|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Jan 4, 2018 17:02:34 GMT
If Michael Billington can constantly harp on about productions of yore - which have LONG ceased to exist - in his reviews, then it seems *really* weird to insist that people on a message board can critique only what is presented to them on stage and not the absence of anything else. Indeed, by commenting on something that *is* then you are by extension implicitly noticing what is *not*. What if "what is there" is, for example, Imelda Staunton delivering the manic side of Sally? If in our opinion that is *all* she is offering, then how on earth do you stop there *without* implying there are other sides to Sally that she isn't delivering? This is a VERY strange conversation.
You're talking about critiquing Follies as it is written. The objection is to critiquing it by positing a Follies that does not exist, the show one wished Goldman and Sondheim had written.
I’m on the side of this view. If we consider what isn’t in the ‘book’ the possibilities are endless and we only read those thought of by the ‘reviewer’. Interesting maybe but unless the reviewer does something about their thoughts…. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern a different author has written a different play about characters that interest him. Also, there are at least two (currently) reasonably well-known Operas of Hamlet that do not have quite the same focus as the original play. Already 4 versions and yet there is still scope for many more. Think of Lear and The Dresser. It is more complicated when you consider productions. Particularly if the one you are seeing doesn’t adhere to the original production notes or costumes – the Opera world is somewhat obsessed with this. A reviewer may add recollections of how a different production created a certain effect or underlined one theme of a play. Similarly, they may recall the way another actor played it but the reviewer isn’t actually suggesting how it ought be designed or played. It’s fine to critique an action taken, or even compare it favourably or unfavourably with how another production/actor created an effect RELEVANT to the one being discussed. But what amounts to wishing you were watching something else is not a valid comment. IMO of course. |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 4, 2018 17:04:19 GMT
Okay, Emi, perhaps I read too much into your original comments, for which I apologize, but the changes you suggested - reorienting the scope of the piece to bring other stories to the foreground, cutting back on the central quartet - would effectively make it a different show - you must see that. And I still don't think you can criticise Follies for not taking the road you would have preferred. How it works now is what matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 17:21:22 GMT
Okay, Emi, perhaps I read too much into your original comments, for which I apologize, but the changes you suggested - reorienting the scope of the piece to bring other stories to the foreground, cutting back on the central quartet - would effectively make it a different show - you must see that. And I still don't think you can criticise Follies for not taking the road you would have preferred. How it works now is what matters. You know what, I usually very much respect your opinions (as well you know) but you've spent nearly a day now arguing with myself and others that black is white for no apparent purpose, and frankly we're all bored of it. Me and the little women will get back in our place, point taken. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 17:28:21 GMT
Can all of you cut it out and can we just get back to talking about this RECORDING THAT IS FINALLY HAPPENING. Do we think it'll be a complete 2-disc recording, a highlights album, will there be cuts in songs, will there be dialogue - what do people suspect? Are the NT generally good at producing top quality recordings etc etc?
|
|
5,162 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Being Alive on Jan 4, 2018 17:39:57 GMT
Can all of you cut it out and can we just get back to talking about this RECORDING THAT IS FINALLY HAPPENING. Do we think it'll be a complete 2-disc recording, a highlights album, will there be cuts in songs, will there be dialogue - what do people suspect? Are the NT generally good at producing top quality recordings etc etc? Full lot, studio recorded, from what I understand. Similar to the 2011 Broadway one I imagine, with bits of dialogue in. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 17:41:53 GMT
That would be PERFECTION.
|
|
1,489 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jan 4, 2018 18:02:56 GMT
The idea of the Follies meeting up again has SO much potential, so many interesting stories...but for me the ones Sondheim focused on were the least interesting. Yes the idea of love and regret is eternal. But what of the other stories- the careers found lost and found again, the women out there still seducing and living their best lives, those single and loving it. For me the love 'triangle' 'quadrangle' whatever it is seems too simple a way out almost, and I hate to say this of the great Sondheim, the lazy way of telling this story. It's still a moving one, and I felt poignantly the sadness and regret and tragedy of those characters. And that's real and raw in the writing and performance. But I constantly wanted more of what I wasn't getting- the other Follies stories. It's about the core quartet - there are no other stories. The most fully fleshed other character, Carlotta, gives us her entire life in one song. One may not always empathise with Buddy and Sally and Phyllis and Ben but they are substantial creations, full of nuance and hidden depths, revealed only in stages as they come apart at the seams. And then there's Goldman's great masterstroke, the younger selves weaving through every scene and showing us - not telling us - exactly who these people were and are. I find Goldman's work in Follies rich and insightful. I find new things in it every time I see it or listen to a cast recording. Of course Sondheim is the great genius and his score is sublime. But at least some of the credit for that goes to Goldman whose book provided such an inspiration for that genius. Good points made by all, I think. I have no problem with critiquing artists for promising a complex story, and delivering a simplistic one. I don't think that happened here. As Mallardo implies, this is a complex tapestry of human folly, embodied by that magical number of 4 characters, which has built in mirrors between all four characters to draw some revelatory conclusions about human patterns of behaviour. Ironically, this is the same strategy that Tony Kushner uses with his four central characters in "Angels in America." Perhaps, it is not Sondheim's and Goldman's focus on the quadrangle that irks, but their innate pessimism (Kushner is upbeat by comparison) about human nature. They do however surround their pessimism about human nature, with profound compassion, as does Kushner in his more optimistic assessment of humanity. Sondheim and his co-creators want to tell a story of about how human beings destroy themselves with obsessions and delusions and misdirected ambition, and the four central characters allow them to lay this out beautifully in terms of character, just as the framing device of the Follies reuniting allows the focus to be on "follies" revealed by the passage of time. Like an arrow, the show targets human "folly." Simply put, the stories about the Follies dancers that Emi is interested in, eg "the women out there still seducing and living their best lives," and "those single and loving it" seem to be about success, rather than failure, about resilience, rather than folly. As good a work as that may be, it seems to be a different work (as Mallardo suggested), and I wouldn't replace this downbeat insightful show with a more optimistic one for all the world. It wouldn't be saying the same thing. This show speaks to me, just the way it is, easily the best musical of 2017, for me! And part of the genius of Sondheim and Goldman is that they know the pill they are peddling is bitter, so they sugar coat that pill with the exuberance of show business, with an optimistic coda that reminds us that while we are alive, we still have another chance, and with optimistic supporting characters, who suggest that the fate of the four is not indelible. The overall experience of the show is therefore a celebration of the vivaciousness of humanity, as well as a critical dissection of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 18:45:46 GMT
Steve (tagging rather than quoting for space) I don't disagree with you at all. And had I been writing a "Proper Review" I'd probably have gone into similar details/reflections and structured it more, for want of a better word 'academically' as it happened, as we're at the end of the run I saw my comments as a chit-chatty contribution to a long discussion, the key points of anything more rigorous I had to say having already been covered in numerous ways and probably more articulately than my post-Christmas brain could take. I see now that for certain forum members, this kind of chit-chat response isn't allowed on the 'hallowed ground' of certain musicals. And the grilling, and frankly telling off I've had, the fact I've been implied to be ignorant and stupid over the last day over this is frankly ridiculous. I can and do write reviews for a number of publications, and I understand perfectly the difference in opinions and the way they should be expressed in different formats. But frankly I think the way this so-called conversation has been steered has been ridiculous. (none of which is directed at you Steve) Again, for the cheap seats in the back my final thoughts on the matter: 1. There's a difference between comments in a discussion and a 'review' 2. It is perfectly reasonable to reflect on what a story could have been as much as what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 19:27:54 GMT
Just reading back, Emi’s personal response early on got confused with the idea of a review. With reviews, yes, there are different ‘rules’, which is why I’ve referred to Billington and so on, but not posters here and any personal responses are much more interesting in any case. Also, mallardo’s focus on changing text became confused by references to interpretation of the text and the conflation of the two. So criticising Emi for writing a review or mallardo for believing that there are correct interpretations of a text is just confusing matters!
|
|
1,489 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jan 4, 2018 19:45:52 GMT
Cardinal Pirelli, yes. Emi, Nobody on this earth would take you for ignorant and stupid, least of all Mallardo, in my opinion. The trouble with words on the page is that without actors to perform them, without the nuance of tone of voice, we sometimes hear them in a way I don't believe they were intended. From my perspective, I have a resolutely good opinion of both of you.  Incidentally, I was at the last show, yesterday. Here are some impressions of the night, and the show in general: (1) Imelda Staunton made the final speech, saying she felt it was the best show they'd done (it was immensely more impactful than it was in preview, I felt); she noted the absence of Sondheim, who had been present "6 months" earlier, but took time to toast Dominic Cooke, the director, and Bill Deamer, the choreographer, who were present; she thanked us, the audience, for "liking" the show "so much," for which she felt "lucky;" and she noted that now was the time for the cast and crew to drink "champagne" themselves to commemorate the end of the production; (2) This was the most astonishingly brilliant cast I've ever seen, really. In every way, they brought out the truth of their characters. The central foursome were particularly peerless. Imelda Staunton captured the fragile emotional nervous energy of a delusional person so completely, and she soared in her "Too Many Mornings" duet with Quast. As delusional as Staunton's Sally Durant, Quast's Ben Stone was an even bigger failure, so corrupted his essence melted to nothing, yet his voice was so glorious that it seemed have the possibility of heavenly omniscience, which highlighted his character's tragedy. As Quast's Ben Stone broke down at the show's culmination, I loved how the lighting designer highlighted Stone's tragedy, as the neon sign "Fol-" went out, leaving lit only the word "-lies." I loved Peter Forbes' Buddy, for knowing himself totally, unlike his wife, but being utterly powerless to help himself anyway. Forbes succeeded in embodying so much raw rage, so much self-hatred, it was incredible to witness. Janie Dee gave the most rousing performance of anyone, seemingly defying age, possessing the self-knowledge of Forbes' Buddy, but sinking into icy empowered coldness, the opposite of Buddy's helpless rage, yet erupting into a dance that conveyed just how tragic her coldness was, given how much heat it contained; (3) Of the supporting players, I LOVED how Tracie Bennett constantly stumbled drunkenly, collapsing in a heap repeatedly, even as she insisted "I'm still here." My memory of her as Judy Garland, in a previous role, melded so perfectly with this performance, another "survivor" depicted as if on the day before she dies; (4) So too did I love how Di Botcher's Hattie basically summed up every emotional beat of "42nd Street," about a life devoted to putting on a show, in about 3 minutes, in her exquisitely constructed slow-build delivery of "Broadway Baby!" (5) Of the youthful supports, I was touched that poor Fred Haig, who injured himself out of a defining role at Regent's Park Theatre so recently, was able, night after night, to come out in this musical and sing that first beautiful introductory phrase "hey up there," as if reminding the heavens and the audience that he too, like Bennett's Carlotta, was still here, and still sounding delectable; and boy, Zizi Strallen did SO MUCH with so little, in her role as young Phyllis as she held her own dancing together with the whirlwind that was Janie Dee, and showed us the passionate interior of Phyllis every time Janie Dee got really glacial. All in all, as is the case for others, this show has seemed more insightful to me the older I get. And this production of this show was easily the best musical of 2017 for me! 5 stars. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jan 5, 2018 16:54:30 GMT
(1) Imelda Staunton made the final speech, saying she felt it was the best show they'd done (it was immensely more impactful than it was in preview, I felt); she noted the absence of Sondheim, who had been present "6 months" earlier, but took time to toast Dominic Cooke, the director, and Bill Deamer, the choreographer, who were present; she thanked us, the audience, for "liking" the show "so much," for which she felt "lucky;" and she noted that now was the time for the cast and crew to drink "champagne" themselves to commemorate the end of the production; Also, during the curtain call Philip Quast went and hugged Adam Rhys-Charles, who played Young Ben. The production definitely grew since previews (I saw the last-but one preview, then a matinee about three weeks ago, and then the final performance). The final show, yes, was an absolutely thrilling experience (diminished for me only by the discovery the morning after that a friend was sitting in the same row about thirty seats away - but we entered through different doors and somehow missed each other). The first time, while I loved the production overall, there were a handful of things in it that didn't quite work for me, most prominently the staging of 'Losing My Mind'. I still, I think, prefer a different kind of voice as Sally, but Imelda Staunton's performance grew on me; casting her in that particular role is inevitably going to compromise some of the music, but her acting choices were so fascinating that it didn't matter. On the second and third viewing, a lot of the criticisms I'd had the first time melted away (and one - the more-or-less-arbitrary choice to do Buddy's Blues the way it was done in the original out-of-town tryout, with men in drag playing the two women in the song - had been changed). I suspect it's going to be a very long time before I see another Follies that can match this one. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jan 5, 2018 16:59:05 GMT
Just reading back, Emi’s personal response early on got confused with the idea of a review. With reviews, yes, there are different ‘rules’, It is perfectly legitimate, in a review, to say that you found the supporting characters more interesting than some/all of the leads, and that you'd have liked the writers to have explored them in a bit more depth. Why on earth should that be a problem? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2018 18:28:16 GMT
Just reading back, Emi’s personal response early on got confused with the idea of a review. With reviews, yes, there are different ‘rules’, It is perfectly legitimate, in a review, to say that you found the supporting characters more interesting than some/all of the leads, and that you'd have liked the writers to have explored them in a bit more depth. Why on earth should that be a problem? Not sure why this is a response to me but there is a limit. Note that this only applies to those who are writing in the context of one person charged with writing for a mass audience, not someone writing on an internet forum, or indeed a blog that isn’t set up as giving an authoritative view. That authoritative voice is becoming increasingly impossible to justify, in my opinion. The example of Billington is a clear and useful one, you could also say the same of a Letts or a Treneman, whose political bias leads them into the same on the opposite side. It comes down to the way the internet has changed 'reviews' and how it has democratised the whole area. Why do there still exist supposedly objective professional reviewers writing in a way that presumes authority? That above political bias, for one, shows why that isn't credible, all they are, are people giving an opinion. So why elevate them? Why not change the nature of criticism and remove that/them? What I prefer, and what works, is when a Brantley or some such writes about their personal response, as he does on his London trips. It is interesting to see how and why someone thinks something so just lay it all out there. In essence, the 'rules' of criticism are increasingly difficult to follow and justify (include in that someone like the ones named above telling a writer what they should have written instead). Mirror what happens on a board like this, make them personal responses, not the voice to take notice of, just part of a conversation. Hell, I'd be interested in Letts talking about what lies behind his hatred of Simon Stephens and the usually appalling reviews he gives him, what makes him think that, what is his purpose? |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jan 5, 2018 19:15:57 GMT
It is perfectly legitimate, in a review, to say that you found the supporting characters more interesting than some/all of the leads, and that you'd have liked the writers to have explored them in a bit more depth. Why on earth should that be a problem? Not sure why this is a response to me but there is a limit. Note that this only applies to those who are writing in the context of one person charged with writing for a mass audience, not someone writing on an internet forum, or indeed a blog that isn’t set up as giving an authoritative view. That authoritative voice is becoming increasingly impossible to justify, in my opinion. The example of Billington is a clear and useful one, you could also say the same of a Letts or a Treneman, whose political bias leads them into the same on the opposite side. It comes down to the way the internet has changed 'reviews' and how it has democratised the whole area. Why do there still exist supposedly objective professional reviewers writing in a way that presumes authority? That above political bias, for one, shows why that isn't credible, all they are, are people giving an opinion. So why elevate them? Why not change the nature of criticism and remove that/them? What I prefer, and what works, is when a Brantley or some such writes about their personal response, as he does on his London trips. It is interesting to see how and why someone thinks something so just lay it all out there. In essence, the 'rules' of criticism are increasingly difficult to follow and justify (include in that someone like the ones named above telling a writer what they should have written instead). Mirror what happens on a board like this, make them personal responses, not the voice to take notice of, just part of a conversation. Hell, I'd be interested in Letts talking about what lies behind his hatred of Simon Stephens and the usually appalling reviews he gives him, what makes him think that, what is his purpose? What a load of absolute drivel. All reviews, whether they're written by Ben Brantley or Michael Billington or some blogger on a website only thirty-two people ever read, are subjective. A review is simply one person's individual response to a performance (or a book, or a film, or a piece of music, or whatever). Every single reviewer brings their own politics, experience, education into the room with them when they write. Michael Billington isn't God, and his opinion in a review isn't some objective Great Truth handed down from on high. He has a certain amount of authority based on his experience, his work ethic, and his education - he is very well-read - but that certainly doesn't mean I always agree with him. I definitely don't always agree with Ben Brantley. The "rules" of criticism are very simple: you give an opinion, and back it up with examples. That's all. And at the risk of repeating myself, there's certainly nothing in the "rules" to suggest that there's anything wrong with saying the supporting characters were more interesting than the leads. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2018 19:33:50 GMT
Not sure why this is a response to me but there is a limit. Note that this only applies to those who are writing in the context of one person charged with writing for a mass audience, not someone writing on an internet forum, or indeed a blog that isn’t set up as giving an authoritative view. That authoritative voice is becoming increasingly impossible to justify, in my opinion. The example of Billington is a clear and useful one, you could also say the same of a Letts or a Treneman, whose political bias leads them into the same on the opposite side. Snip What a load of absolute drivel. All reviews, whether they're written by Ben Brantley or Michael Billington or some blogger on a website only thirty-two people ever read, are subjective. A review is simply one person's individual response to a performance (or a book, or a film, or a piece of music, or whatever). Every single reviewer brings their own politics, experience, education into the room with them when they write. Michael Billington isn't God, and his opinion in a review isn't some objective Great Truth handed down from on high. He has a certain amount of authority based on his experience, his work ethic, and his education - he is very well-read - but that certainly doesn't mean I always agree with him. I definitely don't always agree with Ben Brantley. Snip. Well you appear to completely agree with that ‘drivel’ saying there is no such thing as an objective review, which is my whole point. Other than that, is it that you disagree that people take undue note of whatever they are presented with as authoritative (such as in a newspaper or their website)? I wish people were like that but they do. In my opinion. We have thousand of people giving their opinion a click of the mouse away, why not give up the pretence that professional reviewers are more worthy of note? I honestly don’t understand why this thread has become so contentious, people agreeing but then arguing vehemently about a slight difference of perspective, shifting people into boxes they aren’t in for the sake of furthering an argument and so on. I was making that distinction between professional writing and people giving their opinion on the internet because that was part of the confusion and now I think that argument has become that there is no difference between the two, which is what I said should become the case! I’ve still not worked out why I’m having mallardo’s point used against me, though. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jan 5, 2018 20:11:27 GMT
Other than that, is it that you disagree that people take undue note of whatever they are presented with as authoritative (such as in a newspaper or their website)? I wish people were like that but they do. In my opinion. We have thousand of people giving their opinion a click of the mouse away, why not give up the pretence that professional reviewers are more worthy of note? I think some people are far too insecure about their own opinions (and some people, frankly, aren't insecure enough). But that's a diversion: what, precisely, does any of this have to do with the boneheaded suggestion that it's somehow breaking the rules of criticism to suggest that the supporting characters in a play are more interesting than the leads? Why is it somehow a faux pas to suggest a play might be better if the writer had focused on different characters? Precisely which "rules" does that break? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2018 20:20:26 GMT
Other than that, is it that you disagree that people take undue note of whatever they are presented with as authoritative (such as in a newspaper or their website)? I wish people were like that but they do. In my opinion. We have thousand of people giving their opinion a click of the mouse away, why not give up the pretence that professional reviewers are more worthy of note? I think some people are far too insecure about their own opinions (and some people, frankly, aren't insecure enough). But that's a diversion: what, precisely, does any of this have to do with the boneheaded suggestion that it's somehow breaking the rules of criticism to suggest that the supporting characters in a play are more interesting than the leads? Why is it somehow a faux pas to suggest a play might be better if the writer had focused on different characters? Precisely which "rules" does that break? I have no idea, as it wasn't me who said that! Or is that in rules in inverted commas don't exist anyway? |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jan 6, 2018 0:31:58 GMT
I think some people are far too insecure about their own opinions (and some people, frankly, aren't insecure enough). But that's a diversion: what, precisely, does any of this have to do with the boneheaded suggestion that it's somehow breaking the rules of criticism to suggest that the supporting characters in a play are more interesting than the leads? Why is it somehow a faux pas to suggest a play might be better if the writer had focused on different characters? Precisely which "rules" does that break? I have no idea, as it wasn't me who said that! Or is that in rules in inverted commas don't exist anyway? You said you thought the person who said they wished the writers had focused more on the supporting characters than the leads was "confused about the idea of a review". How, precisely, does that suggestion indicate any kind of confusion about the "idea of a review"? It seems quite straightforward to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2018 1:19:01 GMT
I have no idea, as it wasn't me who said that! Or is that in rules in inverted commas don't exist anyway? You said you thought the person who said they wished the writers had focused more on the supporting characters than the leads was "confused about the idea of a review". How, precisely, does that suggestion indicate any kind of confusion about the "idea of a review"? It seems quite straightforward to me. No I didn't, it needs to be read in context alongside Emi's post just before it when she explains that she was writing a personal response and not a review. After reading that I added " Just reading back, Emi’s personal response early on got confused with the idea of a review." The context was my reading back through that whole thread not Emi's individual post and my noticing that the replies to her post were making it into something it wasn't. Emi wrote a personal response while others took it as being a 'proper review' (her words and the thrust of that previous post, the one I was agreeing with). I didn't write "Reading the original post, Emi early on got confused with what a review should be." nor would I, as that is incorrect. That Emi 'liked' my reply should have been a clue that it was a supportive comment! |
|
258 posts
|
Follies
Jan 7, 2018 9:12:26 GMT
via mobile
sf likes this
Post by notmymuse on Jan 7, 2018 9:12:26 GMT
So pleased to have had a chance to see this (at the cinema, a bit late to the party note but nevermind!). It's one of the few of Sondheim's I've never seen before and I'm glad to have caught it.
Overall, I really enjoyed this. With such a strong cast is hard to pick stand outs, but I forgot what an amazing dancer Zizi Strallen is and really enjoyed watching her. Quite stunning.
My favourite moment was the operetta-style duet which I thought was quite wonderfully sung and very touching.
It dragged as little for me with the different Follies part for the main characters (I guess my short attention span would have liked an interval) but apart from that, I was pretty gripped.
The cinema was pretty packed too, and whilst I guess nothing can match being there in person, it's great to see NT using cinemas to make its work more accessible, to people outside London and on lower incomes - I guess cinema is helping NT be more "National" which is a good thing. I'm thankful to have had the chance to see it.
|
|
86 posts
|
Post by abitoftap on Jan 11, 2018 17:06:58 GMT
Popbitch:
The National Theatre's production of Follies closed last week, after getting incredible reviews. Those who caught it towards the end of the run may have noticed a slight change in the casting of one particular scene though.
There's a scene which sees Buddy chasing two women around the stage in a fevered little fantasy as he sings the God-Why-Don't-You-Love-Me Blues. In a little British twist though, the 'women' were actually men dressed and styled as panto dames.
It seems Stephen Sondheim saw the live cast and wasn’t impressed by the inclusion of the dames, so told the director to change it. Lawyers were even mentioned.
Needless to say, the change got made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 17:49:56 GMT
Popbitch: The National Theatre's production of Follies closed last week, after getting incredible reviews. Those who caught it towards the end of the run may have noticed a slight change in the casting of one particular scene though. There's a scene which sees Buddy chasing two women around the stage in a fevered little fantasy as he sings the God-Why-Don't-You-Love-Me Blues. In a little British twist though, the 'women' were actually men dressed and styled as panto dames. It seems Stephen Sondheim saw the live cast and wasn’t impressed by the inclusion of the dames, so told the director to change it. Lawyers were even mentioned. Needless to say, the change got made. Oooooh you go Stephanie. Finger snap for you. From Christian Borle no less.  |
|
1,228 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jan 11, 2018 18:54:12 GMT
Popbitch: The National Theatre's production of Follies closed last week, after getting incredible reviews. Those who caught it towards the end of the run may have noticed a slight change in the casting of one particular scene though. There's a scene which sees Buddy chasing two women around the stage in a fevered little fantasy as he sings the God-Why-Don't-You-Love-Me Blues. In a little British twist though, the 'women' were actually men dressed and styled as panto dames. It seems Stephen Sondheim saw the live cast and wasn’t impressed by the inclusion of the dames, so told the director to change it. Lawyers were even mentioned. Needless to say, the change got made. How odd. He was in for the two dress rehearsals and the first preview. I wonder at which point he got unhappy? And when he (or lawyers) had a word with Dom? |
|
617 posts
|
Follies
Jan 11, 2018 19:22:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by loureviews on Jan 11, 2018 19:22:48 GMT
They weren't dressed as panto dames. And in the original production men played these roles so why was Sondheim bothered?
Then again is Popbitch really a reliable source ...?
|
|
|
|
Follies
Jan 12, 2018 7:49:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by Mr Snow on Jan 12, 2018 7:49:31 GMT
They weren't dressed as panto dames. And in the original production men played these roles so why was Sondheim bothered? Then again is Popbitch really a reliable source ...? Does anyone believe a small suggestion from Sondheim has to include the word Lawyer, before the NT listen? Besides the change didn’t take place for a couple of months, just before fuming. Which as someone on here pointed out was a good time to make improvements. |
|
