Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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: 0.016281 seconds.