Talk:Follies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

18Jan06 revision[edit]

Added section breaks, list of musical numbers, added some info in the synopsis, and a little bit of adjustment here and there for readability and style. --Urbane legend 12:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pastiche[edit]

Maybe it would be good to say what all the songs are a pastiche of? 00:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Song List? Which version?[edit]

What version of the show is the song list from? It lists one of the songs added for the eighties London revival ("Ah But Underneath") but not another ("Country House"). I think it would be nice to have a table showing the additions and deletions in the score in the various revivals--but I don't know enough to make one! Dybryd 23:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure what all the changes were for the 87 version either, but the list as given apart from "Ah But Underneath" would appear to be the original. So I've just added the original number "The Story Of Lucy And Jessie" that it replaced, with a brief note. In the two productions I've seen (London 2002, and Northampton 2006 they went back to the original book with Lucy And Jessie as Phyllis's big number) Hope that helps Skekayuk 22:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 2007 City Center Encores program lists "Bolero d'Amour", a dance break, following "The Road You Didn't Take". I don't know the show well enough to know if this was an old cut or a new interpolation.Stagehand 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to the show[edit]

I had always understood that Goldman did not revisit the book until Cameron Mackintosh came to him and Sondheim about reviving the show in the mid-1980s, and that Mackintosh suggested he look at the book again. That production, which I saw in London in 1988, took such a different tack from the original (which I did not see, alas, being about 14 or 15 at the time) that many people were rather baffled at it. (I for one thought the idea of having the current versions of the leads interact with their younger selves was not a good one.)

I also wonder if the show is not only about contradictions but is itself a contradiction, at least in its production history. I gather that the original production was so jaw-dropping, so amazing and wonderful, that no production after can come close and is therefore doomed to failure in the minds of some, just like the characters seem to be, and just as the plot goes--the past is always better than the present. Then again, the OC recording was so butchered (contradicting the iconic status of the production itself) that succeeding producers may have felt they could do what they wished with the show. I dunno...it's a fascinating creature, Follies, and if it may not equal Candide in the complexity of its existence, it probably comes close. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show reputation[edit]

Here's the sentence that I came across: "The musical has enjoyed a London production and numerous revivals, and is considered by many to be one of the finest musicals ever written." Here's the way I re-worded it: "The musical has enjoyed a London production and numerous revivals, and has developed a reputation as one of Sondheim's most inspired efforts, even if a problematic one." That rewording got reverted. Can we please discuss this? I strongly disagree with the earlier version, and before an edit war ensues let's try to reach common ground. Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am the one who wrote the earlier version of that sentence. Please understand that I wasn't trying to promote the idea that Follies is the greatest musical ever....however, there actually are a significant number of people who do think that Follies is the finest musical ever written, and I think that deserves some mention in the article, even if we disagree with it. Pamina 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Pamina[reply]

I'm sure that's true, but it would be a lot better if we can cite references to important people saying so, in order to avoid the generalizations of weasel words. If you can find citations that would be great! My own view is that this is a terrific show with some major problems (such as at least one major revision to the libretto, or the endless tinkering with the song list), which keep it out of the "greatest" category that A Little Night Music or Sweeney Todd inhabit. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here are my thoughts: statements such as "one of the finest musicals ever written" will probably be questioned by someone, no matter what musical they are written about. And so, I have asked for a "cite". (That's why I like to cite someone, maybe a newspaper critic, who says it.) If we just put these unreferenced "weasel" statements in, I think the article suffers somewhat from that "fan" feeling, and, in my view, loses a bit of credibility. In any event, I do not mean harm, I do not want to get into a prolonged revert-revert war, and, if you will take the time, you will see that I have been pretty active in the musical theatre area but, "I am not the style police". (My new motto.) There is no right or wrong here, I think, but the discussion is great. (I actually agree with each of you, you both make good points, but...I'd like to see this article really be a standout for referencing, scholarship, balance, whatnot). JeanColumbia 13:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here, Ben Brantley calls the show a "landmark" (this is his review of the Papermill production)--quotes/ideas such as this might be good: [1]. But Brantley really didn't like the 2001 Bway revival: [2]. Frank Rich called it "musical treasure", reviewing the 1985 concert. I'll look around for more, back in mid-October (or maybe Monday).JeanColumbia 13:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JeanColumbia, I know what you mean by the "fan feeling" and the article losing its credibility.....but still, how do you make a reference in the article to a group of credible people who think Follies is the greatest musical ever written without making it seem like a weasel statement? Just so you know, I'm not even a tremendous fan of Follies (though I am a rabid Sondheim fan), so it's not like I'm just a fan trying to weasel my opinion into the article.

Here, it even says on the show's MTI page that "many consider it to be the greatest musical ever created":

http://www.mtishows.com/show_home.asp?id=000037

Now, I'm not sure how exactly to cite that in the article, but I think that it deserves some mention.

Pamina 02:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Pamina[reply]

That MTI page is exactly what I'm talking about. It's uncited, just some vague passive-voice blurb. Absolutely anybody can put up a web page and say absolutely anything they want to about anything. If I wanted to, I could put up a web page for hardly any money and say that Debbie Boone is the most gifted musical and theatrical genius to grace Western stages since Cleopatra. BFD. If someone can get the actual citations, Ben Brantley's and Frank Rich's remarks would work well (though if you really think about what they are saying I don't quite see that they believe the show to be among the greatest ever created; loving a production isn't really the same as loving the show). The point is to refer to an actual person (or people) of note, saying XXX about Follies (or whatever the subject at hand would be.) Then if I want I can disagree to the end of time, but FR or BB are notable figures in theater and my opinion is just an opinion. We're so close here! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but MTI is hardly just another random, fan-made webpage on the internet. MTI is the liscensing company of Follies, all of Sondheim's plays and many household name musicals. MTI and its website is quite a credible source. I've done shows under MTI before, they definitely don't go about saying that every musical under their company is considered by many to be the greatest musical ever written.

And...this is off-topic...but just out of curiosity, what was the flaw you found in the libretto? I am a huge Sondheim fan, Follies is not my favorite musical but it's always interesting to hear other people's views on the show. Pamina 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Pamina[reply]

I'm not saying the MTI site is unreliable, my point is that the statement as it stands is 1) vaguely worded, 2) in passive voice, and 3) uncited; the MTI folks are not directly saying this is one of the greatest etc., it's saying some unnamed others say so. It's the specificity of the statement that I'm after, and the statement we're looking at is a classic example of weasel words. Also, my point about the ease of posting a web page doesn't denigrate MTI, although I personally know nothing about it; again, my point is that not everyone will know what the MTI page is, whereas Frank Rich or Elliot Carter or Dick Cheney or whomever is a known quantity and thus verifiable and citable. And a web page citation isn't as specific as citing a person.
As for the libretto, I don't think I said anywhere that I see a flaw in it, only that there has been at least one major revision to it (originally for the 1987 London revival)...major to the point of its being a completely new book as I recall. Goldman did that at producer Cameron Mackintosh's suggestion. That version of the libretto I personally think doesn't work nearly as well as the original, which admittedly is a rather cold and negative statement. But the whole notion of the older versions of the characters interacting with the younger versions is a mistake, I think. The original book works very well on its own terms. (For all I know there have been other revisions for other revivals but I don't know anything about that.) That revision required Sondheim to create new songs and alter others, and once you begin that fundamental rewriting then the show begins losing its integrity, to my way of thinking. Shostakovich once said that if you find a problem in something you've written, you fix the problem in the next piece you write, not in going back and tinkering with the finished product, and I think that's a very sensible position. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BRAVO, JeanColumbia. Thank you for getting all those passages. This is just what the doctor ordered, I think. Excellent work! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Two Cents[edit]

Having seen the original 1971 production seven times, I can honestly say that it WAS the greatest production of a musical I have ever seen in forty-five years of theatregoing. Unfortunately, its revivals have not lived up to the quality and intelligence of that original production, therefore it is hard to view the show itself as one of the all-time greats. I always use the example that elementary school girls in crepe hair beards could pull off a satisying production of Fiddler on the Roof because the material is so good, whereas none (or at least few) of the revivals of Follies have been entirely satisfying even to people who don't know and love the original production. I suspect that few musicals since Billy Rose's Jumbo (the Hippodrome production, not the movie) have been so dependent on their original production for their reputation. Personally, I prefer to say that She Loves Me is the best written musical and Follies was the best production, but everyone has their own favorites.

I do, however, have two comments about the article as it now reads. There seems to be an over-emphasis on who plays Carlotta, listing her first for several productions. Carol Burnett was not the "star" of the Lincoln Center production, with Barbara Cook and Leigh Remick taking supporting roles. I think the four leads are more important, listing-wise. Also, I think Hal Prince should be changed to Harold Prince. That's his professional name and the way he is billed in the credits. We don't have "Steve" Sondheim or "Jim" Goldman, so why "Hal" Prince. I'd make the change myself, but the article is so well-written, I'd prefer to leave it to the "powers-that-be," whomever they are. (Considering my passion for the show, this is high praise, indeed, for the article.) 65.217.153.100 (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't "signed in" for the above unsigned comment, so let me add one additional penny -- I think the 1972 production which opened the brand-new Shubert Theatre in Century City (Los Angeles), California should be added. It featured almost everyone from the Broadway cast and was every bit as spectacular as the New York production. The tragic irony about this production was that the Shubert Theatre was torn down exactly thirty years later (2002), much as the Weismann Theatre had been razed at the end of Follies. A good citation for the latter information is http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_/ai_78060323. Rarmin (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the "powers that be", but I agree with your comments (especially the order of showing the 1985 principals, and the 1972 production). Hope I've done justice to what you were thinking, jump in if you'd like. JeanColumbia (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot synopsis[edit]

So does the synopsis as it stands cover the 1971 book, or the 1987 one, or some conflation of the two, or something else entirely? It's not at all clear from the article, and given the changes the book has endured over time I think this ought to be addressed somehow. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Follies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Follies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Follies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Follies&oldid=1201879318"