1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 26, 2019 21:37:38 GMT
I enjoyed that way more than I did last year. Will do full report later, but really enjoyed it, in my opinion this is the cast this version of Follies deserves and should have had last time around! But, surely, with Quast , the rest I can agree with
Quast is a better singer than Alexander Hanson, but in this role I thought Hanson was giving the better performance. And I thought Quast was very good.
|
|
559 posts
|
Post by danieljohnson14 on Mar 27, 2019 12:35:37 GMT
So I went back to the show for a second time yesterday, having last seen it in September 2017.
There were several reasons I chose to return to the show. Firstly, because Tracie Bennett and Janie Dee continued on in the show. Also, because I was sat quite far back the first time, I wanted to be in the front for this time, which I was, second row. And also, because my favourite 42nd Street had a few cast members come over, including one of my favourite performers Alyn Hawke so I wanted to see them all in the show too.
I have to say, I enjoyed it alot more for several reasons. Last time I enjoyed it but as time went on it was just boring. But this time, I found it engaging throughout for the most part. Sitting in the front couple of rows, you are fully immersed in the world that they create. The set is stunning and the costumes are beautiful (though I still don't get the Olivier win, but there you go, bitter Betty over here). There were definitely some snooze moments, mainly when it was just the four leads on stage alone talking or singing what felt like many duets that never lifted, but the four gave great performances in their solos that I accepted that as a flaw in the piece itself, not on them.
The supporting cast is all fantastic and should be praised to the heavens! Especially shoutouts to Claire Moore and Tracie Bennett who really did bring the house down with their numbers. Janie Dee is stunning as she was the last time, and I still think she should have won that Olivier Award last year for her incredible performance.
I think, for me, the flaws I find are with the show itself than this specific production. There are some brilliant songs and production numbers (Beautiful Girls, Broadway Baby, Who's That Woman, I'm Still Here, Could I Leave You, Losing My Mind, The Story or Lucy and Jessie) but then there are some solos and duets that just go no where and I found so incredibly boring. You almost want to have more time with the individual women to see them.
The audience was about four fifths full, back of the stalls and circle were empty but it's a matinee so not unexpected to be truthful. The audience was very responsive and gave a standing ovation at the end from when the Ensemble came out, which was lovely to see.
It's a fabulous production and thee cast is amazing. I'm glad I went back and saw it as I enjoyed it so much more than I did the first time and I'd go back to see it again before it closes.
4*
|
|
|
Post by firstwetakemanhattan on Mar 28, 2019 10:50:33 GMT
Have to say I struggled with this, seemed to me as just a long list of songs with nothing much holding them together, some of which were well done, some of which I have already forgotten. A story of youth and old age , i get it, but the whole thing just didnt really grab me. Maybe it was the 15 quid dayseats and the distance away, maybe it was the teenagers next to me I had to tell to be quiet at the start, just couldnt get fully into it. I will say that however the 2 hours 15 seemed to fly by and only saw a couple of people get up for the bathroom. Heard so much hype about the show and it didnt deliver for me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 11:12:48 GMT
Went to see this for the second time last night (the first being September 2017).
Was a bit closer this time in mid stalls and have to say I loved it. Am really not generally a big Sondheim fan but this is such a classy production in direction, design, lighting, orchestra and acting it really is a joy to behold.
Joanna Riding sings better than Imelda no doubt. And I have always had a soft spot for Alexander Hanson since I saw him topless in the Gale Edwards version of Aspects of Love at the Bristol Hippodrome in the early 90's. Claire Moore also wonderful (though EVERY time I see her on stage I just wish she'd suddenly belt out It's Her Or Me). And once again I found Tracey Bennett completely mesmerising (though she is TINY; it's a human marvel that that voice comes out of such a small body). Wildly off topic but was reminded of Mrs Henderson Presents which then made me think on the train home has there been an open ended run of a new British musical in a West End house since Mrs Henderson Presents and Made In Dagenham? Couldn't think of one which is slightly tragic.
Interestingly only 2/3 full if that (I thought everything at the NT sold out lol).
Another casual observation - I don't go to the NT much (in fact Follies once before and Here Lies Love twice are my only previous visits). But the audience behaviour was noticeably MUCH better than the general state of things in the West End currently. Is this normal for the National? As if it is I might try and go more. No talking, rustling, choking etc etc. And even most people's bladders held out for the infamous no interval event (on that btw, I would put one in. It's a nonsense that it interrupts the dramatic flow. I mean of course it does, but no more than any other show so it's just Sondheim snobbery pretending this is different from anything else).
Oh and one comment about the piece itself - I don't quite get the structure. It is ramping up into a gut wrenching tragedy of unhappy relationships and fundamentally broken characters. Then instead of letting that peak in an all out gut punch (which I found I wanted at this point) it descends into Vaudeville with the Follies themselves. Though I enjoyed them in an MT way, I really found it removed the drama and tension of the piece. Maybe that is the point as the audience can only take so much. But that's not a particularly Sondheim way of writing so doubt that is the reason. Dunno if anyone felt a similar thing!?
|
|
776 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Mar 28, 2019 11:19:32 GMT
Wildly off topic but was reminded of Mrs Henderson Presents which then made me think on the train home has there been an open ended run of a new British musical in a West End house since Mrs Henderson Presents and Made In Dagenham? Couldn't think of one which is slightly tragic. Half a sixpence probably the most recent; but still tragic! I do think it'll be a good 10+ years, at least, until we see it back half how it used to be. I'd go as far as saying 20. Shame.
|
|
559 posts
|
Follies
Mar 28, 2019 11:30:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by danieljohnson14 on Mar 28, 2019 11:30:05 GMT
When watching for a second time, I did find myself thinking I wouldn't mind this one coming into a West End house for a limited run, especially with the amount of empty theatres popping up. I suppose it would be an issue of the right space and stuff, because the set is so massive. I'd be intirgued for sure to see if it would do well on Broadway in this version though?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 11:37:54 GMT
Wildly off topic but was reminded of Mrs Henderson Presents which then made me think on the train home has there been an open ended run of a new British musical in a West End house since Mrs Henderson Presents and Made In Dagenham? Couldn't think of one which is slightly tragic. Half a sixpence probably the most recent; but still tragic! I do think it'll be a good 10+ years, at least, until we see it back half how it used to be. I'd go as far as saying 20. Shame. A yes of course, Half A Sixpence. God, it's so sad! Anyway, at the risk of going off topic, I might start a separate thread about new British musicals (lack thereof).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 11:39:04 GMT
When watching for a second time, I did find myself thinking I wouldn't mind this one coming into a West End house for a limited run, especially with the amount of empty theatres popping up. I suppose it would be an issue of the right space and stuff, because the set is so massive. I'd be intirgued for sure to see if it would do well on Broadway in this version though? I'd have thought that too, were it not for the fact that there were lots of empty seats last night.
|
|
559 posts
|
Follies
Mar 28, 2019 11:42:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by danieljohnson14 on Mar 28, 2019 11:42:53 GMT
When watching for a second time, I did find myself thinking I wouldn't mind this one coming into a West End house for a limited run, especially with the amount of empty theatres popping up. I suppose it would be an issue of the right space and stuff, because the set is so massive. I'd be intirgued for sure to see if it would do well on Broadway in this version though? I'd have thought that too, were it not for the fact that there were lots of empty seats last night. yeah the matinee I went to the back of the Stalls and back of the Circle were pretty empty, maybe four fifths empty in total. It's certainly a shame that it hasn't been the smash hit it was before, but to see the production again, it's been great for those of us who have wanted to see it! Something else I just thought too, for some reason, being a massive Tracie fan, I thought her role was alot smaller than it actually is after the first time. I thought she just entered, tap danced, sang I'm Still Here and we don't see her again, but she gets a few little jokes in here and there too, and gets to have the scene at the end with one of the men (I'm so sorry to the superfans, but I couldn't tell you who was Buddy and who was Ben) 😂
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 11:42:57 GMT
has there been an open ended run of a new British musical in a West End house since Mrs Henderson Presents and Made In Dagenham? Couldn't think of one which is slightly tragic. Everybody's Talking About Jamie!
|
|
1,889 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Mar 28, 2019 13:29:25 GMT
Went to see this for the second time last night (the first being September 2017). Was a bit closer this time in mid stalls and have to say I loved it. Am really not generally a big Sondheim fan but this is such a classy production in direction, design, lighting, orchestra and acting it really is a joy to behold. Joanna Riding sings better than Imelda no doubt. And I have always had a soft spot for Alexander Hanson since I saw him topless in the Gale Edwards version of Aspects of Love at the Bristol Hippodrome in the early 90's. Claire Moore also wonderful (though EVERY time I see her on stage I just wish she'd suddenly belt out It's Her Or Me). And once again I found Tracey Bennett completely mesmerising (though she is TINY; it's a human marvel that that voice comes out of such a small body). Wildly off topic but was reminded of Mrs Henderson Presents which then made me think on the train home has there been an open ended run of a new British musical in a West End house since Mrs Henderson Presents and Made In Dagenham? Couldn't think of one which is slightly tragic. Interestingly only 2/3 full if that (I thought everything at the NT sold out lol). Another casual observation - I don't go to the NT much (in fact Follies once before and Here Lies Love twice are my only previous visits). But the audience behaviour was noticeably MUCH better than the general state of things in the West End currently. Is this normal for the National? As if it is I might try and go more. No talking, rustling, choking etc etc. And even most people's bladders held out for the infamous no interval event (on that btw, I would put one in. It's a nonsense that it interrupts the dramatic flow. I mean of course it does, but no more than any other show so it's just Sondheim snobbery pretending this is different from anything else). Oh and one comment about the piece itself - I don't quite get the structure. It is ramping up into a gut wrenching tragedy of unhappy relationships and fundamentally broken characters. Then instead of letting that peak in an all out gut punch (which I found I wanted at this point) it descends into Vaudeville with the Follies themselves. Though I enjoyed them in an MT way, I really found it removed the drama and tension of the piece. Maybe that is the point as the audience can only take so much. But that's not a particularly Sondheim way of writing so doubt that is the reason. Dunno if anyone felt a similar thing!?
You're totally right on audience behaviour! I saw Follies and Phantom in the space of the same week and it was MARKEDLY different!
I also agree on the lack of interval being down to Sondheim snobbery!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 13:38:31 GMT
Call me a snob, but the show simply works far better without an interval, IMO. I've seen it in both forms and the interval just broke the flow of the piece.
|
|
|
Follies
Mar 28, 2019 13:43:09 GMT
sf likes this
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 13:43:09 GMT
Interval-free shows are structured differently to interval-included shows. It ain't just snobbery.
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 28, 2019 16:32:31 GMT
Oh and one comment about the piece itself - I don't quite get the structure. It is ramping up into a gut wrenching tragedy of unhappy relationships and fundamentally broken characters. Then instead of letting that peak in an all out gut punch (which I found I wanted at this point) it descends into Vaudeville with the Follies themselves. The Loveland sequence IS the peak. It's four nervous breakdowns presented as pastiche Follies performances - Buddy as a vaudeville clown, Sally as a torch singer, Phyllis as dancer (or, in a production that uses 'Ah, But Underneath' instead of 'Lucy and Jessie', a stripper), and Ben as a song-and-dance man - and those performances are carefully designed to expose each character's individual folly.
|
|
559 posts
|
Follies
Mar 28, 2019 16:52:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by danieljohnson14 on Mar 28, 2019 16:52:18 GMT
Oh and one comment about the piece itself - I don't quite get the structure. It is ramping up into a gut wrenching tragedy of unhappy relationships and fundamentally broken characters. Then instead of letting that peak in an all out gut punch (which I found I wanted at this point) it descends into Vaudeville with the Follies themselves. The Loveland sequence IS the peak. It's four nervous breakdowns presented as pastiche Follies performances - Buddy as a vaudeville clown, Sally as a torch singer, Phyllis as dancer (or, in a production that uses 'Ah, But Underneath' instead of 'Lucy and Jessie', a stripper), and Ben as a song-and-dance man - and those performances are carefully designed to expose each character's individual folly. poor Ben though, he really does get the crap one of the four songs and scenes doesn't he.
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 28, 2019 17:02:46 GMT
The Loveland sequence IS the peak. It's four nervous breakdowns presented as pastiche Follies performances - Buddy as a vaudeville clown, Sally as a torch singer, Phyllis as dancer (or, in a production that uses 'Ah, But Underneath' instead of 'Lucy and Jessie', a stripper), and Ben as a song-and-dance man - and those performances are carefully designed to expose each character's individual folly. poor Ben though, he really does get the crap one of the four songs and scenes doesn't he.
No, he doesn't. He gets a very clever musical pastiche which accurately represents the persona he tries to present to the world, and it falls to pieces halfway through because it's a lie. It's a neat reversal of the way musical theatre usually works: here, the song exposes the character singing it as a fraud.
|
|
559 posts
|
Follies
Mar 28, 2019 17:11:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by danieljohnson14 on Mar 28, 2019 17:11:40 GMT
poor Ben though, he really does get the crap one of the four songs and scenes doesn't he.
No, he doesn't. He gets a very clever musical pastiche which accurately represents the persona he tries to present to the world, and it falls to pieces halfway through because it's a lie. It's a neat reversal of the way musical theatre usually works: here, the song exposes the character singing it as a fraud.
sorry, I forgot to add "in my opinion" haha. I just felt like after Sally and Phyllis' numbers, it was just such a downgrade in comparison and it felt like there was no excitement there at all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 17:28:29 GMT
Oh and one comment about the piece itself - I don't quite get the structure. It is ramping up into a gut wrenching tragedy of unhappy relationships and fundamentally broken characters. Then instead of letting that peak in an all out gut punch (which I found I wanted at this point) it descends into Vaudeville with the Follies themselves. The Loveland sequence IS the peak. It's four nervous breakdowns presented as pastiche Follies performances - Buddy as a vaudeville clown, Sally as a torch singer, Phyllis as dancer (or, in a production that uses 'Ah, But Underneath' instead of 'Lucy and Jessie', a stripper), and Ben as a song-and-dance man - and those performances are carefully designed to expose each character's individual folly. No I understand that, but the fact they do the breakdowns as pastiche Follies performances, for me loses the impact of the hideousness of the nervous breakdowns that has been building so effectively through the show. I enjoy the Follies and I get that that is the musical, but I personally don't find them that moving AS nervous breakdowns. And the show it feels takes a very steep and sudden change in direction emotionally when they begin.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 17:47:59 GMT
Miles behind on this thread.Dom and distant cousin make a valid point about NT versus WE crowds.I always walk across the river by bridge rather than get a tube often just to get a view of the spectacular city-scape.It feels that leaving the mad crush and fervour behind in the WE and crossing over to the relative calm of the South Bank is symbolic of the kinds of audiences attracted to the two venues.Just wish the NT didn’t look like a dis-used car park from a distance. Just read my comment back to myself and laughed at the pseudo-arty bs that I’ve written but you get my drift.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 29, 2019 23:00:49 GMT
I was at the Stephen Sondheim platform this evening.
I have to say I was completely underwhelmed, Sondheim is a god and legendary doyen of theatre, so I was expecting him to be lowered on stage from the fly, with glasses that had flashing LEDs on it, or at least rise from the drum revolve, not for his status walk on stage, that was rubbish.
BTW I really enjoyed it, I also saw Follies which Mr Sondheim seemed to really love, sure he will be at Company tomorrow.
In the platform he reserved special praise for Imedia Staunton and Maria Friedman.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Mar 30, 2019 5:58:44 GMT
I was there too. It was alright, I suppose. The best part was when he revealed that originally Losing My Mind was a duet between Sally and Phyllis, and that the entire ensemble would appear and be dressed as Buddy. Thought that was a beautiful. There was a collective "oo ahh" when he said that.
|
|
1,848 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Mar 30, 2019 8:10:51 GMT
Was also at the talk and found him to be a very humble and entertaining company.
Liked the fact that he criticised the British for becoming too American and giving a standing ovation to anything and they should play his remarks on mobile phones before every show.
Booked to see Follies again from the circle next week to get a panoramic view, surprised there were still Friday Rush tickets available a few hours after they became available.
|
|
888 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Mar 30, 2019 11:07:04 GMT
It must be overwhelmingly emotional for him to see this ravishing FOLLIES one night and then this ravishing COMPANY the next night within days of turning 89 and knowing that one's chances of productions again of this quality in one's lifetime are very small. How thrilling for him -- not to mention for us. :-)
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Mar 30, 2019 11:21:43 GMT
On reflection, I wasn't too crazy about his binary views on revivals when asked if they should be modernized. "They should just be done the way they are."I'm not entirely sure of this. Culture, society and the audience that watches these shows evolve, and so should the shows that are presented to them. I'm not for or against radical revisals, but I think some revisions are necessary when reviving relics.
|
|
888 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Mar 30, 2019 11:31:24 GMT
I think he would totally agree with you as long as there's a reason for it --i.e. gender flipping and modernizing COMPANY yes but setting FOLLIES at Wembley Arena which is being torn down to make a new runway for Heathrow Airport probably not .....
|
|
|
Follies
Mar 30, 2019 19:58:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 19:58:53 GMT
On reflection, I wasn't too crazy about his binary views on revivals when asked if they should be modernized. "They should just be done the way they are."I'm not entirely sure of this. Culture, society and the audience that watches these shows evolve, and so should the shows that are presented to them. I'm not for or against radical revisals, but I think some revisions are necessary when reviving relics. I thought he had a point actually. As many of us have said in the Company thread, Bobby becoming Bobbie completely changes the piece - the plot is the same, but Bobbie’s story is different. As the person that creates these stories in his various ways, it doesn’t surprise me that he doesn’t want his work changed - and to an extent I agree. I think with Sondheim, a lot of his work utilises the time period it’s written in very well. I can’t imagine Sweeney Todd working in modern day London, Gypsy wouldn’t work outside of the end of Vaudeville with a father pushing sons, Follies couldn’t work at any other time than that with which it’s already set etc. Company is different - it doesn’t really tie to its time and setting on a plot level, allowing for Bobbie to work on a story level. Other musicals I can buy into gender swaps: Christine could become Chris easily enough, Éponine and Gavroche could swap age and roles without causing much of a change etc. But the list is quite small. I suppose Dear Emily Hansen could work but I’m not sure the world is ready for Elliott Woods (Legally Blonde). Though it sounds a lot of fun.
|
|
|
Post by ampersand on Mar 30, 2019 21:21:40 GMT
I've always thought that a DEH gender swap should be "Dear Erin Hansen"
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 30, 2019 21:22:15 GMT
I can’t imagine Sweeney Todd working in modern day London, And yet a few years agi the West Yorkshire Playhouse and the Royal Exchange co-produced a production set in the early years of Thatcher's reign of terror, and it worked beautifully.
|
|
|
Follies
Mar 30, 2019 21:57:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 21:57:17 GMT
I can’t imagine Sweeney Todd working in modern day London, And yet a few years agi the West Yorkshire Playhouse and the Royal Exchange co-produced a production set in the early years of Thatcher's reign of terror, and it worked beautifully. Not to burst anyone’s bubble... Thatcher’s London really isn’t modern London!
|
|
1,909 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 30, 2019 22:22:33 GMT
And yet a few years agi the West Yorkshire Playhouse and the Royal Exchange co-produced a production set in the early years of Thatcher's reign of terror, and it worked beautifully. Not to burst anyone’s bubble... Thatcher’s London really isn’t modern London!
Ahem. The point was simply that the piece can work perfectly well in a different period. And the Thatcher era is far closer to "modern London" than the mid-1800s.
|
|