Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.033942 seconds.