Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: andyboy 04:01 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| In Act Two, Scene Three of COMPANY, Robert and Marta go meet Susan and Peter (who have just gotten divorced and are now living more happily then ever together) on their terrace. The women then leave momentarily and Peter has a scene where he barely stops short of coming on to Robert. I seem to remember this latter part of the scene was added by Furth long after the original Broadway production (perhaps as an answer to many critics originally wondering if Robert fears marriage because he's secretly gay). I remember the original version of the scene ending with the women still on the terrace and Marta saying something like, "I love New York!" (in response to Susan and Peter's new happily divorced arrangement). Am I remembering this wrong? If not, when was the second part of the scene added? | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Random COMPANY question (spoilers for new Company) | |
| Posted by: CanadianRyan 03:20 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: Random COMPANY question - andyboy 04:01 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| I find the scene even less fulfilling in the new version. I was convinced while watching it that they were going to proposition Bobbie to be a third... or that they were going to talk about opening up their marriage/doing the non monogamy or poly thing. Instead they decide to have a baby? I guess in some circles that’s something that would happen but as a guy in my 30s I can tell you way more of my couple/married friends are trying the open marriage thing and I think that would’ve made it feel fresher. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Random COMPANY question (spoilers for new Company) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:12 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question (spoilers for new Company) - CanadianRyan 03:20 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| But of course that's the whole point of the revival's take, right? That Bobbie's "biological clock" is running down...so more focus about having babies seems about right, right? ;-) Of course, as others have suggested, it's getting to the point where Company is no longer Company - and having kids (aside from the occasional "the kids were asking" etc) is NOT what Company is essentially about. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 08:57 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 08:56 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: Random COMPANY question - andyboy 04:01 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| I hate the idea of the added scene and Bobby being gay. If he's gay, what is the point of the whole show? It's all about inability to commit and more than half of the songs would be pointless to the story. Especially "Being Alive" which isn't about a man in the closet. This is my opinion. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 09:18 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:17 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - KingSpeed 08:56 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| But - JUST the added scene does not make Bobby gay. True, he does admit to Peter that he's had a "homosexual experience," but I've always taken that to be the kind of experimenting that many otherwise straight men might do. It's also interesting how his responses to Peter after that become more and more tentative. (Does he know where Peter is going with this? Probably...) I absolutely think that if the writers had really wanted Bobby to be gay, or even committing to being bisexual, they would have made that a bigger part of the story. What is interesting, I suppose, with the inclusion of this scene is that Bobby gets hit on TWICE by people in his circle (Joanne AND Peter) and he rejects both. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 09:23 am EDT 07/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - Chromolume 09:17 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| Company is in some ways divided into two sections: Act 1 - "Bobby looks at his life" Act 2 - "Bobby looks at his options" The Peter / Bobby scene fits in with exploring those options and while it can be played for laughs, it sounds to me like a period-appropriate awkward pick-up attempt from a newly divorced man exploring hisnsexuality. It needn't be creepy as sexual attention needn't always be creepy, but it can make the divorce make more sense and present another available path for Bobby to reject. What kind of relationship does Bobby want? Casual with almost strangers? (His solid back up is moving on and no longer available.) Casual with a buddy? A kept boy on the side? These are the options if he wants a relationship without much committment. Which brings us to Being Alive. I think the Peter / Bobby scene can work as a part f his reconning with the avenues open to someone who is aging but unwilling to committ much. I certainly agree it is a challenge to get right in the actual playing. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 12:54 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - Chromolume 09:17 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think it would be interesting for a contemporary writer(s) to write a new show in the style of COMPANY that would be set, as COMPANY was, in the present when it was written, about a gay man (or a lesbian) at the center of a circle of gay and lesbian friends who, a few years after the advent of marriage equality, finds himself (or herself) the last remaining single friend in the group. The writers could write about all kinds of marriage and relationship issues, both universal and unique to LGBTQ relationships. That should wouldn't be COMPANY, but I would find it preferable to the endless tinkering with COMPANY, trying to make it be more than the original creatives intended. Yes, it would be awesome to have a show like COMPANY that addresses the existence of LGBT people. So someone go write that show. That show is not COMPANY. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 05:04 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - JereNYC 12:54 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| That sounds similar to Significant Others. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 05:20 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - KingSpeed 05:04 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| I hadn't considered that, but you're right. I guess what I envisioned was the LGBTQ central character (the Bobby, if you will) in vignettes with other characters in scenes illustrating different aspects of contemporary relationships that would mirror COMPANY, but also be about what marriage and relationships are in the 21st Century for LGBTQ people. Our central character would seem to be conflicted about marriage, especially given that with the advent of marriage equality it seems like every gay couple around him/her has gotten married. I would expect that most of the characters would also be LGBTQ since most queer people have a circle of friends who are also queer around them. But I'm just spit-balling here, based on people's need to continually rewrite COMPANY, a show that doesn't really need any rewriting. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 04:55 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - JereNYC 12:54 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| "Yes, it would be awesome to have a show like COMPANY that addresses the existence of LGBT people. So someone go write that show. That show is not COMPANY." Agreed, 100 percent. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:10 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - KingSpeed 08:56 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| But the scene, which I don't like, is there (at least partly) to help clarify that he's not gay. Maybe a little bit bi, but primarily straight. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Last Edit: andyboy 09:23 am EDT 07/06/20 | |
| Posted by: andyboy 09:21 am EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - AlanScott 09:10 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| That's what I get from it too, AlanScott. But it does so by casting Peter as suddenly weird and creepy and he and the situation seem to be meant to be laughed at, which is...unfortunate. Another case of the book to a Sondheim show being monkeyed with over time (and in my opinion made a little weaker) when the original version was perfectly fine (don't even get me started on the watering down of the book to FOLLIES over the years...). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:23 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - andyboy 09:21 am EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree that the scene is problematically written, although I have seen it played in ways that worked better than I have seen in other productions. In general, I agree about the changes to the book of Company having mostly been for the worse, and that this is true for most of the instances where changes were later made to the books of shows with Sondheim scores. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:57 am EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - andyboy 09:21 am EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| "Another case of the book to a Sondheim show being monkeyed with over time (and in my opinion made a little weaker) when the original version was perfectly fine (don't even get me started on the watering down of the book to FOLLIES over the years...). I agree with you in almost every case I can think of except FOLLIES. I'm not talking about the big changes for the London production, which I abhor. But in my opinion, the elimination in some revivals of some of the more purple, more explicit, nastier and more melodramatic lines from the original -- Phyllis's line about her panties, Sally's line about her suicide attempt(s), etc. -- improves the show considerably, because as written, it's just a little too much severe negativity, angst, and bitterness too much of the time. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: andyboy 05:44 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - Michael_Portantiere 10:57 am EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| Gosh, I like all that stuff, haha. For me, the original dialogue had more in common with the heightened language one might find in an Albee play than the standard librettos of the day, and it subtly signaled that what you were watching wasn't quite realistic while also preparing you (if anything could) for the surrealistic climax. In place of "likable" characters, you were given theatrical audacity and mystery. And I feel with each revision, as mystery has been sacrificed for clarity, the piece has revealed that perhaps these characters aren't quite worth the time we had originally afforded them. Truth be told, I'm not sure the creators were ever that interested in doing a show about these people and their personal problems as much as they were enjoying assembling an exercise in extremely captivating style. And I think the opacity, archness, and artifice of the original sold that idea better than what followed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:27 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: Random COMPANY question - andyboy 04:01 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| As far as I know, the first production that included it was the Donmar Warehouse production, which opened in December 1995. It was not in the Roundabout production that opened a few months earlier, which did nonetheless include a slight (and stupid) change at the end of the scene. Rather than Marta saying “This is why I love New York,” Robert says to Marta, “I know. This is why you love New York,” and Marta shoots a fist and says, “Yes!” I have read, although I can't remember where at the moment, that Furth wrote the part of the scene where Peter and Robert are alone for the original production but it wasn't included. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: garyd 01:34 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - AlanScott 04:27 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| The scene was written during rehearsals for the original production though not quite the way it was played at Donmar. (i don't remember the specifics). It was even rehearsed, once, late one afternoon in the rehearsal hall in NY prior to Boston. To my knowledge the whole idea of Bobby even having an experimental/curious gay encounter was not mentioned again, at least seriously. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:01 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - garyd 01:34 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks so much, garyd. Do you remember where you read or heard about this? I'd like to save this for my notes, and it would be helpful to know. I've been thinking that when all this is over, I need to read the several Company pre-rehearsal manuscripts at the Library for the Performing Arts. I can't believe that I hadn't checked till recently whether there are scripts there. Several are listed in the online catalog. But if the Robert-Peter scene was written during rehearsals, rehearsed one afternoon and then dropped, it may not be in any of them. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: sf 06:39 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - AlanScott 04:27 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| I don't have a citation, but I do remember reading before the Donmar production opened - based on what I read most often at the time, probably in either the Guardian/Observer, the Evening Standard, or Time Out - that the scene was being included for the first time, and that it was written for the original Broadway production but not used. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 05:26 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:26 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - AlanScott 04:27 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| ...a slight (and stupid) change at the end of the scene. Rather than Marta saying “This is why I love New York,” Robert says to Marta, “I know. This is why you love New York”... Thank you. I've never liked that change. Maybe it goes by just fine for people who didn't know the original, but for those of us that do, it feels like they took what was once a perfect punchline at the end of the scene and took all the guts out of it. I wish they would have just cut that exchange and found a new transition into the Bobby/Peter scene. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Random COMPANY question | |
| Posted by: andyboy 05:22 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Random COMPANY question - AlanScott 04:27 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, AlanScott! I knew some knowledgeable chatter would have some details. I appreciate the response! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.060566 seconds.