Merrily We Roll Along directed by Maria Friedman- Page 2

[Jarethan]

Posted: 9/16/17 at 4:15pm

I was in the sixth or seventh row, so I wasn't in Siberia; but I did think that Franklin particularly spoke in too hushed a voice in the early scenes.  

Re Mary, I don't want to infer too much...are you also saying that Mary's arc could have been a little clearer or more fleshed out?  GeorgeandDot, I saw Russell in SITPWG and understand what you are getting at.  I thought Edin Espinoza was more than fine, but she did not have that innate depth that Jenna Russell demonstrated for me in SITPWG.

[rcwr]

Posted: 9/16/17 at 6:10pm

Jarethan: Re Mary, I don't want to infer too much...are you also saying that Mary's arc could have been a little clearer or more fleshed out?

I think I mean that once in a while there's an updatey detail about her work -- for example, that she started a book, or some other quick detail about her writing -- but that while there were a number of those updatey details throughout the show, none of them had substance. I didn't know how she felt about any of them, or anything else about them beyond that single detail. It's also possible I missed some things -- I know I sometimes miss things when I see a show only once! But I ended up feeling that although the show is ostensibly about the the three of them equally (or am I wrong about that?), I found the show to be about Franklin and Charley socially/emotionally AND professionally, but about Mary only socially/emotionally. Her career is sprinkled in via tiny details. You used a good phrase for what I mean: nothing about her career/jobs is fleshed out.

Updated On: 9/16/17 at 06:10 PM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 9/16/17 at 8:49pm

rcwr said: "Jarethan: Re Mary, I don't want to infer too much...are you also saying that Mary's arc could have been a little clearer or more fleshed out?

I think I mean that once in a while there's an updatey detail about her work -- for example, that she started a book, or some other quick detail about her writing-- but that while there were a number of those updatey details throughout the show, none of them had substance. I didn't know how she felt about any of them, or anything else about them beyondthatsingle detail. It's also possible I missed some things -- I know I sometimes miss things when I see a show only once! But I ended up feeling that although the show is ostensibly about the the three of them equally (or am I wrong about that?), I found the show to be about Franklin and Charley socially/emotionally AND professionally, butabout Mary only socially/emotionally. Hercareer is sprinkled in viatiny details. You used a good phrase for what I mean: nothing about her career/jobs is fleshed out."

 

You have done a much better job articulating my issue with Mary' role than I did.  While the show is ostensibly about the three of them, Mary is really more of an observer than a participant.

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 9/20/17 at 10:51am

Saw this show last night (tried the TodayTix lottery but didn't win but they offered $40.00 + $5 fee tickets). Seats were in the orchestra.

Really enjoyed this production.  Had only seen the Encores production.  There seemed to be some sound issues in that whoever was working on the sound was late in turning up the mics before people spoke.

Some random thoughts on the production:

The actor who played Franklin reminded me of Benedict Cumberbatch.

Jarethan said: "I found the show to be about Franklin and Charley socially/emotionally AND professionally, butabout Mary only socially/emotionally. Hercareer is sprinkled in viatiny details. You used a good phrase for what I mean: nothing about her career/jobs is fleshed out."

I tend to agree.  In the Encores production it seemed more about the three while this production I paid more attention to the Franklin and Charley.  I also thought that Mary had a bigger role in my mind.

The costumes were great.

I heard a number of people complain about the smoking on stage (and people have taken to commenting on the Huntington's FB page to complain about it.

In this production I thought a number of the staging sequences reminded me of Company (which I saw there quite a few years back) and how many of the songs are similar to Into the Woods, SITPWG both in melody and sequence.

While maybe a little long, the structure of the play is brilliant in the backwards nature of the show.  You could hear the audience gasp when certain things became clear in the past.

I just loved Damian Humbley as Charley. But all the actors did a fine job.

Someone behind me complained "I like the show but tired of the repetition of the melody between scenes" 

I sort of wish they had used the top of the set for the last scene.

I think I might try the lottery again to see if I can see it a second time while I'm in Boston.  The last two rows and side front rows of the orchestra were empty on a Tuesday night.  Not sure what the Mezzanine looked like.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 9/20/17 at 11:36am

This is the closest I think the show has come to perfection- but it still lacks the emotional impact of The Hills of Tomorrow for me.

[Owen22]

Posted: 9/20/17 at 4:09pm

Jarethan said: "A few more thoughts:

-- All of yesterday, I kept on returning to this show. I couldn't get it out of my head. That really is rare for me. I STRONGLY recommend that anyone who can get to the Huntington theatre do so. There were a lot of empty seats in the mezzanine, so I can't imagine that it would be that difficult to get tickets.

-- Remaining flaw: I thought the role of Mary Flynn was not fleshed out enough. The show is ostensibly about the three of them, and they takethe last bow together; but, as I watched the last bow,i pretty much felt that the women playing Gussie and Beth belonged there. They were both more central to the story than Mary (largely an observer) was. I was actually surprised at how large (and good) Gussie's role was, and Beth had a few moments in the show that, for my money, were more powerful than anything Mary had.

What do we know about Mary: she falls in love with Franklin almost from first sight, she is smart, she is timid, she never stops loving him, watching on as he progresses through marriages and affairs, shebecomes an alcoholic,she sees Franklin and Charlie'srelationship falling apart, but is powerless to do anything. I am not clear on the following: she is a writer who seems to have writer's block, she does publish a book??? and it is a success / failure??? ... and she becomes a critic (I missed that in the show, picked it up here). No delving into why she has writer's block. It may have been me...alot is covered in intricate Sondheim lyrics...I may have missed some. Haven't listened to the cast recording in a long time.
 

I have already discussed (without seeing this production) of how I can't see Eden Espinosa playing the Mary of this revival.  And though the writing is the same, I'm sure the staging as well, this revival's heart was all about Mary.  Jenna Russell is the face I kept going back to when I would think of this production at the Menier.  And I have seen revivals where I do agree there is something lacking in Mary. But it's amazing how a performer can sometimes fill in the blanks...

[rcwr]

Posted: 9/20/17 at 4:35pm

Owen 22 said: this revival's heart was all about Mary.

That's fascinating -- that would never have occured to me from seeing it in Boston. In Boston, I felt the heart was all about Franklin, and secondarily Charley, and thirdly the two men in relationship to each other, and fourthly Mary. But I say this having loved Eden Espinosa in it! I found her marvelous -- I just didn't think it was as much about her. Because of what i said upthread about her career being made of overly fast details whose arc and meaning I couldn't track.

Actually, I saw emotional intimacy between Franklin and Charley when they're young that made me feel for a fleeting second that it was a frustrated/impossible love story between them. I'm not saying it WAS, but I saw an intimacy between them in this production at their youngest point that I didn't see between Frank and any of his women, ever (nor between Charley and his offstage wife).

[Boston Friend]

Posted: 9/21/17 at 11:26pm

Saw this tonight and really enjoyed.  

I recommend sitting as close as your can find. I was in front row and it was perfect. The orchestra pit really creates some distance from the audience. 

I also agree that smoking was unnecessary irritant. 

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 9/22/17 at 10:27am

rcwr said: "Owen 22 said: this revival's heart was all about Mary.

That's fascinating -- that would never have occured to me from seeing it in Boston. In Boston, I felt the heart was all about Franklin, and secondarily Charley, and thirdly the two men in relationship to each other, and fourthly Mary. But I say thishaving lovedEden Espinosa in it!I found her marvelous -- I just didn't think it was as much about her. Because of what i said upthread about her career being made of overlyfast details whose arc and meaning I couldn't track.

Actually, I saw emotional intimacy between Franklin and Charley when they're young that made me feel for a fleeting second that it was a frustrated/impossible love story between them. I'm not saying it WAS, but I saw an intimacy between them in this production at their youngest point that I didn't see between Frank and any of his women, ever (nor between Charley and his offstage wife)."

Exactly!  You weren't the only one who thought this.  That last scene really brought the first two scenes to new light which Franklin wanting to be back with Charley and Charley getting pissed during the TV interview.

[rcwr]

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

If you were thinking of going but don't have tix yet, there's currently a discount code. From Huntington email: "Use code ROLLBACK and save 25% on tickets."

[rcwr]

Posted: 9/22/17 at 3:25pm

BuddyStarr, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who saw that!

[AllThatJazz2]

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

rcwr said: "If you were thinking of going but don't have tix yet, there's currently a discount code. From Huntington email: "Use code ROLLBACK and save 25% on tickets.""

Beat me to it! Just convinced my mother to attend with me on the 5th with the discount code. Thrilled she'll get to see it, I think she'll really enjoy it. 

[theaterdarling]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 2:25pm

I saw the show last weekend and I also recommend all fence-sitters or those who would never see "lesser" Sondheim,  go see it. Ticket prices are an astonishing value given the overall high quality of this show. I feel incredibly fortunate to have this acclaimed staging in my own backward.  It was an A+ production of a B-/C+ book with (mostly but not completely) A+ Sondheim music. Whatever weaknesses in the show are in Furth's poorly written dialog which threatens to eclipse the sophistication of Sondheim's music/lyrics. Sometimes I just cringed (for example scene outside of courthouse as Beth and Franklin get divorced-way too melodramatic-Gielgud could not have been convincing saying those lines). Staging and singing are perfection. Umbers and Humbley deserve the praise --they (mostly) sell difficult spoken lines but more importantly sing Sondheim beautifully. Very much surprised by Ellis and  Doherty, they truly hold their own, especially Ellis. Have to say was a little disappointed in Espinosa - she was in fine voice but I think she played the part a little too bitter and schlumpy in early scenes and just not really focused as character in the later scenes (again, partly book problems). Not her fault, but did not think it helped to  show her as "older" in the early scenes by making her "fatter" and then slimming her down as the show goes on. Also so surprised Friedman did not tell Christopher Chew to take it down a few notches - he was oddly out of synch with the rest of the cast. Despite these quibbles, a great thrill to have this thoughtful production in Boston and it should be seen. If not A++ Sondheim, it is an important part of his canon, the music soars, performances (except as noted) memorable. Given the book's flaws, as others have stated,  this is likely as good as it gets. As I am  writing this, the cast is being interviewed and singing selections from Merrily on a local radio show (WERS) that features show tunes this time of day. Gives me the feels again. Yeah, go see this show.

[Capeguy]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 5:04pm

Some random thoughts. It's been a long time since I saw the original in previews -- 1981? At any rate, Although I have always listened to the music of the 3 recording that I have, I have only seen the show once, until last night.

I thought dumping the graduation framing device in the beginning and end was an improvement. "Our Time" also worked better than "Hills of Tomorrow" at the end.

I was just looking at the CD of the original and noticed that Franklin originally sang "Not A Day Goes By' in the first act. Beth now sings it in the divorce scene. Have to listen to all of the recordings again and compare.

I was so confused at the original that I barely heard the music. It is so much better using older actors with actual costumes. I also heard dialogue that I had completely missed the first time. For instance: Charlie went on the win a Pulitzer after his split with Franklin. In response to an earlier post. Mary did have a best selling novel but apparently didn't have much success after -- maybe because of her drinking???

All in all, this version, although not perfect -- works quite well. The music is fantastic and most of the problems of the original have been solved. I always knew there was a good show somewhere in that story -- it just needed someone with the right vision to put it together!

 

[Capeguy]

Posted: 9/23/17 at 5:09pm

upload error -- don't know how to delete

 

Updated On: 9/23/17 at 05:09 PM

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 8:47am

Saw this show again last night via the lottery ($25.00 and 7th row, one in from the aisle)  Noticed things I missed the first time around and because I knew all the actors playing the characters.  One of the things I noticed is that when you see repeated viewings of the play you miss that "first time viewing" so things that you know are happening (because you saw it so many times) are sometimes missed the first time you see the show.  it's hard to have the "first timers" eye when seeing the show which could explain some of the difficulties this show has had playing to audiences.  How many times do "normal" people actually go see the same show?  If there was ever a show to see repeatedly or at least twice, this one is it.  

Again, thought that the show is really about the two male leads.  I think if Mary was incorporated more in some of the other scenes it might have been of a trio but the director seems to have chosen to have Mary off stage when there is more stuff going on with Franklin and Charles.  Also felt the same way about the two men throughout the show and notice very subtle touches and looks that seemed to back up my assumptions (everyone sees things from through their own eyes and experiences)

Would try to see it a third time but you can only win the lottery once.  the house was more full last night than last week.  Also, since much of the Huntington theatre's audience is subscriptions, they're going to have trouble financing their productions in a few years when they all die off.  There were very few under the age of 60 in the audience.  it was like being at a matinee performance.  The older gentleman on the side of me fell asleep during the first act and a few people left at intermission not sure what was going on with the show.

If you're a fan of Sondheim see this show.  it is worth the trip.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 10:48am

BuddyStarr said: "Saw this show again last night via the lottery ($25.00 and 7th row, one in from the aisle) Noticed things I missed the first time around and because I knew all the actors playing the characters. One of the things I noticed is that when you see repeated viewings of the play you miss that "first time viewing" so things that you know are happening (because you saw it so many times) are sometimes missed the first time you see the show. it's hard to have the "first timers" eye when seeing the show which could explain some of the difficulties this show has had playing to audiences. How many times do "normal" people actually go see the same show? If there was ever a show to see repeatedly or at least twice, this one is it.

Again, thought that the show is really about the two male leads. I think if Mary was incorporated more in some of the other scenes it might have been of a trio but the director seems to have chosen to have Mary off stage when there is more stuff going on with Franklin and Charles. Also felt the same way about the two men throughout the show and notice very subtle touches and looks that seemed to back up my assumptions (everyone sees things from through their own eyes and experiences)

Would try to see it a third time but you can only win the lottery once. the house was more full last night than last week. Also, since much of the Huntington theatre's audience is subscriptions, they're going to have trouble financing their productions in a few years when they all die off. There were very few under the age of 60 in the audience. it was like being at a matinee performance. The older gentleman on the side of me fell asleep during the first act and a few people left at intermission not sure what was going on with the show.

If you're a fan of Sondheim see this show. it is worth the trip."

There are $25 orchestra tickets available for most performances in advance.  Yesterday, I decided to see again since I will be in Boston on Saturday afternoon.  Had to decide between Friday night and Saturday night.  Both still had $25 tickets less than a week in advance.

[stage-n-screen]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 11:21am

Saw this Saturday night - went up from NYC just to see it (as I've done the last two years for the Huntington's Sondheim productions) and had seen a simulcast of the London production in movie theaters a few years ago - and this is a top notch production well worth the trip.  There are already so many well-articulated reviews and thoughts by other posters, I only wanted to second a few of those thoughts.  First, Maria Friedman's direction really does succeed, as much as possible (given the well-discussed limitations of the book, which is frequently glib), in making these characters sympathetic and poignant, keeping the more satirical humor, and not succumbing too much to the self-indulgent bitterness. She really makes poignantly clear how Frank's key decisions - his wrong turns - are as much the result of the manipulative self-interested pull of those around him who claim to love him as his own weakness, making his growing idealism as he gets younger increasingly poignant.  The three leads are excellent. Umbers manages to make Frank appealing throughout (even in the early going - no easy task), although I have to admit that I found his attempt to make his voice grow "younger" sounded a little bit like Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent. Minor quibble.  As for Eden Espinoza as Mary, I think she succeeded for the most part in humanizing Mary, and making her feel integral to the central threesome rather than just a bitter appendage, although I think her love/longing for Frank could have been more convincing and palpable.

Go see it if you can.

[raddersons]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 11:58am

^^To be honest, I've always struggled with the romance that Mary has for Frank. On a first viewing, it really seems like it's thrown in for the sake of adding a romance b-plot. On a second viewing it makes much more sense in the very first scene, especially considering Charlie isn't there -- this is basically the only reason she's maintained contact with him. If it weren't for that, then she would have cut him off like Charlie. 

But it's almost impossible to convey that for people watching it for the first time, since in that first scene Mary is drunk, and doesn't really have an opportunity to talk about her feelings for Frank... without it coming out of left field and seeming like the central plot of the show. You don't know these characters yet. I mean, it is the first scene, you don't want this to be building up to be the a big romance in a show where the first time you see the romantic lead, she sings her lament about their marriage (Not a day goes by)

Wow I'm jealous of everyone getting to see this. I watched the telecast of the London cast three or four years ago, and I was absolutely blown away by it. 

Updated On: 9/27/17 at 11:58 AM

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 1:38pm

raddersons said: "^^To be honest, I've always struggled with the romance that Mary has forFrank. On a first viewing, it really seems like it's thrown in for the sake of adding a romance b-plot. On a second viewing it makes much more sense in the very first scene, especially considering Charlie isn't there -- this is basically the only reason she's maintained contact with him. If it weren't for that, then she would have cut him off like Charlie.

But it's almost impossible to convey that for people watching it for the first time,since in that first sceneMary is drunk, and doesn't really have an opportunity to talk about her feelings for Frank... without it coming out of left field and seeming like the central plot of the show. You don't know these characters yet.I mean, itisthe first scene, you don't want this to be building up to be the a big romance in a show where the first time yousee the romantic lead, she sings her lament about their marriage (Not a day goes by)

Wow I'm jealous of everyone getting to see this. I watched the telecast of the London castthree or four years ago, and I was absolutely blown away by it."

This is what I was trying to get to.  Seeing it a second time gives the audience different eyes to see these characters through.  The first time I saw it here, in the last scene when Frank says "There's the girl I should marry" the audience sorta gasped or sighed finally getting it.  The second time the audience was swayed either way at that last scene.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but Franklin is the one who cuts everyone off.  After the TV interview he talks about a tribe where you cut off people like they never existed (paraphrasing) and during the first scene Mary states that she wouldn't ever be invited back.

As an exercise I wonder if any directors ever play the scenes in reverse order to give the actors room to flesh out their characters in a linear fashion. I was thinking about this last night as the first scene was going on an it was so angry and confrontational that it gets hard for the actors to turn the audience to their side even though the "ending" it more upbeat and promising but then you stop and think what happens to them all and it's Follies all over again.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/27/17 at 2:09pm

GeorgeandDot said: "Jenna Russel's Mary over in London was very fleshed out and definitely the highlight of the production for me. I'm disappointed that she didn't transfer over the pond with this."

Jenna Russell is currently paying off her mortgage, boosting her pension fund and wasting her talents with a lead role in EastEnders.

Still, she's making a better job of it than Maria Friedman did with her role in EastEnders.

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 11:38am

ok...I'm obsession on this show.  Listened to my old cast recording (2005) again after awhile and this current production could very well be the most perfect production of this show.  Saw that the Encores production is on itunes but I really didn't care for Lim's Charles when I saw it live but the ensemble numbers sound as good as the Huntington's production.

[A Canadian in NYC]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 12:17pm

BuddyStarr said: This is what I was trying to get to. Seeing it a second time gives the audience different eyes to see these characters through. The first time I saw it here, in the last scene when Frank says "There's the girl I should marry" the audience sorta gasped or sighed finally getting it. The second time the audience was swayed either way at that last scene.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but Franklin is the one who cuts everyone off. After the TV interview he talks about a tribe where you cut off people like they never existed (paraphrasing) and during the first scene Mary states that she wouldn't ever be invited back.

As an exercise I wonder if any directors ever play the scenes in reverse order to give the actors room to flesh out their characters in a linear fashion. I was thinking about this last night as the first scene was going on an it was so angry and confrontational that it gets hard for the actors to turn the audience to their side even though the "ending" it more upbeat and promising but then you stop and think what happens to them all and it's Follies all over again."

Ohhh... yes..  I agree with this.  When he said "there's the girl I should marry" my heart broke for Mary.  Now knowing this, I go back in my head to the scenes before and am much more empathetic to the character.  Truth be told, I found Mary to be abrasive and annoying for the first few scenes, but as the story progresses, or regresses, I grew to like her more.  I only wish they had fleshed her out a bit more.  To me she was always on the sidelines of the trio relationship.  The emphasis was definitely on Franklin and Charley.

It would be amazing to see it in reverse now that I've seen this once.

I feel very fortunate to have been in Boston to see this.  I wonder if a transfer to Broadway is possible?

 

 

[barcelona20]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 1:11pm

Feels like a transfer that would be good for Roundabout.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 9/28/17 at 1:15pm

I think the show would only work in reverse.  Were it played in chronological order, with the same script, art would be just another trivial Hollywood story, not very well fleshed out.  By telling it backwards, you are more of a detective discovering pieces and putting them together.  I missed a couple of things that were discussed here...I don't even think they would matter if it were told chronologically.  

I also think we would be back to the 'what age should the actors be? debate.  By viewing it in reverse, I at least was fine with the 35 - 40 year old actors playing 20 year olds, because I knew so much about them by that time.  If I knew nothing at a cold opening, I would probably think the casting decision was just as stupid as I did when I originally saw the show and thought that having 20 year-olds play 40 year-olds in crisis was just dumb and distracting to such an extent that I had pretty much written the show off after 15 - 20 minutes.