| re: I think Hugh should have done The Will Rogers Follies | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 09:52 pm EDT 06/14/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:47 pm EDT 06/14/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think Hugh should have done The Will Rogers Follies - Singapore/Fling 09:16 pm EDT 06/14/22 | |
|
|
|
| I honestly don't remember the show well enough to comment confidently... but I think this show being written and staged as being a show put on IN the Follies, as a Ziegfeld Follies production, gave the creative team a license to have the story and characters told/portrayed by whoever would have been in the "Follies" cast. Like when some Shakespeare productions do all male cast because of how it would have been done when written, or Pacific Overtures does all male because of how it would have been done in the kabuki troupe it is conceive to be presented by. I'm not saying it was the right move, or that they considered the issues with it in 1991 to the degree they ought to have, or that it is so literal a Ziegfeld Follies concept that it can't be a sort of dream Follies... because he is dead, of course -- I can't remember if the show actually is a Follies in heaven or just a Follies show. Or that it's what people want/need to see right now. But I'm willing to bet that Comden, Green, Stone, Coleman, and Tune would probably say that as part of their answer if they were asked today. And perhaps Mitchell too. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: I think Hugh should have done The Will Rogers Follies He should have done BARNUM ( with its Cy Colman/ Michael Stewart scorre , rather then THE GREATEST SHOWMAN - bmc 11:11 am EDT 06/16/22 |
| Next: | re: I think Hugh should have done The Will Rogers Follies - FIG 09:12 am EDT 06/15/22 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.048639 seconds.