Follies: Rewrites in London- Page 2

[Musical Master]

Posted: 2/21/15 at 7:29pm

I agree the set design created by Boris Aronson will always be the best when it comes to FOLLIES.

Updated On: 2/22/15 at 07:29 PM

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 2/22/15 at 1:55am

Who was the lighting designer for the original production? Because I've always thought it was really striking, particularly in how it worked with Aronson's design to create this sense of velvety inky depth. The scaffolding seems to fade into nothing, and characters are always huddling in pools of light or lurking in the darkness.

[Musical Master]

Posted: 2/22/15 at 1:59am

Tharon Musser was the lighting designer who worked wonders along with Aronson, Bennett, Prince, and Klotz. All of them were Broadway's dream team at the time. She would inspire many future lighting designers and I would believe that Natasha Katz and Donald Holder may have learned a thing or two from her legendary work.

Updated On: 2/22/15 at 01:59 AM

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 5/22/15 at 11:17am

It's well known that Julia McKenzie left at a certain point and returned for the last performances, but who replaced her?

[Jarethan]

Posted: 5/22/15 at 12:02pm

"Thank you so much! Though the set isn't as spectacular and beautiful as the original, it still looks really nice (according to the quality of the video).

I found the dialogue at the beginning interesting, especially because they are actually talking *with* the ghosts... "

 I had seen the show 5 times in NYC and considered it the best show I had ever seen (that production still is).  I was in London on Business, traveling with work friends, who I convinced to see the show, citing my personal views.

I arrived at the theatre and saw all that plastic surrounding the stage...I suddenly realized it wasn't a recreation, but I figured it was still Follies.  I looked at the program and confirmed that.  When I saw that Lucy and Jessie was replaced, I was disappointed, but figured that I had also seen Uptown Downtown in Boston, where I had gone to college...and loved it.  I also remembered that I loved Boy, Can That Boy Foxtrot, which was also replaced by a better song.

So, I figured that it might be the next phase, further improvement of a flawed masterpiece.  Boy, was I wrong.  In every way, the changes were inferior.  The script was never good, here it was awful...I was actually thinking that my friends must be assuming I'd lost my mind in praising it. It was clear that Diana Rigg couldn't sing, but was stil sexy...solution: Ah, But Underneath.  Had it not been replacing Lucy and Jessie, I would have said it was a fun number.  To me, it screwed up the whole Loveland sequence...after two solos, you needed a Follies production number, instead of another solo.

Had I never seen the original Follies, I would probably have loved it (minus the awful script), but I did...and it was in every way inferior to the original.  

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/22/15 at 3:57pm

"Two big ones I can cite, among several problems: "Live, Laugh, Love" was cut and replaced by a truly awful number. And they substituted "Ah, but Underneath!" for "Lucy and Jessie." Not a bad number, but it couldn't stop the show. The attempt to turn the show into Dark Lite failed. The finale was limp.

I do like "Country House," a number about the Ben-Phyllis childless marriage, but most people don't. And it actually works better in "Putting it Together."



"

 I always thought most Sondheim fans like (or love, as I do) Country House, but find it musically out of place in Follies.  It sounds like an Into the Woods number (the way Sondheim's added songs often are reminiscent of whatever other show he's working on at the time--seriously, music wise Something Just Broke for Assassins makes me think of Passion.)  The other added songs (Make the Most of Your Music--which I kinda like personally, Ah But Underneath which I love but probably is less of a show stopper than Lucy and Jesse or even Uptown/Downtown, and the new more MGM Movie Musical Loveland) sound more fitting to the musical world of Follies to me.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/22/15 at 4:04pm

I know the script was a complete rewrite and never again used--but I always wondered if Goldman incorporated any of it into the significant changes made for the currently used script--the ending scene involving not just the four main characters, for example.

Follies in London really does feel, even from the CD, like a true nostalgia piece.  There's a bit of bickering but ending with Ben's positive song and then adding the older characters singing a reprise of "You're Gonna Love Tomorrow" in a style that comes off like "Well we had some issues, but man we've had a good life, eh pal?" in particular seems to emphasize that.  That, plus some fairly big stage names in the cast and a big elaborate CamMac production all probably added up to why it was a success in London.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 10:19am

Was it a success...it didn't run very long, as I recall.  I sorta think it followed the same path as the original...great early excitement, followed by half filled houses when audiences realized how serious it was.

The interesting thing about Follies, regardless of what production, is that -- more than any show I can recall --the audiences loved many of the numbers, but as a whole, didn't like the show.  Proof a bad script (or a very adult concept) can ruin a musical's chances for a long run.