What I would like to see in a possible Follies revival

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 2:27am

With all the talk about how a Follies revival would only work in a certain specific way, (I've read tons of posts on all the boards with super detailed nitpicky people going on and on, its insane) I thought I would put my oar in about what I would like to see.

I would like to see a complete reinterpretation of the piece. A complete and total departure from the original or anything since.

I would like to see a completely different sensibility attached to it, while still being at least resonably faithful to the original, but let's face it folks (and this means all of you who just put their hands over their eyes) it's not shakespeare, it's pastiche. Good pastiche, but pastiche nonetheless, with a weak book (which is something I don't think anyone would disagree with me on). Let's see someone take this on.

I wouldn't mind seeing it completely incorporated with dance somehow, just as an idea.

A multimedia take on it would be very interesting indeed. Perhaps discreetly project images appear with scenes of yesteryear. Sometimes agreeing with the reminiscences, sometimes not. It could be very interesting.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 2:36am

I propose snatching those digital walls from Woman In White and updating the Follies book using some major plot points that intertwine both Follies and the Woman In White to strengthen it up.

The tentative title: "Who's That Woman In White: A 3-D musical extravaganza" brought to you by the creative geniuses behind Bounce and Starlight Express.

Updated On: 2/14/07 at 02:36 AM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 7:12am

The music may be pastiche, but the underlying concept of the play -- the follies of youth, the ruins of age -- make it almost impossible to change the approach without sacrificing the ideas that make the play what it is.

I have no doubt that a small-scale FOLLIES is possible, one that looks more to George White than Florenz Ziegfeld, and it would still have some of the same impact. But think about it for a moment: the entire LOVELAND sequence is the four main characters' desperate attempt to recreate the innocence of their youth, with the same bright colours and suppsoed "self awareness" that the young always claim to have. And like the middle aged man pretending to be 20 again, it doesnt work and blows up in their faces. Only one character gets out of it more or less unscathed because she realizes what's going on; the rest are continuing to live in denial. And it's vital that that denial be seen in all its full colour glory.

Yes, there are serious problems with the book. But not unfixable ones. Nevertheless, the show needs grand visual gestures, not technological gimmickry, to make its statement.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 9:18am

Good pastiche, but pastiche nonetheless, with a weak book (which is something I don't think anyone would disagree with me on).

I disagree with that. I do realize I'm in the minority, but I've never thought the book was weak, at least not the original version. I find the revival book to be weak, though. It's a lot less acerbic than the original.

A lot of the reviews this time actually had reverence for the book.

[D2]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 9:37am

I agree with Kringas - FOLLIES has a very strong book. What I would like to see in a revival was pretty much on the stage at City Center last week: an intelligent, stunningly performed production. The original production is never going to be seen again, for many reasons (most of them financial) but I still think the show is strong enough to work with the right direction, the right approach and the right cast, most of which Encores had. Yes, it could have been a bit more lavish, but when the heart and soul of a musical are revealed as beautifully as they were there, the physical trappings become icing on an already rich piece of cake.

But that would be what I would want to see. The average B'way theatergoer from wherever they come from, of course, wants the icing too.

Updated On: 2/14/07 at 09:37 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 9:51am

I would hope any Broadway production would use more of the original book than the Encores production did. It's interesting to me that Sondheim recently praised the "arch" dialogue of James Goldman's original script, and yet every major revival of FOLLIES since has used a different (and arguably inferior) version of the text.

[folkyboy]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 9:54am

maybe he had Follies fever too, MB

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 9:59am

The Roundabout script is similar enough on sight to the original, but there are just enough tweaks and omissions to render it kind of toothless. One of the worst flaws in the revised book is the end, where Sally's mania is really neutered, excising all mention of the multiple suicide attempts she's made over the years. Even Phyllis and Ben suffer. They're on much more solid ground in the original text at the end.

Edited to correct a typo.

Updated On: 2/14/07 at 09:59 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 10:09am

The problem with the original book was NOT that it was "too weak."

The problem was that it was too strong.

(And by the way, Fenchurch--your idea stinks.)

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 10:49am

One way that technology *might* enhance the production would be in the ghosts: instead of actors, somehow projecting a film that weaves itself into the action and allows the ghosts to literally move through the space in a transparent way. I'm not sure how it would be pulled off, but it's a possibility. Fun to think about, tho.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 10:58am

What an excellent idea.

I see a Bolero D'amore where younger, more supple dancers are three dimensionally projected upon (or side by side) the older couple dancing the same choreography, only obviously no longer as graceful.

And imagine what the stairs could be.

not to mention Loveland.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 11:05am

Fen -- I respectfully disagree. FOLLIES would lose its inate theatricality if the ghosts were played by projections. The point of FOLLIES is that we are haunted by the ghosts of our past: ghosts that seem to live and breath, echos of a past that are often more vibrantly real than the present.

I think your ideas are interesting but they are very much in the face of what FOLLIES is all about. If you havent read it already, I'd recommend going back and reading the original script from 1971 - I think you'll understand more of what the show "is" and why so many revivals haven't worked.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 11:10am

MB,

Perhaps youre right. Like I said, Ive only ever seen the Roundabout production, but have listened to it all my life.

But like I said before, what I would like to see is a total departure from original ideas about Follies, maybe a fresh approach could be dazzling.

That having been said, I would love to have been a fly on the wall the night the show opened on broadway.

Does anyone know what version was used for the BBC radio presentation?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 11:13am

The BBC broadcast used a very truncated script: it was arguably a "concert" version as well.

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 11:35am

FOLLIES the musical is not a pastiche; the FOLLIES score is made up mostly of pastiche songs--big difference.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 1:00pm

>> Fen -- I respectfully disagree. FOLLIES would lose its inate theatricality if the ghosts were played by projections. The point of FOLLIES is that we are haunted by the ghosts of our past: ghosts that seem to live and breath, echos of a past that are often more vibrantly real than the present.

It would depend on how the ghosts were handled -- and more importantly, *which* ghosts were handled this way. For example, the opening, where the showgirl drifts through the crowd. If the audience were taken unaware that she was a projection (somehow), it would heighten the sense of a "haunting", not in the horror film kind of eay, but in a less tangible sense.

I woldnt dismiss the idea as readily as you. There are some aspects of stage technology that seem ideally suited for FOLLIES, but only if that technology is as discrete and "invisible" as possible. No curved projection wall a la WOMAN IN WHITE, but something where you think you might have seen something out of the corner of your eye for a second or two. Then, as the play progresses, that line between memory and reality blurs even more when the ghosts of the younger selves are manifest as real actors on the stage.

It could be highly intruiging.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 1:08pm

Intriguing - but not FOLLIES.

If the play were about a haunted theatre, that would be a neat effect. But that is not what the esoteric ghosts in FOLLIES symbolize.
Updated On: 2/14/07 at 01:08 PM

[Danielm]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 1:14pm

I agree with the people who say that the book is not weak. People don't like the book because it says things they don't want to hear--no matter how true. A friend of mine who saw the original production and the Roundabout (and loved them both) said that all the reviewers who said the revival was inferior were remembering a different show than the original was (or hadn't actually seen the original). It has a lot of unpleasant things to say about growing older and (ironically) the difference between reality and memory and reality and dreams.

Also, while I won't dismiss the multimedia idea outright, most of the multimedia sets I've seen look cheesy--like video games. And projections don't usually look like ghosts they look like projections. I love to see the characters interact with their ghosts.

In the roundabout I still remember how chilling the Bolero was or that amazing moment after "Broadway Baby" when Betty Garrett stood, transfixed, staring out at the theatre and her memories as everyone, including the ghosts, had their backs to the audience waiting to have their photo taken until she was called back to the present. I get goosebumps thinking about it.

[fflagg]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 2:58pm

I would love to see a revival with REAL stars. Sorry but Donna Murphy and Victoria Clark have nothing to do with the aura and era of the characters they play. But producers do not want to spend the money to attract names like Goldie Hawn, Liza, Susan Sarandon, Jessica Lange, and Jane Fonda [the latter two would be a great Phyllis]. How about Dustin Hoffman? DeNiro? Anthony Hopkins? Then Broadway would be Broadway.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 3:00pm

Lol.

So Broadway isn't Broadway without big names.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 3:03pm

Almost all those people are too old to play the four leads.

And few people in a revival of Follies are going to have anything to do with the era, since the show is thirty years old and the "era" is 30 or more years prior to that.

Updated On: 2/14/07 at 03:03 PM

[Danielm]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 3:05pm

fflagg, not only would that be cost-prohibitive on a show that's unlikely to pay back its investment in the first place many of those performers haven't been on stage in years (some never have). Acting in movies and on stage are different things entirely.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 3:06pm

Follies won't be Follies with the corpse of Ethel Shutta.

[Danielm]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 3:09pm

Also, the characters of Ben, Sally, Buddy and Phyllis were never stars. I think casting movie stars in those roles could be distracting. Carlotta, yes--Sally no. Even the wonderful performers who originated those roles were not stars on the level of the people you mentioned.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/14/07 at 3:14pm

There's a line of thinking that if Follies isn't cast with actual faded stars that it won't work. While I agree it won't have the gravitas of the original production, there's no reason why the show has to be cast that way any more than you need a real farmer to play Curly in Oklahoma.