I did not like this revival very much, but I was happy to see Follies staged professionally for the first time in my life. I remember this number very fondly, and also the stage-hands vacuuming all that glitter during the intermission.
Ya know, for all those who said the show was terrible, listen to that applause. This number is about halfway through Act I and an audience that thinks a show sucks doesn't roar like that!
Thanks so much for this very rough bootleg of a brilliant production. I have not felt the chills from the night I saw it in any other theater--but I just felt a little reminder of that thrill watching this clip. Wonderful!
Hmmmm. I saw this production and I was blown away. I had not seen it before--ever--so that may have something to do with it. But listen to that audience. They are eating it up. I just remember sitting there in the theater saying "wow" to myself over and over. Chills and goosebumps. Obviously I'm in the minority... but i am glad I saw this production live. (Yes, it had "casting" problems...)
Given the exchange here, can I add/ask: who agrees that there's never been a book that can even remotely match a Sondheim score? 'Follies' demanded a brilliant, almost Thorton Wilder libretto, or NO LIBRETTO at all. Seriously - 'Company' and 'Sweeney' and 'Passion' work so well because they're nearly bookless.
@jjarndyce Company is nearly bookless??? Company has brilliant scenes by George Furth with musical numbers that pop in occasionally to comment on the action. All of the action of Company takes place in the book scenes. And I'd say that A Little Night Music, Sunday in the Park, Passion and Assassins have near perfect books, all with a good deal of dialogue. The man himself is always quick to acknowledge the contributions of his collaborators.
@boynamedalexxx "Plotless" and "bookless" are two different things. jjarndyc claimed that Company had almost no book, and what I said was that Company is almost all book. Everything happens in the scenes, and the songs are used as commentary, for the most part. So, while there's no discernible plot, there are still a lot of brilliant book scenes, so the assertion that Company is nearly bookless is absurd.
Ok, you didn't like it, but I'm puzzled by your comments on the book. Agree with you that Goldman screwed up every time he altered it, yet the revival you hated so much restored, with some minor emendations, the book as it was in the Prince/Bennett production. The worst production ever was the London production, for which Goldman trashed his book and The Road You Didn't Take was CUT!
@VRNProductions Yep. For London, Goldman put an intermission in (the original of course didn't have one) just before which he had the central quartet recognise their younger selves, which defused the encounter before the Loveland section, so the entry into Loveland was anti-climactic, in spite of everything the designer threw at it. I think for those who saw 71, nothing can match it, which is completely understandable. But for those who saw London, Broadway 2001 was a masterpiece restored.
@gsygsy The problem I have with the revised script (Not the London version, I'm staying away from that one (Though the added songs are nice, despite being inferior to the original play (Well, Loveland is just as good, IMO))), is, among many things, the dialogue is softened from the original (A number of "racy" lines are cut), a lot of the humorous dialogue that characterized Phyllis and Carlotta are cut, and the ending is dwindled into nothing, with NONE of the original dialogue kept.
@VRNProductions You're in a better position to judge the detail of the 2001 changes than me: I only have my memory of the production to go on. If gossip is to be believed, Goldman's 'improvements' were because he felt his work was over-shadowed by Sondheim's. If true, he was foolish, as the published script of the 71 production is - and on this I'm sure we agree - an American masterpiece. My understanding of 2001 is that it tried to restore what it could from the London debacle.
Giving the young selves more difficult choreography so they outdance the elders is obvious and wrong. The older actresses do not have to play older-they are! We will see the effect of time when they do the same choreography as the youngers. So their is a hand in the middle when the young women step forward---but the emotional impact is lessened so much. It is as if this production wants to be like a big extravaganza review of isolated numbers rather than building for cumulative dramatic power.
This was a fine production. The show is about the dangers of living in the past and really the comments comparing this to the original are I guess understandable but seem to me to have missed the point entirely. Thanks for the posting.
@gsygsy The problem isn't living in the past that the commentators are having, its that this revival made a butchery of the original stage play, particularly with the book.
Seriously, the original was a work of genius. The revival was...ugh..
I have to agree. This is a sad, warped version of the original concept. So much more powerful, with the ghosts dancing behind the stars (and in sync, too). What a let down.
This number--and this entire production--was a travesty of the Michael Bennett original. I posted the original "Who's That Woman?" as a video response to this.
I know I'm in the minority, but this number thrilled me when I saw it live and it thrills me still. There were a few stellar performances in that revival, and Carole Woods was one of them.
God this is TERRIBLE! Totally kills one of the best dance numbers from any musicla EVER. This number should be the metaphor for the whole show. Sorry, but this is lazy and unimaginative.
On the positive side, how wonderful that Stella has a great voice, as opposed to most of the other revivals. But the genius of the original was restraint and taste in spite of all its opulence. The original choreography never got cheesy, and their youthful ghosts never upstaged the older women. In this production, I didn't believe that the characters were once professional dancers. Moved like frumps. Thanks so much in any case. Still a breathtaking number in spite of the hatchet job.
@variegatus I agree! I did like Stella's ghost standing behind her lip synching near the finale. Stella did have a great voice but almost too good. Not battle worn but still nice to hear that improv on the final "Lord, lord, lords" I mean you rarely hear improv in Sondheim. But it's so obvious that most couldn't dance hence the upstaging by the ghosts. It still had its moments. However, really NOBODY can compete with Michael Bennet. He was one of a kind, a genius!
The dancing and choreography in this version is even better than in the original. It's amazing. The music and tension almost explode at several points, and the entrance of the "ghosts" could not be more perfect. It's a pity the rest of this revival was mostly unremarkable. But this number amazes us.
Comment removed
Ecamwat 6 months ago
I did not like this revival very much, but I was happy to see Follies staged professionally for the first time in my life. I remember this number very fondly, and also the stage-hands vacuuming all that glitter during the intermission.
matienzony 6 months ago
Ya know, for all those who said the show was terrible, listen to that applause. This number is about halfway through Act I and an audience that thinks a show sucks doesn't roar like that!
siroakleigh98 1 year ago
Thanks so much for this very rough bootleg of a brilliant production. I have not felt the chills from the night I saw it in any other theater--but I just felt a little reminder of that thrill watching this clip. Wonderful!
davidezell 1 year ago
Hmmmm. I saw this production and I was blown away. I had not seen it before--ever--so that may have something to do with it. But listen to that audience. They are eating it up. I just remember sitting there in the theater saying "wow" to myself over and over. Chills and goosebumps. Obviously I'm in the minority... but i am glad I saw this production live. (Yes, it had "casting" problems...)
KennyGeeee 1 year ago
Given the exchange here, can I add/ask: who agrees that there's never been a book that can even remotely match a Sondheim score? 'Follies' demanded a brilliant, almost Thorton Wilder libretto, or NO LIBRETTO at all. Seriously - 'Company' and 'Sweeney' and 'Passion' work so well because they're nearly bookless.
jjarndyce 1 year ago
@jjarndyce Company is nearly bookless??? Company has brilliant scenes by George Furth with musical numbers that pop in occasionally to comment on the action. All of the action of Company takes place in the book scenes. And I'd say that A Little Night Music, Sunday in the Park, Passion and Assassins have near perfect books, all with a good deal of dialogue. The man himself is always quick to acknowledge the contributions of his collaborators.
DannyHiggs 1 year ago
@DannyHiggs Sondheim himself calls "Company" largely plotless.
boynamedalexxx 6 months ago
@boynamedalexxx "Plotless" and "bookless" are two different things. jjarndyc claimed that Company had almost no book, and what I said was that Company is almost all book. Everything happens in the scenes, and the songs are used as commentary, for the most part. So, while there's no discernible plot, there are still a lot of brilliant book scenes, so the assertion that Company is nearly bookless is absurd.
DannyHiggs 6 months ago
I hated, hated, HATED this revival. James Goldman butchered his own work when he meddled with the script...Each change makes me cringe.
And I agree fully with the comments on the choreography...
VRNProductions 1 year ago
Ok, you didn't like it, but I'm puzzled by your comments on the book. Agree with you that Goldman screwed up every time he altered it, yet the revival you hated so much restored, with some minor emendations, the book as it was in the Prince/Bennett production. The worst production ever was the London production, for which Goldman trashed his book and The Road You Didn't Take was CUT!
gsygsy 1 year ago
@gsygsy Really? Because the revised script (Which I read and hated) was credited to the 2001 revival.
VRNProductions 1 year ago
@VRNProductions Yep. For London, Goldman put an intermission in (the original of course didn't have one) just before which he had the central quartet recognise their younger selves, which defused the encounter before the Loveland section, so the entry into Loveland was anti-climactic, in spite of everything the designer threw at it. I think for those who saw 71, nothing can match it, which is completely understandable. But for those who saw London, Broadway 2001 was a masterpiece restored.
gsygsy 1 year ago
@gsygsy The problem I have with the revised script (Not the London version, I'm staying away from that one (Though the added songs are nice, despite being inferior to the original play (Well, Loveland is just as good, IMO))), is, among many things, the dialogue is softened from the original (A number of "racy" lines are cut), a lot of the humorous dialogue that characterized Phyllis and Carlotta are cut, and the ending is dwindled into nothing, with NONE of the original dialogue kept.
VRNProductions 1 year ago
@VRNProductions You're in a better position to judge the detail of the 2001 changes than me: I only have my memory of the production to go on. If gossip is to be believed, Goldman's 'improvements' were because he felt his work was over-shadowed by Sondheim's. If true, he was foolish, as the published script of the 71 production is - and on this I'm sure we agree - an American masterpiece. My understanding of 2001 is that it tried to restore what it could from the London debacle.
gsygsy 1 year ago
Giving the young selves more difficult choreography so they outdance the elders is obvious and wrong. The older actresses do not have to play older-they are! We will see the effect of time when they do the same choreography as the youngers. So their is a hand in the middle when the young women step forward---but the emotional impact is lessened so much. It is as if this production wants to be like a big extravaganza review of isolated numbers rather than building for cumulative dramatic power.
whereismikeyfl 1 year ago
Utter trash. On Broadway, no less. Who is the genius behind this garbage? Brain-dead revivals like this crap have helped kill Broadway.
psychokarloff 2 years ago
This was a fine production. The show is about the dangers of living in the past and really the comments comparing this to the original are I guess understandable but seem to me to have missed the point entirely. Thanks for the posting.
gsygsy 2 years ago
@gsygsy The problem isn't living in the past that the commentators are having, its that this revival made a butchery of the original stage play, particularly with the book.
Seriously, the original was a work of genius. The revival was...ugh..
VRNProductions 1 year ago
What a great Stella! But the choreography is off! Too much "I haven't dance in twenty years!" and it shows!. LOL. Still thanks for posting!
cocacolaoso 2 years ago
Kathleen Kennedy shoulda known better than to try to replace one of Michael Bennett's most famous routines.
EricMontreal22 2 years ago
I have to agree. This is a sad, warped version of the original concept. So much more powerful, with the ghosts dancing behind the stars (and in sync, too). What a let down.
jjarndyce 3 years ago
@jjarndyce I see new interesting things here! It naturally will evolve to suit different times and economkes.
gabsylv 1 year ago
This number--and this entire production--was a travesty of the Michael Bennett original. I posted the original "Who's That Woman?" as a video response to this.
mitchellivers 3 years ago
I know I'm in the minority, but this number thrilled me when I saw it live and it thrills me still. There were a few stellar performances in that revival, and Carole Woods was one of them.
DannyHiggs 3 years ago 13
@DannyHiggs This was the highlight of the god-awful revival.
tranquilitybase 7 months ago
The glitter absolutely killed me.
tranquilitybase 7 months ago
"That woman, that's joking but choking back tears" is my favorite lyric of all time.
tranquilitybase 7 months ago
God this is TERRIBLE! Totally kills one of the best dance numbers from any musicla EVER. This number should be the metaphor for the whole show. Sorry, but this is lazy and unimaginative.
Sondheimsbitch 3 years ago
On the positive side, how wonderful that Stella has a great voice, as opposed to most of the other revivals. But the genius of the original was restraint and taste in spite of all its opulence. The original choreography never got cheesy, and their youthful ghosts never upstaged the older women. In this production, I didn't believe that the characters were once professional dancers. Moved like frumps. Thanks so much in any case. Still a breathtaking number in spite of the hatchet job.
variegatus 3 years ago 2
@variegatus I agree! I did like Stella's ghost standing behind her lip synching near the finale. Stella did have a great voice but almost too good. Not battle worn but still nice to hear that improv on the final "Lord, lord, lords" I mean you rarely hear improv in Sondheim. But it's so obvious that most couldn't dance hence the upstaging by the ghosts. It still had its moments. However, really NOBODY can compete with Michael Bennet. He was one of a kind, a genius!
chocolatesouljah 2 years ago
The dancing and choreography in this version is even better than in the original. It's amazing. The music and tension almost explode at several points, and the entrance of the "ghosts" could not be more perfect. It's a pity the rest of this revival was mostly unremarkable. But this number amazes us.
unclealand 3 years ago
This KILLS me. About five minutes into this it's gets so achingy gentle. Any other clips, appreciated.
kahlilnelson 3 years ago