Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years | |
| Posted by: jconnors 06:20 pm EDT 08/30/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years - Chazwaza 05:52 pm EDT 08/30/19 | |
|
|
|
| Sluggish direction of the show? Confusing direction of the scenes? Not any of the three times I saw it. Other than the unnecessary dance montage for Another Hundred People (wehich I know some liked), I thought the show fired on all cylinders. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:44 pm EDT 08/30/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years - jconnors 06:20 pm EDT 08/30/19 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, as you may recall we been mortal enemies / polar opposites in our opinions of this Company. I imagine that won't change. Though I do think Lenk will be a much better fit as an actor, so I'm excited to see her in it. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years | |
| Posted by: sf 06:39 pm EDT 08/30/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years - jconnors 06:20 pm EDT 08/30/19 | |
|
|
|
| Agreed. I had some bones to pick with it, and I will say that I felt it didn't hold up particularly well on a return viewing, but there was nothing 'sluggish' about the pacing, either at a late preview or a month or so before the end of the run, and there was certainly nothing 'confusing' about the way the scenes were directed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:42 pm EDT 08/30/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years - sf 06:39 pm EDT 08/30/19 | |
|
|
|
| We must have seen different shows. Never has Company felt SO LONG to me before - not just because of the pacing and unnecessary scene changes moments added everywhere, but because of laser sharp focus on the PLAY and the scenes that make it up have changed in ways that do not as properly support a clear set of relationships with the couple and internal struggles for Bobby. We fully disagree on this, and that's fine. But even the friend I saw it with who liked it more than I did agree it felt much slower than usual. And with a show like that, extra unneeded time puts unwelcomed pressure on the show scene by scene to be new and amount to "enough" to make it worth the time, and things that are developing a theme just start seeming redundant in a slower show or longer running time. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years | |
| Posted by: sf 04:14 am EDT 08/31/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years - Chazwaza 11:42 pm EDT 08/30/19 | |
|
|
|
| "And with a show like that, extra unneeded time puts unwelcomed pressure on the show scene by scene to be new and amount to "enough" to make it worth the time, and things that are developing a theme just start seeming redundant in a slower show or longer running time." What "extra time"? The running time was pretty much exactly the same as the last stage production of the show I saw (Sheffield Crucible, 2010, with Daniel Evans as Bobby and Francesca Annis as Joanne; Rosalie Craig played April) - and also, actually, pretty much exactly the same as the running time of the Neil Patrick Harris DVD. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years | |
| Posted by: huskyital (huskyital@yahoo.com) 08:44 am EDT 08/31/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years - sf 04:14 am EDT 08/31/19 | |
|
|
|
| We had day seats....sat up close and we all enjoyed it even a friend who disliked the original.....although I loved the original.....I will see it again in New York. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years | |
| Posted by: jconnors 08:33 am EDT 08/31/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Company: Lenk and Lupone? 50 years - sf 04:14 am EDT 08/31/19 | |
|
|
|
| Exactly. A few book scenes might have benefited from a slightly faster pace, but the need was negligible. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.019189 seconds.