Would COMPANY be an even better show if...

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 11:04am

.... the supporting men were a quarter as interesting as the supporting women?

The women are funny, individuated and distinctive.
Notwithstanding Peter's attraction to Bobby, the men are all conventional and boring.

(here I'm talking gender in the original book)  

 

Updated On: 10/21/19 at 11:04 AM

[Boq101]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 11:14am

I never found them all that uninteresting. I do think with the role switching in two of the couples you get a better spread of modern gender roles but I found lots interesting about Harry and David and Paul. Larry's the one I always feel like is less involved but a lot of that has to do with Joanne commanding so much of their time together. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 11:18am

Isn't that kind of the point of Furth's original book? That Bobby's by far the most interesting man onstage, yet he can't find love?

[Kad]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 11:22am

I find it very hard to keep track of the names of the husbands. 

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 11:26am

Kad said: "I find it very hard to keep track of the names of the husbands."

Same, but I also know some of that is because their names are all way more similar than the women's names. There's a Harry, Larry, Peter AND Paul? 

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 12:24pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Isn't that kind of the point of Furth's original book? That Bobby's by far the most interesting man onstage, yet he can't find love?"

I love this point.

It may even be that, being the rare musical with a man at the emotional center rather than a woman, they tried to balance that by bringing out the personalities of the supporting female characters more than the male.

And remember, it started out as a series of non-musical one-acts for Kim Stanley. So, even though only like one and a half of those one-acts ended up in the musical, I bet Furth was still in some part of his subconscious thinking "We're adding Bobby to the Kim Stanley one acts" and writing to a strong actress' needs particularly. 

 

[AADA81]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 12:51pm

I've never found Bobby all that interesting, just mostly annoying.  The score to this show is, in my opinion, far superior to the book, so it's always been a hit-and-miss experience for me.  Joanne comes alive for me, but I always wonder if that's the 'Elaine Stritch' factor being impressed upon my memory.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 1:09pm

AADA81 said: "I've never found Bobby all that interesting, just mostly annoying. The score to this show is, in my opinion, far superior to the book, so it's always been a hit-and-miss experience for me. Joanne comes alive for me, but I always wonder if that's the 'Elaine Stritch' factor being impressed upon my memory."

I agree with this. I completely understand why he hasn’t found love. He’s annoying and one of the least interesting people on stage. I thought Raul Esparzas brooding made the character even worse. I’m glad he didn’t get the Tony. The songs are brilliant. I go that musical for the songs and tolerate some of the story. 

[darquegk]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 1:44pm

Bobby is a difficult character to give much radiance to, because he's a good-time sad sack, a guy who is a little down at the best of times and a little up at the worst of times. You almost need not so much an actor who can play that, as an actor whose wheelhouse IS that. It's an eccentric blandness baked into the character.

When I read that description, the names I immediately think are Sam Rockwell and ESPECIALLY David Duchovny, who has been exclusively playing successful and charismatic schlubs for the past twenty years.

[ModernMillie3]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 3:43pm

If Matt Doyle were in the cast?! Yes, yes it would be. So excited for his casting, what an extraordinary talent. 

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 8:02pm

Bettyboy72 said: "I agree with this. I completely understand why he hasn’t found love. He’s annoying and one of the least interesting people on stage. I thoughtRaul Esparzas brooding made the character even worse. I’m glad he didn’t get the Tony. The songs are brilliant. I go that musical for the songs and tolerate some of the story."

I'm with you all the way on this. I really, really despised so much of that revival, and the brooding, depressed portrayal of Bobby that Doyle and Esparza came up with just felt like it was fighting against every thing that the script said about Bobby. I certainly would not call Esparza's Bobby to "cheer us up when we're blue" or think of him as someone who'd "take the kids to the zoo."

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 10:39pm

Despite the alleged over-exposure, that's why I liked Neal Patrick Harris's Bobby, which I must admit I only saw on film.

But he was the first Bobby (and I've seen at least a dozen) I actually believed the friends might call to babysit the kids.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 10:43pm

But to answer henrik's original question, I agree the supporting females are much more interesting than the men. And that's just one more reason we should believe the authors that they intended no homosexual subtext when they created the show.

The women are interesting because they all represent actual or theoretical possible spouses for Bobby. He even sings a song about them.

The men are more or less generic male friends. The intricacies of male-male bonding was not what captured the authors' interest.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 9:17am

I just feel like that was the original conceit of the show.  Bobby was meant to be the SOLE interesting male.  Because he's heterosexual, the female characters are lifted as the gender of his interest and attraction.  The males represent the duller versions of Bobby, living vicariously through his escapades as a single man (which is why they are really only featured musically in Have I Got a Girl for You).  This new revival with the gender-switching and same-sex pairing evens out the gender imbalance a bit more.  And to me, it's virtually the same book, but I do find it more interesting.

And agreed with those about the Doyle revival.  God, I thought the direction was dreadful and I didn't understand all the love for Esparza's performance other than Esparza fans thrilling over Esparza because he was cast as the lead.  It was like the anti-Company production of Company.

[AADA81]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 10:28am

Mister Matt said: 

And agreed with those about the Doyle revival. God, I thought the direction was dreadful and I didn't understand all the love for Esparza's performance other than Esparza fans thrilling over Esparza because he was cast as the lead. It was like the anti-Company production of Company."

I definitely agree.  Aside from the actors playing the instruments, which I hated (the "choreography" made them look like a marching band), I thought the staging was inept and confusing at times.  The whole production had a dour, depressing feel to it and I thought Esparza made it worse.  There's fun to be had in that show, but it wasn't found in this production.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 1:37pm

I'm not really much of an Esparza fan. Other than Company and Rocky Horror, I'd really have to think hard before coming up with another Broadway credit. With that being said, I saw him perform the show live the Tuesday after the Tony Awards, and I was blown away by his performance. I found him to be quite charming, witty, and fun in the role. Maybe it was the post Tony Awards energy, maybe you caught him in an off night, maybe you only saw him on DVD. In any case, my experience was quite different from what is being described here.

[AADA81]

Posted: 10/22/19 at 2:00pm

jimmycurry01 said: "I'm not really much of an Esparza fan. Other than Company and Rocky Horror, I'd really have to think hard before coming up with another Broadway credit. With that being said, I saw him perform the show live the Tuesday after the Tony Awards, and I was blown away by his performance. I found him to be quite charming, witty, and fun in the role. Maybe it was the post Tony Awards energy, maybe you caught him in an off night, maybe you only saw him on DVD. In any case, my experience was quite different from what is being described here."

I saw him in the 'Cabaret' revival in 2002 and he was terrific.  He was very funny and added a lightness and charm to the darkness of the story-line.  He was everything he could have been but wasn't in 'Company'.