Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: RobertC 09:47 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| When Follies was first performed in London in 1987, Stephen Sondheim wrote three new songs for the production: "Country House," "Ah, But Underneath" and "Make the Most of Your Music." As best I can determine, these songs were never part of any other production of Follies. Anybody know the story behind all this? Thanks in advance. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:52 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - RobertC 09:47 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| In addition to "Ah, But Underneath!" having been used at Paper Mill, Barringston Stage and perhaps in several other productions, the 1994 Leicester Haymarket production included "Country House," as well as "The Road You Didn't Take." The production used the original 1971 script and score, but with the permission and cooperation of Sondheim and Goldman, "Country House" was placed between "Who's That Woman?" and "I'm Still Here," at the end of the Ben and Phyllis's final part of the alternating confrontation scenes between the two principal couples, with a few lines from the 1987 London revision added to transition into the song. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: sf 04:21 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - AlanScott 01:52 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| ...and as wrong-headed as that sounds, it just about worked. (I saw it.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: dooey 12:00 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - RobertC 09:47 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| My two cents: I like "Country House" because it adds the element of "the child" into their relationship. Phyllis is desperate to fix their relationship and willing to try anything--a country house, a trip abroad, a shrink, anything just as long as they don't have to delve deep and confront what's really wrong in their relationship . Sad... Is this song 100% right for FOLLIES? Probably not. Should this song replace "Road You Didn't Take?" God, no! For me, it just adds another dimension to their relationship and fleshes out the characters a little more. As for "Ah, But Underneath"... I guess my opinion differs quite a bit from others who posted already. I LOVE this song. To me it articulates Phyllis's folly more precisely. In "Lucy and Jesse", we're told she's mixed up because she's two different women in one. I disagree. I think Phyllis's problem is that she's spent her whole life trying to craft herself into the woman that Ben wants that she has no idea who she is anymore. She has lost her core sense of self. So in "Underneath" when she starts stripping away the layers, she discovers there's nothing left of herself under all of those layers. Sad and tragic. "Sometimes when the wrappings fall, there's nothing underneath at all." Also, "Lucy and Jesse" makes its point and then just repeats it. "Underneath" builds towards something and then packs a punch in the end. I prefer that. Plus, I think "Underneath" provides more variety in the Loveland sequence. "Lucy and Jesse" and "Love, Laugh, Live" are both big dance routines with an ensemble. The strip tease provides something different. Btw, I saw Kim Crosby (original Cinderella in ITW on B'way) play Phyllis in Great Barrington MA and she performed "Ah, But Underneath." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:21 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - dooey 12:00 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Small note: Leslie Denniston played Phyllis in the Barrington Stage production. Kim Crosby played Sally. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: dooey 02:33 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - AlanScott 01:21 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Omigosh! My memory was playing tricks on me, but of course, you're absolutely right. Thank you! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: MikeP (ACL15@aol.com) 01:38 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - AlanScott 01:21 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Kim Crosby was wonderful as Sally. Her "Losing My Mind" was perfect! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Last Edit: Marlo*Manners 10:12 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| Posted by: Marlo*Manners 10:10 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - RobertC 09:47 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| I saw the London production of "Follies" at a matinee in 1988. By that time most of the original leads had gone or had taken the day off. Diana Rigg was replaced by Millicent Martin, one Roy Sone replaced Daniel Massey, Jill Martin was the understudy for Julia McKenzie but David Healy was still in the show. Eartha Kitt replaced Dolores Gray as a very mannered Carlotta, Hope Jackman was Hattie. The new songs: "Country House" - this was a bickering duet for Phyllis and Ben that sounded like a reject from "Company". Basically it was to flesh out Ben and Phyllis' relationship but it had a flat, cynical lyric and repetitive melody. It told us nothing we didn't already know about them. "Ah, but Underneath" - this actually is a good number and was put in because Diana Rigg was primarily a singer while Alexis Smith was a singer/dancer. "Lucy and Jessie" was a better representation of Phyllis' "folliy" and better depicted her complex character. "Lucy and Jessie" was seemingly modeled on "The Saga of Jenny" from "Lady in the Dark" while "Ah but Underneath" was modeled on "Zip' from "Pal Joey" with a mock striptease. I don't like the final line "Sometimes when the wrappings fall, there's nothing underneath at all". There is a lot underneath with Phyllis Stone as "Follies" shows us. She is not just a chameleon with no inner life or identity. "Make the Most of Your Music" - this was a replacement for Ben Stone's "Live, Laugh, Love" minus the nervous breakdown. Ben Stone is the major cipher and underwritten character at the center of "Follies". We need to know more about Ben to know why both women ruin their lives trying to be good enough for him. His backstory is nonexistent - we are just told he is this big success. But WHO IS HE? Was he born to wealth? Is he the son of a socially prominent family who fell on hard times during the Depression and did he make back his lost fortune (my pet theory)? Or is he a self-made man? How did he and Buddy become friends? They have nothing in common... "Make the Most of Your Music" is just a second tier revue number with an upbeat melody featuring Ben in a tux with girls on a "Stairway to Paradise" staircase. No irony and no fleshing out of the character - we learn nothing about Ben from this number. It has no ironic subtext or twist in the tail so it doesn't work as a "folly". "Loveland" - this is a rewriting of the original "Loveland" theme song sung by Roscoe - it has a killer melody and is thrilling. I love it but I also love the original. The original has a slightly better lyric but the rewrite has a superb musical build. I want both. Perhaps it is Sondheim who doesn't want the London songs licensed or performed. They can be heard on the London original cast album and also as bonus tracks on the Paper Mill Playhouse 2 cd set. Marlo Manners (Lady Barrington) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: OldTheaterGuy 03:38 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - Marlo*Manners 10:10 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| The original script makes some things clear about Ben’s background. Ben and Buddy are in law school together. Buddy had spending money and willingly shares it with Ben, who accepts it begrudgingly and bitterly. Ben as a young man is far more intense than Buddy and more desperate to succeed. He choose Phyllis over Sally because he feels she has more potential to be the wife he needs. But he goes through life feeling like a phony and really wonders if he hadn’t been so ambitious would he have been happier. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:49 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - Marlo*Manners 10:10 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Just a small note: "Ah, But Underneath" was used in the Paper Mill production. It is sequenced in the main body of songs on the cast recording. "Lucy and Jessie" and "Uptown, Downtown" are among the extras at the end of the second CD, in what the booklet calls the "Appendix." Also, I'm not positive off the top of my head, but I think Massey was still in the London production when it closed. Rigg and Gray and several others had left but Massey was still there. So if you saw Roy Sone as Ben, perhaps Massey was on vacation? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Last Edit: Marlo*Manners 02:03 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| Posted by: Marlo*Manners 01:59 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - AlanScott 01:49 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Yes I think McKenzie and Massey called in sick or were on vacation. Roy Sone usually played the Stage Manager and Jill Martin was Meredith Lane (a role that along with DeeDee West and Christine Donovan is usually a track for the Phyllis or Sally cover). Roy Sone was pretty much a blank - he was tall and long-jawed so he fit into Massey's costumes but lacked charisma. Ben Stone should have charisma - that would explain a lot. When I lost my head or got my heart broken over someone - they had loads of charisma. Not just handsome - charismatic. Jill Martin sang beautifully and gave a very finished performance but it was my first "Follies" ever. Martin probably wasn't as damaged and neurotic as McKenzie would have been or later Sally performers I saw. Maria Charles was a charming Solange (better than most others I have seen) and Eileen Page did Heidi Schiller touchingly. I must have seen Sally Ann Triplett as young Phyllis but have no memory of her. The production staged by Mike Ockrent with choreography by Bob Avian and sets by Maria Bjornson was lavish and didn't stint on anything like the original production. Later revivals have tended to be on the cheap (I am looking at you Roundabout...) Marlo Manners (Lady Barrington) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: sf 04:28 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - Marlo*Manners 01:59 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| I *think* - but I'm not sure and it was a long time ago - that McKenzie and Massey extended their contracts and stayed to the end of the run, but in return were given a 2-3 week vacation. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:30 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - Marlo*Manners 01:59 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Jill Martin was a very good singer. Just vocally I can imagine her doing nicely as Sally. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 11:55 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - Marlo*Manners 10:10 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Regarding Ben and Buddy, if I remember correctly, the 1941 versions of the characters are very much on equal footing...I think they're both (law?) students together. It's Buddy's car that Ben always borrows and I think Buddy even offers to lend him money at one point if he needs some. In most productions that I've seen, the younger versions of the characters are almost indistinguishable from each other, so, like you, I've never understood why both women make fools of themselves over Ben and ignore Buddy. In 1941, if you had to pick, it looks like Buddy is the one bound for success. It's only looking at the characters and knowing the reality of 1971, something the characters themselves cannot know, that makes Ben the catch and Buddy the goat. Now, what we really don't know is what happens during and in the immediate aftermath of the war (assuming both men served...why wouldn't they have?). At that point, Ben seems to have pulled himself together and put himself on the path to post-war success, while Buddy stalled and ended up in a dead end job. It could be that Ben's love for Phyllis (if you believe that he actually loves her) is the catalyst here, just as her love for him is the catalyst for her self-improvement, while Buddy is "stuck" with someone who doesn't love him, no matter how much he loves her. The difference in their fates could be as simple as that. Buddy hasn't been motivated to be the best version of himself because he doesn't get the support at home that he needs. The irony is that, with all that Ben and Phyllis have going for them, they run off the rails too. That's why I suspect that Ben's attraction to Phyllis is more about her suitability as a public partner in the life he wants, rather than love. Sally loves him, but that isn't what Ben really wants. And I've always thought that, if Ben had had the guts to choose Sally, he'd have had a partner at home who both loved him, and was the partner (in bed and in public) that he needed. All that self-improvement that Phyllis did?...I bet Sally would've done the same. And, of course, that would've allowed both Phyllis and Buddy to find more suitable partners and avoided four lives in ruins by 1971. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Last Edit: EvFoDr 10:41 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 10:40 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - Marlo*Manners 10:10 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Do you know why the new version of Loveland was written? I like it quite a lot but can't figure out why it was changed. I swear I have seen productions (including Roundbout revival?) that use the original Loveland meoldy but when it comes to the spoken parts they spell out the entire word: LOVELAND. Whereas the original only spells the word LOVE. Am I crazy? The other changes are clearer. It's worth noting that Country House is not just an additional song, but that it REPLACED The Road You Didn't Take. This change, along with the swap from Live, Laugh, Love to Make the Most of the Your Music were, I believe, made to make the show less of a downer and Ben less hopeless. They thought this hopelessness made the original less of a success. I don't think either is an improvement, but do love the line from Country House that goes: it's my board/oh dear lord/and they can't be ignored/yes and you can't afford to be bored with your board, can you? God that man is clever! And of course Ah But Underneath added due to Rigg being a singer more than a dancer. I agree with you that the last line is odd because there isn't "nothing" under the surface of Phylis. I don't think the character thinks that either, even in her self delusion. But I enjoy listening to this number the most of the three written for this slot. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:39 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - EvFoDr 10:40 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| The original spoken section of "Loveland" doesn't spell out love. In fact, there are six spoken bits in that version as opposed to four spoken bits in the later version. The original was written specifically to show off costumes, with six showgirls coming down in elaborate costumes representing the theme of each couplet, whereas the later version needs only four showgirls, each carrying a letter. So productions opt for the later one (and probably don't always use showgirls for each). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| my issue with the new "Loveland" with the letters | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 01:51 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - AlanScott 01:39 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| The lyrics that go with each letter seem to me to be too knowing, to in on the bitter nightmare of the Follies fantasy sequence. The original lyrics have two sides to them, with an edge on one, the new ones are mostly just the edge. It is obviously from the beginning that we are not in a real follies number, and I don't know why Sondheim would want that. It takes me out of it completely. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: my issue with the new "Loveland" with the letters | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:55 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: my issue with the new "Loveland" with the letters - Chazwaza 01:51 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| I agree. I don't like the new "Loveland" for precisely the reason that it's too openly satirical and mocking. It doesn't sound to me like a real period song but a very satirical (although not funny) comment on one, whereas the original almost does sound like a real period song. I hate it every time I have to sit through a production using even the spoken parts. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: my issue with the new "Loveland" with the letters | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:18 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: my issue with the new "Loveland" with the letters - AlanScott 01:55 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Not to mention how cheap and lame it looks when they bring out the cut out letters... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:43 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - EvFoDr 10:40 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not sure I'd really say that "Country House" replaced "The Road You Didn't Take" as the songs function in entirely different scene contexts. (More accurate to say that the whole scene was added.) And obviously I feel that "The Road..." is sorely missed, and the the rethinking of Ben's track wasn't effective. But I also agree that "Country House" on its own merits is a fun song. The afford/bored/board line is clever, as are others - though in a lot of ways, the ending is my favorite part. The "second honeymoon" moment where maybe we think they're actually going to find a moment of peace or even romance with each other...then the barb he can't resist ("should be better than the first") - her impulsive response as the bubble is burst ("there are times when you can be a louse") - then a pause, and Ben's perfect cap of "the hell, let's get a house" (which could be played in various ways but certainly leaves Phyllis stymied). Though also - for those people that agree that the song stylistically feels a bit too much like Sunday or especially Woods, there is that moment about "the child" that does feel very Woods...especially with the sting chord in the orchestra at that point. So be it... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 11:56 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - Chromolume 11:43 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Maybe replaced wasn't the best word. But they took a solo moment examining Ben's psyche and now it's a duet exploring the relationship between Ben and Phylis. The songs occur in a pretty similar spot in the chronology of the evening. As far as House sounding like 1980’s Sondheim, it totally does. There is a word, which you might know, that I read in one of the Sondheim music analysis books—maybe Banfield. It’s a style of composing where he sort of just moves around the notes as opposed to having a more traditional melody. This is the style in which Country House is written, and used heavily in Sunday, Woods, Assassins, and Passion. What Can You Lose? Is also in this style. I wish I could remember the word, it’s bothered me for years!!! Argh. The other Follies songs, even the non-pastiche book songs, aren’t in this style. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: jbronsto 10:01 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - RobertC 09:47 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| Sondheim has stated that he doesn’t consider Country House to be an entirely successful song as it doesn’t quite sound like Follies. Make the Most of Your Music hasn’t been used again because it is expensive to stage and isn’t truly interchangeable with Live, Laugh, Love since it has a solid ending. Both of these songs also haven’t been made available to later productions of Follies because the changes in the libretto that necessitated them for the London production haven’t been retained. Ah, But Underneath though has been staged after the London Follies. The Papermill production used it and Sondheim has indicated that in any production where the Phyllis is more singer than dancer, the song can be substituted. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:12 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - jbronsto 10:01 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| In terms of later use, "Ah, But Underneath" was also put into Sondheim On Sondheim, and "Country House" was included in Putting It Together (both versions). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: showtunesoprano 12:03 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - Chromolume 10:12 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| "Ah, But Underneath" also appears in Putting It Together during "Sooner or Later." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES | |
| Posted by: bmc 01:01 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Question regarding 1987 London production of FOLLIES - showtunesoprano 12:03 pm EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| These are wonderful posts.! I think it proves the richness of the FOLLIES score, that it can be discussed in this manner ,; Thanks for all the wonderful comments. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.085767 seconds.