Follies

[Geoff]

Stephen Sondheim's Follies is one of the great shows. Not quite as resonant as his masterpiece Into The Woods (I am not in the camp which finds the extended skit Sweeney Todd to have enduring value) but it is still high order theatrical music writing. So of course the latest production - National Theatre - is a must see, and I have now been twice.

 

Posting here as, despite the semi-standing-ovation at the end (a lot of US tourists in the audience?) there is something not quite right. Wonderfully staged, with perhaps the most beautiful designs (sets as well as costumes, happily the same person) on the London stage at the moment, nonetheless it didn't quite pack the punch it should have done.

 

Some weaknesses are obvious. A large British cast all doing American accents is never going to be pitch perfect, some will always be off (we are really bad at accents, with honourable exceptions such as Ruth Wilson and Dominic West, currently starring, not coincidentally, in the US). The wonderful Imelda Staunton (who I had the honour of working with briefly on the umpteenth revival of Guys and Dolls a few decades ago) is never going to convince as a showgirl, even a "little" one. And at least one of the cast couldn't actually articulate the delicious words in her (mercifully) only number (I immediately got out the essential Sondheim book, Finishing the Hat, to check what she was singing - this is a show which is almost as enjoyable to read as it is to see). 

 

But all such niggles would have barely been noticed if the whole had delivered. Still puzzling over what was missing. Anyone feel as I do?

 

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Geoff

[Fonty]

I am going to see this at the end of December, so I will let you know then, Geoff.  Are you comparing it to a previous production?  I've never seen it before, so I won't have that comparison to make. 

 

I went to see a version of Guys and Dolls at the Savoy theatre a few years ago, and while it had a well known cast and had excellent reviews, I thought that production was somewhat lacking as well.   This is because I still remember one at the National done in the early 80s, which was so wonderful.  Nothing could ever measure up to that.

[Geoff]

Good question Fonty and I have been brooding on how to answer. It certainly isn't a matter of comparing with a long ago memory: without checking I couldn't tell you how often I have seen this show before, or even how many separate productions, my memory isn't up even to that never mind nuances.

 

No, my puzzle is rather whether, despite a cast I (mostly) admire and a truly magnificent staging, with great response from much of the audience, whether it was actually just me; or this production; or possibly, this work itself, so relentlessly clever and so insistently inauthentic (every number is a different parody of a different kind of era/author). Or even just something apparently insignificant, like they should have kept it with an interval rather than doing it straight through so it got a bit wearying

 

You will certainly have an excellent evening, and I very much hope you are in the category of jumping-up-at-the-end-and-cheering: it is such an expensive show to mount, I doubt whether we will have it back in London again for a long time!

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Geoff

[Fonty]

I finally went to see this, and have mixed feelings about it.

 

On the one hand, I thought it was a wonderful production with a great cast.  I had no problems with Imelda Staunton as the "little" showgirl.  After all, what does an ex showgirl look like in her mature years?  Just like everyone else, I would think!

 

On 13/12/2017 at 08:21, Geoff said:

 

No, my puzzle is rather whether, despite a cast I (mostly) admire and a truly magnificent staging, with great response from much of the audience, whether it was actually just me; or this production; or possibly, this work itself, so relentlessly clever and so insistently inauthentic (every number is a different parody of a different kind of era/author). 

 

I'm afraid that aspect was lost on me, as I am not knowledgeable enough about it.  However, I think you have hit the nail on the head with the word "relentless."  There is very little dialogue, so the songs just keep coming at you.  And coming at you, and coming at you.  And for me, none of the music was that memorable.  Every song was performed in a full blown manner, but I thought it lacked one or two big show stopper numbers that send me out of the theatre unable to get the tunes out of my head.

 

On 13/12/2017 at 08:21, Geoff said:

 Or even just something apparently insignificant, like they should have kept it with an interval rather than doing it straight through so it got a bit wearying

 

   I don't think that is insignificant, I think it is one of the reasons why I was starting to get a bit restless towards the end. There seems to be a trend now to put shows on with no interval  Fine if the whole thing only lasts less than two hours, and is a quiet, thoughtful piece.  But with such powerful noises coming from the stage, after an hour and a half, I felt like my ears were being pummelled by sound waves.  I could have done with a bit of rest.  Instead, by the time they got the Follies bit at the end, I was taking a sneaky peak at my watch.  Which is very sad, because it really was a terrific production, and deserved my full attention.

 

So, to sum up, I enjoyed it very much, but not as much as other musicals I have seen.  The cast did deserve their standing ovation, though, and I was very glad I managed to get a couple of last minute tickets.  

 

 

Edited January 13, 2018 by Fonty

[Geoff]

13 minutes ago, Fonty said:

On the one hand, I thought it was a wonderful production with a great cast.  I had no problems with Imelda Staunton as the "little" showgirl. 

 

Fonty, I am so pleased you posted: I have to admit I have been looking forward to your thoughts! Most interesting.

 

My offhand remark on the wonderful Imelda Staunton was not important: as someone who worked with showgirls in the US for a while, it was her height I was commenting on, sorry I hadn't made that clear (her character would have been disqualified from being cast all those years ago, whatever the rights and wrongs, as those shows were - and still are - "heightist"). 

[Fonty]

Oh, ok.  They do make a big thing about her being the "little" showgirl, though, don't they?  Having said that, little in showgirl terms probably means about 5'8".

 

I'd still like to know why they took the non interval approach.  I assume it had one originally, didn't it?  Nothing to do with the musicians' union demanding extra money if they played after 10pm, I hope!

[Geoff]

I am away from my copy of Sondheim's book Fonty so can't answer the question about the interval. But I did see this, from the online gossip site Popbitch, this week:-
 

>>The National Theatre's production of Follies closed last week, after getting incredible reviews. Those who caught it towards the end of the run may have noticed a slight change in the casting of one particular scene though. 

>>There's a scene which sees Buddy chasing two women around the stage in a fevered little fantasy as he sings the God-Why-Don't-You-Love-Me Blues. In a little British twist though, the 'women' were actually men dressed and styled as panto dames. 
>>It seems Stephen Sondheim saw the live cast and wasn’t impressed by the inclusion of the dames, so told the director to change it. Lawyers were even mentioned. Needless to say, the change got made.