Posted: 11/18/25 at 12:22pm
Its 1981 New York premiere was a disaster but this told-in-reverse musical became a Tony award-winning hit with Daniel Radcliffe. The film version is a tear-jerking joy
Posted: 11/18/25 at 2:45pm
I think it's weird to call a pro shot "the film version," but it is nice to see a show I always liked (and worked as a dresser on in a late '80's production) recieve strong accolades.
Posted: 11/18/25 at 2:56pm
I think Maria or Sonia Friedman described it as being edited more like a film so maybe less audience shots? I dunno.
Posted: 11/22/25 at 8:48pm
I suppose the original 1981 book will never be licensed, but I wish that could happen. The problems with the show were never with the book, and in fact, comparing the book (via the printer's proof that has leaked with Sondheim's corrections from a planned 1982 printing) with the current version, I think the original book is superior in almost every regard. I guess that Sondheim and Furth took the criticisms to heart and felt they had to start from the ground up--at least in terms of re-writing the book, but they should have realized the problems were entirely with the production itself--they threw the baby out with the bathwater. And it's not just losing the graduation framework. As Erick Neher said in his Hudson Review piece about the revival:
" I need to preface any analysis of Merrily We Roll Along with the declaration that I am in the sizable camp that believes that Sondheim and Furth’s revised version is maddeningly inferior to the original text. The major change is the elimination of the framing graduation scenes. Originally, the contemporary Frank, speaking to the young students, is forced by them to examine his past, delving ever deeper into the sources of his anomie. The title song, which recurs throughout the show as transitional music from year to (previous) year, is a deliberate provocation, a goad by the contemporary students to keep digging: “How did you get there from here?” they ask. “Which is the moment and where?” “How did you get to be you?” At the end of the original production, we finally arrive at young Frank’s high school graduation, and suddenly the moment is juxtaposed with the older Frank, still at his 25th anniversary, edified but devastated by the excavation of the past and forced to confront his younger, optimistic self. The layering of past and present is emotionally overwhelming and, not incidentally, central to the meaning of the show. All of this is eliminated in the revised version of the show. The title song is now not a motivating driver of the show’s backward trajectory, but rather a vaguely abstract expression of its theme by an unidentified chorus of random commentators. And the interstitial reprises have lost their pointed intensity and just feel like gauzy scene change music. The elimination of the framing device was not the only bad decision in the revised version. The role of Gussie, Frank’s second wife, was significantly expanded, turning a small, broadly portrayed character into a large, campy caricature. And in an attempt to make Frank more sympathetic, Sondheim provided him with a dreary song called “Growing Up,” which only makes the character seem more solipsistic than ever."
[. . .]
" The first scenes of Merrily have always been its most problematic, thanks to the backward chronology. Seeing disillusioned, jaded people at the beginning of a show is challenging: who are these unhappy characters, and why should we care about them? In the original version, the graduation scene depicts Frank at a moment of existential crisis, desperate to understand what went wrong. That feels relatable. In the revised version, we meet him at a party at his Los Angeles mansion, a moment of cynical, empty triumph, a parody of Faustian success. The original production cut these early, cynical scenes to the bone, in a hurry to get to the moments in the past where the characters were happy and connected. The revised version significantly expands what is now the first scene, the hideously awful party after the opening of Frank’s new film. The scene plays like a child’s vision of what mean, jaded grownups are like. Furth’s dialogue is so arch and Sondheim’s song “That Frank” so superficial, that the show is hard pressed to recover. In fact, it does not find its groove again until the second act."
(It always seemed curious to me that in the revised version, Furth and Sondheim have made the characters much more repellent--in the original, Mary is at least shown to try to act nice and sober at first, in the revision she comes on as an awful drunk. And while it's never good to push someone into a swimming pool, that always seemed more understandable than trying to blind someone by throwing iodine in their eyes...)
Here's the full review (it starts with a review of Here We Are, which I agree with as well.) https://hudsonreview.com/2024/02/the-ubiquity-of-sondheim/
Posted: 11/22/25 at 9:39pm
I agree with much of that, but I'd say the biggest problem with the original Rich and Happy number (although infinetly preferable to That Frank) is that it's so campy and silly we don't really think of any of these people as a threat or as Frank in some sort of horrible place in his life. If the worst that he's come to is that he's very rich and likes to entertain a bunch of Hollywood phonies, one could think of a lot worse lives to lead. Of course, that isn't the worst. The worst is the lost friendships, the ruined ideals, the destruction of a couple of marriages (not his to Gussie--that seems like karma). But the opening doesn't really show us that, so it all seems rather silly and inconsequential, if empty. I mean you laugh as they pause to snort their coke. You don't cringe in horror. You may not want to participate (I wouldn't), but it doesn't seem terribly threatening.
I've actually never see the show with the original book. The version I was associated with turned The Hills of Tomorrow into the name of his new movie, you heard that song, and then Frank appeared below the marque hearing in his head Mary's pan of the movie for The Hollywood Reporter. Then a chorus came on (as if his subconscious--but they also act out all the other roles and play "the Blob" over the course of the evening) and did the opening number. The earlier graduation scene at the end of the show was still there, but when everyone has exited in their graduation gowns (to make their way to the graduation stage) there is Frank back in front of the marquee again. I found it very moving.
Updated On: 11/22/25 at 09:39 PM
Posted: 11/23/25 at 5:23am
An obvious answer but I think the reason it took 40 years is for one reason and ONLY one reason, which is the cast.
I already saw the 'film version' of this very production over 10 years ago, with Jenna Russel et al. and it didn't work the same way this production did.
It worked first and foremost because Jonathan Groff is a charismatic leading man who manages to make Franklin Shepard a little likeable and understandable. For this reason, and others, it's completely believable that Lindsay Mendez would fall in love with him keeping this subplot alive. Daniel Radcliffe's star presence adds a little extra weight to the character that would otherwise not be on the page and like Lindsay has a similar believable chemistry with Franklin S.
They are all talented performers but it's not even about their talent - it's about the chemistry between the three and how that makes the material believable.
Posted: 11/24/25 at 12:11am
I saw this production in Boston with Eden Espinosa and thought all three had great chemistry. Why didn’t it sell? Unfortunately none of the three actors were household names.
This became a hit because of casting Daniel Radcliffe. I think this would still be a hit even without Groff or Mendez. Key factor is having Daniel Radcliffe on the cast and finding 2 other actors who have great chemistry with with each other.
Posted: 11/24/25 at 12:17am
macbeth said: "I think Maria or Sonia Friedman described it as being edited more like a film so maybe less audience shots? I dunno."
Having seen it, Maria Friedman really edited it in a way where she treats the theatre stage as if it were a soundstage space. Heavy on the closeups, not a lot of wide full stage shots, audience never visible though sometimes heard (and at a lower volume). It's more than a little strange and takes a while to get used to. But this is a case where I see what they mean when they discussed their intent to make a film and not a "pro shot" of a live performance per se (further reinforced by the lack of a curtain call/bows segment).
Updated On: 11/24/25 at 12:17 AM
Posted: 11/24/25 at 4:31am
joevitus said: "I agree with much of that, but I'd say the biggest problem with the original Rich and Happynumber (although infinetly preferable to That Frank) is that it's so campy and silly we don't really think of any of these people as a threat or as Frank in some sort of horrible place in his life. If the worst that he's come to is that he's very rich and likes to entertain a bunch of Hollywood phonies, one could think of a lot worse lives to lead. "
I think that's fair. One problem with the casting gimmick in Prince's original production is Rich and Happy is (according to Sondheim himself) meant to be what these high school kids imagine a big Hollywood party would be like (complete with everyone snorting a bump of coke to punctuate the song.) Which is fine, but then in that original production is there some point where it stops being the kids imagining Frank's life but actually is his life? Because (at least judging from fuzzy bootlegs, etc) that is never really obvious. So maybe the opening party scene did need to be made more horrible (or at least there's a reason for that happening in the revision.) Still, Neher's point which I mostly agree with is for a show that people have always complained takes too long for any of the characters to be "likeable" (a term I hate) why then make that opening scene longer and more awful?
"The version I was associated with turned The Hills of Tomorrow into the name of his new movie, you heard that song, and then Frank appeared below the marque hearing in his head Mary's pan of the movie for The Hollywood Reporter."
I'm assuming this was done without legal permission? Sounds interesting. I did get a chance to see the Donmar production (which actually won the Olivier) where they put back in the framework and Rich and Happy but for much of it used the revised script (and I wish I had an audio or something to actually see where this transitioned because at the time I didn't know enough to spot it myself--nor do I remember.) Famously Furth and Sondheim claimed they had no idea they were doing this, but by the time they were aware and saw it they decided they'd let it play out its run instead of shutting it down. But I remember it working... [see below] (And I agree with Neher's point that without that framing device the continuous reprises of the title song between scene changes becomes less effective because... well who are these chorus people singing? I get that Friedman has staged it, somewhat, as being all Frank's recollections, but...)
(This is somewhat minor but I don't get why the revision makes the scene with Like It Was and Franklin Shepard Inc are now the same scene, rather than two scenes with a good year or two separating them. Maybe they wanted to have less scenes going backwards in time, to simplify it, but it makes less sense to have Like it Was sung chronologically before Franklin Shepard Inc, rather than as written originally where it is meant to be sung some time AFTER Charley's meltdown with Inc.)
Here's some LONG notes about that 2000 Donmar production I saved from somewhere sometime back (to be honest, it's not too surprising that Sondheim himself didn't seem to remember what that production actually was--he often didn't seem too aware of which revision of one of his shows was done when :P ):
This production restored much of the original licensed version of the show. Elements of the original version that were in this production included:
Somewhat oddly, the Donmar production included "Growing Up" from the revision, but only in the first act. Gussie's "pre-prise" in Act Two wasn't included.
In addition to "Growing Up," there were some elements from the revision. For example, Gussie was a performer and the star of Musical Husbands (Frank and Charley's first Broadway musical), as in the revision, but her performance of "Good Thing Going" at the beginning of Act Two was not included. "It's a Hit!" included Beth, as in the revision. (This element of the revision was actually a return to the way the song was originally conceived and the way it was performed in early previews of the original production.)
In some scenes, the dialogue came completely or largely from the original version, while in others it came either completely or in part from the revision.
After the production closed, Sondheim said that he and Furth didn't know about what the production intended to do textually until rehearsals were under way and by then it was too late to make them switch to the revised version. (Read further for Sondheim's complete statement.)
Contradicting this to at least some degree is the following passage from an article in the Fall 2000 issue of The Sondheim Review.
"Will there be changes in the prodution?
"Sondheim told TSR that [Michael] Grandage has asked that the graduation scene be reinstated, 'with a difference.'
"'We'll try it in previews and see if it works,' he said."
Despite the production's success with the critics, which included winning the Olivier Award for Best Musical, Sondheim said, in a a Times Talk interview with Anthony Tommasini on March 26, 2001, that he and Furth would never allow anything like that to happen:
“The problem was that due to a misunderstanding, George Furth and I didn’t know that the version they were doing was the original version, not the revised one. I really liked what we spent years revising, and we would have stopped them if we had known. But we only found out when they were already in rehearsal.”
Given that the production started previews on Dec. 1, 2000, this appears to at least partly contradict Sondheim's earlier statement to The Sondheim Review. The Fall issues of The Sondheim Review have usually gone to press and even been delivered to subscribers before the Donmar production probably would have started rehearsals.
More puzzling still is that Sondheim later wrote in Finishing the Hat that the Donmar production winning the Olivier for best musical vindicated all the work that he and Furth had done revising on the show.
Adding further confusion is the following statement that Julian Ovenden made in an Aprin 2013 Interview:
"[M]y second job was actually playing Franklin Shepard in MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG at the Donmar and being directed by Michael Grandage in it. As you may know, Steve was pretty heavily involved with that production, actually, because we went back to the original version, which hadn't been tried out for a while."
Posted: 11/24/25 at 4:34am
binau said: "An obvious answer but I think the reason it took 40 years is for one reason and ONLY one reason, which is the cast."
I agree that the casting of the trio seemed to make a big part of the difference--maybe one reason there was zero attempt to prolong it with a new cast.
(OK random criticism of Friedman's production--I never got why the opening party scene set in, I believe, 1977, doesn't really go hard in being a satire of 1970s fashion/parties/etc. But then the party in Act II goes *hard* as a kinda ridiculous parody of some 1960s mod party. I dunno, it just seems to me those two scenes should parallel each other--either both being highly satirized to the era, or... not.)
Posted: 11/24/25 at 4:49am
Daniel Radcliffe, Jonathan Groff and Lindsay Mendez promoting the Merrily proshot on the Today Show and Late Night with Seth Meyers on Monday 24 November.
Posted: 11/24/25 at 7:33am
https://youtu.be/nR6A59xARy8?si=Pn3-Nghv6um69Tf3
Found a recording of the opening number of the Donmar production. Truly fascinating. I guess Sondheim deep down believed the original version, or at least the idea of it, should've worked, and this was a chance for him to prove that. And maybe the revised version worked enough so he wasn't in a position to openly reject it or reverse it, so he limited the experiment to the Donmar production. It's also quite interesting that in the Roundabout/Fiasco revival, he allowed the production to add in texts from the original play the musical was adapted from.
Posted: 11/24/25 at 6:19pm
Dancingthrulife2 said: "https://youtu.be/nR6A59xARy8?si=Pn3-Nghv6um69Tf3
Found a recording of the opening number of the Donmar production. Truly fascinating. I guess Sondheim deep down believed the original version, or at least the idea of it, should've worked, and this wasa chance for him to prove that. And maybe the revised version worked enough sohe wasn't in a position toopenly reject it or reverse it, so he limited the experiment to the Donmar production. It's also quite interesting that in the Roundabout/Fiasco revival, he allowed the production to add in texts from the original play the musical was adapted from."
Right! I have no idea how that played, but at least the idea of adding in a scene showing Beth's parents and their concern over Frank's career, would make sense to add to the musical.
Thanks for this clip! I guess I haven't looked for clips in a while-- That production was so well received (well over a decade before Friedman did her first production) I only imagine Sondheim and Furth realized it wouldn't do any good to shut it down.
