|
|
Follies
Aug 22, 2017 22:01:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 22, 2017 22:01:44 GMT
Good god I am in love with that set! It does look absolutely perfect. Off kilter but perfect for the show. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 22, 2017 22:17:16 GMT
There are now a few pics on Instagram showing the curtain call, is this version being set in the 70's? Why wouldn't it be set in the 1970s? It's always been set in the early 70s. |
|
21 posts
|
Post by comporhys on Aug 22, 2017 22:28:34 GMT
My thoughts on tonight's show are in spoilers below - to avoid ruining any surprises! {Spoiler - click to view}
It's hard to really sum up Follies without simply repeating my previous comment - wow. This is a truly monumental production, in terms of scale, ambition and achievement.
The cast are uniformly excellent. Imelda Staunton was as phenomenal as you'd expect. I overheard someone say as we were leaving that it was "Mama Rose does Sally", which I thought vastly underestimated her performance. It had the kind of complexity and depth you don't necessarily expect in the first public performance.
Janie Dee was fabulous. I remember some comments about Tracie Bennett's ability to sing the score prior to opening, but she performed her solo number with excellent ease. Geraldine Fitzgerald as Solange also stood out during her scenes.
The two main men (Philip Quast and Peter Forbes) enriched their roles remarkably - as I knew nothing of the plot, I was particularly swept away by the presentation of their characters' journeys.
The set was -as you have now seen- huge and beautiful, with excellent use of the revolve.
It was particularly special to listen to the score in the presence of the composer, who was then acknowledged with a celebratory Three Cheers, let by Imelda.
There were a few moments of forgotten lines, a technical halt and a dropped piece of jewellery that caught several dancers out before being picked up. But all really minor things.
Basically beg, borrow or steal a ticket. Even I stopped worrying about the lavatory situation after ten minutes.
Oh, and if that wasn't enough, they use the resolve during the tap number. What more could you ask for |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 22:37:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Aug 22, 2017 22:52:36 GMT
and the drum? The transition into Loveland, and the Follies costumes.....can't wait to see it. Sadly only the cinema for me.
|
|
583 posts
|
Post by princeton on Aug 22, 2017 23:09:20 GMT
the drum, surprisingly, isn't used.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 23:57:09 GMT
There are now a few pics on Instagram showing the curtain call, is this version being set in the 70's? It has to be set in the seventies (early) or the timelines don't work, the song pastiches also reflect that. There's scope for theatricalising it more, a la Chicago, but I'm not sure that any director has done that. |
|
364 posts
|
Post by dazzerlump on Aug 23, 2017 0:01:32 GMT
There are now a few pics on Instagram showing the curtain call, is this version being set in the 70's? Why wouldn't it be set in the 1970s? It's always been set in the early 70s. I always thought of the original Follies being in the 20's, and Sally is only meant to be late 40's so I always put it as being set somewhere in the 50's? Not that it matters, they could set it now, a revue show could have happened any time in the 20th century really |
|
524 posts
|
Follies
Aug 23, 2017 0:11:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by callum on Aug 23, 2017 0:11:22 GMT
Perhaps premature but has there been any talk of a cast recording being on the cards?
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 23, 2017 0:45:44 GMT
Why wouldn't it be set in the 1970s? It's always been set in the early 70s. I always thought of the original Follies being in the 20's, and Sally is only meant to be late 40's so I always put it as being set somewhere in the 50's? Not that it matters, they could set it now, a revue show could have happened any time in the 20th century really It matters a great deal. It's not just about a reunion of former showgirls, or an analysis of two unhappy marriages. It's also about the decline/death of the American Dream in the period following World War Two. The focus is on two former showgirls who were part of the Follies' final season in 1940 for a reason: America was at the peak of her powers, was the world's shining beacon of hope - but after the war was won, America's self-image began to change. By 1970, the US had been through Korea and was embroiled in Vietnam, the moral landscape was much more complex, and what had been shiny suddenly seemed to be tarnished. The social history encompassed by the show stretches further back than 1940, of course - I'm Still Here is full of references to specific historical moments/artifacts/incidents, and none of them are arbitrary - but it's no accident that it boomerangs between those two historical points. |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Aug 23, 2017 4:00:05 GMT
hmm...I'm happy everyone loves it so far, but for those who haven't seen it and are just gushing over the set..
guys..it's a big stage, but otherwise everything shown here is pretty average.
|
|
5,863 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Aug 23, 2017 6:30:34 GMT
I think it's easy to forget it's 1970s setting as is so rarely staged properly here and we're just used to convert performances of it.
I so love Blonde Imelda!
Agree though why everyone's going mad over the set- it's a crumbling theatre - as it should be. I'm more interested to see if they deliver Loveland property - I assume they do.
The first reports are amazing but I hope it's not first preview-itis.. people desperate to be all smug and make everyone else feel they've misssed out!
Cannot wait to see this... and to hear (I hope) that score played brilliantly
|
|
5,863 posts
|
Follies
Aug 23, 2017 6:34:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by mrbarnaby on Aug 23, 2017 6:34:52 GMT
I always thought of the original Follies being in the 20's, and Sally is only meant to be late 40's so I always put it as being set somewhere in the 50's? Not that it matters, they could set it now, a revue show could have happened any time in the 20th century really It matters a great deal. It's not just about a reunion of former showgirls, or an analysis of two unhappy marriages. It's also about the decline/death of the American Dream in the period following World War Two. The focus is on two former showgirls who were part of the Follies' final season in 1940 for a reason: America was at the peak of her powers, was the world's shining beacon of hope - but after the war was won, America's self-image began to change. By 1970, the US had been through Korea and was embroiled in Vietnam, the moral landscape was much more complex, and what had been shiny suddenly seemed to be tarnished. The social history encompassed by the show stretches further back than 1940, of course - I'm Still Here is full of references to specific historical moments/artifacts/incidents, and none of them are arbitrary - but it's no accident that it boomerangs between those two historical points. Yes to all this, brilliantly put. For me it's what makes this musical particularly powerful. |
|
28 posts
|
Post by barbra99 on Aug 23, 2017 8:12:19 GMT
Loved this. I managed to get a return for the talk before, which was an added bonus.
Personally I think Janie Dee steals it from Imelda Staunton.
I was disappointed that they didn’t use the drum revolve, although perhaps this could be something to do with a possible West End transfer?
|
|
1,046 posts
|
Follies
Aug 23, 2017 8:27:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by jgblunners on Aug 23, 2017 8:27:32 GMT
Aren't they doing repairs/restoration work on the drum? Or has that not started yet?
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 23, 2017 8:37:50 GMT
hmm...I'm happy everyone loves it so far, but for those who haven't seen it and are just gushing over the set.. guys..it's a big stage, but otherwise everything shown here is pretty average. Let me gush I'm excited goddammit!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Aug 23, 2017 8:42:07 GMT
Yep the timeline has to fit in with the Ziegfeld Follies of the 30'3 early 40's, but interestingly the production at Toulon Opera a few years back, hinted more towards the Folies Bergere, naturally, and the costumes were more based on revealing breasts and buttocks, and one character was played as a drag queen. It was brilliantly raw and eccentric, and beautifully performed. The DVd is great, even if not exactly a straight recording of the piece.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Aug 23, 2017 8:44:57 GMT
And I am assuming, or rather hoping, that they are using the original Loveland songs, not the Cam Mac variations, which did feel to lighten the essential darkness. But ah, the memory of Diana Rigg in that production....
|
|
364 posts
|
Post by dazzerlump on Aug 23, 2017 8:51:58 GMT
I always thought of the original Follies being in the 20's, and Sally is only meant to be late 40's so I always put it as being set somewhere in the 50's? Not that it matters, they could set it now, a revue show could have happened any time in the 20th century really It matters a great deal. It's not just about a reunion of former showgirls, or an analysis of two unhappy marriages. It's also about the decline/death of the American Dream in the period following World War Two. The focus is on two former showgirls who were part of the Follies' final season in 1940 for a reason: America was at the peak of her powers, was the world's shining beacon of hope - but after the war was won, America's self-image began to change. By 1970, the US had been through Korea and was embroiled in Vietnam, the moral landscape was much more complex, and what had been shiny suddenly seemed to be tarnished. The social history encompassed by the show stretches further back than 1940, of course - I'm Still Here is full of references to specific historical moments/artifacts/incidents, and none of them are arbitrary - but it's no accident that it boomerangs between those two historical points. Ah, Thanks, I'm guessing it will all become clearer when I see it, Follies is one Sondheim I've never had the opportunity to see before. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 9:05:13 GMT
As I've gotten older, I've become more and more cantankerous and seem to like less and less nowadays, but holy sh!t..... Follies was fantastic!! Seriously, I was SO impressed. The set is huge. Its a big crumbling wall of a theatre, inside and out and then it becomes the auditorium, with piles of debris to the side. A huge Follies sign hangs on the wall. Its very effective. From what I've read about the original production, this seems very close to that. The ghosts of the past are very much present, always there, always watching.
Imelda Staunton might be petite, but that really doesn't stop you from believing in her character. She just seems to nail it. From her nervous chatter at the beginning to her state at the end, it all seems so believable. I really felt for her. Janie Dee plays it brilliantly too. Again, she plays the characters arc so well. I didn't even recognise Phillip Quast when he first came on.... he was good, but seemed to have run out of steam by Live, Laugh Love. Zizi Strallen in a ginger wig is the spitting image of her aunt, Bonnie Langford!
I think this is probably the 4th or 5th production I've seen of Follies and this was easily the most successful. The Loveland sequence makes a lot more sense than it has previously. I even enjoyed the new take on Buddy's Blues.
A big part of the success was because there is no interval. It allows you to follow the story and really get invested in what's happening. I didn't see a single person leave during the show.
There were a few issues for the first preview, like the dancers trousers splitting up the back and the odd forgotten line, plus a small show stop at the start of Loveland, but for a first preview, it was amazing. The man himself was there and his shoulder brushed against mine on the way out, so I think he fancied me.....
This morning I booked to see it again, later in the run and I have never done that for a show before. It was simply stunning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 10:06:11 GMT
How could i forget the orchestra?? To hear the score and the gorgeous Tunick orchestrations played so well by the large orchestra at the back if the stage just made it all so much grander. You can tell its an expensive production and it deserves all the praise and awards it will get. I'm still on a high this morning!
|
|
47 posts
|
Post by prophet on Aug 23, 2017 11:32:54 GMT
I'm seeing this tonight. Yipeee!
|
|
43 posts
|
Post by sayers500 on Aug 23, 2017 14:00:03 GMT
Intresting info from the Sondheim talk yesterday. John Tiffany wanted to do an all-male version of Company and had a reading for it but the concept didn't work. Wasn't sure if this was public knowledge but would have been interesting to see.
|
|
352 posts
|
Follies
Aug 23, 2017 14:54:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by Scswp on Aug 23, 2017 14:54:50 GMT
Seeing this in December - got tickets today! Looking forward to reading more reviews in the next few days and information about changes that are being made. Do people think that this could be another award-winning performance by Staunton - a hat-trick of Sondheim musical Oliviers? I know there are always four leads according to the billing, but in terms of the female leads, I always seem to feel that Sally is the 'better' or 'meatier' role that Phyllis i.e., Phyllis seems slightly secondary to Sally. Any thoughts on this? The men's lead roles seem more balanced IMO (although, if pushed, I'd say Ben was actually the better role). It's all marginal and subjective though - looking forward to seeing this.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Aug 23, 2017 15:30:41 GMT
Maybe it seems that Sally is the better part because she is warm and vulnerable, and Phyllis is superficially hard and colder and brittle.
|
|
