Follies

[sf]

Mar 28, 2019 16:52:18 GMT danieljohnson14 said:

Mar 28, 2019 16:32:31 GMT sf said:

The Loveland sequence IS the peak. It's four nervous breakdowns presented as pastiche Follies performances - Buddy as a vaudeville clown, Sally as a torch singer, Phyllis as dancer (or, in a production that uses 'Ah, But Underneath' instead of 'Lucy and Jessie', a stripper), and Ben as a song-and-dance man - and those performances are carefully designed to expose each character's individual folly.

poor Ben though, he really does get the crap one of the four songs and scenes doesn't he.

No, he doesn't. He gets a very clever musical pastiche which accurately represents the persona he tries to present to the world, and it falls to pieces halfway through because it's a lie. It's a neat reversal of the way musical theatre usually works: here, the song exposes the character singing it as a fraud.

[danieljohnson14]

Mar 28, 2019 17:02:46 GMT sf said:

Mar 28, 2019 16:52:18 GMT danieljohnson14 said:

poor Ben though, he really does get the crap one of the four songs and scenes doesn't he.

No, he doesn't. He gets a very clever musical pastiche which accurately represents the persona he tries to present to the world, and it falls to pieces halfway through because it's a lie. It's a neat reversal of the way musical theatre usually works: here, the song exposes the character singing it as a fraud.

sorry, I forgot to add "in my opinion" haha. I just felt like after Sally and Phyllis' numbers, it was just such a downgrade in comparison and it felt like there was no excitement there at all.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2019 16:32:31 GMT sf said:

Mar 28, 2019 11:12:48 GMT @sharpe12 said:

Oh and one comment about the piece itself - I don't quite get the structure. It is ramping up into a gut wrenching tragedy of unhappy relationships and fundamentally broken characters. Then instead of letting that peak in an all out gut punch (which I found I wanted at this point) it descends into Vaudeville with the Follies themselves.

The Loveland sequence IS the peak. It's four nervous breakdowns presented as pastiche Follies performances - Buddy as a vaudeville clown, Sally as a torch singer, Phyllis as dancer (or, in a production that uses 'Ah, But Underneath' instead of 'Lucy and Jessie', a stripper), and Ben as a song-and-dance man - and those performances are carefully designed to expose each character's individual folly.

No I understand that, but the fact they do the breakdowns as pastiche Follies performances, for me loses the impact of the hideousness of the nervous breakdowns that has been building so effectively through the show.

I enjoy the Follies and I get that that is the musical, but I personally don't find them that moving AS nervous breakdowns. And the show it feels takes a very steep and sudden change in direction emotionally when they begin.

[Deleted]

Miles behind on this thread.Dom and distant cousin make a valid point about NT versus WE crowds.I always walk across the river by bridge rather than get a tube often just to get a view of the spectacular city-scape.It feels that leaving the mad crush and fervour behind in the WE and crossing over to the relative calm of the South Bank is symbolic of the kinds of audiences attracted to the two venues.Just wish the NT didn’t look like a dis-used car park from a distance.
Just read my comment back to myself and laughed at the pseudo-arty bs that I’ve written but you get my drift.

[Phantom of London]

I was at the Stephen Sondheim platform this evening.

I have to say I was completely underwhelmed, Sondheim is a god and legendary doyen of theatre, so I was expecting him to be lowered on stage from the fly, with glasses that had flashing LEDs on it, or at least rise from the drum revolve, not for his status walk on stage, that was rubbish.




BTW I really enjoyed it, I also saw Follies which Mr Sondheim seemed to really love, sure he will be at Company tomorrow.

In the platform he reserved special praise for Imedia Staunton and Maria Friedman.

[ali973]

I was there too. It was alright, I suppose. The best part was when he revealed that originally Losing My Mind was a duet between Sally and Phyllis, and that the entire ensemble would appear and be dressed as Buddy. Thought that was a beautiful. There was a collective "oo ahh" when he said that.

[NeilVHughes]

Was also at the talk and found him to be a very humble and entertaining company.

Liked the fact that he criticised the British for becoming too American and giving a standing ovation to anything and they should play his remarks on mobile phones before every show.

Booked to see Follies again from the circle next week to get a panoramic view, surprised there were still Friday Rush tickets available a few hours after they became available.

[lonlad]

It must be overwhelmingly emotional for him to see this ravishing FOLLIES one night and then this ravishing COMPANY the next night within days of turning 89 and knowing that one's chances of productions again of this quality in one's lifetime are very small. How thrilling for him -- not to mention for us. :-)

[ali973]

On reflection, I wasn't too crazy about his binary views on revivals when asked if they should be modernized. "They should just be done the way they are."I'm not entirely sure of this. Culture, society and the audience that watches these shows evolve, and so should the shows that are presented to them. I'm not for or against radical revisals, but I think some revisions are necessary when reviving relics.

[lonlad]

I think he would totally agree with you as long as there's a reason for it --i.e. gender flipping and modernizing COMPANY yes but setting FOLLIES at Wembley Arena which is being torn down to make a new runway for Heathrow Airport probably not .....

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2019 11:21:43 GMT ali973 said:

On reflection, I wasn't too crazy about his binary views on revivals when asked if they should be modernized. "They should just be done the way they are."I'm not entirely sure of this. Culture, society and the audience that watches these shows evolve, and so should the shows that are presented to them. I'm not for or against radical revisals, but I think some revisions are necessary when reviving relics.

I thought he had a point actually. As many of us have said in the Company thread, Bobby becoming Bobbie completely changes the piece - the plot is the same, but Bobbie’s story is different. As the person that creates these stories in his various ways, it doesn’t surprise me that he doesn’t want his work changed - and to an extent I agree.

I think with Sondheim, a lot of his work utilises the time period it’s written in very well. I can’t imagine Sweeney Todd working in modern day London, Gypsy wouldn’t work outside of the end of Vaudeville with a father pushing sons, Follies couldn’t work at any other time than that with which it’s already set etc.

Company is different - it doesn’t really tie to its time and setting on a plot level, allowing for Bobbie to work on a story level.

Other musicals I can buy into gender swaps: Christine could become Chris easily enough, Éponine and Gavroche could swap age and roles without causing much of a change etc. But the list is quite small. I suppose Dear Emily Hansen could work but I’m not sure the world is ready for Elliott Woods (Legally Blonde). Though it sounds a lot of fun.

[ampersand]

I've always thought that a DEH gender swap should be "Dear Erin Hansen"

[sf]

Mar 30, 2019 19:58:53 GMT @kevinuk said:

I can’t imagine Sweeney Todd working in modern day London,

And yet a few years agi the West Yorkshire Playhouse and the Royal Exchange co-produced a production set in the early years of Thatcher's reign of terror, and it worked beautifully.

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2019 21:22:15 GMT sf said:

Mar 30, 2019 19:58:53 GMT @kevinuk said:

I can’t imagine Sweeney Todd working in modern day London,

And yet a few years agi the West Yorkshire Playhouse and the Royal Exchange co-produced a production set in the early years of Thatcher's reign of terror, and it worked beautifully.

Not to burst anyone’s bubble... Thatcher’s London really isn’t modern London!

[sf]

Mar 30, 2019 21:57:17 GMT @kevinuk said:

Mar 30, 2019 21:22:15 GMT sf said:

And yet a few years agi the West Yorkshire Playhouse and the Royal Exchange co-produced a production set in the early years of Thatcher's reign of terror, and it worked beautifully.

Not to burst anyone’s bubble... Thatcher’s London really isn’t modern London!

Ahem. The point was simply that the piece can work perfectly well in a different period. And the Thatcher era is far closer to "modern London" than the mid-1800s.

[karloscar]

Give Mogg or BoJo a year in power and we'll be right back in Victorian times never mind the Thatcher era.

[distantcousin]

Mar 30, 2019 11:31:24 GMT lonlad said:

I think he would totally agree with you as long as there's a reason for it --i.e. gender flipping and modernizing COMPANY yes but setting FOLLIES at Wembley Arena which is being torn down to make a new runway for Heathrow Airport probably not .....

ooh! That's an interesting idea!

What I do find listening to a lot of lyrics of Company and Follies - shows that even in the 70's were already referencing places, people, events from decades before (Follies in particular here), it becames harder through the passage of time for the contemporary audience to know, understand or even truly get what is being sung/spoken about.

I'm Still Here is a prime example - yes, we get the idea, but without doing a lot of research, anyone under 70 probably would not register any of the reference points in anything but the vaguest sense, without the need for a mass googling session - a lot of work for an audience member!

[Deleted]

Mar 31, 2019 7:53:43 GMT distantcousin said:

Mar 30, 2019 11:31:24 GMT lonlad said:

I think he would totally agree with you as long as there's a reason for it --i.e. gender flipping and modernizing COMPANY yes but setting FOLLIES at Wembley Arena which is being torn down to make a new runway for Heathrow Airport probably not .....

ooh! That's an interesting idea!

What I do find listening to a lot of lyrics of Company and Follies - shows that even in the 70's were already referencing places, people, events from decades before (Follies in particular here), it becames harder through the passage of time for the contemporary audience to know, understand or even truly get what is being sung/spoken about.

I'm Still Here is a prime example - yes, we get the idea, but without doing a lot of research, anyone under 70 probably would not register any of the reference points in anything but the vaguest sense, without the need for a mass googling session - a lot of work for an audience member!

Furthermore, without any preconception of the piece or theatre in general, how many <30's these day would be aware of the word 'folly' or concept of American 'Follies'?

[apubleed]

Sondheim is protective about the writing but not necessarily about the production or concept.

[Dawnstar]

I saw this last night for the first time, having had a ticket for summer 2017 but then been ill on the date. It might have been a good thing as there are more performers I like in this year's cast. I found the piece itself a bit mixed, some parts I thought were excellent but there were a few rather dull patches. I find it hard to imagine a better production than this one. The Loveland section was very strange but I presume it's meant to be. I thought that "Losing My Mind" was supposed to be the eleven o'clock number in Follies but Joanna Riding seemed to underplay it & it got less of a reaction from the audience than the preceding & following numbers. "Mirror, Mirror" probably got the biggest reaction of the evening.

Apart from the underplayed "Losing My Mind" I thought Joanna Riding was excellent as Sally, although she still looks so good for her age that the lines about getting middle aged & fat don't quite work! Janie Dee is likewise still in amazing shape & her dancing is incredible, as good as the cast members half her age (while I've seen her in other roles this is the only one that's required proper dancing). I don't think I've seen Alexander Hanson apart from on TV since the Menier A Little Night Music so it was good to see him being excellent in Sondheim again. Some of the younger selves were a better physical match than others, though all acted well.

My main reason for wanting to see this was to see Dame Felicity Lott. She is one of my favourite opera singers, ever since I saw her in my first ever opera at the Royal Opera House, Der Rosenkavalier, 15 years ago next month. I cried in "One More Kiss", not so much for the song itself but because she was singing it & every time I hear her sing nowadays I know it could be the last time (she's 70 now).

I was worried beforehand about the lack of interval but I was okay in terms of needing the loo, though I developed a headache from not being able to drink for over 2 hours - I thought I probably would hence I made sure I booked an evening show rather than a matinee. If I ever see anything at the NT again I need to study @theatremonkey 's site more closely before booking a ticket. I thought I was 1 in from an aisle, thus allowing for a quick exit afterwards, but found that while technically I was making a quick exit would have required jumping down about 10 feet of wall first. I have never seen a theatre auditorium with the side stalls raised up the centre stalls. I wonder what the architect's thinking was?

[theatregeek]

I was in on Saturday night in Row C stalls. Last time I had a good circle seat. To be honest, I LOVED being so close to the action, it didn't lose anything for me but boy was I uncomfortable. I'm only 5'7" so never have legroom problems but it was the lack of seat back that did it for me - just couldn't get comfy. Anyway, the show is still in good shape and I relished and embraced the new performers' take on their roles. I used to have a crush on Claire Moore but she's spoiled it now in this role! Lol, not her fault, she was acting it well. I did think Janie's voice was really strained towards the end and funnily enough at the first bow I saw her say to Ben "My God I'm so tired" as she turned to walk away. Very funny. My ONLY slight problem was Joanna Riding - I tried my best to believe in her, I really did, but I'm afraid Imelda's take just won't leave my mind. I am a self-confessed Sondheim geek so I have been in heaven the past few years with this epic production, the amazing Company and Merrily a few years back. What do I do now??? There is a whisper of Assassins right?

[Someone in a tree]

theatregeek Assassins is scheduled for Nottingham and Newbury (Newbury dates not announced yet).

Next year is Uncle Steve's 90th so I guess we'll get some more productions

[Deleted]

After all this Sondheim-ness going on, it's time to revive 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum' in a big old starry version methinks. I'm looking at you Lord Dame Sir Simon Russell Beale for a start.

[alece10]

Apr 1, 2019 13:58:56 GMT @ryan said:

After all this Sondheim-ness going on, it's time to revive 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum' in a big old starry version methinks. I'm looking at you Lord Dame Sir Simon Russell Beale for a start.

I can still picture Philip Quasts thighs in the NT production.

[Dawnstar]

Apr 1, 2019 7:42:54 GMT @theatremonkey said:

The theatre was designed to echo the Greek Amphitheatre of the past. Hence the fan shape.

I get the shape horizontally, it's the shape vertically I don't get i.e. why are the side stalls blocks raised above the centre stalls block. All the pictures I've seen of Greek theatres/amphitheatres show each tier of seats as a continuous curve, not the side seats jacked up 10 feet above the centre ones.

One thing I forgot to say in my comments yesterday was that I thought "In Buddy's Eyes" was a beautiful song in terms of lyrics. I would kill to find a man who thought of me like that.