#51
Posted: 11/17/08 at 5:46pm
Well, MTI lists it as a 2 Act Book Show.
Why didn't the 2001 FOLLIES get recorded? — Page 3
#52
Posted: 11/17/08 at 5:47pm
It says two acts, but the description is of the original version which was only published in one act.
#53
Posted: 11/17/08 at 6:20pm
"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. "
I stand corrected--I actually know nothing of the 1987 book cuz I've not seen it. I didn't realize it was essentially all rewritten--although that makes sense. I think though that makes me even more leniant towards that production--they were essentially doing a new show with the old material (and I love Bjornson's designs though they aren't quite at the level of Aronson's they're definetly the closest in quality I've seen for Follies)--whereas it surprises me how many people don't even realize that the Roundabout revival changed so much.
I also stand corrected about MTI licensing out the original script--I was *certain* they weren't--maybe immediately after the Broadway revival they weren't for a while? I'm happy they are though (now I should check out if they still rent the original Company too).
"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. "
I agree and disagree here, honestly. I don't think it's quite that simple though--and I don't think it's *quite* the limbo that Company in the original production was. I think it starts off very much as a real reunion--though I agree that once it goes into the Loveland nightmare it really can't come back to a "realistic" ending in those final few mins--it needs the more expressionistic ending of the original.
As for Chorus Line--I don't think it's quite that simple eithe r
though I agree that Bennett learned and used a LOT from his work with Hal Prince and Sondheim. But I also think it wasn't quite that abstract--Chorus Line is a fantasy version of a real chorus line audition IMHO, and not all in the characters heads or anything that complex. Maybe becuase it was more simple it went over better with audiences.
I stand corrected--I actually know nothing of the 1987 book cuz I've not seen it. I didn't realize it was essentially all rewritten--although that makes sense. I think though that makes me even more leniant towards that production--they were essentially doing a new show with the old material (and I love Bjornson's designs though they aren't quite at the level of Aronson's they're definetly the closest in quality I've seen for Follies)--whereas it surprises me how many people don't even realize that the Roundabout revival changed so much.
I also stand corrected about MTI licensing out the original script--I was *certain* they weren't--maybe immediately after the Broadway revival they weren't for a while? I'm happy they are though (now I should check out if they still rent the original Company too).
"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. "
I agree and disagree here, honestly. I don't think it's quite that simple though--and I don't think it's *quite* the limbo that Company in the original production was. I think it starts off very much as a real reunion--though I agree that once it goes into the Loveland nightmare it really can't come back to a "realistic" ending in those final few mins--it needs the more expressionistic ending of the original.
As for Chorus Line--I don't think it's quite that simple eithe r
though I agree that Bennett learned and used a LOT from his work with Hal Prince and Sondheim. But I also think it wasn't quite that abstract--Chorus Line is a fantasy version of a real chorus line audition IMHO, and not all in the characters heads or anything that complex. Maybe becuase it was more simple it went over better with audiences.
#54
Posted: 11/19/08 at 12:56am
I agree and disagree here, honestly. I don't think it's quite that simple though--and I don't think it's *quite* the limbo that Company in the original production was. I think it starts off very much as a real reunion--though I agree that once it goes into the Loveland nightmare it really can't come back to a "realistic" ending in those final few mins--it needs the more expressionistic ending of the original.
Yeah, I agree with that. There's a delicate line that perhaps the show itself can't even balance, but it is grounded in some sort of reality. It's not nearly as conceptual as Company and I think the omission of the party guests and the end suggests that maybe Loveland actually did happen in some sort of unexplainable supernatural sense, instead of it being just the synthesis of the metaphors of the evening.
And if ANYthing is a rip off of Follies in style and execution, it's The Rink.
Yeah, I agree with that. There's a delicate line that perhaps the show itself can't even balance, but it is grounded in some sort of reality. It's not nearly as conceptual as Company and I think the omission of the party guests and the end suggests that maybe Loveland actually did happen in some sort of unexplainable supernatural sense, instead of it being just the synthesis of the metaphors of the evening.
And if ANYthing is a rip off of Follies in style and execution, it's The Rink.
#55
Posted: 11/19/08 at 2:14am
I really need to investigate The Rink more--I've had the CD for years but never really gave it a proper "sit down listen" but your ocmment really makes me think I should. I know it's a flawed show (with intriguing elements) but I haven't heard people mention a thematic connection to Follies before--or stylistic, though now that you have I can already see one.
#56
Posted: 11/19/08 at 3:12am
Phyllis, are you being serious about THE RINK? I'm only familiar with a couple songs and I'm interested to hear you elaborate on that (unless you're being your fabulous funny/sarcastic self :-p)
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
#57
Posted: 11/19/08 at 3:32am
Well in terms of relationships and the past, I can see where the themes in The Rink can be linked to Follies. But, I don't think the two scores are comparable at all (at least in style).
Updated On: 11/19/08 at 03:32 AM
#58
Posted: 11/19/08 at 4:48am
WHile I'd love to hear an elaboration too, from what I know I do see similarities. Both pieces have a LOT to do with memories, people pretending things are ok when they really aren't (even possibly fake memories), set in the rubble of a beloved place where those memories come from, The Rink used the consturction workers to sorta go into flashback memory scenes, it wasn't all played "realistically", etc
#59
Posted: 11/19/08 at 9:33am
Oh, I wasn't comparing the scores at all! The Rink has like three good songs and the rest is crap. I was just referring to the way it zips in and out of the past and present, at times almost colliding, in a similar manner to Follies. One of the major differences is that there aren't two sets of actors for the main roles, but there's a stylistic similarity there.
I don't REALLY think it's a rip-off, but I think it's stylistically related to Follies a lot more than A Chorus Line is.
I don't REALLY think it's a rip-off, but I think it's stylistically related to Follies a lot more than A Chorus Line is.
#60
Posted: 11/19/08 at 10:57am
Both The Rink and Follies also have characters confronting their pasts in a deteriorating building that is in the midst of being torn down. Best moment in The Rink was when the set disappeared.
Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.
#61
Posted: 11/20/08 at 2:35pm
Pal Joey said,
Threads about this horrendous experience just give me Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
You meant, "Post-traumatic POST disorder!"
Threads about this horrendous experience just give me Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
You meant, "Post-traumatic POST disorder!"
#62
Posted: 11/20/08 at 2:48pm
I love the poster, I have to admit.
-Benjamin
--http://www.benjaminadgate.com/
--http://www.benjaminadgate.com/
#63
Posted: 11/20/08 at 3:16pm
For the revival? Nothing beats the original poster, in my opinion.
#64
Posted: 11/20/08 at 3:29pm
The 1987 London poster is my favorite. The original Broadway poster is ok. It made an effort to capture the Art Nouveau revival that was popular in the early 70s, but it is SOOOOO 70s. Very "Electric Company".
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#65
Posted: 11/21/08 at 2:42am
Yeah it's those colours that really scream 70s. Still the original production poster is one of my fave posters ever--it also has some sorta image that creeps me out and adds to the appeal. The 87 London poster is next--i don't think much of the Roundabout...
#66
Posted: 11/21/08 at 8:23am
The original Broadway poster is ok. It made an effort to capture the Art Nouveau revival that was popular in the early 70s, but it is SOOOOO 70s. Very "Electric Company".
I pity the queen who doesn't worship at the shrine of the original Follies poster. I PITY HER!
It is an icon, like the Judy Garland Carnegie Hall poster.
It is not a mere poster. It cannot be compared to other posters nor reduced to inaccurate labels like "Art Nouveau" (which it AIN'T) or "1970s" (which it is chronologically speaking ONLY).
The Cracked Face of the Follies Girl is. It just is.
I pity the queen who doesn't worship at the shrine of the original Follies poster. I PITY HER!
It is an icon, like the Judy Garland Carnegie Hall poster.
It is not a mere poster. It cannot be compared to other posters nor reduced to inaccurate labels like "Art Nouveau" (which it AIN'T) or "1970s" (which it is chronologically speaking ONLY).
The Cracked Face of the Follies Girl is. It just is.
Updated On: 11/21/08 at 08:23 AM
#68
Posted: 11/21/08 at 11:17am
Bow your heads and bend your knees.
I used to stare at it for hours and pronounce it "Ifid-il-il-iiies."
I used to stare at it for hours and pronounce it "Ifid-il-il-iiies."
#69
Posted: 11/21/08 at 11:32am
This was David Byrd's initial sketch for the poster.
Here is the second
Here is the second
#70
He lost the cracked head but then came back to it
Posted: 11/21/08 at 11:33am
He lost the cracked head but then came back to it
#71
Posted: 11/21/08 at 11:35am
In the 3rd attempt, he came back to the cracked head and made some notations, including one that refers to the image being based on Marlene Dietrich in Shanghai Express.
Lots of people had thought that, but it this confirms it.
Lots of people had thought that, but it this confirms it.
#72
Posted: 11/21/08 at 11:38am
Those sketches are absolutely incredible, thanks for posting them! I know the first one was used as the Encores! logo but I can't help but feel I've ssen the second one fully colored and used as a logo for another production.
Tick Tock
#73
Posted: 11/21/08 at 11:42am
Thanks for sharing the sketches, Pal Joey! I so appreciate the treasure trove of info and insights you and others have shared about Follies in these threads.
#74
Posted: 11/21/08 at 12:06pm
PalJoey - I wasn't saying it was trying to imitate Art Nouveau, merely that it is reminiscent of the Art Nouveau revival of the early 70s, which it is. There was a popular trend during the time that borrowed elements from Art Nouveau, which the artwork most definitely has as well as some bits of Art Deco and 70s pop art in the mix. I think the original poster for Follies is definitely memorable and iconic. I certainly don't argue that. And I love the concept. It balances the past with the present, which is representative of the show. I totally get it.
Bow your heads and bend your knees.
You are such a flirt!
Bow your heads and bend your knees.
You are such a flirt!
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#75
Posted: 11/21/08 at 12:12pm
I didn't realize the Encores poster was David Byrd, or that it was a design he tried for the original.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $106
Tickets From $75