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. |
