Follies

[Deleted]

Mar 10, 2019 9:59:41 GMT horton said:

I can't see any arguments for this story not suiting an interval that would not apply to any other Sondheim show. Yet they all have intervals- and Anyone Can Whistle has two!  (If any show demands an interval cut it would be 'Sweeney' so that the audience never escaped the grip of the "thriller".)

As well as Follies, The Frogs (original, not the rewrite), Assassins, Passion and Road Show (although not its precursor Bounce) don't have an interval as written. Passion had one inserted for the original London production to no real benefit.

[Deleted]

I've seen Sweeney Todd played without an interval and it works well. Granted I did find myself becoming restless and wanting a break but that was because of how bad the production was.

[horton]

Mar 10, 2019 11:48:39 GMT @cardinalpirelli said:

Mar 10, 2019 9:59:41 GMT horton said:

I can't see any arguments for this story not suiting an interval that would not apply to any other Sondheim show. Yet they all have intervals- and Anyone Can Whistle has two!  (If any show demands an interval cut it would be 'Sweeney' so that the audience never escaped the grip of the "thriller".)

As well as Follies, The Frogs (original, not the rewrite), Assassins, Passion and Road Show (although not its precursor Bounce) don't have an interval as written. Passion had one inserted for the original London production to no real benefit.

I saw 'Passion' in London- I was pretty sure it has an interval.  'Assassins' was always a short, revue-style show and The Frogs in its original form was also much shorter than the Nathan Lane 2-Act version.

My point was that if other shows could be structured to have an interval, I can't see why it was essential for 'Follies' to do without one. You could argue that 'Pacific Overtures' follows an unbroken journey from tradition to modernity, but an interval did not damage the structure of that show.

Since it doesn't even run in "real time", I just can't see the lack of an interval being imperative to 'Follies' working as a story.

[juicy_but_terribly_drab]

Mar 10, 2019 13:00:53 GMT horton said:

Mar 10, 2019 11:48:39 GMT @cardinalpirelli said:

As well as Follies, The Frogs (original, not the rewrite), Assassins, Passion and Road Show (although not its precursor Bounce) don't have an interval as written. Passion had one inserted for the original London production to no real benefit.

I saw 'Passion' in London- I was pretty sure it has an interval.  'Assassins' was always a short, revue-style show and The Frogs in its original form was also much shorter than the Nathan Lane 2-Act version.

My point was that if other shows could be structured to have an interval, I can't see why it was essential for 'Follies' to do without one. You could argue that 'Pacific Overtures' follows an unbroken journey from tradition to modernity, but an interval did not damage the structure of that show.

Since it doesn't even run in "real time", I just can't see the lack of an interval being imperative to 'Follies' working as a story.

I just think it would lose so much of its pacing and of course this is all a matter of opinion but I don't think the build-up to the argument that bleeds into the Loveland sequence would be nearly as effective if you put an interval and I'm not sure where would be a great place to put one. There's no real big number that really covers the show's message or marks a turning point in the character progression in the middle of the show that would serve as a good Act 1 closer in my opinion. Maybe Too Many Mornings? Still I think you'd lose so much momentum if there was an interval.

[blobble84]

Mar 9, 2019 1:09:02 GMT Being Alive said:

Mar 7, 2019 23:47:31 GMT lewis said:

next tuesday afternoon

12th or 19th is that??

I know someone working on the production and they have told me that the understudy run is by invite only.

[sf]

Mar 10, 2019 13:00:53 GMT horton said:

I saw 'Passion' in London- I was pretty sure it has an interval.

The original London production of Passion, yes, was performed in two acts. The original Broadway production (I saw both) didn't have an interval, and adding one was not an improvement.

[lonlad]

PASSION has never had an interval except in the (pretty poor) London premiere with Ball and Friedman. The brilliant Donmar revival with Thaxton and Roger didn't have one, nor did the original and the show absolutely doesn't benefit from one.

[sf]

Mar 10, 2019 13:00:53 GMT horton said:

You could argue that 'Pacific Overtures' follows an unbroken journey from tradition to modernity, but an interval did not damage the structure of that show.

...because it was written in two acts. The first act builds to the image you see in the Act One finale (the Lion Dance morphing into a Cakewalk, a choreographed representation of the erosion of traditional Japanese culture by foreign influences), and then at the top of Act Two the plot picks up somewhere else. That's as opposed to Follies, which is written in a single act, on a single, unbroken rising line of tension from Sally's entrance at the top of the show to the beginning of the Loveland sequence.

[horton]

Mar 10, 2019 17:51:31 GMT sf said:

Mar 10, 2019 13:00:53 GMT horton said:

You could argue that 'Pacific Overtures' follows an unbroken journey from tradition to modernity, but an interval did not damage the structure of that show.

...because it was written in two acts. The first act builds to the image you see in the Act One finale (the Lion Dance morphing into a Cakewalk, a choreographed representation of the erosion of traditional Japanese culture by foreign influences), and then at the top of Act Two the plot picks up somewhere else. That's as opposed to Follies, which is written in a single act, on a single, unbroken rising line of tension from Sally's entrance at the top of the show to the beginning of the Loveland sequence.

But that's precisely the point I'm making: it's too late to impose an interval now, but the structure could have been conceived differently in the first place.  There is no more of an unbroken rising line of tension focused on Sally than there is an unbroken line for Kayama or Manjiro.  Sally's journey runs parallel to that of Phyllis, Ben and Buddy. 

In the original writing, a decision was made to build the show in a certain way.  The necessity of constructing it in 1 act is the choice I can't understand.

Ironically, I've always thought 'Merrily' might work better without an interval!

[juicy_but_terribly_drab]

Mar 10, 2019 19:15:57 GMT horton said:

Mar 10, 2019 17:51:31 GMT sf said:

...because it was written in two acts. The first act builds to the image you see in the Act One finale (the Lion Dance morphing into a Cakewalk, a choreographed representation of the erosion of traditional Japanese culture by foreign influences), and then at the top of Act Two the plot picks up somewhere else. That's as opposed to Follies, which is written in a single act, on a single, unbroken rising line of tension from Sally's entrance at the top of the show to the beginning of the Loveland sequence.

But that's precisely the point I'm making: it's too late to impose an interval now, but the structure could have been conceived differently in the first place.  There is no more of an unbroken rising line of tension focused on Sally than there is an unbroken line for Kayama or Manjiro.  Sally's journey runs parallel to that of Phyllis, Ben and Buddy. 

In the original writing, a decision was made to build the show in a certain way.  The necessity of constructing it in 1 act is the choice I can't understand.

Ironically, I've always thought 'Merrily' might work better without an interval!

Perhaps it wasn't necessary to make the show one act at the time of writing it but now it is written and staging it in any other way without significant revisions would damage the show as a whole.

[sf]

Mar 10, 2019 19:15:57 GMT horton said:

But that's precisely the point I'm making: it's too late to impose an interval now, but the structure could have been conceived differently in the first place. 

It could have but it wasn't, and shoehorning in an interval damages the piece. Follies works better performed in a single act.

The single exception - and it's not worth getting excited over because it's never going to be performed again - is the book used for the 1987 London production. That was a complete rewrite, and that particular script was structured in two distinct acts, with the moment the central quartet of characters became aware of their 'ghosts' as the Act One curtain.

[tommy]

Saw it yesterday, still a wonderful production in so many ways. Janie Dee owns her part by now, and the new cast members easily seemed to have stepped in. You also realize that some of the most talented West End performers can be seen in this one amazing show at the same time!

[horton]

Let me clarify again. I totally agree this production needs to run sans interval. 100%.

I worked at the Shaftesbury during the original London run- an interval worked well for that version.

If I had to choose, I think the "perfect" 'Follies'- which does not exist- would ideally have an interval. But not this production of this book.

[sf]

Mar 11, 2019 16:10:44 GMT @theatremonkey said:

I found it [Live, Laugh, Love] clearer this time, oddly. Before, yes, there was the frission that it was an error. This time, it was very clear it was a liar being tripped up by his own memory, and thus deeper for me.

That's exactly it. Quast played that he'd forgotten the line, and the breakdown sequence didn't quite work as it should have done at any of the three performances I saw. Hanson plays it as Ben, yes, getting tripped up by his own glibness, and to me it's far more effective.

On the other hand, Quast sang it better than Hanson does - but Hanson sings it better than John McMartin did on the original Broadway cast recording.

[vdcni]

For me with Hanson it felt like a mild inconvenience, with Quast it was more like a proper breakdown. I did see Hanson early on though, I'm going back in April so will be interesting to see if he's improved.

[shady23]

It was the understudy run today

[zak97]

Mar 12, 2019 18:58:23 GMT shady23 said:

It was the understudy run today

Who are the understudies?

[craig]

Tickets booked for next Thursday. I saw the original run and loved it. Excited for the other half to see it for the first time as he's become completely obsessed with Company and I need him to become a fully fledged Sondheim loon.

[Deleted]

Saw Company with my teenage daughter and she absolutely adored it but Follies left her cold.She found it difficult to connect with the central premise of the story being built around the memories and regrets of much older characters.I loved it but then again I am an old fossil.

[theatrefan77]

Don't think it appeals much to the younger generation, in fact it's playing to half empty houses this time around.

I guess bringing it back after only eighteen months has backfired, and the lack of a star name like Staunton hasn't helped either. Maybe they should try dynamic pricing to fill up the house a bit?

[lonlad]

Too bad coz it's so much better this time around !!

[Dr Tom]

Mar 15, 2019 8:00:44 GMT theatrefan77 said:

Maybe they should try dynamic pricing to fill up the house a bit?

They are discounting in a few places, certainly TodayTix.

[theatrefan77]

Thanks for the tip. I'l try to book with them.

I've noticed that Time Out also has an offer but I don't like the fact that they don't allocate your seats until you get to the theatre.

[Deleted]

Mar 15, 2019 11:50:17 GMT @theatremonkey said:

Mar 15, 2019 8:00:44 GMT theatrefan77 said:

in fact it's playing to half empty houses this time around

Was packed on Saturday afternoon, which was good. I think it is down to the entire theatre industry doing badly at the moment, the fact it is a revival and yes, a bit of not having Staunton's name this time. Mostly, though, just another sign of the times, Miss Jones, I think, just another sign of the times.

Really? Oo eck.

[Someone in a tree]

Last time it took me 5ish hours to book a expensive and not very good seat at the end of row H. This time it was easy to book a cheap seat in the middle of row c.

It's so much better without Staunton (as is most things). Even with the incredible talent on stage I'm still not a massive fan of this production . I think it would work better in a smaller traditional proscenium arch theatre, Sondheim really does shine in a small space.

Glad I gave it another go though.