The Official Kennedy Center FOLLIES Thread- Page 17

[binau]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 8:04pm

[broadwaydanwi]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 8:13pm

Here's a picture of the dress Dorothy Collins wore when she recreated Sally in 1977 for Milwaukee's Melody Top Theatre.

[binau]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 8:56pm

FOLLIES is a show I find difficult to 'get'.

Just wondering, is there meant to be any kind of pun with "Morning" and "Mourning" in "Too many mornings?" I know this might be obvious..

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 9:46pm

PalJoey the batteries in my camera just died, I'll have to take a photo tomorrow.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 10:34pm

I don't even understand why there's so much attention being focused on the dress!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 10:39pm

-------> "I'm talkin' to YOU, sir!"

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 10:51pm

The gowns on the ghosts are so breath-taking I didn't even notice what anyone else was wearing! I could not take my eyes off them!

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 11:05pm

Looking back at some of the footage of the Papermill production it actually looks like some of the showgirl costumes in the Loveland segment were borrowed for the DC production (both were designed by Gregg Barnes)

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 11:28pm

awesome danny, think about it: how could Sally wear a green dress when her actual lyric is "I SHOULD have worn green; I wore green the last time."

Just to clarify, I didn't say her dress should be green. The point I was trying to make was that if Sally chose her dress with Ben in mind, she would have chosen green, so, clearly, she didn't choose that dress in order to impress Ben.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 5/21/11 at 11:32pm

It's important to me that Sally's costumes evoke something meaningful about the character rather than the year "1971." 1941 is what everyone in the show is focused on: the past in 1971, not the past NOW!

In 1971, it was "contemporary." And that's what it should be to us in 2011. The audience shouldn't be thinking, "Ah! That's what it must have been like in 1971." They should be thinking about 1941. If they are considering FOLLIES a drama about "the early 1970's and what it was like to be young back then," the show is a failure.

All I could think of was what it was like for these characters to be young or younger, the glory of that distant era in the "theatre" of the day and how sad life is!

On that joyous note...

[Katurian2]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 1:34am

I also think that a big amount of how Sally's dress works in this production is its context with what everyone else is wearing. Most of the other ladies have these gorgeous or gorgeously gaudy and over the top gowns on, so Sally looks quite plain in comparison. If you aren't looking at the whole line up of the women onstage, you aren't getting how it fully works.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 1:50am

I agree with you, Katurian.

[Katia2]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 2:02am

I saw this last Saturday, the fourteenth. I don't have much experience with Follies-- the only production I'd really seen was the Encores! one, I only saw the original and Paper Mill productions online.

I was kind of upset that it wasn't very dreamlike, somehowheld back the tears, but I think the show lost something there. Even just thinking about the show is more fun when it's in the context of this otherly, subconscious world, let alone actually experiencing it. Wasn't a huge fan of the direction. Do directors ever change conception very much when switching to Broadway?
The costumes were fantastic, jaw dropped at the Loveland costumes (though the set was lacking to say the least...), but didn't like Peter's red dress. Just didn't seem right for Sally, and someone who was seeing it for the first time was mildly confused (though you have to question the wit of someone whose entire conception of characters is thrown off by "BUT I THOUGHT PHYLLIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE HOT ONE").
Was mainly overwhelmed by Maxwell's being a goddess. I hope this transfers to Broadway just so she can get a Tony for this. As for Bernadette, though she had clearly picked up on all of the nuances of the character, it wasn't necessary for her to turn each song into a series of moments or something-- just came off as mannered.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 4:20am

"it appears that the Follies dancer next to Alexis Smith is either in a ballet slipper or bare foot. Would you happen to know if this was common in the original production? The other dancer's look like they have tap shoes on."

I've seen that photograph too and wondered the same thing. It does look very odd.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 9:48am

BUDDY (Singing up to the flies)

Hey, up there!
Way up there!
Whaddya say up there?

Speaking, strains of music flowing through the speech)

I see it all.
It's like a movie in my head that plays and plays.
Only it isn't just the bad things I remember.
It's the whole damn show."

===

For me, it's like a surreal double-exposure today. Not only am I revisiting the Follies I was obsessed with when I was 15, which was forty years ago...I'm also revisiting the Kennedy Center itself, after having worked here thirty-two years. The Opera House at the Kennedy Center was the third of three out-of-town-tryout locations for my one and only Broadway show.

And so for me, the Kennedy Center is haunted by my own ghosts: friends from the cast of West Side Story who died of AIDS and the men and women I got to work with: Reed, Brian, Richard. Oliver. Ruthie, Lee, Tommy. Jerry, Lenny. And now Arthur.

So it isn't just the bad things I'm remembering today. It's TWO whole damn shows.

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 4:45pm

miss pennywise, your point leaves me a little confused.

"It's important to me that Sally's costumes evoke something meaningful about the character rather than the year "1971." 1941 is what everyone in the show is focused on: the past in 1971, not the past NOW!

"In 1971, it was "contemporary." And that's what it should be to us in 2011. The audience shouldn't be thinking, "Ah! That's what it must have been like in 1971." They should be thinking about 1941. "

Respectfully, au contraire. The audience should understand as soon as the first party goers arrive at the theater that the "present" for this show is very specifically 1971. If they don't read that clearly and consistently, then how on earth will they make sense of Phyllis and Sally's memories of 1941 and the other decades of the Follies girls' youths that their sashes proclaim. You shouldn't have to read the playbill to deduce we're in 1971. You should understand it effortlessly from costume, makeup and hair choices the designers have made. One look at the original production will show you choice after choice which is perfect for the characters AND perfect for 1971.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 5:46pm

On the bus back to New York after a lovely post-show encounter with Jan Maxwell, on her way back to her hotel between the matinee and the evening, unglamorously dressed in her wig cap (looking like a stocking stretched over her head) and a big pair of sunglasses, obviously not expecting to see fans.

We complimented her (quite sincerely) on her performance and the production, and I gallantly offered NOT to take a cellphone picture of her looking that way.

All in all, it wasn't bad. It wan't as good as Encores, wasn't as bad as the Roundabout, probably was equal to Paper Mill.

The leads and their younger counterparts were good, Bernadette's dress was a stupid design/character choice, and the direction and choreography were conventional, at best, marked by a wealth of missed opportunities, all of which involve the ghosts and the more complex level on which the score and script operate.

A very simple one-sentence test should be administered to all potential directors and choreographers attempting Follies. They should be asked "Can ghosts see people and can people see ghosts?"

If they answer anything like "Of course not!" they should not be allowed anywhere near Follies. That would have immediately disqualified the directors and choreographers of both this production and the Roundabout, and the world would be a better place.

if they answer something like, "Well, sometimes they can and sometimes they can't, like they can when they become aware of their self-deceptions," then that director or choreographer should be given a first-class production immediately.

Ah well. Elaine Paige's "I'm Still Here" was the surprise delight for me, even if the plodding unimaginative direction had her deliver the song to a bevy of beautiful chorus boys. Any diva who can make me take my eyes of John Carroll deserves to deliver her number to the audience.

Was it ever real? Did I ever love the show that much? Did I ever feel so happy then?

The Follies you'll all never see...who remembers that?

Updated On: 5/6/12 at 05:46 PM

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 6:32pm

charlesguitteau...I'm not saying we shouldn't know it's 1971. (We do. That point is made clear.) What I'm saying is that this show is not "about" the 70s. That's all.

[DeNada]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 6:56pm

Do you think it's possible to at least equal the original production? Obviously the stage spectacle can't be replicated (presumably), but surely it MUST be possible to do something that isn't the Prince/Bennett staging but still good?

I guess the big league directors doing this show are being so careful NOT to copy the original, to try and put their own stamp on it or whatever, and it just doesn't seem to work.

Lord knows, if I were a director, the expectations of Follies fans would be hard to live up to.

This production has been the "tipping point" for me to actually find out something about Follies (this show and Pacific Overtures are the only major Sondheims I don't really know at all). It has a fascinating history, clearly, but a seemingly insurmountable legacy.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 7:18pm

PJ,

I don't really care what you thought of the show. All I really want to know is...

did you buy the pillow?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 8:06pm

You mean you missed the picture of Miss Holly lying next to her new pillow earlier in this thread?

I bought it by mail order in advance.

DeNada: At this point, all I ask is that the director and choreographer use the ghosts with a high level of magic and mystery. It's not rocket science. It's all there in he stage directions of the original published script.

And if you want to learn about the original, read Ted Chapin's book and look at the videos in the links in the thread called Follies 1971 Video Footage. I just bumped it to Page 1 for you.

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 8:21pm

Reviews!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/peter-marks-reviews-kennedy-centers-revival-of-sondheims-follies/2011/05/22/AFNZ9M9G_story.html

www.theatermania.com/new-york/news/05-2011/follies_37429.html

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 9:48pm

Variety is a big rave.

Considering this "Follies" revival's magical combination of ingredients, and the rarity of such a powerhouse production, Broadway-related discussions are certain to focus more on when than if.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117945292?refCatId=33
Updated On: 5/22/11 at 09:48 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 9:55pm

From Variety - Maxwell's Phyllis plays the ultimate "cougar,"

Seriously?

[Mamie]

Posted: 5/22/11 at 10:08pm

I loved what he (Washington Post) had to say about Danny Burstein's performance. I don't know if this show will ever get to NY but I'm sure at this rate that he has the Helen Hayes award wrapped up.

"Do you think it's possible to at least equal the original production? Obviously the stage spectacle can't be replicated (presumably), but surely it MUST be possible to do something that isn't the Prince/Bennett staging but still good? "

DeNada - I'm not a member of the camp that thinks it ought to be just like the original. Some of the folks on this thread who did see the original will never be happy with anything that mars their now-perfect memory. Characters must be EXACTLY as originally drawn, each step in each dance must copy the original, and the staging must present the same aura and emotion as that rendered the first time they saw it.

I can sympathize with this because I experienced the PERFECT "Hair" in 1968 and refused to see the recent revival, no matter how much it was praised, because I knew it couldn't possibly equal that early experience for me. But if you haven't got your brain locked on that exact image from 1971, then you are free to form your own 'perfect' "Follies" experience. (Of course Sally's red dress is right. In fact - it's perfect! Mentally Sally has left her hum drum housewife past and she's now replaced Phyllis as Ben's glamorous wife! Can't everybody see that? Certainly Buddy could! She would never show up in one of her own dresses)

Form your own opinions of this show. This is a terrific production - PARTICULARLY for someone who's never seen it before. I can only guarantee that if you're trying to recapture your original Follies experience, you will be disappointed. It's inevitable.

Updated On: 5/22/11 at 10:08 PM