Follies

But wasn’t she only ever in the one number, as part of the chorus? She wasn’t a soloist.

I thought it was entirely deliberate - that Sally had an inflated sense of her talents back then, setting up her fantasies in the present.

We also caught this (finally!) a couple of nights ago. Both of us felt underwhelmed by it. There are some good performances and we liked how it is staged in the Olivier. However, the musical itself is not great. It's OK, but not great. I like the cleverness of some of Sondheim's lyrics and the variety of styles in the show, but somehow it did not connect. However, it is great to see the Olivier packed out and for such a rousing audience response.

Finally finding time (ok wasting time) by offering thoughts. I loved it in terms of being a technically brilliant production of a technically brilliant musical. But it didn't overwhelm me.

It did in some respects- the staging, the costumes, the performances all are virtually faultless. In particular a moment for Janie Dee belting her face off in that final number. And her flawless delivery throughout. And for Phillip Quast and THAT voice. For me Imelda was good, but not up there with what Janie Dee was doing. But in fairness it could be a character issue rather than actor issue.

I do love the concept of Follies...but for me it falls short in the execution. The idea of the Follies meeting up again has SO much potential, so many interesting stories...but for me the ones Sondheim focused on were the least interesting. Yes the idea of love and regret is eternal. But what of the other stories- the careers found lost and found again, the women out there still seducing and living their best lives, those single and loving it. For me the love 'triangle' 'quadrangle' whatever it is seems too simple a way out almost, and I hate to say this of the great Sondheim, the lazy way of telling this story.

It's still a moving one, and I felt poignantly the sadness and regret and tragedy of those characters. And that's real and raw in the writing and performance. But I constantly wanted more of what I wasn't getting- the other Follies stories. I was so fascinated by those glimpses it gives us and ultimately that was a frustration.

I still loved it, it just didn't for me grasp at my heart or my head like other Sondheim does. Or like other musicals did. I'm so glad I saw it because it is a masterclass in how to perform a musical. Truly, the might of the NT behind it shows what can be done with those resources (both monetary and talent wise) and that side of it was truly phenomenal. I had a wonderful time, I'm glad I saw it and I don't think I'll need to see another production because that won't be topped. It's still not making it into my top Sondheim personally.

Will be back.

Out of curiosity, what price would be acceptable for the programme?

Ah, good to know. I think that NT programmes (from what I've seen) are of really good quality, compared to the silly advert-filled programmes ATG sells in Edinburgh.

Re the story choices of Follies, they're down to James Goldman, not Sondheim and, of course, Goldman has been heavily criticized for some of those choices. Personally I think his book is excellent and my big takeaway from Dominic Cooke's show was its reinforcement of that opinion.

One cannot criticize it for the road it didn't take - so to speak. It tells the story Goldman and Sondheim wanted to tell. It's about the core quartet - there are no other stories. The most fully fleshed other character, Carlotta, gives us her entire life in one song. One may not always empathise with Buddy and Sally and Phyllis and Ben but they are substantial creations, full of nuance and hidden depths, revealed only in stages as they come apart at the seams. And then there's Goldman's great masterstroke, the younger selves weaving through every scene and showing us - not telling us - exactly who these people were and are.

I find Goldman's work in Follies rich and insightful. I find new things in it every time I see it or listen to a cast recording. Of course Sondheim is the great genius and his score is sublime. But at least some of the credit for that goes to Goldman whose book provided such an inspiration for that genius.

The only thing directed your way, Em, was the road it didn't take part - and I guess we continue to disagree on that. I don't believe one can criticize Follies or The Ferryman or anything else for not being what one wants it to be. It is what the authors wanted it to be. Judge it on that basis and not on the fact that it isn't something else.

I agree but I found all those lovely nuances just got lost on such a vast modern stage ... I wish it was staged in an old playhouse, Wilton’s or quirky studio space ...

I spied a tweet earlier that hinted that there may be a cast recording on the way for this production. Here's hoping.

Re Ben getting the last number I assume it's because he is revealed (contrary to appearances) to be the most fragile of the four, the one who completely breaks down. What could follow Live, Laugh, Love? It's the natural conclusion to the show.

And, Emi, I think we're a bit at cross purposes. I'm not at all suggesting that plays or musicals cannot be interpreted in different ways. But, as CP says, criticism must be based on what is, not on what one wishes it to be.