26 posts
|
Post by julian on Aug 23, 2017 22:37:25 GMT
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Aug 23, 2017 22:39:41 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. Thanks for your realistic perspective on this. Many of theatre dedicates are obsessed with SS (including myself), but there's a reason he's only had modest commercial success as compared with his prolific critical success. The NT has a wide audience, not only of theatre dedicates, and it may well appeal a lot less to many others. |
|
47 posts
|
Post by prophet on Aug 23, 2017 22:40:22 GMT
I have just got home from tonights preview.
I don't really enjoy Sondheim but went in with an open mind.
The scenery was outstanding. It looked authentic and created a great ambience.
The mirror number was fantastic. There was a few mistakes with the choreography overall but hey its a preview! After the show, a few other audience members expressed disappointment with the production especially with the individual follies.
The ending was very abrupt and for me it failed to bring any sort of closure. It never really went anywhere.
The cast was great. However, its style over substance for me. I wouldn't go again or recommend. Too long.
|
|
47 posts
|
Post by prophet on Aug 23, 2017 22:42:00 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. Exactly what I thought after tonight's show! |
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Aug 23, 2017 23:13:28 GMT
Interesting - lots of people mentioning Who's That Woman? (Mirror Mirror) as the highlight so far.
|
|
1,228 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 23, 2017 23:31:13 GMT
I wanna hear more about Tracie Bennett! How does she do on the big number, following apprehension some on here had before?  TB does it sat initially on some old theatre seats with young'uns around her, then drifts off solo. She does two laps of the seats, and a lot of gestures that reminded me of Judy Garland in her later years. I think she could have more detail in her funny lines, but it got a big round. |
|
1,228 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 23, 2017 23:37:48 GMT
I have just got home from tonights preview. I don't really enjoy Sondheim but went in with an open mind. The scenery was outstanding. It looked authentic and created a great ambience. The mirror number was fantastic. There was a few mistakes with the choreography overall but hey its a preview! After the show, a few other audience members expressed disappointment with the production especially with the individual follies. The ending was very abrupt and for me it failed to bring any sort of closure. It never really went anywhere. The cast was great. However, its style over substance for me. I wouldn't go again or recommend. Too long. Great to hear a similar opinion. I sensed others felt the same as me in the stalls during it, as I said, but then people seemed to ovate pretty quickly, even the couple in front of me who had seemed quite restless. Audiences can be so hard to gauge. But I reminded myself it was a preview audience, so might be more willing to love it from the off/regardless, than a regular audience. Agree about the abrupt ending. I have tickets for January but I think I might gift them on to someone instead of going again. Once felt enough. |
|
1,228 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Aug 23, 2017 23:39:52 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. * but the conflicts were high stakes enough. I meant to type "weren't high stakes enough". |
|
524 posts
|
Follies
Aug 23, 2017 23:46:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by callum on Aug 23, 2017 23:46:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Aug 24, 2017 5:58:03 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. My take is slightly different from yours. By 1940 the original Follies were on their last legs all the stars and glamour had gone, so in a sense part of what they are remembered for is nostalgia for something that no longer really existed. Also America was just coming out of the depression, things weren't so great. It was WW11 that made them the superpower and set up the economic growth of the 50's and 60's that these characters lived through. The disillusion might be traced back to the assassination of Kennedy. The same period that Sondheim lived through and wanted to examine how it turned out for those characters. |
|
8,135 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Aug 24, 2017 6:55:26 GMT
Reading the comments so far it looks as if the more stars the forum member has the more they liked the show. That's quite interesting.
Sondheim is always a strange one and he is a bit like Marmite.
Personally I love Marmite and Sondheim so I know already I will love this production when I get to see it next week. It has one of my favourite scores and has a lot of stand alone "tunes". This show is the one I have been looking forward to the most this year, even more than Hamilton. Although 42nd Street was the surprise contender for top slot.
8 sleeps until I see it.
|
|
47 posts
|
Post by prophet on Aug 24, 2017 7:32:26 GMT
Reading the comments so far it looks as if the more stars the forum member has the more they liked the show. That's quite interesting. What do you mean by that? Even if I had four stars, i wouldn't have enjoyed follies anymore or any less. |
|
8,135 posts
|
Follies
Aug 24, 2017 7:59:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by alece10 on Aug 24, 2017 7:59:16 GMT
Reading the comments so far it looks as if the more stars the forum member has the more they liked the show. That's quite interesting. What do you mean by that? Even if I had four stars, i wouldn't have enjoyed follies anymore or any less. I don't mean anything. I was just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 8:15:00 GMT
If anyone thinks they are going to see a glitzy, tap happy show, they should return their tickets pronto. Ticket returned. Thanks for your realistic perspective on this. Many of theatre dedicates are obsessed with SS (including myself), but there's a reason he's only had modest commercial success as compared with his prolific critical success. The NT has a wide audience, not only of theatre dedicates, and it may well appeal a lot less to many others. I certainly wouldn't say that but they did have lovely uniforms. |
|
|
|
Follies
Aug 24, 2017 8:19:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 8:19:47 GMT
I'd be interested to know the ages of the people seeing it for the furst time. I think Follies is a musical for older adults. Its a show about complicated relationships, about loving and longing, its about regrets and staying in relationships when all the love has gone, staying rather than being alone. To say that the stakes weren't high enough makes me wonder if you have never experienced any of these things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 8:35:36 GMT
I'd be interested to know the ages of the people seeing it for the furst time. I think Follies is a musical for older adults. Its a show about complicated relationships, about loving and longing, its about regrets and staying in relationships when all the love has gone, staying rather than being alone. To say that the stakes weren't high enough makes me wonder if you have never experienced any of these things. Why should you have to have experienced something like that to get something out of this show? To my mind, if that's a prerequisite then there is something wrong with the show. Not to mention that some people in their 70s may not ever have experienced anything like that. I don't think either my age or the number of stars I have on here should have any bearing on whether I can enjoy this production or not (for the record, I'm in my 20s and not a huge Sondheim fan, so chances are I may well bring the average amount of effusiveness per theatreboard star down considerably when I see this next month...). |
|
|
|
Follies
Aug 24, 2017 8:43:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 8:43:01 GMT
I didnt say it was a prerequisite to be able to enjoy the show. They're just some of the themes of the piece and if you cant relate to a show in some way then you wont get as much out of it as others will.
|
|
47 posts
|
Post by prophet on Aug 24, 2017 8:53:57 GMT
I'd be interested to know the ages of the people seeing it for the furst time. I think Follies is a musical for older adults. Its a show about complicated relationships, about loving and longing, its about regrets and staying in relationships when all the love has gone, staying rather than being alone. To say that the stakes weren't high enough makes me wonder if you have never experienced any of these things. Age has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 8:56:09 GMT
I think it's a valid point to say we get different things out of different shows depending on life experience- to use another Sondheim example (not having seen Follies at all yet) I loved Company 10 or so years ago when it was revived on Broadway. However I was what...24/5 at the time, so if I saw it now with a) 10 years more theatre going experience and b) 10 years more life experience of course I'd experience it differently. I'd get other things from it- particularly being closer to Bobby's age now.
However, that doesn't mean I got nothing from it- or indeed Follies. However I will say there are shows I wish I'd seen later in my theatre-going life just to have the maturity to really get the most from them. But such is theatre life, it's always changing and you grab what you can get when you get it. There's also a hell of a lot of intellectual snobbery around Sondheim, to which I say frankly go and enjoy the music and pretty sets, or go and have a life changing experience either is valid.
Also as for number of stars...that simply represents that some of us just like to talk A LOT.
|
|
421 posts
|
Post by schuttep on Aug 24, 2017 8:58:53 GMT
According to Sondheim himself, last Tuesday, I'm Still Here is the biography of Joan Crawford.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 9:09:10 GMT
According to Sondheim himself, last Tuesday, I'm Still Here is the biography of Joan Crawford. Yep, he's stated this a number of times. ("Then someone's mother, then you're camp. Then you career from career to career to career." Christina ("someone" lol)... Dunaway (absolutely)... Actress... Pepsi Cola...) |
|
8,135 posts
|
Follies
Aug 24, 2017 9:18:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by alece10 on Aug 24, 2017 9:18:13 GMT
I think it's a valid point to say we get different things out of different shows depending on life experience- to use another Sondheim example (not having seen Follies at all yet) I loved Company 10 or so years ago when it was revived on Broadway. However I was what...24/5 at the time, so if I saw it now with a) 10 years more theatre going experience and b) 10 years more life experience of course I'd experience it differently. I'd get other things from it- particularly being closer to Bobby's age now. However, that doesn't mean I got nothing from it- or indeed Follies. However I will say there are shows I wish I'd seen later in my theatre-going life just to have the maturity to really get the most from them. But such is theatre life, it's always changing and you grab what you can get when you get it. There's also a hell of a lot of intellectual snobbery around Sondheim, to which I say frankly go and enjoy the music and pretty sets, or go and have a life changing experience either is valid. Also as for number of stars...that simply represents that some of us just like to talk A LOT. |
|
8,135 posts
|
Follies
Aug 24, 2017 9:19:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by alece10 on Aug 24, 2017 9:19:52 GMT
I think it's a valid point to say we get different things out of different shows depending on life experience- to use another Sondheim example (not having seen Follies at all yet) I loved Company 10 or so years ago when it was revived on Broadway. However I was what...24/5 at the time, so if I saw it now with a) 10 years more theatre going experience and b) 10 years more life experience of course I'd experience it differently. I'd get other things from it- particularly being closer to Bobby's age now. However, that doesn't mean I got nothing from it- or indeed Follies. However I will say there are shows I wish I'd seen later in my theatre-going life just to have the maturity to really get the most from them. But such is theatre life, it's always changing and you grab what you can get when you get it. There's also a hell of a lot of intellectual snobbery around Sondheim, to which I say frankly go and enjoy the music and pretty sets, or go and have a life changing experience either is valid. Also as for number of stars...that simply represents that some of us just like to talk A LOT. Very true. I've only got 5 stars because I prattle on not because of my intilectual input. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 9:21:48 GMT
I think it's a valid point to say we get different things out of different shows depending on life experience- to use another Sondheim example (not having seen Follies at all yet) I loved Company 10 or so years ago when it was revived on Broadway. However I was what...24/5 at the time, so if I saw it now with a) 10 years more theatre going experience and b) 10 years more life experience of course I'd experience it differently. I'd get other things from it- particularly being closer to Bobby's age now. However, that doesn't mean I got nothing from it- or indeed Follies. However I will say there are shows I wish I'd seen later in my theatre-going life just to have the maturity to really get the most from them. But such is theatre life, it's always changing and you grab what you can get when you get it. There's also a hell of a lot of intellectual snobbery around Sondheim, to which I say frankly go and enjoy the music and pretty sets, or go and have a life changing experience either is valid. Also as for number of stars...that simply represents that some of us just like to talk A LOT. Very true. I've only got 5 stars because I prattle on not because of my intilectual input. Let's be honest at least half of my posts that got me to 5* are whining about my day and insulting The Monkey. It's not because I'm the world's greatest Sondheim expert that's for sure! |
|
423 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 24, 2017 9:23:12 GMT
I've been seeing Follies any chance I've gotten since the original Broadway production and when I first saw it I was young and blown away by the sheer audacity and bitterness of the book and the dazzle of the score however over time I've come to appreciate just why middle age people and the wider popular audience didn't take the show to its heart. No one in the show is happy - except maybe Stella Deems, Hattie Walker and Solange. Everyone else looks at their lives as a disappointment of some sort ( and some worse than that) . At this point in my life one of the aspects of Follies that I love is that it's a show that can constantly be discovered by the creatives involved and by the different audiences that find themselves there. It's a great work of art that can be debated until the sun comes up. This production at the National has more than its share of flaws ( choreography, Loveland design, Janie Dee's dresses) but it's also thrilling because the show itself is so ambitious and bold. If you love the theatre and if you're passionate about musical theatre , Follies is the musical theatre equivalent of the Acropolis. You simply must go and pay homage to it.
|
|
