Threaded Order Chronological Order
| COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: Clancy 02:43 am EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| Excellent production. Sets, costumes, acting, accents are all good. Marianne Elliott as Director The decision to have Bobby instead be Bobbie is a masterstroke. Every production of Company I’ve seen Bobby is a cipher. Why would a 35-year-old man be concerned whether he should get married? A 35-year-old woman adds much needed complexity. It: • Frames her friendships with the married couples more deeply. • Makes her interactions with her boyfriends/suitors less power-driven • Adds a delicious lesbian undertone to her interactions with Joanne And Rosalie Craig (Bobbie) can not only sing and act, she has wicked comedic timing. Stritch would be proud. Patti LuPone as Joanne Was lucky enough to see the Neil Patrick Harris production at Lincoln Center where LuPone played Joanne for the first time. There are similarities to her performance as Rose in Gypsy at City Center versus the Broadway production. Both were excellent. But you can tell in the Company London production that she’s had time to internalize the role just as she did as Rose in the Broadway Gypsy. She is an Actor Who Sings. And it makes her performance the best Joanne I’ve seen. In every other production of Company I always took the last stanza of Ladies Who Lunch to be Joanne talking about herself: “Here’s to the girls who just watch…” What is radical about this production is that this last stanza is now lazerly directed at Bobbie. Not Joanne. “Look into their eyes and you see what they know…” And by the way, No Flannel Mouth. One other note: during the two performances I attended the loudest curtain call applause was for Jonathan Bailey. I hope he makes the transfer to New York. |
|
| Link | COMPANY Advertisment |
| reply to this message | |
| disagree on almost all points | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 11:19 am EST 02/18/19 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:18 am EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - Clancy 02:43 am EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| I agree about Patti, who was fantastic in this, and I agree that Rosalie can act and sing and has comic timing - however I think a lot of her choices as Bobby as at odds with the show and text, especially awful and irony-laced delivery (or should I say sabotage) of "Marry Me A Little". Every other point you make as a strength I found to be a legit and in some cases profound weakness of the production and I thought Maryanne Elliot, in her direction and the ways she did the revamping, often showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the piece. And I felt it made her relationships to the couples make almost no sense - ex: I'm supposed to believe she is mainly friends with the men in each of these couples? There's so little back story for any of them, all we get is who Bobby talks to/how and how they talk to her, and who she goes to for advice in "Sorry/Grateful"... so why did they not put any women in "Sorry Grateful", but gave "Poor Baby" to the men? Also "Someone Is Waiting" makes no sense now because based on the writing and the casting and the acting in the scenes with the couples, i do not for a SECOND believe Bobbi considered any of these male friends as potential husbands for her and now ones that could have gotten away, or archetypes even of men she would want but didn't get. I don't know what Company you were watching before but Bobby's interactions with the girlfriends were never "power driven", not in any of the many professional and amateur productions of the show I've seen and I've seen many. And I don't think it's written that way either. Unless you mean all interactions between a man "withholding" and a woman wanting more are inherently power driven which, i'm sorry, I don't think is a relevant issue to take or way to see those scenes in this play. If you watch that and think Bobby is withholding for a power game rather than an inability to connect to himself or others, you're missing the point. I also think the boyfriends made no sense... the way the re-did Marta, he's funny but he would not singing "Another Hundred People" (and it doesn't help that the actor who sang it couldn't handle it vocally at all -- and don't get me started on the horrendous and fully distracting ADDED CHOREOGRAPHY to this song where she had subway cars come out with "people of nyc" doing choreo in the subways during the song... what a terrible distrust of the song and audience). I actually didn't buy any of the male versions of the girlfriends, or even more I didn't buy Bobbi's interest in most of them. But as much or more an issue, "You Could Drive a Person Crazy" doesn't make sense musically anymore. It's a hard number for modern audiences because it's a specific old musical reference... but the way it's done now is just confusing. And despite loving Patti in this, I'm not sure what lesbian undertone you saw... if they wanted lesbian undertones then why did they not keep the text as it was and have Joanne build to saying "when are WE gonna make it"? I was waiting for this, and was excited for it. I thought I saw what you were seeing in the undertones until that was changed and she instead offered her husband up to Bobbi. Now I will say, I rather loved this on its own... it was interesting and helped make sense of Joanne and Paul's relationship in this version. BUT i don't think it's a better choice than Joanne proposing sex between her and female Bobbi and I don't know why they ran away from that when push finally came to shove. I also disagree about the sets... ha, and i heard so much praise for it. First it looked like the leftovers from her production of Angels in America. I don't know why Eliot thinks New York City is summed up visually by long neon colored light bulb borders but... she does. I mean, there were many clever things about the set, I'll give it that, and some of them worked really well and added to it. But some took away. And those lengthy "moments" for the scene changes just killed the momentum to me. Why is all that necessary? But other than the generic "apartment" sets, which did look like normal nyc apts, nothing about the set said new york city to me. Also, the score sounded so blah, even lame sometimes. I just wish orchestrations were a bigger part of the budget of these revivals. As for the accents, I'm curious if you're American? As an American I did not feel the accents were all good. Many were good and none were horrendous but I would definitely not say they were all good. Also some of the acting was broad and some of it was grounded... it was, as with many other aspects that I have issues with, as if they didn't trust the material or the audience enough. And maybe for a very American musical in a British production, that was necessary, I dunno. Oh and while I loved Jonathan Bailey, and felt that in his scene and "Not Getting Married Today" were standout and worked very well IF they were stand alone and not part of the musical Company. But as it stands, this was one of the biggest failings of the gender-reversed Company. Having Bobbi ask her gay male best friend (who now we have no history for, whereas Bobby and Amy had a history) to marry her as the lead in to Marry Me A Little is such a huge mistake and misunderstanding of how and why that all worked so well before. At this point in the play Bobbi has to seriously hope that the relationship she describes in MMAL is possible and even preferable... nothing about the joke of asking her GAY best friend to marry her sets that up. Ugh there are so many issues fundamentally with the way they did this. You know who should have been gay, if only one couple, the ones who get divorced then stay together! A comedy bit before that may have been funny because it's so abnormal, especially decades ago, but now the way it's written it is not believable. However if they made it a divorce with an open relationship going forward, something very very common for gay men, it would have been relevant to today and very believable. So I'm not saying gender switching in Company can't work, but I do not think it did in this version. The more I think about it the more frustrated I get because I so much wanted it to be as great as so many have said. And while there were many things I liked about it, and I'm glad I saw it, it was a major let down in so many ways both as a production of Company and as a go at the gender reversal version. *and while the biological clock/baby nightmare version of tick tock is clever, interesting and relevant to a female character... the show is not about feeling your biological clock run out, and the show and Bobbi's journey in it are not at all written to reflect that. Trying to force it to be about that 20 minutes before the show is over and we get to "Being Alive", which we've been building to and is about opening up to be vulnerable and to connect to another person, in strength and weakness, etc, is about a relationship not about being a mother (in this context). It's a good and valid idea that just, to me, in this version, did not fit despite how much on paper it seems like it could. I think this was all worth trying, but I don't think this version should be a definitive "female bobbi" version of Company. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: You are spot on Chazwaza.... | |
| Posted by: bway1430 01:56 am EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: disagree on almost all points - Chazwaza 11:18 am EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| This was one of the biggest disappointments of the year and about as unexciting as a production of COMPANY could be. I have admired this score for decades but if this production had been my first intro I would never have listened to it again. I have nothing positive to say about it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Here! Here! | |
| Posted by: portenopete 03:47 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: disagree on almost all points - Chazwaza 11:18 am EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| I'm with you on all of this. The idea that people are positing- that this is now the "definitive" Company- is mind-boggling to me. I would like to see another actor as Bobbi. Rosalie Craig to me is an alabaster princess. (Of course the first time I saw her was in The Light Princess, so I may be biased....) She doesn't exude much sexuality and I think Bobbi needs to be as horny and vulpine as Bobby is in the original. The trade off in the show is "how long can I go it alone and use sex as a substitute for a deeper, more long-lasting and possibly painful relationship?" We're not accustomed to seeing women display open and unapologetic lust on screen or on stage, so I think the casting needs to be pointed in that direction. (A young Patti would have been very interesting!) Stephanie Block comes to mind as someone who might fit the bill. Of course the biological clock is a very real and pressurised impetus for women to "settle down", but that is not what Company is about. I think Sondheim must just be happy people are doing his work, that the royalties are coming in and people are talking about him. I can't believe a man with the rigorous intellect and sharp wit that he has could not see the profound flaws in the results of Ms Elliot's reimagining. I'm not sure Company will ever have the impact not had in 1970. That book by George Furth is just so ear-shatteringly hackneyed that a modern audience has to take a huge leap to take the characters seriously. All the karate-playing and pot-smoking is just so painful to watch, even in the solidest productions. I'm so glad I have Sam Mendes' 1995 Donmar production to keep me warm and remember the depth of feeling that Adrian Lester brought to the role. He was able to ooze sex while still convincing as a little boy lost. (I was front row centre and watching "Barcelona", I felt almost like April we were so close.) Oh! And saying that "Randy/Andy" is as good a lyric as "June/April" is absurd! (Maybe if the show were set in England, "randy" might have worked as a double entendre, but not in NYC.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here! Here! | |
| Posted by: hrhlc 10:06 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: Here! Here! - portenopete 03:47 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| Yes! I could have sworn I was the only person on Earth not convinced by the new production of Company. Lupone was, indeed, terrific, and the claustrophobic direction was effective, but the basic conceit of the gender bent "Bobbie" just didn't work at all. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here! Here! | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 06:21 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: Here! Here! - portenopete 03:47 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| I hate to resort to a pedantic post, but unless you are specifically pointing out your location and doing so quite emphatically, I think you mean: "Hear! Hear!" | |
| Link | Some discussion on this point. |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| LOL. | |
| Posted by: portenopete 07:36 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Here! Here! - Quicheo 06:21 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| That's embarrassing! Thanks for pointing it out! Sometimes a bit of pedantry is needed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here! Here! | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:58 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: Here! Here! - portenopete 03:47 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| Couldn't agree more about the Mendes/Lester COMPANY. It's the best one I've ever seen (I'm way too young to have seen the original), and the one that most fully made the show work in a modern setting. And his direction where it was clear how Bobby was mainly observing and moving in and out with ease made it work so well. In this production i was always left wondering "why is it staged like Bobbi is part of everything but she doesn't do or say anything... these scenes don't work as people hanging out". I don't agree about the book though. Even in the Doyle revival i remember laughing throughout thinking "this script is much fresher than I imagined it would be", it still somehow felt not-really-dated and funny. There are still people like these characters and even the pot smoking scene, when played right and directed properly and with a sensitively to how it can come off, doesn't seem at all unreal or stale. And if they would just update Karate to any number of other newer trendy things like, there'd be little to say about it. But the scene itself still works for me. I truly think the way Company would work now is with a gay male Bobby and all or mostly gay male couples. Gay men now are where straight men were in 1969, especially with marriage and commitment and sex. Every level of it clicks for that life, and for straight people in "now" (fill in the year) or a woman (which the show was clearly not actually written to be about), there are tons of concessions and compromises that have to be made with the text... none really for a gay version. Not to mention that it was written and conceived entirely by gay men, so I think whether we choose to acknowledge it or not that layer is and always has been there in the writing. And every scene and character plays with a corresponding gay person or couple I know. It's a shame Sondheim has never said yes to it, but maybe he will before he dies now that the female Bobbi has been allowed. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here! Here! | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 04:57 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:53 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Here! Here! - Chazwaza 03:58 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| I truly think the way Company would work now is with a gay male Bobby and all or mostly gay male couples. Gay men now are where straight men were in 1969, especially with marriage and commitment and sex. Well, of course a lot of people have (as we all know) made the assumption that Bobby is gay because he seems to not be able to commit to a woman. This is one of the eternal arguments to be made about this show, no matter what. (I personally think that opinion is hogwash, but I do see why people think it's valid.) I do think that sometime down the line, when gay marriage is truly an accepted/expected part of our society, one could do a true gay-themed version. But my feeling right now is that gay marriage is still a new thing - a wonderful thing, of course - but not something people expect yet. And it seems to me that the conflict with Bobby (in the original) is that he's not conforming to the societal expectation that marriage is something all - or most - people do. So, making Bobby an out gay man, with everyone trying to marry him off, still rings somewhat hollow in 2019. (In our day, just because gay men/women CAN get married doesn't mean we think it's so strange yet when they DON'T. It might be a different case if Bobby had a longterm steady boyfriend and the issue was, why don't they tie the knot? But for Bobby as a single gay male to be questioned about why he isn't married - I just don't think we're there yet.) In the meantime, I tend to agree with those of you who like the original version of the show just the way it is. It doesn't need to change at all to work - and I'm also fine with the 70's references intact - I don't need the show to be set "NOW" for it to work. It still resonates with basic issues of the human condition, no matter when it's set. And that's what makes it work so well for me. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here! Here! | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 05:24 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:23 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Here! Here! - Chromolume 04:53 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think Bobby is gay necessarily in the original Company... though I do think it's very easy to make that case. But it doesn't change that the show as written can and is also true for many straight men and just people in general. Which is why I love the show as it originally was -- though I do think including Marry Me A Little is a huge improvement for Bobby's emotional and mental journey/growth toward "Being Alive", and I think a necessary thing for the audience, not to mention a f*cking great song. I'm sure the show worked, especially as a new show introducing new things for a musical, in 1970, without MMAL, but I think it's necessary now. But I do think the show makes the most sense now in a gay version with a gay bobby. And I definitely have to disagree with you about waiting until gay marriage is more pervasive and accepted. I think we've had it long enough that gay men under 40, especially ones living a more "mainstream" lifestyle, are expected by friends (straight and gay alike) and definitely family who now have had many years to know marriage as a legit option, to get married or to at least find a committed partner. In fact for a lot of straight people, it legitimizes what a gay life and relationship is. It no longer has to be thought of as some naturally unconventional or untraditional union. But either way I'm very much the gay Bobby in my life as Company presents it (or how a "gay" Company would), and it rings very true. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here! Here! | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:33 am EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Here! Here! - Chazwaza 05:23 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| "I don't think Bobby is gay necessarily in the original Company... though I do think it's very easy to make that case." It's always been impossible for me to understand how anyone can think the point of the original version of COMPANY is that Bobby can't commit to marrying a woman because he's gay. Such an interpretation reduces the entire show to a one-line joke, and frankly, I think that interpretation displays a stunning lack of intelligence -- as if closeted homosexuality is the only reason reason why a man won't marry a woman, and as if there can be no other, more complex reason for such avoidance. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here! Here! | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 12:35 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Here! Here! - Michael_Portantiere 12:33 am EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| I think you are completely projecting onto what i said something you seem to want me to have said so that you can insult my intelligence. I did not say that I think Bobby is gay, I said the opposite. I have always been a defender of him being straight and that dismissing everything the show does by simply saying "oh, he's in the closet" does a disservice to the point(s) of the show. BUT I think it displays another stunning lack of intelligence to think that being closeted is a one-line joke, or that that is how it would play. I don't know if you're gay or have ever been an adult in the closet, but as a formerly closeted adult I can tell you that Company could ALSO play out exactly as written and have Being Alive be about giving in to the truth you know deep down about who you are and what you actually want. When I came out it was very much for the reasons Being Alive talks about, and it was very much at a similar point in Bobby's life/why Company's text begins/how it plays. So I think you are being far too defensive of your idea of what it is. And while I agree it changes what the show is about in someways if Bobby realizes he's gay, it also does not in most ways. Do you not think that for decades closeted men have watched Company and see it through the filter of their lives and experiences and, if able to get this open with themselves, thought about how sad it is that they haven't gotten to Being Alive yet? It plays out perfectly for a gay closeted person, EVEN IF it wasn't meant to be that. And furthermore, just because you can make a case for it being one way does not mean you therefor think it is the only way. It's pretty stupid to me to think a piece of art can ONLY be taken one specific way, especially one meant to not be literal. But I also don't know why i'm bothering to try for a thoughtful discussion with you when you so casually insult my intelligence off of a statement I didn't even make. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here! Here! | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:57 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Here! Here! - Chazwaza 12:35 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| "I think you are completely projecting onto what i said something you seem to want me to have said so that you can insult my intelligence." I'm very sorry, I was not insulting YOUR intelligence. What you wrote was, "I don't think Bobby is gay necessarily in the original Company... though I do think it's very easy to make that case." This makes it clear (sort of) that you personally do not think Bobby is (necessarily) gay in the original show as written, but that you feel it's easy for other people to make that case. My point is that I don't understand how any intelligent, sensitive person can make that case, based on the the text and songs of the original show. And I think to do so does a tremendous disservice to the show and displays a total lack of understanding of the character of Bobby as written. "BUT I think it displays another stunning lack of intelligence to think that being closeted is a one-line joke." Being closeted in itself is certainly not a one-like joke, but to reduce the meaning of COMPANY to "Oh, well, Bobby can't commit to marriage with a woman because he's a closeted homosexual" DOES reduce the show to a one-like joke, because it's absolutely not what Sondheim and Furth wrote. To see COMPANY and realize that Bobby is heterosexual but has a fear of commitment to any one woman for a multitude of complex reasons is to display an intelligent understanding of what the show's creators were going for. To look at COMPANY and reduce the reason for Bobby's avoidance of marriage to the simplistic idea that he's a closeted homosexual displays a complete lack of comprehension of the material as written, in my opinion. If Sondheim and Furth had wanted to write a show about a man who's avoiding marriage to a woman because he's a closeted homosexual, I'm sure they would have written COMPANY very, very differently. I hope that clarifies my meaning and also makes it clear that I did not insult you and did not misinterpret what you wrote. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here! Here! | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 06:02 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:51 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Here! Here! - Chazwaza 05:23 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| I'm going to split hairs, but I don't think that a "committed partnership" (which for years was the closest thing we had to legal gay marriage) and an actual "marriage" are the same thing. Not just legally, but emotionally and socially. Now, one can argue that Company really isn't about marriage, but is really about (Bobby's fear of) commitment - but the key word used all over the show is "marriage" - which is what was expected back in the day. I will continue to argue that despite a much more liberal world view, gay marriage is still not an expectation now - it is just a right and an option. I don't feel the pressure on Bobby in the original quite yet translates to that in a modern world. I do hope that soon enough it will (and I speak as a gay man) - but I don't think we're there yet. And - unfortunately - I do think there's still enough misconception in the "straight world" that gay relationships tend to be more casual. In the original show, Bobby could well have slept with Kathy, April, and Marta and still just be searching for "the right girl." In a gay themed version, Bobby could also have slept with the male counterparts in those roles and it would just be "part of the gay lifestyle." I'm not supporting that view, lol - but I do think enough people still do see it that way, even in 2019. In the meantime, we can ponder possible alternate lyrics... "I could understand a person, if I didn't titllate (doo doo, doo doo, doo) I could understand a person, if he actually were straight..." ;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here! Here! | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:36 am EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Here! Here! - Chromolume 05:51 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| "I could understand a person, if I didn't titllate" ????? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here! Here! | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:48 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Here! Here! - Michael_Portantiere 12:36 am EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| I know - maybe not the greatest choice, though I did like the assonance in the "i" sounds (didn't/titillate) lol. Going from "if it's not a person's bag," the idea was that they could be saying "I could understand your lack of interest if I wasn't turning you on." That's all...;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: disagree on almost all points | |
| Posted by: jon_sense 03:35 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: disagree on almost all points - Chazwaza 11:18 am EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you for your detailed, well-reasoned take. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: disagree on almost all points | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:58 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: re: disagree on almost all points - jon_sense 03:35 pm EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you! I'm sorry I didn't have time to re-read it for some grammatical clarity and typos. I was impassioned! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: disagree on almost all points | |
| Posted by: jconnors 11:26 am EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: disagree on almost all points - Chazwaza 11:18 am EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| ffs | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: disagree on almost all points | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:35 am EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: re: disagree on almost all points - jconnors 11:26 am EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| care to elaborate? This is a discussion board on theater... if you do not like people discussing theater, do not come here. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:03 pm EST 02/17/19 | |
| In reply to: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - Clancy 02:43 am EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| "Every production of Company I’ve seen Bobby is a cipher. Why would a 35-year-old man be concerned whether he should get married? A 35-year-old woman adds much needed complexity." I'm surprised that you consider this a problem with the show as originally conceived and written, and I completely disagree. If Bobby has been a cipher in productions of COMPANY that you've seen, I think that's an entirely separate issue as to whether it's a story about a bachelor or a bachelorette being concerned -- and having his/her friends be concerned -- about whether or not s/he should get married. I think there are many reasons why a man as compared to a woman might be avoiding marriage -- some of those reasons exactly the same, some similar, some very different, depending partly on the era in which the action is set. But all interesting |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| yes! | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:23 am EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - Michael_Portantiere 01:03 pm EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| Totally agree with you. It's a fundamental thing about having a concept musical that takes place in a non-linear moment in Bobby's head as he turns 35... if you can't understand why a man would have feelings or issues with being 35 and single (after having had no fulfilling relationships prior) then don't bother with this show. And I can tell you, having seen this production, making Bobby a female does not do anything to "fix" or make new sense of it besides the biological clock thing which is tacked on and has nothing to do with the way the show is written or the character. It would make a wonderful new musical and someone should write it, but it's not Company by Sondheim and Furth. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: Delvino 01:41 pm EST 02/17/19 | |
| In reply to: re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - Michael_Portantiere 01:03 pm EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| Well said. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) Is this production coming to NYC? | |
| Posted by: tealady 08:24 am EST 02/17/19 | |
| In reply to: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - Clancy 02:43 am EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| I am out of the loop on this... Is this production coming to New York? I don't have time to fly to London to see this. It looks wonderful from the clip |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: jconnors 08:06 am EST 02/17/19 | |
| In reply to: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - Clancy 02:43 am EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| Bailey has become overwrought and near hysterical in Not Getting Married Today. I hope he stays in London | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: D2025 04:50 am EST 02/17/19 | |
| In reply to: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - Clancy 02:43 am EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| It's very funny that you posted this. I had been keeping an open mind about this production, but after watching the video you posted - I actively don't want to see this. It truly looks like modernist, progressive, avant garde hogwash. There is ZERO passion in that singing. I mean come on, you can't even begin to compare that with the original OBC in terms of emotion and feeling. The production truly looks and sounds like drivel. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 11:47 am EST 02/17/19 | |
| In reply to: re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - D2025 04:50 am EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| As opposed to the dowdy, old-fashioned, traditional style of the original production? The original production traded on the shock of the new. If anything, this production with looks a bit granny in its production style. Even making Bobby a woman (with a biological clock) gives it more of a traditional through-line than the original production had. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: tmdonahue (tmdonahue@yahoo.com) 10:37 am EST 02/17/19 | |
| In reply to: re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - D2025 04:50 am EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, no. I've seen it--we may have different tastes--and the production is contemporary, AS IT SHOULD Be. Sondheim has made some small lyric changes to update the songs but by very little. (There's no more answering service; the song mentions texting instead. The flight attendant in "Barcelona" is named Andy and when Bobbi can't remember his name, she sings Randy. Quite as good as "June/April".) As to the singing, many songs, particularly Bobbie's, in this production have a character revelation. I thought it was great. I wouldn't want this version to be the only Company that is ever mounted again, but it is really, really good. | |
| Link | Link to my latest book "Playing for Prizes" |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:44 pm EST 02/17/19 | |
| In reply to: re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - tmdonahue 10:37 am EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| There's no more answering service; the song mentions texting instead. Which to me is an entirely different take on the lyric, and an inferior one, even if penned by the master. In the original, the choice was to talk directly or to skirt the issue by using the more impersonal answering service, which ties right into the frantic "city of strangers" idea in the song. But "or I'll text you to explain" just isn't the same, because it seems to me a lot of people prefer texting as a direct communication method anyway. There isn't quite the same stigma there, and less people would feel texting is impersonal at all. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| the "texting" lyric change shows a fundamental lack of understanding of text culture | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:34 am EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - Chromolume 07:44 pm EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| And I blame both Sondheim and Elliott for letting it go. If memory serves, he sang "text me in the morning or I'll call you to explain". If anything it SHOULD be the reverse - "call me in the morning or I'll text you to explain." Maybe better "and i'll" or even other variations like "call me if you want to but i'll text you to explain" or "look I'll text you in the morning if you need me to explain" ... there are many ways to go if you really want to try to rethink/update the song for current phone culture. The point is that no one today would rather call... the whole thing is to avoid speaking directly and in real time to the person. We youths joke about how calling someone is an act of social terrorism or assault. A young person today, and by young I mean under 35 or even 40, usually avoids direct calling whenever possible, especially if you're explaining why you didn't show up somewhere. And this is a theme/metaphor that works stunningly well for Company as it is written and conceived, it fits right in. So this was really sad to me that they missed this easy part of the update. Made it clear to me, among many other examples, that Ms. Elliott is not the person to be overseeing a modern update of Company. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "texting" lyric change shows a fundamental lack of understanding of text culture | |
| Last Edit: Ann 09:27 am EST 02/19/19 | |
| Posted by: Ann 09:26 am EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: the "texting" lyric change shows a fundamental lack of understanding of text culture - Chazwaza 11:34 am EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| On the recording, it sounds like he signs, "I'll text you in the morning or I'll call you and explain." So, he just doesn't know if it's something that he wants to type into a text. The young people in my life still occasionally call, if it's going to take a lot of talking/explaining. I'm just now listening to the recording now ... so many new lyrics (plus an "oh, shit!"), it's jarring to the mind. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "texting" lyric change shows a fundamental lack of understanding of text culture | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 12:39 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: the "texting" lyric change shows a fundamental lack of understanding of text culture - Ann 09:26 am EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| But again, that doesn't ring true to me. The text in the morning would be the explanation, or at least if you're giving an explanation it would be in text message. Yes, sure, he might be the type who would call to explain something rather than text. But if we're updating for modern culture, that is just not very common among people under 30 especially, which I think Marta (i forget the male version's name - Martin I assume) is meant to be. But even under 35. And yes young people may call if it's going to take a lot of explaining, but I don't think this scenario would... it's a simple explanation, made less awkward to not have to answer for yourself live on the phone. That's often why people avoid calling. But again, it's just as much about the logic of the scenario he's laying out to me as it is about the lyric having a chance to represent modern phone culture. And it doesn't. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the "texting" lyric change shows a fundamental lack of understanding of text culture | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:54 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
| In reply to: re: the "texting" lyric change shows a fundamental lack of understanding of text culture - Chazwaza 12:39 pm EST 02/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| Also, I tend to read "I'll call you in the morning" as actually meaning the more tacitly understood "I *won't* call you, but I'll say that I will - and if you call me, my service will pick up." The whole sense of the lyric to me is in the LACK of committment/connection. Haven't we all been on first dates, etc, where we know the obligatory "I'll call you" is just something you say to be polite, lol? So really, one wouldn't really be expecting even a text conversation, let alone a call. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: Delvino 12:55 pm EST 02/17/19 | |
| In reply to: re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - tmdonahue 10:37 am EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| It’s an alternative rather than a replacement and that is wonderful news. If optional iterations of any show provide fresh insight - into the work itself or the society it depicts - we all gain. I think the clips look kinda wonderful and I’m a diehard devotee of the original staging, Aronson design to the Bennett “Tick Tock.” | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:03 am EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - Delvino 12:55 pm EST 02/17/19 | |
|
|
|
| The trouble is that too often the original versions are pulled from availability. I think that's unlikely to ever happen with Company, but I don't think it's impossible. I've rarely seen revisions that I thought were improvements, even those that were done by the original author(s). Once in a rare while, yes, but most of the time, no. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Sondhiem revisions to his shows | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:37 am EST 02/18/19 | |
| In reply to: re: COMPANY (Mild Spoilers) - AlanScott 12:03 am EST 02/18/19 | |
|
|
|
| For someone who is such an unmatched genius in his original goes at things, I have rarely if ever seen a revision Sondheim has made to try or that he has used as the replacement version (and only one available for future productions) that is an improvement. If anything, most are downgrades from his original. It's quite odd and frustrating. Can you think of any Sondheim revisions that are as good or better than what they replaced? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.110616 seconds.