Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.066003 seconds.