rec.arts.theatre.musicals

Harlett O'Dowd wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:28 am, Sweevil wrote:
>> I only recently found this Clive Barnes semi-pan of FOLLIES, which I'd
>> seen referred to but had never read in full. It makes me understand
>> better why some Sondheim fans can be so defensive. Even the NYT's
>> main drama critic just didn't get it.
>>
>> Now that Sondheim's been enshrined as a kind of deity, it's hard to
>> imagine anyone could write this patronizingly about a show like
>> FOLLIES. I guess there was another bad notice in the TImes as well,
>> so Martin Gottfried was moved to write a rebuttal the Times published
>> a couple weeks later. But even Gottfried admitted the book was
>> "weak".
>>
>> /books/98/07/19/specials/
>
> MARY Crowley? Now *that's* funny!
>
> This is no way exonerates Barnes' condescention, but it should be
> noted that FOLLIES opened just after TWO BY TWO and the NO, NO
> NANNETTE revisal and just before the JOHNNY JOHNSON revival and 70,
> GIRLS, 70. That's a whole lot of old timers and "nostalgia" in a five
> month period, so one can at least understand where the snide comments
> about 78s and the adoration of D'Orsay & Shutta come from. That, of
> course, doesn't make Barnes right...

Wasn't Barnes, then, still in his phase of championing the hippy rock
musical above all else?

--

Stephen

Dolly: A kebab? It's hardly a sex life.
Twinkle: Depends what you're into.