Follies

Back from Preview 2.

Have never seen this Sondheim before.

What works is the glorious set, the exciting start, and the 2 up tempo numbers.

What doesn't work is most of the rest of it.

It seems to have no drama, weirdly, for a musical, and yet the many characters shout at each other and argue as though a lot is at stake. The problem is we don't see enough of their younger selves, bar a few sentences, to really feel for them in their old age. It's a strange beast. I found it hard to care for either the women or the men. And I need to care about the people on the stage.

By the second half it just seemed to become a lot of set piece numbers, with the different characters Folly's. Then one of the men had a scream and collapsed, and then they all walked off. But it left me unmoved, even when those on the stage were acting moved.

It's a great idea to have a show about a reunion and memories and conflicts of the past (and this is staged well by Cooke having the younger selves permanently ghosting the older selves, albeit mostly as mutes), but the conflicts were high stakes enough. You took my husband. I took yours...

It's probably too close to Staunton's Martha to see her in this role, as a lot felt similar to that performance. But I do love that laugh she does. Janie Dee was really good, and you could feel her pent up rage from the start. Even when dancing. A sign of a great actress.

The mirror number (is it?) was when the show finally sprang to life, and the audience were able to clap rapturously (it felt like they wanted to from the off, but weren't allowed, if that makes sense?). And Janie Dee's Folly's number was great too. But apart from these, there didn't seem to be much spectacle in the numbers to match the spectacle of the set (really impressive).

I always do an audience check around me if I'm feeling a bit bored or disconnected during a show, and I looked around the stalls and realised I wasn't the only one. Not that people were slumped in their seats, but there was an ever increasing air of disappointment as the show went on that "this is what it's going to be". The occasional number of joy or energy, but then back to the dramatically lacking script and story, or some very slow songs.

I think if you go wanting to absolutely love it, you will be fine. But if you go not knowing what to expect or expecting an evening of music and drama coming together, you won't quite get it here. But I think that's less the fault of the production and more of the show itself.

Back from Preview 2.

Have never seen this Sondheim before.

What works is the glorious set, the exciting start, and the 2 up tempo numbers.

What doesn't work is most of the rest of it.

It seems to have no drama, weirdly, for a musical, and yet the many characters shout at each other and argue as though a lot is at stake. The problem is we don't see enough of their younger selves, bar a few sentences, to really feel for them in their old age. It's a strange beast. I found it hard to care for either the women or the men. And I need to care about the people on the stage.

By the second half it just seemed to become a lot of set piece numbers, with the different characters Folly's. Then one of the men had a scream and collapsed, and then they all walked off. But it left me unmoved, even when those on the stage were acting moved.

It's a great idea to have a show about a reunion and memories and conflicts of the past (and this is staged well by Cooke having the younger selves permanently ghosting the older selves, albeit mostly as mutes), but the conflicts were high stakes enough. You took my husband. I took yours...

It's probably too close to Staunton's Martha to see her in this role, as a lot felt similar to that performance. But I do love that laugh she does. Janie Dee was really good, and you could feel her pent up rage from the start. Even when dancing. A sign of a great actress.

The mirror number (is it?) was when the show finally sprang to life, and the audience were able to clap rapturously (it felt like they wanted to from the off, but weren't allowed, if that makes sense?). And Janie Dee's Folly's number was great too. But apart from these, there didn't seem to be much spectacle in the numbers to match the spectacle of the set (really impressive).

I always do an audience check around me if I'm feeling a bit bored or disconnected during a show, and I looked around the stalls and realised I wasn't the only one. Not that people were slumped in their seats, but there was an ever increasing air of disappointment as the show went on that "this is what it's going to be". The occasional number of joy or energy, but then back to the dramatically lacking script and story, or some very slow songs.

I think if you go wanting to absolutely love it, you will be fine. But if you go not knowing what to expect or expecting an evening of music and drama coming together, you won't quite get it here. But I think that's less the fault of the production and more of the show itself.

I wanna hear more about Tracie Bennett! How does she do on the big number, following apprehension some on here had before?

Back from Preview 2.

Have never seen this Sondheim before.

What works is the glorious set, the exciting start, and the 2 up tempo numbers.

What doesn't work is most of the rest of it.

It seems to have no drama, weirdly, for a musical, and yet the many characters shout at each other and argue as though a lot is at stake. The problem is we don't see enough of their younger selves, bar a few sentences, to really feel for them in their old age. It's a strange beast. I found it hard to care for either the women or the men. And I need to care about the people on the stage.

By the second half it just seemed to become a lot of set piece numbers, with the different characters Folly's. Then one of the men had a scream and collapsed, and then they all walked off. But it left me unmoved, even when those on the stage were acting moved.

It's a great idea to have a show about a reunion and memories and conflicts of the past (and this is staged well by Cooke having the younger selves permanently ghosting the older selves, albeit mostly as mutes), but the conflicts were high stakes enough. You took my husband. I took yours...

It's probably too close to Staunton's Martha to see her in this role, as a lot felt similar to that performance. But I do love that laugh she does. Janie Dee was really good, and you could feel her pent up rage from the start. Even when dancing. A sign of a great actress.

The mirror number (is it?) was when the show finally sprang to life, and the audience were able to clap rapturously (it felt like they wanted to from the off, but weren't allowed, if that makes sense?). And Janie Dee's Folly's number was great too. But apart from these, there didn't seem to be much spectacle in the numbers to match the spectacle of the set (really impressive).

I always do an audience check around me if I'm feeling a bit bored or disconnected during a show, and I looked around the stalls and realised I wasn't the only one. Not that people were slumped in their seats, but there was an ever increasing air of disappointment as the show went on that "this is what it's going to be". The occasional number of joy or energy, but then back to the dramatically lacking script and story, or some very slow songs.

I think if you go wanting to absolutely love it, you will be fine. But if you go not knowing what to expect or expecting an evening of music and drama coming together, you won't quite get it here. But I think that's less the fault of the production and more of the show itself.

It matters a great deal. It's not just about a reunion of former showgirls, or an analysis of two unhappy marriages. It's also about the decline/death of the American Dream in the period following World War Two. The focus is on two former showgirls who were part of the Follies' final season in 1940 for a reason: America was at the peak of her powers, was the world's shining beacon of hope - but after the war was won, America's self-image began to change. By 1970, the US had been through Korea and was embroiled in Vietnam, the moral landscape was much more complex, and what had been shiny suddenly seemed to be tarnished. The social history encompassed by the show stretches further back than 1940, of course - I'm Still Here is full of references to specific historical moments/artifacts/incidents, and none of them are arbitrary - but it's no accident that it boomerangs between those two historical points.

Reading the comments so far it looks as if the more stars the forum member has the more they liked the show. That's quite interesting.

If anyone thinks they are going to see a glitzy, tap happy show, they should return their tickets pronto.

Thanks for your realistic perspective on this. Many of theatre dedicates are obsessed with SS (including myself), but there's a reason he's only had modest commercial success as compared with his prolific critical success. The NT has a wide audience, not only of theatre dedicates, and it may well appeal a lot less to many others. 

I'd be interested to know the ages of the people seeing it for the furst time. I think Follies is a musical for older adults. Its a show about complicated relationships, about loving and longing, its about regrets and staying in relationships when all the love has gone, staying rather than being alone. To say that the stakes weren't high enough makes me wonder if you have never experienced any of these things.

I'd be interested to know the ages of the people seeing it for the furst time. I think Follies is a musical for older adults. Its a show about complicated relationships, about loving and longing, its about regrets and staying in relationships when all the love has gone, staying rather than being alone. To say that the stakes weren't high enough makes me wonder if you have never experienced any of these things.

I think it's a valid point to say we get different things out of different shows depending on life experience- to use another Sondheim example (not having seen Follies at all yet) I loved Company 10 or so years ago when it was revived on Broadway. However I was what...24/5 at the time, so if I saw it now with a) 10 years more theatre going experience and b) 10 years more life experience of course I'd experience it differently. I'd get other things from it- particularly being closer to Bobby's age now.

However, that doesn't mean I got nothing from it- or indeed Follies. However I will say there are shows I wish I'd seen later in my theatre-going life just to have the maturity to really get the most from them. But such is theatre life, it's always changing and you grab what you can get when you get it. There's also a hell of a lot of intellectual snobbery around Sondheim, to which I say frankly go and enjoy the music and pretty sets, or go and have a life changing experience either is valid.

Also as for number of stars...that simply represents that some of us just like to talk A LOT.

Very true. I've only got 5 stars because I prattle on not because of my intilectual input.