I'm Still Here" seemed a little flat and didn't really go anywhere. Régine...I couldn't understand a word she said, even when she was standing inches from me at the stage door.

I was thrilled to see a Derek McLane set, and it worked great for the first 3/4 of the show, but the Loveland set looked tacky. The costumes were stunning. Great job, Gregg Barnes. Of the videos of previous productions I've seen, Schaeffer's direction was the weakest, but I still loved his production.

A very entertaining and thought-provoking production of one of my favorite musicals.

Stage door comments: I met everyone except for Jan Maxwell and Ron Raines, and everyone was very gracious and signed and posed for pictures.
Updated On: 5/15/11 at 10:04 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/15/11 at 10:25am

I'm seeing it next Sunday. I've been very excited by the enthusiasm expressed by the posters in this thread, but what I look for in a Follies--what I hope for, what I pray for--is what Michael Bennett (whose taste I not only trust but revere) found lacking.

The reunion in Follies should is no more literal than the birthday party in Company. There should be ambiguity, mystery, what MB calls surrealism.

To paraphrase Blanche Du Bois, "I don't want realism. I want MAGIC."

Miss P, I will go next Sunday with an open mind. Maybe it's better that my expectations have just been lowered a bit.

And ljay, if I am disappointed, I promise not to rain on everybody's enthusiasm for the revival, as I did in the West Side Story threads. Deep down in my hardened heart, I am happy these revivals are creating fans. I just wish they were better.

But then again, I wish that the 1980 West Side revival had been better, and I wish that the 1971 Follies book had been better.

"I wish a lot of things..."

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/15/11 at 10:33am

Sadly, I don't think there can never be a perfect FOLLIES. The book or the direction or something will always keep it from being the perfect musical people want it to be and idealize it as. But how can that happen when it was never perfect to begin with?
Updated On: 5/15/11 at 10:33 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/15/11 at 10:50am

Word.