716 posts
|
Follies
Aug 23, 2017 16:16:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by theatre-turtle on Aug 23, 2017 16:16:42 GMT
Anybody know the bow order?
|
|
|
|
Follies
Aug 23, 2017 16:30:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 16:30:44 GMT
Female ensemble, male ensemble, older female ensemble, Follies soloists, young ben, sally, Phyllis and buddy, four main leads.
|
|
352 posts
|
Follies
Aug 23, 2017 16:36:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by Scswp on Aug 23, 2017 16:36:11 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. Yes, agreed - it could be that. I just think Sally's story is more poignant too - the idea of living your life day in and day out, knowing that you love someone, but it will never really materialise into the ideology you have in your head. Although I'm male, I very much identify with her predicament. (And I like Sally's songs better - very superficial, I know!) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 16:38:15 GMT
Well if you look at the Tonys, Phyllis would seem to be seen as the stronger of the two roles. Alexis Smith (1972), Blythe Danner (2001) and Jan Maxwell (2011) all received nominations as Leading Actress for playing Phyllis, with only Smith winning, while only Dorothy Collins in 1972 getting a nomination as Sally. Neither Judith Ivey in 2001 or Bernadette Peters in 2011 received a nomination (although Peters did get a Drama Desk nomination as Leading Actress).
Although at the Oliviers, Julia McKenzie was the only nominee for the 1987 London production where she played Sally.
Buddy is seen as the stronger of the two male roles by a squeak at the Tonys, getting a nomination for Gene Nelson in 1972 (as Featured Actor) and Leading Actor nomination for Danny Burstein (Buddy). Only Ron Raines received a nomination for playing Ben in 2011, (Leading Actor).
|
|
255 posts
|
Post by frankubelik on Aug 23, 2017 17:40:09 GMT
Interesting that after preview #1 there is scant mention of the performances. Leads me to think they aren't "there" yet. Mind you, some will never be........
|
|
4,189 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Aug 23, 2017 18:16:00 GMT
So am here (eeek!) and am sitting in Row H of the stalls, Seat 47
|
|
19,735 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 23, 2017 18:17:39 GMT
|
|
352 posts
|
Post by Scswp on Aug 23, 2017 18:28:26 GMT
So am here (eeek!) and am sitting in Row H of the stalls, Seat 47 Please give us a review of the performance. Thanks. Enjoy! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 18:30:38 GMT
I'm jealous Anthony! I really wish i was seeing it again. Its stayed with me all day.
|
|
76 posts
|
Follies
Aug 23, 2017 18:40:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by finalperformance on Aug 23, 2017 18:40:05 GMT
Got the 34 pounds ticket for 24 November and it was the last one at that price. Still no word on the 15 pounds, if it will show up...the rush last Friday had 20 pound in the last few circle seats.
|
|
32 posts
|
Post by ronsdivas on Aug 23, 2017 19:03:59 GMT
So am here (eeek!) and am sitting in Row H of the stalls, Seat 47 Please give us a review of the performance. Thanks. Enjoy! Have a great time. We here in NYC have to wait til the telecast in November. Please give us your thoughts on the performance!! |
|
5,863 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Aug 23, 2017 19:52:18 GMT
Aren't they doing repairs/restoration work on the drum? Or has that not started yet? The drum is actually incredibly expensive to run so they do all they can to encourage designers not to use it. Plus it's incredibly unreliable. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Aug 23, 2017 19:58:59 GMT
|
|
19,735 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 23, 2017 19:59:39 GMT
Interesting that after preview #1 there is scant mention of the performances. Leads me to think they aren't "there" yet. Mind you, some will never be........ Come on.... elaborate. Who do you think isn't up to the job? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 20:03:57 GMT
Good god, well that video, the sets used look amazing with the drum revolve. But I get the sense for this production it is fine without one. This seems (correct me if I am wrong), a show that works with simple sets rather than making it overly complicated.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Aug 23, 2017 21:17:25 GMT
So looking forward to seeing this on Saturday.
|
|
1,228 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 23, 2017 21:54:56 GMT
Back from Preview 2.
Have never seen this Sondheim before.
What works is the glorious set, the exciting start, and the 2 up tempo numbers.
What doesn't work is most of the rest of it.
It seems to have no drama, weirdly, for a musical, and yet the many characters shout at each other and argue as though a lot is at stake. The problem is we don't see enough of their younger selves, bar a few sentences, to really feel for them in their old age. It's a strange beast. I found it hard to care for either the women or the men. And I need to care about the people on the stage.
By the second half it just seemed to become a lot of set piece numbers, with the different characters Folly's. Then one of the men had a scream and collapsed, and then they all walked off. But it left me unmoved, even when those on the stage were acting moved.
It's a great idea to have a show about a reunion and memories and conflicts of the past (and this is staged well by Cooke having the younger selves permanently ghosting the older selves, albeit mostly as mutes), but the conflicts were high stakes enough. You took my husband. I took yours...
It's probably too close to Staunton's Martha to see her in this role, as a lot felt similar to that performance. But I do love that laugh she does. Janie Dee was really good, and you could feel her pent up rage from the start. Even when dancing. A sign of a great actress.
The mirror number (is it?) was when the show finally sprang to life, and the audience were able to clap rapturously (it felt like they wanted to from the off, but weren't allowed, if that makes sense?). And Janie Dee's Folly's number was great too. But apart from these, there didn't seem to be much spectacle in the numbers to match the spectacle of the set (really impressive).
I always do an audience check around me if I'm feeling a bit bored or disconnected during a show, and I looked around the stalls and realised I wasn't the only one. Not that people were slumped in their seats, but there was an ever increasing air of disappointment as the show went on that "this is what it's going to be". The occasional number of joy or energy, but then back to the dramatically lacking script and story, or some very slow songs.
I think if you go wanting to absolutely love it, you will be fine. But if you go not knowing what to expect or expecting an evening of music and drama coming together, you won't quite get it here. But I think that's less the fault of the production and more of the show itself.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 23, 2017 21:57:39 GMT
Good god, well that video, the sets used look amazing with the drum revolve. But I get the sense for this production it is fine without one. This seems (correct me if I am wrong), a show that works with simple sets rather than making it overly complicated. It's a show that can work with a relatively simple set (the interior of a derelict theatre) - until a certain point. Without giving anything away, later in the show something happens that really requires a set-change and a certain amount of spectacle, or at least a very different visual palette from the surrounding scenes. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 22:06:54 GMT
I wanna hear more about Tracie Bennett! How does she do on the big number, following apprehension some on here had before?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 22:14:29 GMT
The book is not a musical comedy, it is a study of illusions, depression, aging and decline. If anyone thinks they are going to see a glitzy, tap happy show, they should return their tickets pronto. People always presume the sudience is thinking the same as them, it's an ego thing. As a corrective, look on social media, it gives perspective. On the latter, the twitter response tonight is same as last night.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Aug 23, 2017 22:17:15 GMT
Yes, the title "Follies" can be misleading - it ain't 42nd St. The same goes for "Ragtime". I am going on Friday evening. I am notoriously difficult to please. I love this show, although it is problematic.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Aug 23, 2017 22:17:38 GMT
ah but when that drum does work, it is astonishing, and thrilling - The wind in the Willows, The Shaughran, 'Tis pity She's a Whore were all so exiciting, and it's a shame not to use it, even simply, when you have it, but if it is a matter of cost.....I have spent the last year thinking how I would design Follies on that stage, and for Loveland the drum and a circular staircase were definitely involved, but very uniquely. I do like the look of Loveland in the Bernadette Peters production.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Aug 23, 2017 22:18:41 GMT
Yep, it is a dark show, and the title tragically ironic.
|
|
4,189 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Aug 23, 2017 22:21:07 GMT
O.M.G.! Yes, I am gushing!
I'm gushing so much that (quite frankly) I'm speechless! Completely without speech!
Guys, it's late and I'm tired and have to get up early tomorrow.
Sorry to disappoint but I will review tomorrow..
(Yawn)
Get a ticket.
|
|
5,863 posts
|
Follies
Aug 23, 2017 22:31:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by mrbarnaby on Aug 23, 2017 22:31:32 GMT
Can we start to have some gushing about La Staunton now please.. we've waited long enough.. I'm assuming she runs away with another show..
|
|
