rOcKS @ 'Company'

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 9:20pm

The current revival of 'Company' is one of those rare, cathartic theatrical experiences. It is a production that I will surely remember for the rest of my life. Leagues better than director John Doyle's previous Broadway outing SWEENEY TODD, (which oddly got better reviews than this production), I am flabbergasted at critics who were skeptical and mixed in reviewing this first-rate, near flawless mounting.
I am so infinitely overjoyed that I got to catch it before it prematurely closes on July 1st. The show itself is not perfect (I've always had issues with the book; the score is wonderful), but this production made it gleam and glisten in ways I could not have imagined possible. If you can see it before it closes and if you have the leisure to go get tickets, do it now. You will not regret it.
John Doyle's recent style of direction (which for anyone who doesn't know involves the actors acting, singing, dancing, etc as well as accompanying themselves and eachother on instruments on stage) works much, much better in this show than it did with TODD. I thought that in TODD, it never really made sense...why are mental patients carrying tubas and playing the piano? But here, these New Yorkers playing instruments kind of at least it easier to get used to. I think Doyle has yet to find the 110% perfect material to use his directorial methods on; but he surely will.
Here, he comes pretty damn close. While the technical conventions of the performing musicians are still a bit hard to get used to and awkward in some spots, the overall sheen of it only elevated the show (especially in the second act) to a level of higher intelligence and allows for some really wonderful moments.
The cast, like TODD's cast is incredibly talented (a majority of the performers and their standbys are making their Broadway debuts in this quadruple-threat production; something they should all be greatly proud of.)
Elizabeth Stanley is a bit too one-dimensional as April and doesn't allow for much character development (which is crucial for every role in this show besides Bobby, as most of the roles only have one or two scenes with substantial lines and have only fifteen minutes or so to get their entire story across). The same can be said for Bruce Sabath. The rest of the cast melds perfectly together, especially Heather Laws (the obvious audience favorite...she was hilarious, and the audience let her know at curtain call how much they loved her) and the always wonderful Barbara Walsh who delivered a powerful "Ladies Who Lunch" and provided sprightly and wry humor and pathos during "The Little Things You Do Together." It must be so difficult to play a role cemented in theater history by one of the greats of Broadway, Elaine Stritch, and Walsh does a stellar job here. Also worth mentioning was Kelly Jeanne Grant who made a lasting impression on me in the one, small scene that her character is in. She was really sensational.
Of course though, the real news here is the breakthrough performance of Raúl Esparza. His Bobby is a character recreation for the ages. Not only does he take on the role with what seems to be chilling ease and conviction, he reinvents it and takes a totally new twist on such an iconic male part for the theater. His acting is laid back in a way that is unpretentious yet sensationally convincing and his voice is one of the best on Broadway right now. It's one of the best male performances I have ever seen on stage. How he lost the Tony to Hyde Pierce (who is probably hilarious in CURTAINS, but nowhere near the grandness of Esparza's Bobby) I will never know. He will get his taste of Tony gold though, that you can bet on. His talent has staying power, and after this performance in this show, I can't imagine him not being offered more great roles to showcase his brilliance. His "Being Alive" brought the house down (standing ovation & what had to be over two minutes of applause followed the chilling song) and his emotions were so evident during the song that I felt tears streaming down my cheeks. I have only been brought to tears once or twice before in a theater, but Esaprza's "Being Alive" just left me reeling. It was one of the most transcending moments I've ever witnessed in the theater.

David Gallo created a beautifully spare yet intricate set for this production, Ann Hould-Ward's costumes were fitting for each specific character they were created for (much about these intricate characters was summed up just by the clothes they each wore), and Thomas C. Hase's lighting design should have earned him a Tony award this year. Mary-Mitchell Campbell's orchestrations were gorgeous as well.

This production of COMPANY stuck with me not because everything about it was perfect but because everything about it came together in such a perfect way; and that I believe, can be mainly contributed to John Doyle. He is a brilliant man and I can't wait to see what show he tackles next.

That being said, this production of COMPANY just may be the best musical revival I've ever seen on Broadway. I absolutely LOVED it.

****/****

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 9:27pm

Thank you for this great review! I agree with just about everything you said.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 9:31pm

This would have been more appropriate and applicable in last November, not a week before it closes. At this point, posting a thread like this is just a self-serving gesture to show-off (i.e. regurgitate) the same opinion already expressed by New York critics, BWW members and the Tony committee.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 9:33pm

Are you joking?

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 9:42pm

Great review and I don't think it matters when you posted it. The only thing I disagree with is your opinion of Elizabeth Stanley. I think the point of April's character is that she is one-dimensional. As she puts it, "I'm very dumb". But that's just my interpretation. Glad you enjoyed the show. I went back on Saturday afternoon for my second viewing and found myself enjoying the show more than the first time I saw it back in November.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 9:44pm

What about my post implied that I was joking? You might as well have posted a thread today to say "I think Phantom of the Opera will do well on Broadway." It doesn't take much effort (or much of a critic) to express opinions that have long since been validated.

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 9:48pm

The only thing I disagree with is your opinion of Elizabeth Stanley. I think the point of April's character is that she is one-dimensional.

That was what I disagreed on.

[vfd88]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 9:52pm

rocks-Did you see it today? I was there, front row. It was truly an amazing piece of theatre, and Raul gave the best performance I have ever seen on a stage. I feel honored to have seen it.

[artscallion]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:03pm

Thanks for the thoughtful review! I'm seeing it next weekend and the anticipation is killing me! I loved Doyle's Sweeney, so It's great to hear that you think this is even better.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:03pm

skittles- So if you found my review unnecessary, why did you take the time to respond to something that you thought I did as some kind of an ego-boost? I always post reviews after I see shows; I saw Company today so I posted a review. If you have a problem with it then ignore it. There's no reason for you to tell me I'm not much of a critic and basically that my opinions don't matter because they've already been said. There have been people who have been less enthusiastic about the show and people who have been more enthusiastic about the show. Every single review for every single show has a different opinion somewhere in it and if mine happened to reiterate what others have said then I'm sorry but I'm not going to hold back just because it's been posted already. It's a review; theres no need to have such an attitude about a review. Seriously, I think some people on BWW start arguments for no reason at all...

Obviously other people are interested in what I have to say about the show. If you think what I have to say is pointless then let the post die and I'll realize that since no one posted to tell me it's a good review or to start a friendly conversation about the performances or other aspects of the show that people either agreed with most of what I said or felt it wasn't necessary to respond to it. Your response to my review, for example, was not necessary.

I know this is going to lead to some stupid, overblown fight and honestly, I don't know why I'm engaging in it. I've been on BWW for over three years and I haven't learned yet just to ignore comments like yours...so whatever you have to say to this, I'm not responding. You'll just have something snarky to say back, so it's not even worth it...

Anyway, yes, I went this afternoon vfd...and yes, Raúl was fantastic.

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:04pm

i liked Elizabeth Stanley's take on APRIL.
Updated On: 6/24/07 at 10:04 PM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:06pm

I mean, I thought she was good, but she kinda only conveyed one side to the character and I know (from seeing multiple previous productions of the show) that the character has so many more layers that can be picked at.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:06pm

Wow, a lot of us were in the audience today.

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:06pm

I did too. She was super-ditz, but it works.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:07pm

The fact that you asked why mental patients in lab coats were holding instruments means you didn't get the concept for SWEENEY at all.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:08pm

Emcee, if you don't mind me asking (I always see you posting about the show and know you're a huge Raúl fan), how many times have you seen this production?

I wish I would have caught it earlier so I could have seen it a few more times before it closed...

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:11pm

FOA, I did get the concept to SWEENEY. I've seen the show on stage countless times...

Jeez, no one can have their own opinion on BWW can they? That hasn't changed...

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:13pm

Did I slam your opinion?

Nope.

Merely said that I don't believe you understood the concept.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:13pm

A bunch And not just because of him.

Updated On: 6/24/07 at 10:13 PM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:16pm

Well I disagree...I understood the concept and respected Doyle's vision for TODD. It was the technicalities of that production that didn't really work for me not the whole concept of the show...

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:34pm

My point was that the underlying attitude in your review was as if no one else has seen or heard about the show before. I would understand that if the show had just opened and everyone was eager to hear every detail, but after 8 months, it's patronizing.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 6/25/07 at 12:02am

Isn't that the point of writing a review though, to write it for someone who has not seen it? If rOcKs had come on here today and written "Omigod you guys Company is so good, but nothing new to say," then you would be asking he/she was wasting our time with that.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/25/07 at 12:31am

Isn't that the point of writing a review though, to write it for someone who has not seen it?

Yes, and that's why professional reviews are published the day after the show opens, and why personal reviews on BWW for shows shows like Rent and Wicked and Beauty and the Beast are redundant. Because at this point, there have been more than enough personal reviews written for the benefit of those who have not seen it.

And if someone still hasn't seen Company at this point, I doubt one more gushing review is going to lure them back in the last week.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 6/25/07 at 12:37am

...

...and people call ME a bitch.

[vfd88]

Posted: 6/25/07 at 12:44am

Lizzie, I love you.

Who else was there today?