Maria Friedman to bring her acclaimed Merrily We Roll along to Boston- Is a Broadway transfer in its future?

[Hamilfan2]

Posted: 2/15/17 at 7:50am

http://www.playbill.com/article/maria-friedman-will-stage-merrily-we-roll-along-at-the-huntington

 

Given that the London production got some rave reviews, I wonder if this is testing the waters for. Broadway transfer?

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 2/15/17 at 8:20am

I hope so!! I bought this production from Digital Theatre's website a few years back - it's extraordinary. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 2/15/17 at 9:43am

What fabulous news! This is one of only two productions of "classic flop musical" I've ever seen that I thought not only worked but actually soared (the other was the revival of CARRIE last year in Los Angeles).

I think Ms. Friedman' production is perhaps the best we will ever see of MERRILY, and I sure hope the Roundabout or some other theater will consider bringing it in!

 

 

[DontTellPaul2]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 1:09pm

Would anyone happen to know where one might find the filmed London production of Merrily We Roll Along? It's no longer available on Digital Theatre. I saw it in cinemas and adored it, and I'd love to see it again paired with the Lonny Price documentary.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 4:57pm

It was on YouTube for a while — maybe it's still there?

Have to say, tho, unlike everyone else here, I wasnt that impressed. It seemed to just miss the mark along the way.

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 9:21pm

I saw it in London with some Sondheim fanatics (Happy Birthday, Mr. Sondheim!). None of us liked it. Saw it again when it played movie theatres here. I still didn't like it, but the presentation at my cinema (in Los Angeles where it should've been perfect) was horrendous. It looked like they were showing a VHS tape...remember those?

After Follies, it is my favorite Sondheim show. I wish it could be captured with a fantastic production. 

Updated On: 3/22/17 at 09:21 PM

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 9:31pm

The set was horrific.  I liked Jenna Russel.

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 9:33pm

^^Agreed.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 9:51pm

When is the last time this show was seen on Broadway? It feels like it deserves a revival. 

[Wee Thomas2]

Posted: 3/23/17 at 1:50pm

It was Near B'way 5 years ago, in Encores.

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/23/17 at 2:45pm

Loved the Encores production and was there the night Sondheim and original cast members sang at curtain call.

I would love to see this production come to NYC.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/23/17 at 4:15pm

MichelleCraig said: "I saw it in London with some Sondheim fanatics (Happy Birthday, Mr. Sondheim!). None of us liked it. Saw it again when it played movie theatres here. I still didn't like it, but the presentation at my cinema (in Los Angeles where it should've been perfect) was horrendous. It looked like they were showing a VHS tape...remember those?

After Follies, it is my favorite Sondheim show. I wish it could be captured with a fantastic production. "

It's a ridiculously difficult show to do. How do you approach it? With a cast of kids, like the original? With a cast of adults, who look great at the beginning but increasingly silly as we venture back in time? Dont get me wrong, I love the score — I think it's his most challenging one for any theatre company, and the rhymes are incredible. But trying to capture that twenty-to-thirty span of years with the same actors, no matter which direction you go, would be a real leap of faith for any audience. This very well could be the kind of show that demands double casting: one set of adults, one set of late teens, with the production making the transition from one set to the other as invisible as possible... so you watch it happen without really seeing it happen.

I dunno. Like I said, really tough show. I dont envy anyone who tackles it.

 

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 3/23/17 at 4:17pm

I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I don't give a damn who disagrees: until they restore the book-ends and turn the middle back to front, this show will never work.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/23/17 at 4:25pm

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I don't give a damn who disagrees: until they restore the book-ends and turn the middle back to front, this show will never work."

Do that and you completely miss the point of the show. I agree about the bookends, but making it youth to age just blows off the concept and makes it simplistically "accessible".

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 3/23/17 at 4:28pm

GOOD! That's a good thing! Who gives a flying f#ck about the esoteric structure if it has never worked in the history of the show ever? (And please don't patronize me by telling me it has; some productions have come closer than others to grasping how people think it should work, yes, but if it actually worked, it would be remembered as more than the show that almost was something but wasn't.) 

Whatever point the show is trying to make is utterly lost because of its present structure. Herman J. Mankiewicz put it best about the original Kaufman-Hart play: "Here's this wealthy playwright who has had repeated successes and earned enormous sums of money, has mistresses as well as a family, an expensive townhouse, a luxurious beach house and a yacht. The problem is: How did the poor son of a bitch get into this jam?" Flip it back to front, and I promise you whatever B.S. point the show is trying to make about loss of innocence will finally come across.

Wasn't it Einstein who said insanity is endlessly repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results? Would that people could apply that logic to this show. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I don't get it, but even if that was true, and everything about the show was perfect except structure, the first rule of fixing a show that doesn't work is to solve its central problem. And there have been productions where they have done everything but have pages fly onto the calendar backwards, like the reverse of a poetic shot from an old-time movie, and people still don't get it. Like it or hate it, the structure is the central problem. And if hurt pride, or elitism, or whatever-the-f#ck, keeps that from changing, the show will never "work."

Updated On: 3/23/17 at 04:28 PM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/23/17 at 5:01pm

So nothing should ever be challenging. Nothing should ever require thought. Nothing should ever force the audience to do more than just sit there. Got it.

Hey, why stop with MERRILY. Let's take all pesky, time- and thought-consuming nuance out of everything by making it all simple and straight forward. Hamlet, for example, can just wear a sign that says, "Yep, I'm crazy." ANTIGONE'S Creon can have one too: "I'm just a heartless bastard."

Sorry, but I think MERRILY can work back to front. It's difficult, sure, but it''s not impossible. Just because no one's found the solution yet doesnt mean it's not there. And it's a damn sight far more interesting a work than just young-guy-grows-old-and-bitter — I mean, oh yeah, that's a great way to leave the audience, huh... All night long, the growing realization that he's just increasingly s bastard. No character arch, because he never really learns anything along the way, nor do his two friends for that matter. They all just get old and bitter and angry, filled with resentment. Just relentless disappointment, all the way to the end. And to top it off, we'll add in that final scene that suggests he's passing that anger and bitterness onto a new crop of kids. 

Wow. 

Yup, got it. That's got a Tony award written all over it. 

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 3/23/17 at 6:02pm

I didn't say that nothing should ever be challenging, or require thought, or force the audience to do more than just sit there. I am addressing a specific problem with a specific show. And if you ask me, Merrily actually gains something from seeing a young, naive, idealistic guy grow old and bitter. Why? Because people can identify with that.

Without the book-ends, back to front, it's a douche-bag regressing into someone full of hope. I mean, yeah, it's tragic. Ish. To the extent that one can feel sorry for such a person. But, as you pointed out, it's not as though he or his two friends are learning anything during the course of the show, and in case you didn't notice with your head firmly planted in strawman territory, that's not a problem exclusive to the show being in chronological order.

At least with the book-ends, and front to back, it might be perceived as a cautionary parable about the choices we make in life and how important they are. There are no so-called "right" answers to life's questions, but there are plenty of "wrong" ones. As the original title of A Star is Born put it, "What price Hollywood?" What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? How many people are dealing with the same pain? How many people have questioned the choices they made in life that led them to where they are, for good or for ill as the case may be? How many people that could identify with the protagonist will identify with him even more now that they can understand what the hell he's going through because it's not hampered by a plot device that has never, ever worked in any version of the show, written by Sondheim or otherwise?

"Difficult" does not always mean "profound." Yes, it is really something that sucky people started off as people with dreams. But we all did. You're gonna need to impress me with more than rewinding the videotape of their Biography Channel special. Make me care about them. Because right now, either way you slice the show's order, his friends are damaged doormats, and he "Trumped" his way to the top. What does Franklin Shepard want, a medal for once having been a starry-eyed young person?

Updated On: 3/23/17 at 06:02 PM

[Hamilfan2]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 12:33am

Anyone know where I can watch the filmed version of this production when it played in London?  I would love to see it!

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 12:52am

QueenAlice said: "What fabulous news! This is one of only two productions of "classic flop musical" I've ever seen that I thought not only worked but actually soared (the other was the revival of CARRIE last year in Los Angeles).

I think Ms. Friedman' production is perhaps the best we will ever see of MERRILY, and I sure hope the Roundabout or some other theater will consider bringing it in!

 

 Even better than the Encores version?

[carayip]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 1:08am

.

Updated On: 3/26/17 at 01:08 AM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 2:48am

Why? I actually like him, but having seen Sunday, his acting in theatre is not so great. Very low energy. Very nothing. And his voice is strained. I just think you need 3 actors who can sing. That is it. Just 3 actors who can also cary a tune. 

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 3:28am

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "GOOD! That's a good thing! Who gives a flying f#ck about the esoteric structure if it has never worked in the history of the show ever? (And please don't patronize me by telling me it has; some productions have come closer than others to grasping how people think it should work, yes, but if it actually worked, it would be remembered as more than the show that almost was something but wasn't.

Well, technically Maria Friedman's revival is the better received production in the history of West End theatre. So yes, it worked.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 4:10am

"Better received" does not necessarily equal "worked." At least for me.

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 7:00am

carayip said: "I wish there is a chance Jake Gyllenhaal can do this show."

I have a feeling Jake Gyllenhaal will replace Hugh Jackman on wish lists for the time being.
Not that I disagree, though. Cast as who? He's certainly good looking enough, rich and happy enough to be Frank. But he'd be a damn interesting Charlie! (We know from Little Shop that he can play against his leading man looks and from his film work and Sunday, he can play a little off-balance, quirky and intense.) 

...and I also totally agree with icecreambenjamin that Jenna Russell was great and the set was not.

Updated On: 3/25/17 at 07:00 AM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 8:24am

The design was atrocious, and I still don't care for most of the post-Broadway replacements and additions, but it would be better than never getting a revival. 

 

Also, there would be absolutely and obviously no point in doing this show chronologically.