MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG Question

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 7/31/14 at 2:51pm

Hello all,
So I had a question about the revised version of MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG.
In the first scene ("That Frank") Mary is drunk and extremely angry at Frank, and not very much so at Charlie. In the next scene ("Franklin Shepard Inc.") Mary is not mad at anybody, and it is never really explained why she was so mad at Frank in that first scene. Does anybody know the reason for her anger, apart from being jealous of Frank's success at the expense of his friendship with Charlie?

[newintown]

Posted: 7/31/14 at 2:53pm

She thinks Frank has sold out and betrayed everything that they all once valued.

[gleek4114]

Posted: 7/31/14 at 2:56pm

^ yeah. I thought it was obvious.

[haterobics]

Posted: 7/31/14 at 2:57pm

"it is never really explained why she was so mad at Frank in that first scene."

Wouldn't that be why she WILL BE mad at him in the first scene?

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 7/31/14 at 5:12pm

Okay. Got it. I kind of figured that's what it was, but I was just wondering if there was a specific incident that pushed her over the edge.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 7/31/14 at 9:44pm

Frank's sycophantic friends are the exact antithesis of everything she believes in, and not only that but they're wildly successful, while she lives in a dump in New York, PLUS she has to watch him throw himself at a floozy (instead of herself), PLUS Charley's not there, and if that's not a sore spot I don't know what that is, so it's just a really, really bad night to be Mary Flynn.

Updated On: 7/31/14 at 09:44 PM

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 7/31/14 at 9:50pm

Okay, those reasons added up make a lot more sense than just being mad at Frank for going against her values, and I always forget about Mary's love of Frank. Thanks, Charley Kringas Inc.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/1/14 at 6:45pm

Don't blame yourself. Mary's unrequited love for Frank was deemphasized in the revisal. It was the emotional core of the show in the original--at least to me.

But either way, unrequited love isn't action, which leaves Mary with little to do except sing about feelings. Not as compelling as action.

[ZiggyCringe]

Posted: 8/5/14 at 4:02am

I agree, I think her character has weakened with each "revisal."

But it's interesting to go back to the original Kaufman and Hart play. That character was based completely on Dorothy Parker. Kaufman supposedly quipped to Parker once "Dotty, you don't want to be known as the town drunk. Not in Manhattan."

In the play, the first scene (which is the end of the plot) ends with the "Mary" character throwing iodine in the "Gussie" character's face, blinding her.

It would be fascinating if the musical ended (started) that way.

[ChairinMain]

Posted: 8/5/14 at 4:24am

The musical reverses this, doesn't it, in at least one version of the script? Gussie throws Iodine in the face of Frank's new girlfriend.

[newintown]

Posted: 8/5/14 at 9:13am

I haven't read it in a long time, but I'm pretty sure that Frank's (Richard's) wife, Althea, throws iodine into his mistress's face in the play as well as the musical.



Updated On: 8/5/14 at 09:13 AM

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 8/5/14 at 2:49pm

Yes, she throws iodine into her face in both the play and the musical, but I believe in previews on Broadway, she pushed her into the pool, which was supposed to mirror the line later in the show: "We'll push them all into the pool"

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/5/14 at 9:35pm

That is correct. It was a paper pool (in line with the original "high school musical sets" concept) and the mistress fell through the blue paper with an audible rip. She then stuck her head up and spit out water.

It got a laugh (sort of, because most of us were still confused as to why a Broadway show had such a cheap set), so obviously it was a very different moment than the iodine in the face.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/5/14 at 9:43pm

What everybody else says.

Plus she's turned into a really bad drunk.

Updated On: 8/5/14 at 09:43 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/5/14 at 9:52pm

What do posters imagine Mary's "reverse" arc to be?

How does the woman who sings,

"Bricks can fall out of clear blue skies,
Put your dimples down,
Now you know."

And...

"You should burn your bridges every now and then
Or you'll never grow!"

...turn into the ugly drunk of the first scene?

Is it because she is disillusioned by the break-up of Charley and Frank's friendship?

Is it because he hoped Frank would turn to her after his break-up with Beth and she's still in the "friend zone"?

Is it just because (Horrors!) Frank became a producer instead of a composer? Because he made a schlocky movie?

I admit I can't figure it out. Mary's character seems random to me in the revisals.

In the original, the one thing that WAS clear was that Mary carried her torch for Frank until it left her charred and ugly inside.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 8/5/14 at 11:00pm

I've always just assumed it was everything put together, that plus her self-admitted "addictive personality". The revisals definitely do a lot of lead-burying with her character, though (for the sake, I guess, of really clearly underlining the clunkiness of Frank's mechanised downfall via Gussie, The Worst Most Evil Woman). Torch-carrying is probably just one star in the constellation of anguish that is Mary Flynn.

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 2/12/18 at 10:42am

Saw the Chicago production last night and searched for a thread to discuss it. This one seemed right. The London broadcast emphasized the toxic nature of Frank’s “old friends.” Mary's a clingy, depressed stalker with a crush. Beth's a manipulative prig. If Charlie's not in love with Frank he's got little excuse for his own behavior. Last night I got some new insight into Gussie.

Firth wants us to hate, hate, hate Gussie. Still the book gives her more agency than the three leads combined. Her escape from her sleazy husband, her relentless pursuit of Frank, her climb to Broadway stardom and subsequent fall from grace make her the tragic heroine of her own story. She’s “Funny Girl and Dolly combined.” Even her final act, mutilating Frank’s new mistress, would make her the star if she was played by Joan Crawford or Bette Davis.

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 2/12/18 at 11:33am

MrsSallyAdams said: "Saw the Chicago production last night and searched for a thread to discuss it. This one seemed right. The London broadcast emphasized the toxic nature of Frank’s “old friends.” Mary's a clingy, depressed stalker with a crush. Beth's a manipulative prig. If Charlie's not in love with Frank he's got little excuse for his own behavior. Last night I got some new insight into Gussie.

Firth wantsus to hate, hate, hate Gussie. Stillthe book gives her more agency than the three leads combined.Her escape from her sleazy husband, her relentless pursuit of Frank, her climb to Broadway stardom and subsequent fall from grace make her the tragic heroine of her own story. She’s “Funny Girl and Dolly combined.” Even her final act, mutilating Frank’s new mistress, would make her the star if she was played by Joan Crawford or Bette Davis."

The line in the recent revival in Boston was about the play "It's Funny Girl, Fiddler and Dolly combined" but I would agree that the new take has Guzzie's character much more defined with Mary taking more of back seat to the production.  Additionally, I def thought that Charlie has a "thing" for Frank.

Did you see the two male leads from London?  They played Charlie and Frank in Boston.

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 2/12/18 at 11:40am

Yes the lyric has always been about the show "Musical Husbands." I just felt that Gussie's pushy behaviour isn't too far from that of Dolly Levi and Fanny Brice.

Charlie's constant references to his wife Evelyn started feel like the shows way of saying "no homo." He could easily be seen as falling in love with Frank in that rooftop scene before Evelyn wanders in. 

I didn't see the London cast live but I saw the filmed broadcast of the production.