James Goldman's book to Follies- Page 2

[bk]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:20am

Baker Williams, I don't care a fig if you or anyone else likes the musical.  When you make with the snappy posts about how bad the book is and how you can tell everything from the written word and a sound board tape, people who feel differently get to voice their opinions about your opinion, and sometimes, wait for it now, those opinions will be the opposite of yours.  You think the book sucks, I don't.  Life goes on.  You know, just for comparison sake - I loathed the revival of A Chorus Line.  And the people who were seeing it for the first time or who had never seen the original cast were doing exactly what you and others are doing now - oh, it's not all that, oh the book is cliched, what did people see in this show.  Well, theater is a living, breathing animal and sometimes the original production of a show is so perfectly cast and staged that of course it informs the material being presented in a way that reading A Chorus Line from a script cannot.  I read The Glass Menagerie and I appreciate it on the page, but not as much as when I see a superb production, which I have twice now.  Then it's a whole different ball of tomatoes, my friend.  

Those of us who were lucky to experience Follies as it was originally done, well, the people I know feel that it was the finest theater experience ever.  Some, like After Eight, differ with that opinion and that's fine.  While the show was dark and not a frothy Hello, Dolly, it did what it set out to do - examine the failures of the leads' lives.  Some might find that dreary, some might find it touching and illuminating, and some others will find it hits so close to home as to be VERY uncomfortable.  Musicals do not live on the page, they live on the stage - how they are done on the stage impacts the writing to the good AND to the bad.  Every time they muck around with the book they lessen what the show was about in trying to make it palatable for folks who found it dreary and unpalatable.   And it hasn't worked, so why bother in the first place.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:22am

There is a chicken and egg aspect to this. There is the nostalgic view, expressed by bk, that no one has matched the original and therefore there is nothing wrong with the book. And there is the practical view that, as often happens, a great production and great performances can occlude the deficiencies of the book. I was not old enough to see the original, but I have spoken to a lot of people who did, and read the observations of even more. While the show has its defenders of course, it is ludicrous to suggest that those who saw it (and one of the individuals with whom I have discussed it at some length not only saw it but was intimately involved) are uniformly uncritical of the book. That's just intellectually dishonest. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:24am

BakerWilliams said: "GavestonPS, I've read Goldman's original book. I have the Random House hardback edition that was published back in the 1970s. I think that line in particular exemplifies the unsubtle writing of the show, which is overly blunt to the point of dulling the show's intended mysterious delicacy crossed with deep rage.

 

"

Okay. But it's not her first line, it's the climax of the show. That line is what Aristotle would call her "revelation" and it is as devastating as any such moment from Sophocles (particularly with its odd portent for Sally's future).

Aristotelian (he didn't invent them but he defined the term) revelations aren't usually subtle, because they sum up what the character has been missing throughout the play. Check out Haemon's last line in ANTIGONE: it's basically, "If I can't have Antigone, I'm going to kill myself." Subtle? Not particularly, but absolutely essential to understanding what is at stake in the Antigone/Creon conflict.

[bk]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:29am

Intellectually dishonest - well, my goodness.   I've talked to many more people who were intimately involved in this show than you and not a one of them hated the book - they loved the characters and they loved playing them (talking about the actors) but I don't think Mr. Prince would have said it was a bad book, at least he hasn't to me.  They didn't sit around discussing deficiencies back then.  Now it's a fun little parlor game that I might say was intellectually dishonest - then again, I would never use a phrase like that, so there's that.  I have no doubt that some back then hated the book or found it dreary - that's how it goes.  I just know what I think and what the people I've talked to about it think, and that, as you know, includes many members of the original creative team and cast. 

But I don't want to be intellectually dishonest anymore, so have at it in your usual way. 

Updated On: 8/28/17 at 01:29 AM

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:31am

@GavestonPS, yes, I know what a revelation is, but I still think the line is canny and ham-fisted and is the kind of thing you'd see Joan Crawford scream in one  of her later films. Also, I'd say that while I'd always rather go see a great production of a play like Hamlet, I think the way that one is best able to appreciate its virtues and faults (actually Hamlet has no faults, so I guess just virtues) is by reading it. Same goes for every play out there.

@bk, it's sort-of funny that I make a comment about how condescending Follies fans are, and then you turn around and essentially talk to me like I'm a first grader. Also, nice appeal to authority there.

Updated On: 8/28/17 at 01:31 AM

[bk]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:35am

One could hold the opinion that one responds in kind?  Condescension is a two-way street. :)

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:37am

Well, if we're going to be intellectually honest, I think there's something sad in my being so deeply moved by FOLLIES as a teenager. (Sondheim has said young people loved it because they could still believe it didn't apply to them, but I don't think that's what I was feeling.)

A few years later, I absolutely loved MAME with Angela Lansbury, but it wasn't (nor did it intend to be) devastating in the same way.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:41am

Baker, have you heard the original soundboard recordings? I know it's not the same as having seen the production live, but those finale lines are absolutely chilling when recited by Dorothy Collins and Janet Blair in the Los Angeles transfer. If you're only reading them on a page of the script, you're not going to get the power of those lines as recited by two gifted actresses. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:47am

BakerWilliams said: "@GavestonPS, yes, I know what a revelation is..., but I still think the line is canny and ham-fisted and is the kind of thing you'd see Joan Crawford scream in one  of her later films. Also, I'd say that while I'd always rather go see a great production of a play like Hamlet, I think the way that one is best able to appreciate its virtues and faults (actually Hamlet has no faults, so I guess just virtues) is by reading it. Same goes for every play out there.

"

I wasn't condescending to you, Baker, by defining "revelation". I wasn't even assuming you wouldn't know the word. People with all different backgrounds (including teenage drama students) read and post here, so particularly with terms that have technical and popular meanings, I feel a need to specify which I am using. I apologize if I seemed to be lecturing you personally.

As for Joan Crawford screaming, I don't know which production you saw, but Dorothy Collins didn't scream about her suicide attempts, she said it softly to herself. The line might be overly dramatic when announced at a dinner party, but as an aside, basically a thought, it was entirely realistic.

HAMLET is by no means perfect. It's brilliant, not perfect. Which might also be said of FOLLIES, though I am not equating the two.

Updated On: 8/28/17 at 01:47 AM

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:49am

Honestly, I'm just excited for the year 2057 (if we still exist by then) when I get to tell people that all their criticisms of The Antipodes are irrelevant because they didn't get to *see* Nicole Rodenberg's performance and they have no idea what it was like to see the mysterious lunch containers. Or that their criticisms of John don't matter because they never got to see Georgia Engel pulling that red (or purple depending on where you saw her!) curtain closed in such an eerie fashion that one almost felt like time had stopped. I think then it will make me feel young and cool and much better than every young person that I talk to. Maybe if I act like having lived when I lived is inherently a virtue, it will make the fear of death and irrelevancy less overwhelming and it will finally make the screams stop.

@ljay889 yes.

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:51am

GavestonPS: fair enough on both counts. Sorry if I got heated towards you — I'm really just frustrated with a certain record producer who shall not be named.

My comment about Sally's revelation was more about the quality of the writing and less about Collins' delivery.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 2:04am

Baker Willian's wrote: "Honestly, I'm just excited for the year 2057 (if we still exist by then) when I get to tell people that all their criticisms of The Antipodes are irrelevant because they didn't get to *see* Nicole Rodenberg's performance and they have no idea what it was like to see the mysterious lunch containers. Or that their criticisms of John don't matter because they never got to see Georgia Engel pulling that red (or purple depending on where you saw her!) curtain closed in such an eerie fashion that one almost felt like time had stopped."

 

You needn't wait until 2057. The Antipodes, John, Follies, so many others ..... They all belong to that elite canon in which absolutely no criticism is allowed at any time in any era. And if any people have the temerity to dare try, they can only expect to be met with condescension, scorn ---- or worse.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 2:05am

BakerWilliams said: "GavestonPS: fair enough on both counts. Sorry if I got heated towards you — I'm really just frustrated with a certain record producer who shall not be named.

My comment about Sally's revelation was more about the quality of the writing and less about Collins' delivery.

 

"

No offense taken, Baker. Again, I'm sorry if I seemed to condescend.

Frankly, I've enjoyed every version of FOLLIES I've seen. But perhaps because of the show's very long gestation, the book ended up unusually tailored to the original cast. Whether that's a blessing or not may depend on whether one saw the original production.

But I admit I'm always a little surprised when people talks about the "awful book". I first saw FOLLIES in a weekend high school trip along with 1776, COMPANY, APPLAUSE and THE FANTASTICKS. FOLLIES did not suffer by comparison.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 2:05am

bk said: "Intellectually dishonest - well, my goodness.   I've talked to many more people who were intimately involved in this show than you and not a one of them hated the book - they loved the characters and they loved playing them (talking about the actors) but I don't think Mr. Prince would have said it was a bad book, at least he hasn't to me.  They didn't sit around discussing deficiencies back then.  Now it's a fun little parlor game that I might say was intellectually dishonest - then again, I would never use a phrase like that, so there's that.  I have no doubt that some back then hated the book or found it dreary - that's how it goes.  I just know what I think and what the people I've talked to about it think, and that, as you know, includes many members of the original creative team and cast.  "

You attempted to discredit opinions based on not having seen the original. Truth is, those intimately familiar are not good barometers of what worked and didn't because they were too close. They are also defensive, like you are. You implied that those who saw the original knew it had this wonderful book. That's intellectually dishonest whether you like it or not. Pure lazy (and faulty) logic.

Funny thing about the theatre that maybe you also don't like: it's ephemeral. The measure of a great book is that it endures and works without regard to who is using it. A book that requires a nostalgia trip to hold up is not doing the job it set out to do. Give a copy of Hamlet to a class  of 12 year olds. Let them rehearse for a month. What they do will take your breath away. Warts and all.

 

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 2:17am

@GavestonPS, I don't actually think the book to Follies is awful. The Roundabout and Kennedy Center productions were just poorly done, which is why I thought both evenings of theatre were something I'd like to forget, but the Chicago Shakespeare production proved that the show can work as a whole, if not so much on a moment-to-moment basis. Honestly, I could take or leave the show (I don't even think the score is all that interesting), but I will keep seeing every production I can in hopes that one day I'll figure out why so many people are so damn obsessed with it. No luck so far, but maybe one day. 

@HogansHero, I want to take your last paragraph and frame it.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 2:34am

@After Eight. Odd, there is plenty of criticism in this thread, and except for one poster who seems to get off on it, and ironically, like you, is intellectually dishonest, no scorn or condescension. Maybe the problem is you are not capable of participating in an intellectually rigorous discussion. That's not my guess, however; I just think you are the same posturing troll you've always been. 

[bk]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 5:10am

He's a posturing troll.  Gee, I'd give that award to you along with my intellectually dishonest award, which I feel I've enjoyed but should now be in your possession.  Hogan - interesting name now that I think on it.  

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 9:40am

bk said: "But all the people complaining about the dreary old book haven't seen the original production.  My favorite, of course, is when people, in order to look like they know whereof they speak, lie and say they did, even though one later finds out they weren't even born then :)  (And yes, that's happened.)  The book scenes played brilliantly in the original production because the actors were amazing, spoke the lines well, and had co-directors who knew what they were doing.  I don't want to hear criticisms of the book based on any of the revivals because there has yet to be a revival that's come anywhere near the original production - maybe London this year will change that - I remain ever hopeful.  But I just roll my eyes at the complainers of the book who then admit they are basing those complaints on the recent revival or the Roundabout revival - neither of which DID the original book.  And it's not enough to just read the old published script - the actors and directors made it work beautifully.  I will defend it forever. "

BK, you are raising an interesting point.

I certainly didn't see the original production of FOLLIES so I can't say if the book worked in that production or not.

But the implication of what you are saying is still unpersuasive.  It seems that what you are suggesting is that unless one saw the original production, one can't possibly have an opinion about FOLLIES.   Taking to absurd levels, it might follow from your suggestion that there is no reason for anyone to have any opinion about any work unless one saw its original production.  And, taken one step further, since it is often the case that works receive what to many is their definitive due not in their original productions but in a subsequent one, that one can't reach a valid opinion about the worth of a libretto unless one has seen every rendition of the show.  Which is an impractial hypothesis, as no one ever sees every rendition of a show since shows continue to be produced and reinterpreted (for better or for worse and usually for both) long after each of us our dead.

Isn't a better way to think about this that we all see what we see, think what we think, and, at our best, try to keep an open mind about the value of a work as we and the various interpreters of a work revisit it?

I know I try to do that.  My opinion of several shows - and as it happens, many Sondheim musicals - has changed over the years for the better because I've seen what I felt were productions which finally "got" it in a way that made it gel for me.  Sometimes this is a result of how I've changed, often it's a result of how the work has been interpreted and presented, and sometimes it's been a combination of the two.

While I have yet to see that "come-to-Weissman" moment happen with FOLLIES, I am certainly willing to keep an open mind and hope that one day this musical finally breaks through for me.  In fact, at present, I'm somewhat optimistic from reports from London that the National's production might achieve that.

But what I can't agree with, if in fact you are suggesting it, is that if one hasn't seen either the original of FOLLIES, or for that matter any apotheosis-considered production of a any musical, that one has no authority to speak about the value of the work based on one's own experiences of it.

 

Updated On: 8/28/17 at 09:40 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 10:47am

I love Goldman's original book; I find it smart, sophisticated, sharp, unsentimental, and devoid of cliché. (And I didn't see it, but have heard it through the original soundboard recording). I "like" many of the characters; but even if I didn't, I wouldn't put "character likeability" high on a list of priorities for "good theatre."

If, however, you define bad as "not appealing to the masses, and therefore not likely to make a profit," then it probably is bad. I think it's far too good (by my definition) a book for a mass audience (who I think tend to gush over easy, sentimental, trite shows) to appreciate.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 11:03am

 

I agree with bk that one shouldn't judge the inherent value of a work based on productions that do not display it in the best possible way. I agree with him that the original production of Follies did that, and that all other productions I have seen have not. That said, I still thought the show's flaws were pronounced. But imagine if one were to pass judgment on The Glass Menagerie  solely based upon the botched production presented on Broadway this past season!  One is not allowed to say that it's a better play than what we saw on that stage, and that earlier productions displayed it to better advantage?

What I don't understand is why people take such umbrage when someone says an original production was superior to a later one. In many cases, it was. So what? I found the original production of Hello, Dolly! superior to the current one, and I loved the current one. And if it indeed was, what's the big deal, anyway? Are we supposed to pretend that people like Laurette Taylor or Carol Channing never existed, or resent/dismiss those fortunate enough to have seen them? Or claim that nothing of worth existed before one was born? Let's not be so childish here.  It's no crime not to have been able to see earlier productions of a show. But it's equally no crime to have seen them, and to state they were better than later ones. 

[newintown]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 11:49am

"What I don't understand is why people take such umbrage when someone says an original production was superior to a later one. In many cases, it was. So what?"

Of the shows whose original productions and revivals I've seen (there have been many), I can only think of one where a revival was better than the original - The Color Purple (I didn't like either one much, however, because I find the material really bad).

[raddersons]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 12:10pm

After Eight said: " What I don't understand is why people take such umbrage when someone says an original production was superior to a later one. In many cases, it was. So what? "

I think this comes from a place of jealousy -- if you love a revival but keep hearing that the original was better, then you get a little miffed that you weren't around to just see the original. 

[Carlos Danger]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 12:54pm

"Follies" never resonated with me as a complete show. I loved the score and I've only seen two productions of it: "Follies in Concert" from 1985 and the recent Broadway revival with Bernadette Peters, Jan Maxwell, et al.

That being said, the show really resonated with me and stuck a cord (more like a raw nerve) when I officially hit middle age. Boy did it hit me!

It's not a pretty portrait but it happens to the best of us: ambition, lost opportunity, regret, unrequited love, jealousy, forgiveness, unforgiveness.

It's not a perfect show but not every show is.

Sometimes perfection is not what make shows like "Follies" great.

Updated On: 8/28/17 at 12:54 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 1:58pm

Carlos Danger said: "

Sometimes perfection is not what make shows like "Follies" great."

 

I love this! It's so true. 

I connected with Follies as a young teenager. Even though I obviously couldn't relate to the leads, I was so enamored by the entire show and its history. "Everything Was Possible" was such a great resource for me as  I tried to learn everything about the original production as I possibly could. I remember frantically trying to read it between classes in high school. I loved and still love that the show isn't a happy fairy tale, I think I was attracted to the sadness and desperation of the leads. I wouldn't want a brighter or more optimistic Follies, that's not what the show is, and that's why the original London production is considered such a misfire. 

While I got to see and enjoy the Encores staging and the Kennedy Center and Broadway production multiple times, I always knew the original production would not be topped.That's the gold standard. I think one could still love and respect the original production without having been alive to see it. The multiple soundboard recordings, rehearsal footage, silent footage, "Everything Was Possible," and the original published script are all imperative resources to discover everything you can about the original production. Also, our very own Pal Joey is a wealth of knowledge, I hope he posts in this thread. 

Updated On: 8/28/17 at 01:58 PM

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 8/28/17 at 2:22pm

Ijay, I had much the same experience as you. I remember when I first discovered Sondheim: I purchased the OBC of Company on iTunes and became truly obsessed. This was my freshmen year of high school. In the next two years, I became familiar with all of his work, but nothing has touched me more than Follies. I remember the excitement I felt when I discovered there were audio archives of the original cast. And then BK's brilliant remaster came out, and it was absolute heaven for a Follies fan - especially when the recent revival produced such a marvelous recording.

Like one of my other favorite shows, Passion, you can't avoid the opposing views on it. But that's the deal: a lot of people don't want to go to the theatre to think and see life reflected back in a more realistic view. Albee and Sondheim were labeled marriage haters (read "fags" for their works back in the 60s and 70s. People believed George and Martha were a thin cover for a gay couple, because straight people would never act like them - only the immoral homosexuals, right?

One of the chief problems with Follies (if you can call it that) is that it demands lavishness. Costumes, set changes, large cast, production numbers... you name it, Follies needs it. That's one of the reasons the Roundabout revival was so disappointing.

For the record, I love the book. I think it's pretty perfect for the characters. There's not much room for in depth character study in a show with 21 songs over little more than 2 hours. But I find a lot of rich subtext in the scenes, as well as many wonderfully acidic zingers. But the book is weighed down by literal staging, of which no production since the original has escaped. Not to mention, the endless tinkering with a book that serves its purpose more than well.