Threaded Order Chronological Order
| MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:16 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Now that both Sondheim and Furth have passed away, what would it take to allow the original 1981 script to become a licensed version of the show? Am I asking that question correctly? I only know the 1981 Merrily We Roll Along from its OBC recording, which is easily one of Sondheim's most beautiful and accessible scores IMO. Over the years I've seen several revised versions of the show in the Chicago area, the 2013 film of the Friedman staging, and the 2019 off-Broadway production. All have had their merits, but none have been completely satisfying. Unless I am mistaken, don't all of the original 1981 cast members regard the original version as much better than the various subsequent revised ones? |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: seenenuf 12:30 am EDT 08/26/22 | |
| In reply to: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - BroadwayTonyJ 06:16 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Who cares what any or all of the original cast members regard? It was a shoddy, ugly production of a not very appealing story. I saw it twice. Wrong cast, weak book, horrendous set and costumes. Who cares. Let it die a natural death. Everyone is allowed a failure. Sometimes it just ain't good. Move on. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 10:06 am EDT 08/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - seenenuf 12:30 am EDT 08/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| why? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: 88keys 08:13 am EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - BroadwayTonyJ 06:16 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| While I did not see the original Broadway production, I consider myself lucky that in 1985 my alma mater, University of Bridgeport (1983), had a Sondheim celebration which he attended for a panel discussion. As part of the week, the theater department performed Merrily We Roll Along. This followed the Original Cast album, which I knew intimately, with the graduation bookends, Hills of Tomorrow, Rich and Happy, etc. I've since seen Encores and Fiasco but will always remember this as the best and would love to see that original version done again. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: selmerboy 04:25 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - 88keys 08:13 am EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| At Emory University in '87 ('86?) we were also able to produce (and I was elated to be able to conduct) the original version. I don't think I'll ever be satisfied with anything else. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:45 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - selmerboy 04:25 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| Brandeis' student theatre group did the original show in the '86-'87 season, the year after I graduated. (But I was still there, working with the graduate acting program as a young musical director, and I saw the show.) Beth was played by a young freshman actress by the name of...Debra Messing. Yes, that one. :-) By the way, thank you for the link to that episode of the "Life In The Pit" podcast. A friend of mine had suggested this series to me, and somehow I never remembered to look it up. But "now I know" lol. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question | |
| Last Edit: PlazaBoy 10:21 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| Posted by: PlazaBoy 10:05 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - BroadwayTonyJ 06:16 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I read through the thread and I'm sure the answer is there, but I couldn't fully glean this info. Is The Hills of Tomorrow always dropped now? I've seen three productions and I think it wasn't present in any, but I could be wrong. Off-Broadway (1994) with Malcolm Gets as Frank. Gallery Players Brooklyn (2004) with Michael Hunsaker terrific as Frank. This is my favorite of the three productions I've seen, very much on the strength of Hunsaker's performance. Porchlight Music Theater Chicago (2018) This was a lovely production. The most bittersweet/sad of the three I've seen. Very moving. BroadwayTonyJ - Did you see this production? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 07:56 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question - PlazaBoy 10:05 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I saw the Porchlight production on 2/11/18 -- it was outstanding. I also saw the Music Theatre Company of Highland Park staging on 5/11/2011 with Jessie and Andrew Mueller as Mary and Charley. It was very good also. I've seen two area college productions over the years -- at DePaul in 1997 and earlier this at Northwestern. Neither was very good, but I still enjoyed them. DePaul did the revised version without the framing device, but they included "The Hills of Tomorrow" after the bows. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 08:51 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 08:43 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question - BroadwayTonyJ 07:56 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| Do you remember if they did the *whole* song (it has a bridge, etc) or just the version that eventually made it to the show (which is really only the first and last A section)? Also interesting to note that the vocal arrangement in the score is NOT the same as the one performed on the original cast recording. Sopranos are added to the melody on the recording (in the score it's mostly just given to the tenors) and some other voicing changes are made as well. Below is a performance of the version exactly as in the original published score. (Which still has a few very small differences from the one in the manuscript score.) Rather different than what we're all used to hearing on the OBC. |
|
| Link | The Hills of Tomorrow (as in the score) |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 09:38 am EDT 08/26/22 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 09:26 am EDT 08/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question - Chromolume 08:43 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well, it's been 25 years so I wouldn't swear by my memory. My best recollection is that the cast (after the bows) performed "The Hills of Tomorrow" as I heard it on the OBC album. Nevertheless, I'm awfully glad I got to see a production of Merrily in which this song was performed, even though it was after the bows. It still made for a powerful moment. BTW, thanks for these 2 clips, I've never heard this song performed so beautifully. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 08:56 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question - Chromolume 08:43 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| And - here's a solo version of the complete song. (2nd A section and bridge included.) | |
| Link | The whole "Hills of Tomorrow" melody |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:28 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question - PlazaBoy 10:05 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| It's not "dropped" - because it's simply not there. :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question | |
| Posted by: PlazaBoy 10:31 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question - Chromolume 10:28 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Right! I think it's a loss. I like the song and the framing device. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:44 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- The Hills of Tomorrow question - PlazaBoy 10:31 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I do too. It also completes the sequence of Frank using the same musical motif for everything he writes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 10:05 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - BroadwayTonyJ 06:16 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I saw the original version when a production was done at NYU with a full orchestra. It was so lovely to hear The Hills of Tomorrow. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: emmemmkay 09:28 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - BroadwayTonyJ 06:16 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| According to Amazon.com, the libretto is being released in paperback in Feb. 2023 and is already available on Kindle. Not what sure which version of the libretto, but I think I remember reading that it was going to be the 1981 version. Hope so. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: Ann 09:38 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - emmemmkay 09:28 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| That libretto has been promised for years - they just keep pushing back the date. Maybe they will publish after this revival - but that often takes a couple of years. And I don't think the Kindle version you're seeing is the same, though it's linked from the libretto pre-order page (I'm seeing it described as "Digital Sheet Music"). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The Sondheim Festival version was pretty great | |
| Posted by: Genealley 08:43 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - BroadwayTonyJ 06:16 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Michael Hayden, Raul Esparza, Miriam Shor, Emily Skinner and Anastasia Barzee were perfect in their roles and we were all in a puddle at "Our Time". Had no problem with the age of the actors. And didn't miss the framing device. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: comedywest 07:05 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - BroadwayTonyJ 06:16 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think it would take approval from the Furth estate. When they did the reunion concert in 2002, Ann Morrison said they wanted to used the original book, but Furth wouldn't allow that (which pissed more than a few people off). Sondheim was OK using the original score--as he was with the Fiasco production. Since the songs wouldn't make sense with the new book, they went with narration. Cast members I think are mixed on what is the best version. But David Loud, Lonny, Ann and Jim Walton like it best. I am not sure about the rest. For me, the original cast album is the best. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:21 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - comedywest 07:05 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| "When they did the reunion concert in 2002, Ann Morrison said they wanted to used the original book, but Furth wouldn't allow that (which pissed more than a few people off)." Since you have said what I was reluctant to say in my post below, I will add that Furth did not attend the concert. What I have heard, and perhaps you have heard the same, is that this was because of the elements of the original that he did not want to be done. He was persuaded to allow those things, but he was not happy. As you (and Ann Morrison) say, they wanted to do the original book, or at least a lot more of it, and he would not allow that. He would allow only a minimal amount of the original dialogue to be included. Sondheim attended, of course. Prince was reluctant to attend, because he felt he had failed the cast in 1981, but he was persuaded to attend and was very glad he did. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: comedywest 07:53 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 07:21 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| And since all my information is based on a few conversations I've had recently, I was a little hesitant about sharing, but I was lucky enough to be at that concert. I didn't know any of the back story at the time. I just saw Prince and Sondheim hug and figured all was well with them. Morrison said ( to me and I think it was in her recent show) that "I know now that the big problem was the book." snap But as you said, the original ending was powerful. I wonder what Furth could possibly have disliked about that original production so much that he wouldn't even give it a shot in the reunion concert. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 08:36 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:29 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - comedywest 07:53 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| At the end of the day, my final thought is a simple but mighty one... it is that whatever they think they fixed in act one or even the first half of act 2, gutting and undoing the incredible and unique emotional momentum and impact of the last few scenes/songs nullifies any good any other rewriting did or is said to have done for the show. It is now a hollow shell of what it once was, flaws and all. And of course that is only achieved from setting up certain things in act one, like the graduation opening scene. And I don't think most of the revisions before the last 1/4 of the show are improvements, mostly I think they have weakened and worsened it. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Furth especially, and Sondheim, were so traumatized and scarred by the experience of how the broadway production went after the first preview that their vision was clouded and tainted irrevocably. They were no more able to revise it for the better than they were able to see it for what it was anymore. In my estimation. Watching the Merrily documentary film is all the more heartbreaking to see them and Hal discussing what they intended, why the wrote the show, what they were doing... because in their trauma-fueled rewriting and re-seeing of it, they betrayed so much, and so much that was essential, to why the piece came into existence and why they wrote it originally the way they did, and what about it worked (so much). Just simplified, to have an original production that has such an unusual conceit of the young cast AND the backwards timeline together, in a production that doesn't try out anywhere before opening directly on broadway, AND to have the legendary director have a creative breakdown and sabotage the entire endeavor with his last minute changes to the look and feel of the show... I mean, it's absolutely bonkers that Sondheim & Furth never let that version of the script and score be produced by another director without the T-shirts etc, to see if it works as is, or as a 80% foundation that works but needed a bit more revising/polishing... but they wrote the entire thing off. The issue, I really maintain, was much more the production mixed with the reception at the time on Broadway, not the SHOW. The show was not something that even should have been on Broadway. It should exist as it was and performed *IN SCHOOLS* or in regional and community theaters by a cast of young people... where the audience understands the conceit going in. This wasn't meant to be a musical for 40 year olds to perform all the roles, and it doesn't work this way any more than it did with 22 year olds. But the 22 year olds version... where it works, it works exponentially better and with more emotional impact and creativity than the 40 years version ever does. It's such a shame. And you know what... given that the show still works backwards and still has the same actors playing all ages of the timeline, including the young versions... so there's no real reason the show can't STILL start with a graduation, why did they think it had to start in Frank's home for the movie party? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:04 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - comedywest 07:53 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think he felt that a lot of the changes he made were made under duress. Which was why I would have hoped that some stuff would have been restored when they revised it, but little if anything was restored, except "The Blob," which was not the book. And to me "The Blob" makes little sense with the mix-and-not-really-match Gussie of the revision. It seems that both Furth and Sondheim felt that the problem was casting young people. The script and score had been written for young people to perform. A lot of the playfulness of the original book disappeared. I think one problem with the revision is that if the book was going to be changed that much, the score needed to be changed a lot more to fit the book. Sondheim wrote his score to fit that book. The book pretty much preceded the score. But since most everyone liked the score a lot, relatively little of the score changed, at least compared to how much the book changed. I don't think they fit together all that well now. And who are those people singing to us at the beginning and why are they singing to us? Productions keep trying to solve this via staging and projections, but there is a limit to what can be done without bringing back the frame. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:33 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 08:04 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| And who are those people singing to us at the beginning and why are they singing to us? Productions keep trying to solve this via staging and projections, but there is a limit to what can be done without bringing back the frame. And why, in one of the last "Merrily Transitions" (if not the last), is Frank Jr - labelled as such - singing to us, before he was born? :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:33 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 08:04 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| 100%. And what's even more infuriating is that the framework of the graduation is SO good and works SO well, and it is a perfectly good motivation for the opening title song to be sung. In the current version it is awkward and meaningless... not to mention how awkwardly stunted the song feels in so many places now with the revisions/cuts he made in it. If they were going to revise it to cut the high school graduation, you'd think they'd have at least subbed it out for some kind of lifetime achievement film award, or People's Choice award or something where he's thanking people and comes to Mary and Charley... and the people in the audience or at the gala are the ones who sing back to him for him to reflect. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:33 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 07:21 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I also attended, and I will never forget it. :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: comedywest 07:57 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - Chazwaza 07:33 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| At 1:00 that afternoon, a co-worker said, "I have an extra ticket to the Merrily Reunion concert, would you like to go? It's $50." (I think) Sold! I ran out to an ATM. One of the best moves I ever made. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:52 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - Chazwaza 07:33 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I was there, too. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 02:53 am EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 07:52 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| That ''Merrily'' concert might just be my favorite musical reunion of all time, and it was so great to see Sondheim and Prince there together! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:02 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - BroadwayTonyJ 06:16 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| You are asking the question correctly. Whoever is in charge of the Furth and Sondheim estates, at least on this particular matter, would have to decide. I have wondered if Furth left Sondheim in charge of the decisions on the shows they wrote together. I think Furth would have been very unhappy with what was allowed to be done to the book in the Encores! and Fiasco-Roundabout productions. The version that opened on Broadway was never licensed. The version that was licensed had a few changes. Pretty much everyone I know prefers the original version. Some see at least some merit in some things in the revision. Some think nothing whatsoever in the revision is an improvement. As I've said here many times, I like a few things here and there in the revision, but overall I think it was a mistake. Since they felt such a strong need to revise it, I would have much preferred if they had gone back to some stuff that was cut during previews. I don't think they solved all the problems in 1981, but even people who thought the original was a major failure often admitted that the last couple of scenes were very moving. I do think the casting of young people was at least part of the reason. I have never seen a production of the revision in which I found the last scene very moving. I don't recall ever hearing or reading any members of the original cast opine on the question you are wondering about. If I have, I have forgotten. If someone with a great track record and a lot of clout wanted to do the original or wanted to create a new version using stuff from various versions, perhaps the folks who will now be making the decisions would allow it. Might the first licensed version ever be licensed again? I would like to think so. Generally, I think it's a kind of rotten thing for writers, composers, film directors, etc., to completely forbid versions of their work that they once approved from ever being seen or heard again. Hell, I wish the extended dance music for "Now You Know," heard in at least one or two early post-Broadway productions, would be made available again. I think it was soon dropped from the materials that were sent out. My sense from what I have read and heard is that Furth more than Sondheim was the driving force behind revising the work as greatly as they did and forbidding the original version from being seen again. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 07:39 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 07:02 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for your detailed answer. Some time during the shutdown (either in 2020 or 2021), Seth Rudetsky did a program on Zoom with many of the performers from the 1981 production. Everyone present stated that the original version was better than the various revised versions they had seen. It got me wondering that since there is such a consensus among those performers, would we ever be able to see the original? Did the first licensed version have the framing device at the beginning and end? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:56 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - BroadwayTonyJ 07:39 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Did the first licensed version have the framing device at the beginning and end? Yes it did. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:51 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - BroadwayTonyJ 07:39 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I guess I missed that Rudetsky program. I should look for it. The original licensed version returned the first-act "Not a Day Goes By" to Beth, cut five transitional monologues for Charley, Mary, Gussie, Joe and Beth in the first act, and restored "The Blob." I think those were the only changes, but I'm not 100-percent positive off the top of my head. The framing device remained. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 06:04 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 07:51 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| The "Now You Know" dance section (160 bars, still in the old manuscript score) was also gone in that version. What's in the score is what's on the OBC (technically just the last 8 bars of the dance). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: Bobster 05:37 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 07:51 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yep, you are right, Alan. I did this version at NYU in 1984. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| 'Stars in the House': 'Merrily We Roll Along' Reunion (9/9/21) | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 02:31 am EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 07:51 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| With Jim Walton, Lonny Price, Ann Morrison and Jason Alexander ... | |
| Link | 'Stars in the House': 'Merrily We Roll Along' Reunion |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:43 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 07:51 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| The original licensed version returned the first-act "Not a Day Goes By" to Beth And here's one change in the revision that I really really really really don't understand, and despise even more. Toward the end of the song, originally, when Beth sings "I'll die day after day after day" etc, she stops short on the word "after," not completing the thought. As if she is really just too wound up and emotionally can't get through it. Then after a breath, she finishes the song with the repeated "Till the days go by." It is perfection. It says everything about Beth's mindset and heart in that moment, in one little tiny missed word. It is a prime example of god being in the details. But for the revised version, now used universally, that damn "day" is filled in. I can't tell you how much I hate that, and wish I had been able to ask Sondheim WHY????? When I coach the song now in my musical theatre classes, I tell anyone singing this about that change, and let them make up their own minds as to which version they want to use. Most often, they leave out the "day." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Last Edit: lordofspeech 08:48 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 08:45 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 07:51 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| SPOILER: I saw a preview in which Beth sang « Not a Day Goes By»somewhere near the end of Act One. It ripped my heart out, and, thematically, one could see that the divorce was the moment when Frank turned his back on his humanity. It worked for going backward in time and for going forward in time. I also think I saw the version with the t-shirts with names on them. But I can’t remember. |
|
| Link | https://Hem |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:54 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - lordofspeech 08:45 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| The two issues with giving the song to Beth, as I think it was originally conceived, is that Frank is the main character and needs an emotional song for us to understand him and relate to him and sympathize, and where the song comes in the backwards timeline it is sung by a character we've only just barely met. We will get to know her more *after* the song, and the song make brilliant sense for her to sing in the actual timeline of the story... but it still comes to the audience from a character they don't know and don't need to know well for the show to work and doesn't need the audience on her side because they already are. Frank needs to win the audience by opening up about his feelings in this marriage he ruined with his choices... we already feel for his soon to be ex-wife. Of course the idea is that the audience it rewarded with emotional impact form Beth's singing it in act one when in act two they hear the "reprise" and realize she was spitting back his vows at him. But I'm not sure it ever quite held in the audience's head strong enough to have that impact, or to make the potential pay off outweigh the reasons it might be sung by Frank in Act One instead. If I'm not misremembering, Hal had this very issues with it and that's why he gave it to Frank. I think both ways are extremely valid, but I do actually agree with Hal on this. I don't think it is as useful or impactful coming where it does when it comes from Beth. The show and the audience need to have it come from Frank. Perhaps there's a happy medium where Frank sings it, then Beth does? I dunno, it's been awhile since I've done a deep dive. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum | |
| Posted by: BrianJ 02:29 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum - Chazwaza 08:54 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I am another who prefers “Not a Day Goes By” to be Frank’s song. Like Chazawa, I feel that, whatever Furth’s and Sondheim’s original intentions, the song — one of Sondheim’s loveliest ballads — is wasted on Beth, who the audience isn’t invested in and who remains a marginal and barely sketched character, even at the show’s end. Not only does the song give some much needed sympathy for Frank at that point in Act I, but it also is critical for setting up the “revelation” of Mary’s being in love with him when the song is reprised in Act II. It’s such a moving moment on the OBC when Ann Morrison chimes in with “Not a single day”. And I feel that whole reprise is diminished, even ruined, when that poignant and veiled duet between Frank and Mary becomes a trio with Beth and Mary singing over each other. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:00 am EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum - BrianJ 02:29 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| Can we really call it a revelation - wether in quotes or not - when it's something that Charley baldly (and awkwardly) says early in Act 1? And yes, that's in the original version of the show (which I've had the chance to investigate in the past day). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:58 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum - BrianJ 02:29 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yes! And again, the last thing this show needs is ANOTHER female character we like singing her heart out about how in love she is with this guy we mostly see as a misguided jerk (I think he's more complex and relatable than that, but many don't seem to agree)... I don't think that wins any favors with the audience, especially a modern audience who will be hyper aware of the play trying to "gaslight" or force us to see Frank the way the women do just because they tell us they love him or used to and wish it could have worked. It is more helpful to the show to have us get some vulnerability and reflection from Frank about the consequences of his choices or character. And I agree about the impact of the Mary reprise. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 02:06 am EDT 08/27/22 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:06 am EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum - Chazwaza 02:58 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| But her version of the song acknowledges he is a jerk, which is part of the obstacle she is facing in deciding to walk away from him. And if you're concerned about how a modern audience receives the politic, taking a song away from Beth in order to give one to Frank (who we've already hear a lot from) is a much deeper disservice to a character who, yes, is otherwise thinly sketched. And again, if we want to see Frank receiving the consequences of how he has lived (which I don't know that we do, since he doesn't appear to learn anything from this moment, since we've already seen how he makes further bad choices), then perhaps the best thing he can do is listen. Let the actor play the impact of seeing her truth, rather than - to use a common trope of today - mainsplaining how much she has hurt him. In terms of the original text, this song comes directly after Frank rails that Beth can't do this to him and to his kids, so that really does cut against the idea that this song isn't carrying an agenda. An actor can attempt to play it as action neutral (I want to experience my feelings, rather than I want you to call off this divorce), but the (original) text doesn't really support that. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:53 pm EDT 09/02/22 | |
| In reply to: re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum - Singapore/Fling 02:06 am EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| The inherent problem remains that the show doesn't let us get to know Beth much or make us care particularly what she has to say... The show is not, at all, about her. It IS very much about Frank, and Charley and Mary. "Not A Day Goes By" is one of the most major songs in the show, and a very compelling emotional expression. I really do think it's wasted giving it to Beth especially that soon after meeting her, in addition to Frank needing a song/beat like the one he gets with it. So not do I not think it works to give it to Beth, as a stand alone idea, it also takes away from what Frank needs in the writing of the show. The point of the show also isn't to just convince us Frank is a jerk. We hear a lot from Frank because he is the lead and central character. How can we call it a disservice, or worry about it being a disservice, to a character that is thinly sketched? She's not thinly sketched because the writers forgot to flesh out their lead... she's thinly sketched because she's a small supporting character and the show isn't about her even if her role IN the life story of the lead character is key. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:26 am EDT 08/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum - Singapore/Fling 02:06 am EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Also - as written, the song is a response to Frank's question, "do you still love me?" And, the answer that Beth comes out in song with is pure perfect Sondheim - an exploration of the confusion in the human condition, that goes so, so far beyond a simple yes or no (whereas if Frank sings the song, it's pretty much a "yes, I love you" all the way through). Dramatically, it's far more compelling and interesting and heartbreaking - in the same way that "Could I Leave You" or "Being Alive" leave us with that same rawness. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:55 pm EDT 09/02/22 | |
| In reply to: re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum - Chromolume 12:26 am EDT 08/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Here you make a very compelling case for it as Beth's song... and I agree... except in the functionality of how it actually works in the show (with Beth singing it where she does and as such a thinly sketched character) or works against it in the material Frank does or doesn't get. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 03:18 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum - Chazwaza 02:58 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree about the Mary reprise also. I do see why Beth certainly could be singing - and it does set up a bit of rivalry between the two women. BUT - as Sondheim was always after clarity, I would have challenged him that having Beth sing too away the clarity of the song being more pointedly about Mary's feelings for Frank. Ultimately, I would have just been happy without that extra "day" in Beth's solo version in Act I. (I commented on that already here somewhere...) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| No conundrum, it's Beth's song | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 11:37 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:32 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum - Chazwaza 08:54 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| What you're describing is a problem with the show, not a problem with the song. When Beth sings the song, it's the story of a woman divorcing her husband telling him how much she still desperately loves him, and yet she can't be with him. It expresses the heartbreaking truth that love simply isn't enough, and yet love is so strong that in leaving him, she is betraying a part of herself, and she will live with that pain for the rest of her life. When Frank sings it, it's either a guy trying to manipulate his wife into not leaving him, or it's a guy telling his wife how much she's hurt him by leaving him. In both versions, it's a selfish song about a guy who makes everything about himself (which we already know) and tells a completely different, and I think much weaker, story. I hear your point that Frank needs to be humanized, but at this point in the show, we've only seen him be a complete jerk to everyone around him, and that problem isn't solved if he gets the song - in fact, it's only amplified. Hal Prince was wrong. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No conundrum, it's Beth's song | |
| Last Edit: lordofspeech 09:56 am EDT 08/29/22 | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 09:45 am EDT 08/29/22 | |
| In reply to: No conundrum, it's Beth's song - Singapore/Fling 11:32 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think the show is meant to be moralistic. An indictment of a culture which prizes worldly success over honor, integrity, and fidelity. Some may think that sophomoric, but I think it’s in the bones of the original and, though it may not make Frank attractive morally or emotionally, it’s in keeping with Beth singing “Not a day goes by.” Frank has thrown Beth over to advance himself through an adulterous liaison. There you have it. His behavior is schmuck-y. Although the writers were different, I think there’s a similarity here between Frank and company in MERRILY and Ben and company in FOLLIES. A culture which prizes worldly success over humanity produces schmucks. In MERRILY, the backwards chronology leads us to see how sweet Frank was once upon a time. The betrayal of his ideals was not inherent in his make-up. That’s the horror of his schmuckery. It was a cultural imperative. But schmuck he definitely becomes. If Furth was trying to rewrite the book in order to make the main character more understandable or likeable, that’s counter to the spirit and theme of the work, I think. Sondheim seems to have been attracted to morally ambivalent, even reprehensible characters in the early collaborations. In the partnerships with Lapine, though the protagonists may struggle with selfishness, Lapine finds transformation and redemption for them. But MERRILY seems not meant to be redemptive; it’s a cautionaty tale for us, the audience. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 04:19 am EDT 08/25/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:14 am EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: No conundrum, it's Beth's song - Singapore/Fling 11:32 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| It is a challenge of the show, not necessarily a problem. The song works both as Beth's song or as Frank's song. I think you have a very specific and skewed view of what the song is or means when Frank sings it and I don't agree with your take on it. I think it makes plenty of sense for Frank to being singing back his vows in the new context of him messing up the marriage with his choices. It is no less complex to hurt someone you love, or to stray from them and risk your relationship, while also loving them and mourning the relationship you thought you could have and acknowledging how deeply it will haunt you. I think there's an argument to be made that what we need to hear from Beth is not how much she (inexplicably) still desperately loves him (this character you say we have seen be nothing but a jerk to everyone)... this isn't some failing of the human capacity to love. He cheated, she isn't ok with that, the relationship is torn apart. So you think what we really need to hear is how she nonetheless desperately loves him and is torn up that she can't be with him? Rather than his mournful reflection on the mess he made and the loss it is for him? I don't agree, beyond that I think it works for both characters. Having his wife who we just met step in to sing to the audience about how much she loves him actually very much risks coming off as the authors spoon-feeding a reason to not hate Frank even more than when the song is given to him, just send the woman in to validate him why we are watching him, explain how everyone loves him even if all we see is the opposite... I dunno, doesn't seem like the greatest version when we have had so little of her before and get so little of her after. The more I defend it thinking about the actual lyric and actual function of the song in the timeline the audience experiences, the more I think it might work better as Frank's song. I also don't think Merrily is meant to be the "how Frank hurt everyone" show, where all the characters just singing about how Frank hurt them or how his hurtful actions made them feel... he needs to reflect as well, he needs to experience his life as well. Maybe "Not A Day Goes By" should have been Frank's song responding to Charlie in the restaurant, or in a scene that doesn't exist with just him and Mary about missing Charley and their friendship/collaboration... that's the real central relationship, not Frank and Beth. Maybe Charley should have passed away before they could reunite, and that's the song he sings. I dunno. Maybe it doesn't work for either Frank or Beth when it's about their relationship because we don't know or especially care about their relationship, and Frank never sings about his relationship to Charley or Mary. But really, I don't think your interpretation of Frank singing it to manipulate his wife into not leaving him, or that it's just this selfish male trickery is fair or the only way to see or play it, at all. And also, so what if he is trying to make her reconsider? This is what someone who loves his wife and doesn't want their marriage to end despite knowing he is the one who messed it up. People have complicated feelings and desires. You don't think it's possible to love someone and betray them? To want someone else, but also to want them? To not think you want someone/thing and then when you actually lose it, realize you do... or want to want it, so you scramble to keep it if you can? Or to fear who or what you will be if you lose them, whether you actually want or deserve to keep it? This is human and layered, not surface-level male selfishness like you describe so dismissively. Hal wasn't 100% right and he wasn't at all wrong. And just because after the show is done it works as Beth's song doesn't mean it does in the moment it's played. I've seen it done this way, I never feel it works. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 05:50 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 05:49 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Chazwaza 04:14 am EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| You may experience a conundrum, but that doesn’t mean there is one for others ;-) When I finally saw “Merrily”, after 20 years of listening to the OBC, my biggest surprise was how perfectly that moment fits Beth. That being said, if I’ve read your other posts correctly, I think we both agree that the show is inherently problematic, so we’re ultimately arguing over how to best fix something that’s not fixable. The one thing I’ll add is that my objection to that song in Frank’s mouth isn’t because he’s a man, nor is my support of Beth because she’s a woman; it’s because she’s the only decent person we’ve met in the show up to that point. One of the core problems of “Merrily” is that the main characters are awful people, and we meet them at their low points. Sure, Frank is entitled, but Mary and Charlie are downright reprehensible in how they treat them, and all three are practically saints compared to Gussy, who dramatically (and inexplicably) risks blinding another women by throwing iodine in her face. Of all of them, I think I have the most sympathy for Frank, especially in a version of the show where he listens to his neglected ex spill out her heart. I think you make a strong case for the subtext that an actor can bring to Frank, but the action you want to play is happening outside of the words that Sondheim wrote. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 06:13 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:04 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Singapore/Fling 05:49 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think we agree on several things, but maybe not as much as you think, ha. I think the show is inherently problematic but does not need fixing. It is the show it is. Or it should have been. The best execution of what the show is, and the most emotional, original, entertaining, and compelling version is the original version. That doesn't mean it's perfect, or that it "works"... I don't care if it works as a whole or not. That's Merrily... hell, many people think shows don't "work" as a whole that I actually think work brilliantly (Sunday in the Park, Follies, Caroline or Change, Passion, Grey Gardens), so what does it matter as long as people are compelled to produce it and people are compelled to see it or glad they did? I think Merrily was only tooled with to the level it was and with the blinders on that it was is because of the very unique circumstances of the reception when it opened mixed with the specific, unique and apparently blinding failures of the Prince production of the original version. But the version wasn't to be blamed, it wasn't even given a fair trial. So we talk about this with the false premise that the show needed massive fixing, fixing that was/is possible, and so something had to be done! And to many, it follows that what they've done must be an improvement, or even a failure to fix a therefor unfixable show, but that it needed the revisions either way to be produceable. I would suggest it didn't need all that much fixing... it was never going to not be problematic as a play. Ah well. Give me the problems, I find them exciting and far more satisfying then what we have now! And often what makes this show a problem is what makes this show worthwhile to begin with. And I also think we definitely don't see the characters the same way - or maybe you're focused on the revised version and I'm thinking of the original. How are the main characters "awful people"? I don't see it that way. And I don't see them as reprehensible, and I don't think when we meet Beth we, or I, think she is the only "decent" person we've met up till then. I think meeting people at their low points is not only interesting for a story or drama, but it is key to some of the best or most successful plays. What's interesting about seeing people at their best or happiest? I do agree the Gussy business with the iodine is terrible. That's not in the original version I'm advocating for. Just one of many examples of how the book because a soap opera in the revisions. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:00 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Chazwaza 06:04 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| Since two of you have done it now, I'll just step in to say it's Gussie, not Gussy. Thank you. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:40 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Chromolume 11:00 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| But is it Charly, Charley, or Charlie? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:50 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Singapore/Fling 11:40 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| I am not 100% on which it IS, but I know which it isn't... it isn't Charlie. God only knows why. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:23 pm EDT 08/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Chazwaza 11:50 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| Charley. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It's all gone backwards | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 07:50 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 07:49 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Chazwaza 06:04 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| I've only had the chance to see the revised version, so I can't really compare that to the original text. And I do agree that the current form is very much a soap opera, which is one of the main reasons why the characters become rather one-dimensional except when they sing. Meeting people at a low point can be interesting, but generally when that happens, we're given a crash course on how they reached that point, and we're also given facets of them that are appealing/redeeming, so that we can understand who they were at their best. In the current "Merrily", we don't really get that - we just get people being mean to each other for 30 minutes. But then, I also don't buy the central tragedy of this current Merrily, which softens my sympathy for all of them. Despite what Mary and Charly believe, Frank was never that deep or compelling of a writer (in this version), nor is his turn to Hollywood such a hollow, shallow betrayal of his abilities ("Rich and Happy" made the case for that when the movie was bad and Frank was high on fame, but "That Frank" tells us the movie is potentially pretty good and Frank has achieved his goals). Frank's a fine writer of popular musicals who has become a fine maker of popular films and also discovered happiness to boot... and his best friends are angry at him? They're bitter because he, what, is enjoying his life? It's a tough pill to swallow, and I don't think Furth's reliance upon easy laughs (What do I do? I *really* drink) provides the gravitas that the show would need to pull me in to their problems. So in that sense, when we finally get to Beth in the new version, she's a sigh of relief, because she is the first adult I've seen on stage who has emotional maturity and an ability to handle her own problems. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It's all gone backwards | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 05:43 am EDT 08/26/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:42 am EDT 08/26/22 | |
| In reply to: It's all gone backwards - Singapore/Fling 07:49 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think that you should seek out the original, which is all I can say on that. For all the issues the book had originally, I think they made the characters less dimensional in the revision. I also think a strength of the original book is that it does *not*, to my memory of my experiencing it, give you a crash course on how they got there... it sets up the question of how and then, you know, spends two hours working backwards to show you through scenes and songs. Opening on the graduation I think helped enormously with how the show and tone and characters get introduced and how the audience is eased into the jolting concept of how the story will be told who the people we are going to spend 2/3 of the play with before the become wonderful and in no way irredeemable personalities. I also think there are aspects to the graduation opening that were changed in or for previews that helped even more. And your example of "That Frank" vs "Rich and Happy" is spot on, not to mention that as a song TF pales in comparison to R&H, and a great microcosm of how shortsighted the rewrites were. And while I am basically in favor of the entire original vs the revisions, there are things I like in the revisions... I do quite like "Growing Up", though I'm not sure that it feels like the same score (even though it's based on the same stuff), which maybe is the point and makes it work even more. But I don't like all the Gussie stuff that comes with it, so it's an imbalance. It's so sad to me that George Furth preferred people see this show with this revised script, if anything I think his work comes off notably worse. Not to mention how much they throw out the window any good will or credit they win with an audience, or just the impact of the youth juxtaposition, when the show is performed, as originally intended, with a young cast and the energy and vibe of that to juxtapose the sourness of the people and circumstances. From the major to the minor of the conceptualization and execution of the rewrites, it's just such a mistake to me, even if there maybe have been 25% of it that were improvements or great additions/edits. But I have to guess that I'd review the versions and say 25% is being generous. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It's all gone backwards | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:55 pm EDT 08/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: It's all gone backwards - Chazwaza 05:42 am EDT 08/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| It's so sad to me that George Furth preferred people see this show with this revised script, if anything I think his work comes off notably worse. I tend to wonder if it was all much more a very complicated ugly emotional reaction to the process and reception of the original show, than a preference for the revision. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum | |
| Last Edit: EvFoDr 10:12 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 10:11 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum - Chazwaza 08:54 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I always enjoy your take...but I don't think the song makes any sense assigned to Frank. What I heard is that it was given to him for the practical reason that the original Beth couldn't pull it off. You might remember Jason Alexander commenting on her absence from the reunion concert where of course the role was given to Liz Callaway. I do think you make some very good points about how badly a song is needed for Frank and I think that is one of the biggest issues with the show. Not that they have to fit some formula, but it's very odd in a musical for the lead to not have a solo (and usually it's more than one) that explores their thoughts, feeling, situation. Growing Up is a nice attempt in the revision, but I guess I wanted more than a slowed down version of The Blob juxtaposed with Good Thing Going. Meanwhile we get these great introduction songs to Mary and Charley. I also hear what you say about the oddness of Beth, a character the audience has just met, singing such an important song, but it still doesn't seem like having Frank sing it is the solution. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:49 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: the "Not A Day Goes By" conundrum - EvFoDr 10:11 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I understand the ideas here, but to me, Beth singing the song, in the linear (forward) sequence of the story, just makes too much sense. It's her final answer to Frank before divorcing him, using the same song they both took their vows to (except of course in the audience sequence, we haven't seen that moment yet). For Frank to simply repeat what he sang in the club has much, much less impact to me. Her lyrics tell a different story that I think we need to hear - as does Frank. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: comedywest 07:59 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 07:51 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| here it is, I think | |
| Link | merrily reunion and Seth |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Thanks, comedywest! (nm) | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:05 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - comedywest 07:59 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: GilBenbrook 06:35 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - BroadwayTonyJ 06:16 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know the answer to your question, though I'm assuming if some large theatre planned a big revival and approached the estates of Sondheim and Furth about updating the script is probably the best way we'd see a new version of the show. No clue what the Off Broadway revival has planned but perhaps they're thinking about tweaking the script? I will say that I've seen a production of the show that used the revised script, which I believe better fleshes out Frank and Gussie's characters with the addition of "Growing Up" and it's reprises, but also added back the graduation scenes to book end the show and I thought it worked better than any other production I've seen. So perhaps a slight tweak is all that's needed? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:09 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - GilBenbrook 06:35 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Where was that production? I would be surprised if what was done was approved. Well, now that I've said that, perhaps you might not want to say. Unless it was the Donmar, since that is a matter of public record, even though Sondheim later chose to forget what was done (or pretended to forget). I would think that Friedman and NYTW will be more or less recreating what was seen in London and Boston, just with a new cast. My sense, which could be wrong, is that Friedman thinks this version works. She does, after all, have some history with it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: GilBenbrook 09:39 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - AlanScott 07:09 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| It was a long time ago in New Jersey, done by a small company that I think did one or two other shows after and then were never heard from again. No clue if it was licensed or not | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:31 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG -- Can the Original 1981 Version Ever Be Shown Again? - GilBenbrook 09:39 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Was it the Forum Theatre in Metuchen? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.279859 seconds.