Follies

[sam22]

Sept 4, 2017 13:53:49 GMT danieljohnson14 said:

Production Photographs are out! It looks beautiful!

www.broadwayworld.com/article/Photo-Flash-First-Look-At-FOLLIES-At-The-National-Theatre-20170904

Great photos! Having seen ALNM at the Watermill on Saturday and these photos I am now getting excited about my visit at the end of October!

[Deleted]

Good feature on Front Row this evening with interviews with some of the cast and some snippets of music

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qsq5

[Deleted]

Is there any chance of this having a west end run or is the National its only run?

[Mark]

It wont transfers. There's plenty of availability for the latter part of the NT run and I can't imagine they'd be able to keep the cast intact any longer.

[theatre-turtle]

The economics would be all over the place as well with a massive orchestra and cast and a complicated set. It would likely be a massive loss making venture.

So glad the taxpayer is subsidising my enjoyment of this to make it possible.

[paddy72]

I must be growing younger in my old age as I found this a long tiresome night out. A shame as I have fond memories of earlier productions. Maybe it was all down to the huge set which took up all of the centre stage excluding views of half the performances. Or maybe it was the way too many same-y songs. Or maybe it was the idea of such a gay concept - follies - being devoid of a single gay character. Who knows but with a West End full now of similar sorts of revivals I don't get why this theatre company should want to give up yet another one. Where's the new stuff people? Does no one at the National have anything new to say ?

[Deleted]

Sept 5, 2017 6:51:46 GMT paddy72 said:

I must be growing younger in my old age as I found this a long tiresome night out. A shame as I have fond memories of earlier productions. Maybe it was all down to the huge set which took up all of the centre stage excluding views of half the performances. Or maybe it was the way too many same-y songs. Or maybe it was the idea of such a gay concept - follies - being devoid of a single gay character. Who knows but with a West End full now of similar sorts of revivals I don't get why this theatre company should want to give up yet another one. Where's the new stuff people? Does no one at the National have anything new to say ?

It's probably a good thing that the NT chose to say something old with this one, especially after the run of new duds they've had there recently by all accounts.

I can't remember the last time something big like this divided opinion in the way it has on here. Really looking forward to it this weekend, with everyone's views onboard already!

[Mr Snow]

Sept 5, 2017 7:12:07 GMT @caiaphas said:

Sept 5, 2017 6:51:46 GMT paddy72 said:

I can't remember the last time something big like this divided opinion in the way it has on here. Really looking forward to it this weekend, with everyone's views onboard already!

Yes. What's the American equivalent of Marmite?  


Nst going unitl November and taking two people who aren't into musicals. Now really not sure this is the one for them. 

[kathryn]

Sept 5, 2017 6:51:46 GMT paddy72 said:

Where's the new stuff people? Does no one at the National have anything new to say ?

They can't win at the Nash. They programme lots of new stuff - with the usual risk that much of it won't be very good, because the only way to find out is something is good is to put it on for an audience - and people say they're neglecting the classic repertoire. They revive a classic Sondheim in a full-throated production and people complain that they've got nothing new to say!

Follies may be old, but it's entirely new to me, and will be to many who see this production.

[tonyloco]

Good point, Kathryn, but as I said in a previous post, I think it is a mistake for the NT to mount this huge production of 'Follies' in the Olivier when it is far more suited to a proscenium theatre, namely the Lyttelton. The main story concerns the two central couples and the show does not even have a chorus in the normal sense of the word so we have to have an added chorus of ghostly Follies girls and the focus on the main characters is diffused. In fact, over the years I have felt that the Olivier poses major problems for many of the productions that are mounted there, plays as well as musicals, and 'Follies' is no exception. I guess I am not the first person to air these views but I think they are still relevant.

[kathryn]

Sept 5, 2017 8:26:12 GMT tonyloco said:

Good point, Kathryn, but as I said in a previous post, I think it is a mistake for the NT to mount this huge production of 'Follies' in the Olivier when it is far more suited to a proscenium theatre, namely the Lyttelton. The main story concerns the two central couples and the show does not even have a chorus in the normal sense of the word so we have to have an added chorus of ghostly Follies girls and the focus on the main characters is diffused. In fact, over the years I have felt that the Olivier poses major problems for many of the productions that are mounted there, plays as well as musicals, and 'Follies' is no exception. I guess I am not the first person to air these views but I think they are still relevant.

I utterly loved the ghostly Follies. Surely revisiting the ghosts of the past and exploring how they haunt the present is what the show *is* all about? It's not just a relationship drama about two unhappy couples - it's much bigger and wider than that. Otherwise it'd be Company and you'd put it on with 6 people.

 

[mallardo]

Sept 5, 2017 6:51:46 GMT paddy72 said:

I must be growing younger in my old age as I found this a long tiresome night out. A shame as I have fond memories of earlier productions. Maybe it was all down to the huge set which took up all of the centre stage excluding views of half the performances. Or maybe it was the way too many same-y songs. Or maybe it was the idea of such a gay concept - follies - being devoid of a single gay character. Who knows but with a West End full now of similar sorts of revivals I don't get why this theatre company should want to give up yet another one. Where's the new stuff people? Does no one at the National have anything new to say ?

I'd love to know what "performances" were blocked for you by the big set.  I saw everyone and everything clearly.

"Gay concept"   I don't even know what that means. Yes, Buddy's Blues featured two guys in drag but it was played as pure slapstick, not quite the same thing.

"Samey songs" Well, they all sound like Sondheim, if that's your problem. Otherwise I can't think of a more diverse Sondheim score, of necessity. The concept of the show calls for a wide range of musical styles from operetta to vaudeville.

Dislike the show, fine.  But don't misrepresent it.

[Deleted]

I'm looking forward to seeing it this afternoon. It seems like it hzs gotten mixed to positive reviews, and Tracie and Imelda are always a hoot so it should be a nice afternoon in the theatre!

[ctas]

Really loved this last night, it struck all the right emotional chords for me. The friend I went with said it was technically great but bored her to tears so I guess there's a wide range of responses!

[crabtree]

I love how everyone is enjoying the ghosts, but they've always been part of the show, lurking and watching, and then having their moments - or are they more than usually integrated?

[Deleted]

I loved this on the Olivier stage personally and am glad it wasn't in the Lyttelton, which I find a really alienating theatre regardless of where you sit.

[westendwendy]

Actually with the constant annoyingly clockwise revolving set the audience far stage right (house left) do miss some of the action. I also thought this and yes, the set does get in the way.

[Deleted]

Sept 5, 2017 8:34:56 GMT mallardo said:

Sept 5, 2017 6:51:46 GMT paddy72 said:

I must be growing younger in my old age as I found this a long tiresome night out. A shame as I have fond memories of earlier productions. Maybe it was all down to the huge set which took up all of the centre stage excluding views of half the performances. Or maybe it was the way too many same-y songs. Or maybe it was the idea of such a gay concept - follies - being devoid of a single gay character. Who knows but with a West End full now of similar sorts of revivals I don't get why this theatre company should want to give up yet another one. Where's the new stuff people? Does no one at the National have anything new to say ?

I'd love to know what "performances" were blocked for you by the big set.  I saw everyone and everything clearly.

"Gay concept"   I don't even know what that means. Yes, Buddy's Blues featured two guys in drag but it was played as pure slapstick, not quite the same thing.

"Samey songs" Well, they all sound like Sondheim, if that's your problem. Otherwise I can't think of a more diverse Sondheim score, of necessity. The concept of the show calls for a wide range of musical styles from operetta to vaudeville.

Dislike the show, fine.  But don't misrepresent it.

I think the 'gay concept' thing is a reference to Follies/Showgirls etc being in the category of 'campy' entertainment, and something that gets labelled as 'camp/gay' but I think lamenting the lack of gay character all these years later is a bit of a waste of time....

I actually 'lol'd' at 'They all sound like Sondheim'. On a similar note I'm going to go to a Shakespeare and complain all the verse sounds the same haha

[mallardo]

Aha, Emi, I think you read the "gay concept" thing correctly and I read it wrong. I just never thought of the show as having a gay concept.

[loureviews]

I honestly think that song-wise many of Sondheim's best numbers are in Follies. And as most are pastiches of other composers, how can they 'all sound the same'?

And no, the set doesn't block half of the action. Still, each to their own.

[kelly52]

Saw Follies last night and I am definitely in the WOW camp. Just loved this production (I think I've seen every one since the Shaftesbury version) and it ranks top of the pile (Royal Albert Hall was, for me, the worst of the bunch). A few minor niggles re staging - Loveland was a bit of a let down if I'm honest. I thought some of the supporting performances needed a bit more time to bed in - Broadway Baby montage felt a bit off last night - but this just needs a few more performances.

Positives - and there were many - all 4 leads were exceptional, with Janie Dee standing out the most despite what sounded like a few vocal issues. Tracie Bennett stopped the show cold with I'm Still Here. Remarkable interpretation of this song. Sizzling with energy. One Last Kiss was beautiful. Who's That Woman was lots of fun although Dawn Hope disappeared within the vastness of the number slightly. Orchestra is sensational.

Negatives - only one real issue for me, and it is nothing to do with the production. I just find it hard to empathise with the lead characters. Always have. Last night was the closest I have gotten to really understand and care about them.

Question re Who's That Woman - the oddest thing, but half way through there is a really odd sound isssue that made it look like Dawn Hope is miming. It just sounded off and looked like she was lip syncing with a more powerful vocal then at any other point in the number, including the ending. I'm guessing it was because they had to push her mic up really high as she was upstage. Did anyone else notice this?

Anyway, all in all this is a must see. Still buzzing and planning my return. Reckon I'll get even more from it second time round.

[Deleted]

Good god there is so much to say! I wanna sit down and properly think before I write all my thoughts. But a few key points to leave you with...

The show looks beautiful. The show went by pretty fast for me, the length didn't bother me at all, I was enjoying it that much. And Tracie Bennett steals the show from every, single person on that stage! Oh, and anyone who thought Imelda might win two Oliviers this year... she's not even the best in her own show, let alone of the year! Shes terrific, but by no means the best. 
 

[orchestrator]

Sept 5, 2017 6:51:46 GMT paddy72 said:

Or maybe it was the way too many same-y songs.

OK, I’ll bite.

Which other Follies song sounds like (WOFSSL) One More Kiss?

WOFSSL Buddy’s Blues

WOFSSL Beautiful Girls

WOFSSL Broadway Baby

[I’m on a roll now]

WOFSSL Lucy And Jessie [OK maybe this sounds a little like Who’s That Woman? (Mirror, Mirror)]

WOFSSL In Buddy’s Eyes

WOFSSL Ah Paree!

There’s more.

If you mean they sound “samey” because they all use Western scales and harmony and are for the most part in standard time signatures then, yep, you’ve got Sondheim banged to rights.

[alece10]

Sept 5, 2017 15:00:43 GMT kelly52 said:

Saw Follies last night and I am definitely in the WOW camp. Just loved this production (I think I've seen every one since the Shaftesbury version) and it ranks top of the pile (Royal Albert Hall was, for me, the worst of the bunch). A few minor niggles re staging - Loveland was a bit of a let down if I'm honest. I thought some of the supporting performances needed a bit more time to bed in - Broadway Baby montage felt a bit off last night - but this just needs a few more performances.

Positives - and there were many - all 4 leads were exceptional, with Janie Dee standing out the most despite what sounded like a few vocal issues. Tracie Bennett stopped the show cold with I'm Still Here. Remarkable interpretation of this song. Sizzling with energy. One Last Kiss was beautiful. Who's That Woman was lots of fun although Dawn Hope disappeared within the vastness of the number slightly. Orchestra is sensational.

Negatives - only one real issue for me, and it is nothing to do with the production. I just find it hard to empathise with the lead characters. Always have. Last night was the closest I have gotten to really understand and care about them.

Question re Who's That Woman - the oddest thing, but half way through there is a really odd sound isssue that made it look like Dawn Hope is miming. It just sounded off and looked like she was lip syncing with a more powerful vocal then at any other point in the number, including the ending. I'm guessing it was because they had to push her mic up really high as she was upstage. Did anyone else notice this?

Anyway, all in all this is a must see. Still buzzing and planning my return. Reckon I'll get even more from it second time round.

Yes I did notice that and someone earlier in the thread said they thought she was miming. I think it was a sound issue too as I was only 5 rows back in the stalls and as soon as she came to the front of the stage you could both see and hear that she was singing live. But I did think it was odd for a few moments.

[Deleted]

Is there any interviews or anything in a press release of why Imelda took this of all roles? Curious?