What do you guys think of COMPANY?- Page 2

[newintown]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 1:55pm

Contemporary theatre pieces (that is, those that are set in the time when they were written) never entirely succeed when "auteurs" try to remove them from that time, in an attempt to prove their "timelessness." They are specific reflections of their era (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that).

In addition to Company, this would include shows like Dinner At Eight, Hair, Falsettoland, Death of a Salesman, and so many more. Moving pieces like these to other times ends up being more about the director than the piece.

[jemjeb2]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 3:06pm

Horse tears - we are in solid agreement on the Esparza "Company". I was so looking forward to it and was so disappointed. I was on a college break and in NYC and was fortunate to see the original cast (except Larry Kert, not Dean Jones played Bobby). Loved it, loved it. The audience at the Alvin Theatre (what is that theatre now anyway?) was just knocked out by it Elaine Stritch brought down the house. Loved the set etc.

I also saw a very close revival in Long Beach, Ca with Patrick Cassidy and with Carol Burnett in the Stritch role. Just great and I was so thrilled to see a show I thought I'd never see again. So the Esparza thing? Yuk.

I also felt similiarly about the same experience with "A Little Night Music". The originlal cast and the beautiful sets and costumes - so memorble. Again the recent revival -it was Bernadette and Stritch when I saw it. So disappointed. Why did they have to make it look like a funeral up there. And sorry, no one can touch Glynis John's Desiree. I like BP but her "Send in the Clowns" seemed so desperately over the top as to be unpleasant. I did sctually like Stritch better than Hermione Gingold though (although I did read complaints from some here about her performnce - not the night I went as far As I was concerned).

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 7:34pm

As so often happens, I wholeheartedly agree with henrikegerman. I'd seen countless productions of COMPANY (original Broadway, off-Broadway, national tour, stock, dinner theater, etc.) and, while loving the score, I never thought the show quite worked until the Philharmonic concert version.

For one thing, the lack of full scenery allowed Price to get in and out of the birthday party scenes much more quickly so they didn't drag as in fully staged productions. More importantly--and I admit I'm a fan--Harris is the first Bobby I've seen that might actually babysit his friends' kids (as the lyrics claim).

Updated On: 11/6/13 at 07:34 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 8:35pm

HorseTears, I agree with everything you say. The *sound* of the piece is obviously influenced by elements like late 60s pop (brilliant move to get Promises, Promises' orchestrator, Tunick to carry over some of that Bacharach sound,) etc. I think to make it really feel like it was set now it would need a hell of a lot more rewrites--in every element--than the 95 revision often used now did, and then in another ten-twenty years it would be dated again anyway.

Are there other examples of works from the past century (musical or none) where the creators themselves were so keen to keep the show set in "the present?" I know there are experimental productions, but, while Tennessee Williams fiddled with his plays a lot, Cat on a Hot Tin Room comes to mind, when he did the 1970s revision that is more often performed now he didn't set it in 1973. I think that usually Sondheim (and Furth I guess, since surely it was his idea too) has smart instincts about his works--well mostly, there are other revisions to shows I don't think much of--it kinda baffles me that they feel that Company should be set in the here and now and don't realize how every single part of it, while IMHO universally relatable, is informed by being written and set in 1970.

(Was Act II of Sunday in the last revival played as being now, or still in the '80s? That's the only other example I can possibly think about and it's not nearly as severe one.)

And while it used (mostly) the revised script, I agree with everyone else about what a revelation the Concert version was. Getting so many actors with tv experience was probably wise--this may sound like a backhanded complement, but Furth's script when played as (a very sophisticated) sitcom shows off how strong it is--not the gloomy, self serious way Doyle staged the dialogue. They largely used the original orchestrations, put back Tick Tock thank God, and, at least to me, it seemed to be set in a sorta an ambiguous 1970s.

[justoldbill]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 9:02pm

I always loved where in the script the time is listed as- NOW.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 10:45pm

Howabout a compromise. The setting is: NOW - 1970 :)

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 11:05pm

Of course a show like Company might seem easy to keep in the present, unlike, say, Cabaret. But I don't think it's much different than wanting to, say, update Sweet Charity or Promises Promises to the present. The music, as mentioned sounds 70s. The issues (35 is middle age?) are 70s. The dialogue even in the revision (ie the gay scene where they talk about wanting to "ball" someone--does anyone talk that way?) is 70s.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 11:14pm

While we're talking about the NY Phil production, can I just single out Jennifer Laura Thompson, the actress who played Jenny? Having zero interest in Wicked and not having seen Urinetown or Nice Work If You Can Get It, I wasn't the least familiar w/ JLT. Her IBDB profile tells me that her Broadway debut was in Footloose (oy), she replaced that chipper Christian blonde chick in Wicked (good gig), was nominated for a Tony for Urinetown and was in Nice Work If You Can Get It. So, I'd never had the pleasure of seeing her before.

I thought the woman was a revelation in what could easily be a forgettable minor part in Company. In one beautiful scene with her, Neil Patrick Harris and Jon Cryer she was charming, hysterically funny and then unexpectedly moving. It was intelligent, endlessly amusing and full of heart. Watching her in the marijuana scene was like watching a great actress perform the first act of an Albee play (or maybe an AR Gurney play) in 10 minutes. Does anyone know what this gifted actress is working on now?

Updated On: 11/6/13 at 11:14 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 11/7/13 at 11:02am

Cabaret was always a period piece - it was written to take place in a different time than that in which it was created.

Sweet Charity, of course, makes no sense set later than the early-60s, because that's when dance halls went extinct (among other reasons). Promises, Promises would also make little sense to anyone actually paying attention if it were moved to any time after 1970.

[sanda]

Posted: 11/7/13 at 1:14pm

I enjoy the songs a lot but feel the story kind out dated.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/7/13 at 2:34pm

Newintown--that was precisely my point. Admittedly I didn't phrase it well, but I meant the fact that Company was originally set "now" may make it more tempting a prospect to update to the current "now" while a period piece like Cabaret would never be considered for such a treatment (unless it was some experimental approach.)

Sweet Charity and Promises Promises particularly may seem more clearly set in the era they premiered than Company, but what I was trying to say is I think if you really look at Company (themes, music, dialogue...) it's just as important to keep it set at the time it was written, even if the details may seem more subtle.

Sanda--you think the ideas of trying to form a connection, fear of commitment, etc, are dated ones?

[newintown]

Posted: 11/7/13 at 2:41pm

Ah, I see - well, we're in total agreement!

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/7/13 at 6:56pm

Yes, we are!

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 11/7/13 at 9:20pm

I don't mean to pile on, but I see nothing to be gained by moving COMPANY to the 21st century.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/8/13 at 4:23am

Exactly. I suppose the creators feared that people would think the show was no longer relevant? Sigh.

[evic]

Posted: 11/8/13 at 11:00am

As a 17 year old, just getting into theater, I saw the original many times and second acted it about 50 times. It was pure NYC- sophisticated, raw, intelligent, overwhelming in it's beauty meaning lighting, sets, cast. Watching Donna McKechnie-so sexy coming down the elevator to begin Tick Tock and stopping the show, Side By Side so brilliant, Larry Kert nailing his songs, listening to the exciting orchestrations....JoAnne needs to be tough..both Elaine and Jane Russell were perfection in their sarcasm..(I never bought Carol Burnett in the role)..it changed my life and remains one of my all time favorites. The revival was a 4...the original a 10! It was totally thrilling.

[darquegk]

Posted: 11/8/13 at 12:39pm

The revisions, some of which work and some of which don't, never succeeded in pulling the show into the present. What they DID succeed in was changing the focus of the show's central conflict. By adding additional material about marriage and relationships, and somewhat muting the "birthday party" centrality by adding Marry Me A Little, the focus shifts to "Bobby is ambivalent about marriage and commitment," and away from "Bobby is having a midlife crisis as he enters middle age."

This is a compromise that, for the most part, works. Even in a show set in 1969-1970, actors of today (unless cast older) do NOT look like actors of 35 and thereabouts back then. Middle age has been moved up enough that most people, especially most employed actors, still look youthful and vital through their thirties, and even forties. The "loss of the wild oats" theme that was emphasized in the original script may still remain as subtext, but is nowhere near as important in the post-1995 version.

[FutureDirector]

Posted: 11/8/13 at 3:32pm

Company was, and still remains a groundbreaking piece of theatre. So often people forget the theatre (musical or otherwise) is about storytelling and company showed that musical theatre did not have to be linear or perfectly wrapped up plot arcs. Without company shows like Follies, Spring Awakening and the recent groundbreaking musical Fun Home would not be possible.

[sanda]

Posted: 11/8/13 at 10:08pm

EricMontreal,

The songs do that. However, Bobby the character does not relate to the song. He, as a character, never looks real to me. Like he's an ancient creature. I get the " fear of commitment" etc feelings from the songs but not from him. Like when he sang, " marry me a little", I was thinking, WTF.

[darquegk]

Posted: 11/8/13 at 10:13pm

I was always trying to decipher Bobby the cipher, until my orchestrator saw Company for the first time. She said, "So, Bobby is pretty much Ted Mosby, right?"

I can never unsee it.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/8/13 at 10:17pm

One of the issues with the book, I think, is we rarely see Bobby as Bobby, baby! Bobby, bubbe! The guy everyone wants as the godfather to their kids and their best friend. Every vignette is "Bobby is Single."

[darquegk]

Posted: 11/8/13 at 10:21pm

It's an issue of tone and performance as much as anything else. We SEE Bobby at a birthday party exchanging barbs, on dates, smoking pot, at cocktail parties. But is the tone bright, witty and friendly (as in the NPH production) or cold, melancholy and cerebral (as in the Esparza production)? These are all places Bobby can be perfectly charming, or weird and inward.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/8/13 at 10:23pm

Yes- but every scene also concludes with an event (or line) that Means Something to the Theme. Often quite heavy-handedly.

[darquegk]

Posted: 11/8/13 at 10:38pm

Yeah... it ultimately feels like a seriocomic Bill Murray movie by the end. The sort of thing Wes Anderson might have enjoyed making a film of...

(There's a dream missed opportunity for you- Wes Anderson presents "Company," a 1995 film starring Bill Murray.)

[Kad]

Posted: 11/8/13 at 10:48pm

I love Company. But not for its book. The only Sondheim show that, in my opinion, is not let down by its book is Sweeney Todd. That is not to say his shows are the sum of their parts, though.