Why didn't the 2001 FOLLIES get recorded?- Page 2

[Amalia Balash]

Posted: 11/16/08 at 8:11pm

Thanks for the Who's That Woman comparison. While it wasn't quite as bad as I was expecting/fearing, it didn't hit me in the gut the way that seeing the original staging did.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/16/08 at 9:00pm

And here, by way of antidote, is the original cast, doing the original Michael Bennett choreography:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhQeVQ6677A

[jv92]

Posted: 11/16/08 at 10:05pm

Thanks Pal Joey! :)

On the topic of last scenes-

How stupid is the 2001 ending?

SALLY: I'm 49 years old. That's all I am.
(Or something like that)

Yeah and Arthur Laurents is 104...I mean 90. Who cares?

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 11/16/08 at 10:09pm

Kathleen Marshall pooped all over Bennett's haunting, beautiful, and plain showstopping work in "Who's That Woman?"
It's sad to see what Marshall got away with in the Roundabout revival.

[laura is broadway]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 12:21am

I love threads about Follies.

If anyone has any more photos from this production (thank you Brody for posting some) I'd love to see them! I never hear about it, I guess just because it was so bad.

[jewishboy]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 1:18am

OK, I couldn't suppress my will to add some comments on the revival vs. original (sorry PalJoey):

The Roundabout production as whole was just ill conceived. And as Ray kind of pointed out, the most misconceived part seems to be Kathleen Marshall's choreography and direction of the musical numbers. This too was my first introduction to Follies (after falling in love with the OBCR from a class taught by composer Louis Rosen) and back then I did enjoy the production. I thought, and still claim think to this day, that the acting was very good for the most part and in Polly Bergen's case the singing was too. But, upon reflection this revival only scratched the surface of Follies. "Who's That Women," as done by Ms. Marshall, is fun, but doesn't bring out any of the haunting or exuberance that Bennett clearly achieved with his middle-aged actors. Also, if Carol Woods can continue to add some life to "Mama Morton," god-knows-how-many-times she’s played her, why couldn't they get any spark out of her for Stella besides for some semi-powerful vocals (though that wasn't the greatest casting to begin with)?

Because of all the bad notices they were not gonna spend the money to have another recording and I don't blame them. Still, it would have been nice to have Polly Bergen's "I'm Still Here," Judith Ivey's "Losing My Mind," Joan Roberts'"One More Kiss" and Blythe Danner's "Could I leave You?"
Updated On: 12/8/08 at 01:18 AM

[jewishboy]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 3:18am

And to add a comment about the 1985 Follies concert...

I too agree that the concert was miscast excluding the aforementioned Cook, Remick, Comden, and Green. However, I have to say that Howard McGillin and Daisy Prince (Young Ben and Young Phyllis) and especially Liz Callaway and Jim Walton (Young Sally and Young Buddy) were not miscast as the young couples. Liz Callaway is in her prime and her voice goes so well with Jim Walton's that I'll be damned if you can find me a more powerful, innocent and yet haunting version (that’s recorded) of "You're Gonna Love Tomorrow/Love Will See Us Through"!

Posted: 11/17/08 at 7:38am

I'm glad others dislike the Concert recording. I just find it... Well let's just say if the glorious Stavisky score wasn't attached to the CD of it I woulda never bought it. Yes Cook si great but as others said she doesn't truly act the score (not her fault), and so many are miscast. I do have affection for Carol Burnett's I'm Still Here, but that's about it.

What I really don't get is the concert was CREATED out of a desire to record the whole score. So then why are there so many edits and cuts??

I know people **** on the London recording but I actually don't mind it for what it was--it's a different beast than the original Follies I love but it at least gets a lot right, and the original designs by Maria Bjornson were almost as spectacularly haunting and good as Boris Aronson's originals. (and I do like the new songs though Country House sounds like an Into the Woods number)

And I agree that this revival was a huge wasted opportunity. The papermill production wasn't brilliant but it at least got a lot more right--the recording isn't perfect (I find the conducting by Tunick and tempi a bit too safe and some performances iffy) but I'm still glad we have it, it's *good* and fills in so many blanks from the OBC. And great to have an appendix of the cut songs in their full orchestrations.

What I don't get re Kathleen Marshall's choreography--it's been a sort of tradition to at least keep Michael Bennett's original Who's That Woman number intact--Bob Avian (of course who worked closely with Bennett) kept it in for the London Follies--a clip of them doing it on a UK show used to be on youtube--and they kept it in for the Papermill too... so why not Broadway?

[jv92]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 8:11am

"What I don't get re Kathleen Marshall's choreography--it's been a sort of tradition to at least keep Michael Bennett's original Who's That Woman number intact--Bob Avian (of course who worked closely with Bennett) kept it in for the London Follies--a clip of them doing it on a UK show used to be on youtube--and they kept it in for the Papermill too... so why not Broadway?"

Well, Casey Nicholaw did his own brilliant Mirror Number at Encores! that was similar to Michael's but different in its own way. It respected the original. Marshall didn't. Marshall went off on her own goofy way as usual. She really is the perhaps the ****iest director/choreographer that consistantly gets work on the planet. Is that hyperbolic? Maybe. I just don't like her, especially after Grease and especially since she ****ed up Follies.

Posted: 11/17/08 at 8:20am

Yeah, I just think most major productions should keep it in as a sort of hommage/respect (plus it can't be topped). The way Hot Honey Rag is for Chicago (though of course Rob Marshall re-choreographed that too, pointlessly, for the movie...)

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 8:29am

What exactly was the ending like in the revival?

Posted: 11/17/08 at 8:33am

Goldman's libretto has been changed so many times--you can buy the 2001 revival script, which IMHo is almsot as different from the original as themuch unfairly maligned 1987 revisal was. The script reads so differently--in one major way it's just far less dreamline in how it handles the ghosts and memories.

It's a shame that James goldman's widow apparantly is SOO controlling--and that there's no legal way to do the original script anymore. Even more than the original 1970 Company script (which I think you CAN still perform and I much prefer to the update) i think this is a tragedy. Mark my words, if I ever somehow become a multimillionaire I'm going to try to fund a complete folly of mine to do a reconstruction of the original production I swear it.

[jv92]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 9:22am

Me too!
And whenever I think about the revised book of Follies, I think to myself, 'Why can't Steve be more like mean old Arthur Laurents and demand things to go his way! His way is the right way!'. Oh well. At least the score is still brilliant no matter what.

Posted: 11/17/08 at 9:28am

Maybe Steve has no say on the book? Or is just humouring James' widow until she's gone (mean, I know...) I just don't think ANY of the *myriad* of changes made to the book (yes a few years back I got both libretti out from my library and compared line by line lol--one thing also gone ar emany of the really intricately written stage directions) are improvements.

[Amalia Balash]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 10:29am

I'm fascinated by the changes to the Follies book over time and would love to hear more about the differences between the original, Papermill, and Roundabout books. I'm kinda familiar with the major differences between the original and the West End revision (in that I saw the latter but blocked it out because I was so disappointed in it) but not with the "improvements" in the US revivals.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 10:40am

Goldman's libretto has been changed so many times--you can buy the 2001 revival script, which IMHo is almsot as different from the original as themuch unfairly maligned 1987 revisal was.

Yes and no. The 1987 version is almost completely rewritten. The 2001 has the skeleton off the original book, but all the humor and pathos has been sucked out of it. Although the ending of the 1987 script seems to be the basis for the ending of the 2001 script.

[jv92]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 12:36pm

The ending of the 2001 script is POINTLESS! It's written as if Ben and Sally didn't even have their respective nervous breakdowns. At least the great "Hope doesn't grow on trees..." line is kept though.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 12:46pm

I wonder if the current ending is similar to one of the endings that were mentioned in Chapin's book. There's a mention of one where after Loveland they all just speek empty platitudes and leave, which is sort of how this one is.

And, I've said it before and I'll say it again, having the party guests reappear after Loveland is a bad bad idea.

[jv92]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 1:08pm

Phyl, thank you for reminding me about the guests returning. I'm still trying to forget about it, but now that I've been reminded it gives me a perfect chance to bitch some more.

The party isn't real. It isn't really happening. It's the same thing with the birthday parties in Company and the audition in Chorus Line. They aren't real. They're metaphors. They're little snippets in time. By having the guests come back and schmooze, Goldman is dumbing down the genius of his original work by making everything very literal and stupid.
Let me just set the record straight: George Furth, Jim Goldman, Hal Prince and Steve Sondheim should have sued the pants off of Michael Bennett and the authors of Chorus Line. It's a complete steal from Company and Follies. Because it was sentimental (and brilliantly staged) it succeeded, unlike the other two.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 1:35pm

Sued?

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 2:38pm

?

[jv92]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 4:01pm

Did I make a grammar error or did I just sound ridiculous? I do both a lot.

[sondhead]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 5:22pm

"It's a shame that James goldman's widow apparantly is SOO controlling--and that there's no legal way to do the original script anymore."

Maybe she's controlling major productions, but MTI still licenses out the original Broadway version.

[jv92]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 5:38pm

REALLY??? In one act too? I didn't know that.

[sondhead]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 5:41pm

Yup.
Follies at MTI Updated On: 11/17/08 at 05:41 PM