COMPANY in Cincinnati Review- Page 3

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 10:18am

Well, before I knew a thing about the show (yet had tickets in hand) I was asking a few Sondheim fanatic friends of mine, and one said that Bobby is, no-ifs-ands-or-buts bisexual. The other was like "no way, he's definitely not."

That's a question I'd like to ask Raul. It seems like no matter what you think that scene meant, it could be the opposite.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 10:35am

I just got back from Cincinatti yesterday after seeing Sunday's matinee. My mind could not have been blown anymore by this production. This was my first time seeing Raul Esparza and he was the perfect Bobby. I have never really liked Bobby before, but Mr. Esparza brought something to him that made me feel like Bobby wasn't just this playboy running around, shagging chicks. He was a sympathetic character without losing his edge of cluelessness and fear.

The entire cast was brilliant and I felt that their playing was aboslutely the top of beautiful. The fact that everyone played instuments made total sense to me for Company. It seemed perfectly natural that all the friends and girlfriends would be the orchestra behind Bobby.

I wish I had the time and money to go and see this again. It's absolutely worth the trip.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 10:36am

YAY!

But he is an awfully sexy little playboy.

I'm finding that the more I let it sort of sit and the more I think about it, the more I love it -- and the more affecting it becomes. Especially his performance. After getting over the initial "whoa, he's incredible!" I'm thinking back and realizing how truly layered and calibrated the performance was; those are the kinds of things he does that I can't get over, and that make him worth flying over 500 miles for.

Updated On: 3/21/06 at 10:36 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 10:43am

Given that the writers do insist that Bobby *is* fundamentally heterosexual, you have to wonder why they felt the need to put the new scene in that hints about some bisexual experimentation. In this day and age with reviewers and audiences so "gay happy" they are naturally going to watch that scene and misinterpret COMPANY as some kind of sexuality search. If I ever directed the show, I'd lobby to cut that new dialogue.

I'm sure NYC is "checking out" the option of moving the production to the city. But, like the original Doyle SWEENEY in London = the logical choice would be a limited run at B.A.M.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 10:43am

I've got to say that Raul's "Marry Me a Little" and "Being Alive" broke my heart. I was crying during both.

And need I say that hearing "Sorry-Grateful" live for my first time ever made me cry? Kudos to the men of the cast (I've completely blanked on their names) for doing this song so beautifully. And the orchestrations for it? Oh my GAWD.

Updated On: 3/21/06 at 10:43 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 10:46am

I don't think THIS particular interpretation hints at Bobby being anything other than straight; I think the proposition is there to further insitinuate confliction, but that it sometimes works against itself because it's so open to interpretation.

Being Alive ALMOST made me cry, but then I was just too f*cking happy. Seeing him perform like that is honestly just like a mental orgasm.

[sicetergo]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 11:18am

"If I ever directed the show, I'd lobby to cut that new dialogue."

Far too much is made of the re-instatement of the Peter-Robert scene. The issue with doing the scene as it was previously constituted was that it didn't really work, it just becomes a one joke moment, that led nowhere. The additional dialogue makes it an important differencein the arc of Robert's experience - Robert gets hit on by Peter and then Joanne, is this really what he's got in store for himself? What is the alternative?

That scene starts the final push for Robert to start to make up his mind. If the scene becomes a question of sexuality then it's just been played for the surface and not well at all - just as with the earlier scene with Jenny and David and the pot, if that's just about the pot then you've missed the point.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 11:31am

I honestly didn't get that Bobby was repressing his homosexuality at all from that scene. It never even crossed my mind.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 11:32am

I think I spent too much time trying to figure out what the trick was there -- and what you were SUPPOSED to think of him to really see what I thought. I think the intended interpretation is that he's like "God, no!" and means it. I had definitely been curious to see how he would play that.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 12:03pm

Okay I'll throw it out there. How much of the question of Bobby's sexuality do you think is determined, not by the script, but by the actor playing him? It seems that most major productions recently have featured some pretty obviously gay men in the role. I would think on some level that would contribute to an audiences' asumption that the character is at least bisexual.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 12:26pm

I'm sure that it does factor in, but wouldn't that be the case for most heterosexual male roles in theatre? I guess it's more of an issue with Company because Bobby's sexuality is in question already because we wonder why he's still alone and what he's afraid of that keeps him from committing to a relationship. I think that a particularly good actor, regardless of his own sexuality, can convincingly play Bobby as completely straight... but, then again, it's possible that nuances of the actor's own personality will show through. Honestly, though, the perception that Bobby is bisexual sounds like it's aided by that scene more than anything. Though it doesn't sound like it's about sexuality as much as highlighting yet more reasons to fear marriage and committment, if it weren't included I doubt that many people would jump on the idea that Bobby might be insecure about his sexuality. (This is my very subjective opinion, as I've never seen Company staged before.)

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 12:27pm

That Variety review is interesting this part especially:

"Is it too soon after "Sweeney Todd" for Broadway to host yet another Sondheim musical in which actors double as musicians -- especially when the demon barber has yet to go beyond the critical plaudits and bring home any real bacon?"

Considering what was just announced with Sweeney, does this make a difference, or was this critic just making excuses they didn't expect to have to back up?

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 12:29pm

Well, "recouped" doesn't mean that it's quite bringing home the bacon, right? I took that to mean that it hasn't been particularly profitable so far.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 12:37pm

Well, I know that the Variety writer probably wasn't expecting this, but recouping the initial investment in 19 weeks for a Sondheim show on Broadway is unheard of.

Recouped means that other than running costs (which are ridiculously low), it WILL be turning a profit for now on.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 12:40pm

Good points.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/21/06 at 12:54pm

Well, COMPANY has a bigger cast than the Doyle SWEENEY, so it potentially could cost more than SWEENEY to mount on Broadway. Then again, I doubt Barbara Walsh and Raul Esparza would demand the kinds of salaries of Cerveris and LuPone, so perhaps the finances would balance out.

But then you have the question of the NYPhil production next year. Do you cancel that if you have a Broadway revival? Do they have exclusive NYC rights?

Lots of factors going on here, but the reviews certainly make a case for this COMPANY coming to New York - even if just for a very limited run.

And its probably worth noting for those who read this thread and not the Variety review in its entirety that the critic opens with the concern of a comparison to Doyle's SWEENEY and basically spends the rest of the review stating why the concerns aren't warranted and why the production should be done on Broadway.
Updated On: 3/21/06 at 12:54 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 12:56am

Broadway.com's review re-cap:

http://www.broadway.com/Gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=526482

Okay I'll throw it out there. How much of the question of Bobby's sexuality do you think is determined, not by the script, but by the actor playing him?

Assuming you meant the actor's performance and not the actor's off-stage orientation (and that latter doesn't bleed into the former), I think that's a huge determining factor. Maybe THE determining factor. I think with a scene like that, you only know what the actor gives you. I saw it written before I had any actor's interpretation in my mind, and I wasn't sure what I thought he was "supposed" to be. I think it's very easily the actor's decision, a la the basketball scene in Doubt

On a related note, I've always thought it interesting how much we let our prior knowledge of an actor's preference influence what we see in his performance -- I do think it can change how we see things in a lot of ways. You can't really erase what you know, and I don't think letting it project itself onto the way you view the performance is really something that can be helped.

I wonder if it's not so much an actor's ability to convincingly abandon his own orientation and play Bobby as a believable straight man as it is the way he would CHOOSE to interpret the character. I think having the scene alone -- the very simple fact of its presence -- probably naturally leads the audience to think he might at least be a little bisexual, even if the intent was just to add more to the conflict mix. I still think what the audience ends up thinking is entirely at the mercy of what the actor offers in that scene. If the scene weren't there at all, would you wonder "oh, maybe he's gay?" I'm not so sure.

As for Raul's particular take on Bobby, even though the homosexual experience scene is still not completely cut-and-dry, his performance is free of his usual on-stage flambuoyance. He's playing the part without any hint of a thing but heterosexuality. (And effing genius.)

Updated On: 3/22/06 at 12:56 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 10:54am

Bumping the reviews simply in light of continuing potential transfer buzz. This is really amazing.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 10:56am

Go, Company, go!!!

[amasis]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 1:57am

you have to wonder why they felt the need to put the new scene in that hints about some bisexual experimentation.

I can't remember where I read this, since it's been years. It might have been on an article on sondheim.com. But anyway, I read that the little scene was put in *because* there were questions regarding Bobby's sexuality. People were wondering if the reason he couldn't commit was because he was gay, and so they added that scene -- I guess to show that it was something he had already explored, and that no, that wasn't the issue.
Updated On: 3/24/06 at 01:57 AM

[JO125]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 2:00am

I was searching around for Company info and came across this interview with Raul Esparza about Company.

Not a review but scroll down for an MP3 of a 12-13 minute audio of an interview with Raul.

91.7 WVXU Cincinnati/Around Cincinnati

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 2:03am

!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you!!

(I thought I had killed this thread.)

[JO125]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 2:05am

Here's another little review from the Dayton Daily News, just because it's nice to read great reviews of this show:


Second Thoughts

[JO125]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 2:06am

Well Luv, I brought it back up!
It's a shame to let a good thread go to waste.

And that is a great interview!!!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 2:18am

Thank you! I'm listening to it now.

AHA! I'd been wondering for YEARS if that was actually Sondheim on the answering machine at the end of tick tick BOOM!