National Theatre: Follies- Page 3

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 7/7/17 at 8:27pm

I had always been a big fan of Peters, but her performance as Sally was a total washout. Sad and weepy from first to last, and her singing was not up to the demands of the score. And it didn't help that Schaeffer is not a good director, and didn't have a clue as to what this show should look or sound like. You haven't lived (?) until you've seen his first attempt at FOLLIES, with Florence Lacey and company in zombie-white makeup...

Staunton is a brilliant actress, and her musical abilities will carry her through. Can't wait to see her.

[binau]

Posted: 7/7/17 at 8:52pm

Bernadette walked out on that stage overwhelmed with emotion because her character was about to meet the guy she has been pining over after 30 years, and she was transported back to another time in her life. She was overwhelmed with a combination of anxiousness, nostalgia and excitement, not sad/weepy. Do we really expect Sally - who is a crazy psycho bitch and waiting for this moment for 30 years - to have no visible affect in that moment? It was a completely different kind of emotion than the glum, energyless, catatonic sad/weepy she had at the end of the show when she realised "there is no Ben for me." 

When you say Staunton's "musical abilities will carry her through" but Bernadette's singing was "not up to the demands of the score" - does this mean you are actually suggesting Staunton has the better voice? Maybe I'm deaf but I find this to be an absurd idea. Bernadette has an absolute powerhouse of a voice with a very wide range of timbre (from powerful belting to high soprano), pitch (very low to very high), volume (very quiet to very loud) and a really skilled ability to carefully manage these elements to convey a character, emotion and story. As she has aged, her vocal ability has admittedly declined over time and in particular does have some raspyness to her voice. However, in comparison Staunton is not even really a singer - she is an actor who sings. There is very little nuance to her singing. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwFxf9lAzhA - just listen to Bernadette singing the last note of "In Buddy's Eyes" here. Can't wait to see Staunton try to pull that off. 
 

 

[binau]

Posted: 7/7/17 at 8:53pm

..

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/7/17 at 9:09pm

I thought Bernadette's acting was effective and appropriate for Sally. The character IS sad and depressed, and I think it was wise that Bernadette and Schaeffer did not shy away from that. It would've been easy for Bernadette to play it bubbly and spunky, but she honored the sadness and delusions of the character. Once they changed her sexy dress for the transfer, she was even physically perfect for the role, remember Sally is described as a "little girl." Brantley and many of the critics gave her positive reviews, the lack of a Tony nomination was a disappointment. 

I can't stand a tall Sally, Staunton is right for the role physically, but she does not look 49 whatsoever, Bernadette was able to pass for 49. 

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 7/7/17 at 9:10pm

I'm a huge Peters fan and I got to see her live in both Into the Woods and Sunday in the Park, but I must say that her Sally is a little strange.  She would have been better in the part maybe a few years earlier, but some of her choices were bizarre.  She just felt very stiff.  I liked her regardless, but many of my friends thought she was terrible.  I thought she brought a sweet, likeable quality to the part that I hadn't seen before, but I still wouldn't consider her the definitive Sally.  I believe that title goes to Victoria Clark, IMO, who brought that sweetness to the role, while singing the role gorgeously.  I blame a lot of the problems with that production on the lackluster direction.  Anyways, I don't think it's right to act like Bernadette owns the role.  Staunton is a brilliant actress, who I'm sure will sing the role beautifully.

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/7/17 at 9:33pm

For me, Clark was good in the role, but not the definitive Sally. She sounded absolutely glorious singing it, but physically she was too tall and matronly for the role. It drives me crazy when a Sally is the same height as Phyllis. 

I believe the definitive Sally was Dorothy Collins, from her gorgeous vocals, to her stunning portrayal of childlike hopefulness, to absurd delusions, to madly depressed in the finale. She was also the perfect looking Sally, and totally believable as the "little girl." 

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 7/7/17 at 9:40pm

^I did not see her performance, so I cannot comment, but I'm sure that I would agree with you if I had.  I do love her vocals on the OBC, however.

Sally's height doesn't really bother me so long as she has that sweetness about her.  She needs to have that childlike attitude and for me the height of the actress doesn't really play into that.  Overall, I think Staunton will be great, even if I think she's more of a Phyllis than a Sally.

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/7/17 at 9:57pm

I didn't see Collins live either, but I have seen whatever footage is available, listened to soundboard recordings endless amounts of times, read "Everything Is Possible," etc.  Also, posts by PalJoey have been very helpful in learning about the original production. 

 

My preference for a short and childlike Sally comes straight from the script: "She is blonde, petite, sweet-faced and, at forty-nine, still remarkably like the girl she was thirty years ago."

Of course, that doesn't mean a taller woman could never play the role, it's just my personal preference for a character that I have loved for many years. 

Updated On: 7/7/17 at 09:57 PM

[JBC3]

Posted: 7/7/17 at 11:16pm

Susan Moniz who played Sally Durant Plummer was quite good in the Chicago Shakespeare Theatre production that was running at the same time as the Kennedy Center pre-Broadway transfer. I saw both shows in the span of a few days and the contrast in casts and staging was very interesting.

[Callum_brown1]

Posted: 7/7/17 at 11:36pm

Feldzieg said: "Do any Londoners here have a hunch how the "on sale to members" thing is expected to turn out? Currently you can only buy tickets for the extension period if your are an NT member which costs at least 80 pounds a year. Do you think they might open it up to the general public later or is interest so high that it probably sells out with members only? I wanna get tickets in December. Would prefer to avoid to shell out the additional 80 for the membership...

 

"

You can add membership to your basket on the NT website and that will let you see the seat availability for performances not on general sale yet without purchasing anything. Personally I think you should be okay - when I got my tickets for October in the first release it wasn't exactly a mad rush. Heck, I even managed to get Angels in America tickets fairly stress-free when they were released, and I don't think Follies is going to be anywhere near as popular as that.

And if I'm not mistaken, I think tickets for Bryan Cranston in Network are going to go on sale at the same time - that will take up most of the attention.

[brian1973]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 2:26am

Erm I think you are not correct there. Follies is playing in a larger theatre than Angels and currently all performances are sold out. In fact the site crashed multiple times when it went on sale, such was the demand.

 

Callum_brown1 said: "Feldzieg said: "Do any Londoners here have a hunch how the "on sale to members" thing is expected to turn out? Currently you can only buy tickets for the extension period if your are an NT member which costs at least 80 pounds a year. Do you think they might open it up to the general public later or is interest so high that it probably sells out with members only? I wanna get tickets in December. Would prefer to avoid to shell out the additional 80 for the membership...

 

"

You can add membership to your basket on the NT website and that will let you see the seat availability for performances not on general sale yet without purchasing anything. Personally I think you should be okay - when I got my tickets for October in the first release it wasn't exactly a mad rush. Heck, I even managed to get Angels in America tickets fairly stress-free when they were released, and I don't think Follies is going to be anywhere near as popular as that.

And if I'm not mistaken, I think tickets for Bryan Cranston in Network are going to go on sale at the same time - that will take up most of the attention.

 

"

 

[brian1973]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 2:29am

Your Peters obsession makes me want to puke! The idea you are running down other performers when you can't see how past it she is. She's what 70 odd now and still sings and talks with that bizarre baby voice? Please. She doesn't inhabit roles anymore, she's just Bernadette Peters gurgling the songs.

dont get me wrong I loved her for years, but she was a disaster in Follies and you acting like she was definitive in the role is a bit embarrassing.

 

qolbinau said: "Bernadette walked out on that stage overwhelmed with emotion because her character was about to meet the guy she has been pining over after 30 years, and she was transported back to another time in her life. She was overwhelmed with a combination of anxiousness, nostalgia and excitement, not sad/weepy. Do we really expect Sally - who is a crazy psycho bitch and waiting for this moment for 30 years - to have no visible affect in that moment? It was a completely different kind of emotion than the glum, energyless, catatonic sad/weepy she had at the end of the show when she realised "there is no Ben for me." 

When you say Staunton's "musical abilities will carry her through" but Bernadette's singing was "not up to the demands of the score" - does this mean you are actually suggesting Staunton has the better voice? Maybe I'm deaf but I find this to be an absurd idea. Bernadette has an absolute powerhouse of a voice with a very wide range of timbre (from powerful belting to high soprano), pitch (very low to very high), volume (very quiet to very loud) and a really skilled ability to carefully manage these elements to convey a character, emotion and story. As she has aged, her vocal ability has admittedly declined over time and in particular does have some raspyness to her voice. However, in comparison Staunton is not even really a singer - she is an actor who sings. There is very little nuance to her singing. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwFxf9lAzhA - just listen to Bernadette singing the last note of "In Buddy's Eyes" here. Can't wait to see Staunton try to pull that off. 
 

 

 

"

 

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 3:03am

^I wouldn't go as far as to say that Peters is past it.  She's just a different performer now.  Sally would've been a good part for her 10 years ago.  She just wasn't right for it anymore.  Meanwhile her performance in A Little Night Music was divine even if the production was drab.  She's still got it, but she's no longer the Bernadette Peters that we used to know.  I'd still love to see her play a sexy Lovett!

[lotiloti]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 4:01am

Remember, Sondheim has always preferred actors who sing. Not singers who act.. He loves Imelda.

She will be fine.

As an aside, dig out the DVD of 'Taking Woodstock' , watch her and Henry Goodman, (two fine British actors) nail their cameos as the old couple. Screen acting at it's finest.

[binau]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 5:38am

If Sondheim loves Staunton he must adore Peters, who must be by far his most frequent leading performer collaborator. 

I actually don't think Bernadette is overall the 'definitive' Sally. I can very clearly hear the strain in her voice at points (Clark really did sound amazing and almost flawless) - and 'stiff' might describe some of her line readings. She did this in night music too but there are odd pauses sometimes in lines - it's just weird and sometimes hard to really feel the character at times. 

But what I find bizarre is this odd perspective that she was somehow completely wrong for the role (her vocal style actually fits and physically she pretty much perfectly fits the description in the libretto) and this overall negative sentiment as if nothing she did in the role was right. Her In Buddy's Eyes is among the best work she has ever done and will be hard to replicate. And there were some great moments contrasting her giddy girlish excitement to see and be with Ben vs absolute energyless devastation on stage when she was heartbroken. 

It's annoying to constantly see people saying Bernadette doesn't have the voice for Lovett but Staunton can basically speak the role and be a revelation. It's annoying to hear Tyne Daly and Staunton sing two of the worst Roses in terms of vocal ability but then it's Bernadette who apparently didn't have the voice. It's annoying to hear people say Bernadette didn't have the voice to do Follies and yet probably say Staunton was a revelation in what will likely be the worst sung Sally on record. 

I have a theory that people don't mind when actor-singers sing roughly but don't like seeing singer-actors sing roughly when they can hear the decline in their vocal ability, even if it still exceeds alternatives. 

[carnzee]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 7:25am

There's little doubt that Sondheim loves Peters. She may be the definitive Sondheim interpreter.

Tyne Daly recorded Gypsy when she was ill. Even though Peters is a better singer, Daly's voice is more naturally suited for Rose. 

I understand why Peters's Sally is divisive. It was a highly eccentric, mannered performance. But everything Bernadette does is worth seeing. 

Updated On: 7/8/17 at 07:25 AM

[NOWaWarning]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 7:30am

I've never been a fan of the whole "actors who sing vs. singers who act" thing. We don't have to choose. There are plenty of performers (like both Peters and Staunton, in my opinion) who do both very well.

 

I'm sure Staunton will be more than fine and will find her own Sally and many of her own wonderful moments. And, hey, if she just doesn't work in the role, there'll always be the next production. 

[JBC3]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 8:23am

People can see what they want to see with both Peters and Staunton ... that is the beauty of confirmation bias.  If you see Staunton as not quite up to singing the part, no doubt there will be moments that affirm you.  If you see Peters as overwrought with emotion and crying too easily, she will not disappoint you either. I would guess that people who view them with no preconceived notion would find plenty to like in either performance.

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 1:46pm

I would say Julia McKenzie is as much one of Sondheim's "favorites" as Peters is, certainly on the other side of the Atlantic… he personally offered McKenzie both the Witch in the original London Into the Woods (when everyone else had to audition for their roles) and either Sally or Phyllis (whichever she wanted) in the original London Follies (she has publicly said that she chose to play Sally simply because she couldn't sit there and watch someone else sing In Buddy's Eyes, she was so moved by Sally's music). McKenzie's recording of Sally is my personal favorite. She sings it with such ease and emotion; her Losing My Mind in particular really highlights the character's psycho tendencies, at least to my ears. I think it's criminal that we never got a McKenzie-led Gypsy. But I believe she chose to retire from the musical stage in 1994 after doing Lovett at the National Theatre because she felt that was the pinnacle role for women in musicals. 

[Callum_brown1]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 2:45pm

brian1973 said: "Erm I think you are not correct there. Follies is playing in a larger theatre than Angels and currently all performances are sold out. In fact the site crashed multiple times when it went on sale, such was the demand.

 

"



 

"

 

 

"

 

Oh im sorry - I don't know we had a psychic on the board that knows more about my experience of booking tickets than I do?! I remember checking on the evening of release day and there was still decent availability. All I'm saying to the poster is that they have a not impossible shot of getting tickets on general release.

[bk]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 4:45pm

qolbinau said: "How did the widow Goldman let this be filmed but not the recent NYC revival?

Good luck Staunton trying to reach the level of acting in "Buddy's Eyes" as Bernadette or reaching those high notes in Too Many Mornings. 

 

"

Money?  And perhaps the fact that no one offered to film the last revival, which was terrible?  Those would be my guesses.

[bk]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 4:57pm

I love Bernadette, so let's start there.  But her Sally was either directed poorly or the director let her go with her choices, which were completely wrong for the character, IMO.  If Sally is crazy and sad and depressed and delusional from word one, you have no show, period.  Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand Follies or the way in which it's written.  It's why everyone who was lucky enough to see Dorothy Collins knows there will never be a finer performance of Sally, acting-wise or singing-wise.  She was heartbreaking BECAUSE you discovered her deal as the show went on, not at her entrance.  That's what makes it work, discovering her issues as the play goes along.  That's called, in the parlance of now, an arc - there was no arc to Bernadette - you got it all right from her entrance and it killed any chance for her.  A good director would have stopped it.  But the director of the revival is anything but.  And yes, John McMartin was the best Ben there will ever be.  In fact, the entire original company is the best there will ever be - many reasons for that, starting with brilliant casting but, more importantly, Mr. Prince and Mr. Bennett.  The endless revisions to this show are all horrible - adding an intermission is reprehensible and horrible and I hope these Brits have the courage of their convictions and do it the way it's written - no revisions and no intermission.  

Why they would announce the filming of a production that no one has seen one second of is another enigma for another day.  

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 5:01pm

Is there a video of the original production at the Lincoln Center archives?  I would love to see it.

[carnzee]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 5:14pm

Why they would announce the filming of a production that no one has seen one second of is another enigma for another day.  

 

"

I don't think this is unusual for NT Live. 

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 7/8/17 at 5:21pm

bk said: "Why they would announce the filming of a production that no one has seen one second of is another enigma for another day. "

Every production at the National Theatre is recorded for their NTLive program. http://ntlive.com/