Threaded Order Chronological Order
| One-two punch for Company | |
| Posted by: icecadet 11:39 am EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Jesse Green didn't like Company. Now he's after it's (and many other) sets. | |
| Link | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/30/theater/broadway-design-company-diana-musical.html?searchResultPosition=2 |
| reply to this message | |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 02:32 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 02:30 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: One-two punch for Company - icecadet 11:39 am EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with the basic premise. The problem isn't the technology, it's the temptation to use it as a kind of visual orchestra pit in the days of the melodrama... beginning to end commentary on the performance full of its own emotional cues and promptings for the audience. | |
| reply to this message |
| i really didn't like the Company set either | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:01 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: One-two punch for Company - icecadet 11:39 am EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Desperately trying to upstage the show itself, adding jokes that the show doesn't need and isn't about, and taking air out of the show and adding length to it to get through all the "clever" transitions added. Not to mention that it's become clear Elliott things long neon bulbs represent NYC always... this and Angels in America over used them to light and create spaces that were meant to be NEW YORK CITY! Please. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Posted by: kidmanboy 12:23 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: One-two punch for Company - icecadet 11:39 am EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I vehemently disagree about the design for company. The Alice in wonderland-esque trip through Bobbie’s subconscious really highlighted the brilliant structure of the book. Green seems to be trying really hard to draw parallels between all of these shows, but his thesis is a bit muddy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 02:19 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:05 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: One-two punch for Company - kidmanboy 12:23 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Funny... that all came through to me in every production I've seen, including the almost bare stage in the 2006 revival. Especially clear in the Sam Mendes london revival too. But it's almost worth hearing the sets to see the book rightly praised, people love to casually bash or dismiss the books even to shows they like and have worked for decades, like Company, which has quite a wonderful book. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:11 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: One-two punch for Company - Chazwaza 02:05 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| The Doyle revival convinced me that the book has been criminally under appreciated. The structure and the storytelling works, if the production understands them, and in a well balanced production, the sitcom elements help to alleviate the Chekhovian dread that pulses through the entire evening. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:23 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: One-two punch for Company - Singapore/Fling 02:11 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Me too! At least even moreso. And I was surprised at just how funny the book still was to me, not only playing in 2006 but being set vaguely in 2006 as well. I think they only play like sitcoms if you direct/act them that way. They are just amusing scenes often laced with poignancy taken from married and dating life. But the book is not just the dialogue in the weed scene, there's a lot more to it including the execution of the concept, the structure, the placement of songs, the building from one thing to another. It's very well thought out, if you ask me. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Last Edit: Ann 12:42 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| Posted by: Ann 12:41 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: One-two punch for Company - kidmanboy 12:23 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I don't agree. I couldn't see how a shrinking world depicts a journey to being alive. And those balloons. And that fire extinguisher. I thought this version was an example of direction by sledgehammer. Mugging and exaggeration galore. Why would Bobbie be friends with these people? (I admit that's a quibble for me with the show itself, but here, they go beyond cartoonish). The Jamie and Paul segment worked for me, though. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Posted by: Delvino 01:30 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Ann 12:41 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| As someone who saw the original (albeit the Jane Russell era iteration, Susan Browning the only remaining major player), I can attest that the sitcom vibe in individual scenes was less than fresh even I was a tender 19. Without the score, the show wouldn't be ... well, what it is. But to your point: Robert seemed a peer of the recognizable group we met in 1971. You could imagine him working with the husbands, justifying their providing him with dating and sexual advice. Their overlapping lives were based on shared professional experiences. It's harder to understand where this Bobbi intersects, sensibility wise, since the good ol' boy camaraderie isn't baked in anymore. But I have more issue with updating the show, which I've delineated repeatedly, than the gender switch. I don't find that these folks behaving as post-millennials (I've gone on about Joanne being my mother's contemporary, not mine) but it might explain the push in the direction. If it's (still) funny, we accept some sort of universality. For me, not quite. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 02:44 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:41 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Delvino 01:30 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Without the score, the show wouldn't be ... well, what it is." You could say that about absolutely every good musical. I guess we'll never know how introspective and quietly emotional and dark or dazzling Furth's play might have been without the songs because he let Sondheim take all the opportunity for that for his score and built a book that works with that score. In a musical, especially a musical like this, I'm not sure there is many better ways to do it. This is meant to be a funny and emotional journey of a single man opening up to being vulnerable and connected with a partner via a building series of scenes he scenes from the lives of his married friends and scenes with the women he's dating... I think the script does a pretty fantastic job of being that show. And if it wasn't meant to be this, don't we think Sondheim and Furth would have taken the opportunity to make changes? Like they did with Merrily (I wish they hadn't, but that's another story). I'm not sure why you need justification for why anyone in a group of friends is providing dating and sexual advise to another friend... especially a man to a man (or a woman to a woman, which isn't the case in this new revival). I know they aren't a cohesive "group", rather a group of Bobby's coupled friends... but people do have friends, and one of the main things adult friends talk about is dating and sex. This was never an issue to me or anything needing to be justified by assuming Bobby works with the men and assumed shared professional experiences. I would ask, was the good ol' boy camaraderie ever baked in? The opening song, as well as the scenes, makes clear Bobby is someone these people care about and enjoy a lot, they are IN each other's lives, and/or want to be... I think that tells us what we need to move forward with understanding why they are hanging out and why they are talking about or giving advice (or wanting juicy details) on love, dating and sex. I think what's harder to understand about this new version is that the gender switching didn't go far enough. It doesn't make sense in the script as it is that female Bobbie would mainly be friends with the husbands, and it also Someone Is Waiting with these men as the subject doesn't make sense either, especially with this version of Bobbie. And perhaps it felt "sitcomy" and not fresh to you at 19 because it was not written with the ear, conversation, and comedic sensibility, of someone under 21 in mind. The show is made up of scenes from marriages... situations... and they're funny... they're going to be like a situation comedy to some extent. But they're also actually good and actually funny. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 06:21 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 06:20 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Chazwaza 02:41 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| "And perhaps it felt "sitcomy" and not fresh to you at 19 because it was not written with the ear, conversation, and comedic sensibility, of someone under 21 in mind. The show is made up of scenes from marriages... situations... and they're funny... they're going to be like a situation comedy to some extent. But they're also actually good and actually funny." I appreciate anyone (still) finding the scenes funny. But for the record, I saw every NYC revival after the original, when I was well past the age of consent and had sufficient access to sophisticates, their relationship-specific banter, and had even participated in such repartee myself. My jejune sensibilities behind me, I can attest that my "ear" grew, too. Your post presumes it's heresy to find the Furth book either dated or less successful than it once was, when in fact, many people have commented on the score holding up in ways the script might not. (Sondheim has defended Furth's work to critics.) But these are subjective takes, yours and mine. I've always loved Company, wearing out the vinyl before I ever saw the show. It's not sacrilege to question the book's ability to work as well as the iconic score, and it's still quite possible to adore the show for complex reasons while discussing Ann's point, that pushing the comedy can lessen the experience. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:49 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Delvino 06:20 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I don't find it to be "heresy" to find fault in Furth's book, and I don't think my post presumes that. I just don't agree with a lot of the fault you find. And I think you're undervaluing the strengths of it and overplaying the weaknesses. But perhaps we just simply don't agree. And to speak to Sondheim defending it -- which he need not do that often since it is a very popular show to produce and has been since it was a hit on Broadway in 1970... proving that the book has more worked than not worked for artists and audiences for a long time -- one of the reasons he does, and rightly so, is that the book to Company (and all the musicals he wrote scores to, especially the ones that aren't adaptations), is responsible for the invention and crafting and execution of the premise, story, and characters of the show. I think the characters are a huge reason Company is so enjoyable to perform and watch, and that is often overlooked in criticizing this book (and most times a book is criticized). And critics of these books seem to think Sondheim alone found more depth or wit or whatever in these character, knew them better and more deeply and effectively in his writing than the book writer... without considering that the book writer may be largely responsible for what Sondheim understood or used to get where he got with the lyrics and the sound of/use of the music, and that the book writer's job is to let the score shine where the non-score writing might have were it not a musical. So I'm quick to defend books and book writers, especially for shows I like and think work quite well, like Company. That doesn't mean it's the best book ever written, but I don't think I would say that Company is a show that successes in spite of its book. Take another fairly plotless, episodic, comedic and perhaps dated musical of the same era, about a man looking for something ... Pippin... that is much much more a musical that I think successes in spite of the book and not because of it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 10:46 am EST 01/02/22 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 10:43 am EST 01/02/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Chazwaza 11:49 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
|
|
|
| "I just don't agree with a lot of the fault you find." Well, if you look at the posts in which we debated, you didn't just disagree, you said I had not been sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate the comic repartee. That's what I responded to; being schooled about the role my age-specific ignorance of adulthood played. But I don't need to keep engaging on this. If you examine my prior post, I fully own how much I've always loved the Company. Still do. If the book (still) works for you in ways it does not (quite) for me -- at least in an era update -- the difference of opinion is likely tethered to the mysteries of subjective taste. But because of my lasting affection for the piece, Furth's books ain't the hill I need to die on. I have two copies of the text, the original and the first (Roundabout) revival, and plan to re-read it this week. If I have further thought, including any regret for undervaluing the wit, I will fully own it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:16 pm EST 01/02/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Delvino 10:43 am EST 01/02/22 | |
|
|
|
| Forgive me for not going back to re-read our thread, but I would just say I was responding to the critiques that didn't offer a full look at the book and what it is/achieves. You focused on the dialogue scenes and how sitcom and stale they were to you even at 18 in 1971. Fine. I also did not accuse you of undervaluing the "wit", and I was specific to the idea that your first impression at 18 in 1971 might have colored how you see it going forward. Hey, my first exposure surely did that too. I would actually be very curious to know your thoughts after re-reading both versions if you do end up actually doing that. Not to see if you retract anything but just your impression reading them now and what is different in the two published versions you have. It's been awhile since I read them. And yes, subjective taste is a thing for sure. A lot of people think things are funny that I don't especially. Broadway audiences laugh themselves silly at "comedy" that has me sitting there thinking I was the only one not served the cool aid sometimes. But I'm also a professional comedy writer and grew up on musicals and what some might call more "alt" comedy. I'm not unique in this, and you might have the same background. That certainly doesn't necessarily mean Company's dialogue will be more appreciated by me. I'm not denying there can be sitcom qualities to some of the scenes I'm just defending that relatively short vignette scenes each with a situation, written to amuse a large audience, all about the same specific theme, will probably seem sitcomy because that's what sitcoms are. My point is that *i think* when it is like that it is at least a thoughtful and quality sitcom, and my other point is that there is a lot more to the book of Company than those scenes or the comedy dialogue in them. While I think the book and the comedy holds up to today... I don't disagree that it is best done as a period piece. You can't deny that it was written then. That being said... my first exposure to it was being set in 1970. It worked for me then. Next was the broadcast of the Sam Mendes revival at Donmar which was set present day in 1996, and the scenes/dialogue worked for me. Then several other un-notable productions, then the 2006 Broadway revival set seemingly in present day 2006... which I was pleasantly delighted to find extremely funny and relevant. It made me laugh and felt fresh and true to dating and relationships. I remember sitting there thinking "who knew it was this funny", probably because I hadn't seen a production live in person in a long time, or one done at that level of acting ability and direction, outside of the Donmar video. That being said, the last time I saw it live was this new revival a few years ago now in London. Under Elliott's inept and confusing direction, the actors were all in different shows and the dynamics of the relationships made much less sense to each other and their place in the tapestry of the play... and the comedy didn't play nearly as well. But I blamed that on Elliott more than the script. I do think that 1996 and 2006 present-day productions worked because they could exist in a world before cell phones (or internet the way we know it, and social media) existed or before they had to be acknowledged as part of minute-to-minute life in present day, especially for people under 50. I think now we've come into a time where Company as written no longer works being set in present day... and it works even less if you try to make it half-assed or half-baked into the show, like an opening number filled with the characters taking selfies (like the dreadful staging in the current broadway revival). Adding bits of modern day technology and how it impacts peoples actions and reactions and choices and personalities (as it does in epic ways at this point) only shines a light on how much this show, from concept to page is not written with that in mind. Perhaps a better thought out update to present-day would convince me, and I'm possibly wrong. So many of the themes and concepts and the premise of Company seem easily transferred and translated as today. The disconnection we have as a society, especially single people trying to connect, is very much something Company speaks to. But what is the equivalent of a busy signal in today's life? How do you talk about finding connection with people, or dating etc, without mentioning apps and internet and social media, etc. Maybe you can just not mention it and it will feel relevant anyway. But also we can see it as a period piece and still see today in it, still find it relevant to today. They don't set The Crucible or Death of a Salesman in modern day every time they revive it. Anyway, I intend to revisit the different versions too. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| A couple of critics on Company's book, 1995 and 2006 | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 11:17 am EST 01/02/22 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 11:16 am EST 01/02/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Delvino 10:43 am EST 01/02/22 | |
|
|
|
| Worth noting, the way the book was described in the first first revival, in 1995 "Though the new production pretends to be timeless, the talk of relationships and commitment forever anchors the show in the 1970's, when sending up such jargon seemed a much wittier endeavor than it does in the 1990's. Mr. Furth's plotless book is no longer startling, but it provides a serviceable frame for the Sondheim music and words." Vincent Canby, NY Times, 10/6/1995 And then: "The actors are mainly bland, a fault that stings all the worse in the parts of the show that have become dated, both in language (“stewardess,” “grass,” “make it”) and outlook (the young generation doesn’t look at thirtysomethings as the enemy anymore, except maybe when the grown-ups won’t stop bugging them for new MP3s)," Jeremy McCarter, NY Magazine, 11/30/2006 |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A couple of critics on Company's book, 1995 and 2006 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:22 pm EST 01/02/22 | |
| In reply to: A couple of critics on Company's book, 1995 and 2006 - Delvino 11:16 am EST 01/02/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well I was 23 when I saw that revival and it was funny and relevant to me... outside of the silly choice to not alter clearly dated language and a few things, I felt I could buy it being written then. But as to "the young generation doesn’t look at thirtysomethings as the enemy anymore"... boy have things changed. We are now back to it being true that the younger generation DOES view 30somethings as the enemy... whether it's the economy or the environment or technology or social media or woke culture, etc... I don't think this current revival, meant to be set in present day, is the best one to make a case for it being convincing in modern day, but I do think it's funny how that criticism of the book being dated in this sense in 2006 is not such an issue now. However I didn't find it to ring especially loudly or true in 2006 as an issue, and I was 7 years away from 30, and I guess the young generation then. But what is he even talking about? Marta? The weed scene? There are prudish people in every generation, including friends that would surprise you, or who become less adventurous after they get married/have kids, etc. I'll have to revisit it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| typo: *succeeds (not "successes... ha) (nm) | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 12:10 am EST 01/02/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Chazwaza 11:49 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
|
|
|
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Speaking of the gender switch... | |
| Posted by: theatreguy40 04:31 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Chazwaza 02:41 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I felt the gender switch worked at times but there were times it just didn't feel right... For example: Having the Wives sing "Have I Got a Guy for You' to Bobbi felt right... but having the husbands sing "Poor Baby" didn't feel right. In the original - The wives sing "Poor Baby" to Robert mostly because they want to "mother" him. In this revival - having the husbands sing "Poor Baby" to Bobbi just felt creepy. Another example: I just didn't buy Bobbi asking Harry "Are you ever sorry you got married?" and having Harry (and the other husbands) sing "Sorry-Grateful". It is such an intimate and private question that she asks --- and by asking Harry, it makes it seem that she is closer to the husbands than she is to the wives -- which I just don't buy. I don't know why they didn't switch and have Sarah and the wives sing "Sorry-Grateful". On a separate matter --- in this day and age of being "woke" - I found it very offensive that the gay character of Jamie was lumped with the Wives. That was a very stereotypical (and offensive) choice... Just my 2 cents... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Speaking of the gender switch... | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 01:15 am EST 01/01/22 | |
| In reply to: Speaking of the gender switch... - theatreguy40 04:31 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Gosh that sounds awful. I’ll save my money. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Speaking of the gender switch... | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 05:47 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: Speaking of the gender switch... - theatreguy40 04:31 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| When I’ve seen the show, I didn’t get the sense that what the women wanted from Bobby was to be his mother. The song works the same in the new context as it does in the original… though I cringe every time they say Bobbie ought to have “a fella”. Who uses the word anymore? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Speaking of the gender switch... | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 08:55 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Speaking of the gender switch... - Singapore/Fling 05:47 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| though I cringe every time they say Bobbie ought to have “a fella”. Who uses the word anymore? Plus, there's something about the way the word "woman" is used originally - as if they're saying it's time for Bobby to grow up and date a "woman" instead of just the "girls" he sees occasionally. Something more adult and mature about that. So in that sense, "fella" seems even more casual and immature to me. I might even have suggested they use "man," even though it might sound slightly odd on the 2-note musical figure. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Speaking of the gender switch... | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:06 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Speaking of the gender switch... - Chromolume 08:55 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Or “real man” or “husband” or “nice guy” or… Sondheim was a master lyricist, even in his final years I’d think he could have found a better option than the very anachronistic and, as you say, naive “fella”. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Speaking of the gender switch... | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:40 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Speaking of the gender switch... - Singapore/Fling 10:06 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you for "husband." (Duh, lol.) :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Last Edit: Ann 02:38 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:34 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Delvino 01:30 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I guess I've never seen a production where Bobby seemed to have a lot of camaraderie with the other men. It's always been a disjointed aspect to me. I did not see it close to the original time frame, though. To me, he wouldn't act the way they do, and that is even more so in this production, because they are directed to act so broadly, and she is (still) so calm and lower key. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 05:50 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 05:38 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Ann 02:34 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know why Sondheim never apparently would ok a production with Bobby being a closeted gay man, perhaps out to one or a few other characters. I think it would have worked without having to have very much rewriting from the original, much less than with making Bobbi a woman, and it might explain an awful lot of his hesitancy -- he's just dating, sleeping with and being set up with the wrong people. Plus he hasn't had role models in these straight couples that he can see how a gay couple could make a go of things. That also depends if this is set in 1970, in the 1980s at the start of the AIDS crisis, or after gay marriage is legal in the US. Perhaps if they made one of the couples gay could be one way of dealing with having some kind of real role model for him to somehow see that as a possibility for him. He could be bi, too, but that would complicate things, but then again, Sondheim usually rather liked some complexity in his work, being as he was into creating and sometimes solving puzzles. The character of Bobby is a real puzzle all right, still not easily solved. One problem with the concept of the show: I know couples who when they marry will drop singles as friends; it's not that unusual actually. They don't want a third-wheel or perhaps competition for their spouse's attention. For Bobby or Bobbi, they might have 1 or 2 couples with whom they might still socialize (especially with a date along), but having a whole bunch of couples (and not many single platonic friends) is just not very believable, though the songs are so great we tend to just go along with them for the ride of the show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| as a single man with married friends... | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 12:00 am EST 01/02/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:58 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - PlayWiz 05:38 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Responding to the 2nd part of that post... I am a single man in my mid 30s with man married couples as friends, straight and gay, and I can assure you that it is not in the LEAST BIT hard to believe that the couples haven't "dropped" Bobby from their social life. My friends haven't and they seem to show no sign of that. If anything I think a lot of couples like having single friends too because it is interesting and different than just other married couples or married people with kids. My married friends are always interested in hearing stories from my dating and sex life, and the life I lead that allows me to travel and adventure etc. I don't know why you think it's so common and understandable and expected that married couples "drop" single friends... and I can't speak to 1970, or before or after it until the 2010s, but it certainly it's accurate today. I also think the text makes it very clear that these people like Bobby and care about Bobby, that they have friendships. You don't just drop a friendship because your life becomes that of a couple or a parent. You may have less time for them but also most of these couples are NYC couples who socialize and don't have kids. As for part 1 of this post, I think it works as well or better for Bobby to be gay, and I also think the original version works as well or better if Bobby were in the closet and Being Alive is him opening the door to coming out. But as for Company working present day, non-period piece, I have said to anyone who'll listen that not only do I think a gay Bobby works, but that gay Bobby with *gay coupled friends* is probably the *best* and perhaps only way the show actually and really works for current day. I think single gay men in their mid/late 30s today (7 years into gay marriage being legal, etc) are currently where single straight men of that age range were in 1970, in terms of what is assumed/expected by friends and community, what they expect or hope for for themselves, what their friends are doing, the likelihood of having so many coupled friends... the situations, the characters, the conflicts, the songs... they are seem EXTREMELY close to what my life as a single gay man in my mid/late 30s is like and much less relevant or interesting for a straight Bobby or a female Bobby. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: as a single man with married friends... | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 12:16 am EST 01/02/22 | |
| In reply to: as a single man with married friends... - Chazwaza 11:58 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
|
|
|
| " You don't just drop a friendship because your life becomes that of a couple or a parent. " It happens, and it sucks. There's at least one other poster on this thread who concurs. But you're fortunate. I don't know why Sondheim and the others fought against productions making Bobby gay. It would, yes, work better with surrounding couples both gay and straight. To a lesbian couple, a gay guy isn't usually a threat. To some gay couples, a single gay guy might men possibly play around if they are open and he is up for it (and somehow acknowledges to at least them that he is gay, even if otherwise to other couples he is closeted). Or he just might be a great friend, and they'd be interested in hearing about his social and/or sex life. Among other kinds of permutations, it would just make a more plausible show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: as a single man with married friends... | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 03:30 am EST 01/02/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:27 am EST 01/02/22 | |
| In reply to: re: as a single man with married friends... - PlayWiz 12:16 am EST 01/02/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think Bobby should be not a threat sexually, just not trying to be one... despite the lyrics from the couples "who's always a flirt, but never a threat" (flirting is only flirting if there's a theoretical sexual compatibility anyway, so that should be there), which I don't think is meant to confirm that he *could* never, just that it is not what these friendships are. Also, Someone Is Waiting has to be able friends that are potential partners for Bobby whether a straight male with women, or gay male with men (or straight woman with men)... not to mention that in the original, at least one of the coupled friends, Amy, is someone Bobby had something with in the past, no? My pitch is it be gay male Bobby and all gay male couples... maybe a bi couple or poly... and we not worry about the "threat" of him being an attractive man around other gay men, welcome to gay life. Gay men with gay male friends (very very common, be they coupled or not) always have the potential of sexual attraction to each other *and* the potential to act on it. Friendships are not barred because that could happen. It should be a present factor though especially in friendship with Joanne (whatever the gay male version would be... Jonah?), where a sexual chemistry they've never acted on, even an unlikely one, is part of what makes the interested in being friends, part of the dynamic... hence the line "when are we gonna make it?" A very believable and common thing in gay male friendships. And propositioning a friend when drunk if you're gay often doesnt' even come with adultery strings, because so many gay couples are open or willing to accept sex as not the biblical dealbreaker straight marriages tend to (or pretend to) see it as. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:08 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - PlayWiz 05:38 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think it would have worked without having to have very much rewriting from the original But the original really has nothing in it to give the idea of a closeted Bobby a lot of tangible support. Aside from the very short scene with Peter, which was added in revival. I think you absolutely would have to do some significant rewriting to make that a more compelling part of the plot. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 09:28 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 09:20 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Chromolume 09:08 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| He may not be given support, but the way a good, well-directed male Bobby could play it, turning away from his friends at times from embarrassment or aggravation, squirming when they suggest he get a girlfriend, the three single girls originally already wondering if he was gay (ok, Sondheim took out the offending word), but still... there are ways for a good actor to play conflicted without having to resort to obvious stereotypical non-masculine ways. Some rewriting I still think would work better than other sexes being assigned different songs and/or vocal parts to accommodate a female Bobby. Again, I know others (and have been myself) dropped when a female friend got married and I was single. I have one married couple friend who the wife has told me that the husband is really gay, some gay couples and lots of single friends gay and straight. Having so many married couples for a single person is really not that believable -- what the hell do they really have in common? They've done the singles thing and met their mate already. That's behind them, like one reason why some older folks don't want to date a younger person for an extended time past the sexual attraction (some of the thinking being "been there, done that" in their life experience). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Couples will drop singles as friends | |
| Posted by: FinalPerformance 07:45 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - PlayWiz 05:38 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Boy is that ever true. I always thought this seeing Company over the years. Woman are stronger and more loyal to their female friends. Well, men are definitely another story. I've mentioned this over the years to others and they are always in agreement. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Couples will drop singles as friends | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 08:27 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 08:21 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: Couples will drop singles as friends - FinalPerformance 07:45 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Women who marry might retain some their single girl friends, but I think the married one will seldom want to get together with the singleton when she's out with her own husband, unless the single one has a date. Lots of husbands have cheated with good friends of their wives over the years. Lots of film noirs on this subject, to say nothing of melodramas. It's unfortunately easier to drop the sing friend and concentrate on making friends with other couples and later, couples who are having babies. Will & Grace type relations have dropped the "Will" when he Grace gets married too --- and other permutations, gay and straight. At least one in the couple doesn't want possible competition, and they don't want straying attention of their partner. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Couples will drop singles as friends | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 12:06 am EST 01/02/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Couples will drop singles as friends - PlayWiz 08:21 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| This seems to be a very very antiquated view of things, and the references you're using to support it make that clear. This is of course true for some friendships, but it is by no means a rule. As I wrote in my reply to the original post claiming this, this is very much not my experience. Yes coupled friends often want/need coupled friends. But they like their single friends too. AND worth noting that single friends I think often phase out married friends, or let it fade, because they have way less in common after the friends are married more than a year or two, and especially if the couple has kids... they are looking to spend their free time with other single people, doing things single people can do (like out meeting other single people or couples who like being out). Just the need to pay for a babysitter to leave the house often means the single person only gets to hang out with the couple if they go to their home and spend time with the kid too or wait till they're asleep -- which is great but a limited experience sometimes. So it's not just the married couple "dropping" the single friend. But I see more justification for Bobby being in demand by the couples than not. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers | |
| Posted by: mcurt9 02:03 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Delvino 01:30 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| very well said..saw it last night...kept asking -why are these people so drawn to her.....sigh...ill stick with the boyd gains 95 version!! that was sublime! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Posted by: manchurch03104 12:10 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: One-two punch for Company - icecadet 11:39 am EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| plain and simple, show budgets have significantly cut scenic budgets. this has been going on for some time now, long before the pandemic (West Side Story being one of the worst, ugliest examples). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:51 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: One-two punch for Company - manchurch03104 12:10 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| You might be surprised at how much money it costs to do the massive video wall with real-time live video (no lag) plus rain effects that we saw in "West Side". That was an expensive production design-wise, before we even get into how large the cast was. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 09:09 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:00 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: One-two punch for Company - Singapore/Fling 12:51 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, the rain. Caused at least 2 injuries that took cast members out of the show, yes? That's a set that was a little too expensive indeed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:26 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
| In reply to: re: One-two punch for Company - Chromolume 09:00 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yep, and the first injury delayed opening by (I think) six weeks, which created the opportunity for He-Who-Shall-Not to push the show into “next season”, which at the very least cost Isaac Powell a well-deserved Tony nomination (and potential win opposite Aaron Tveit, who sings the role beautifully but kind of forgets to act). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 03:58 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 03:56 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
| In reply to: re: One-two punch for Company - Singapore/Fling 02:26 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
|
|
|
| Isaac Powell's mid-December knee injury postponed ''West Side Story's'' opening by 2 weeks. It opened Feb. 20, instead of Feb. 6. The delay cost Powell a deserved nomination, but I still think the Tony would've gone to Aaron Tveit, who, I believe, sings AND acts beautifully. ;) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:03 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
| In reply to: re: One-two punch for Company - WaymanWong 03:56 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
|
|
|
| The other major injury was Ben Cook, who left the production entirely after that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One-two punch for Company | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 04:00 pm EST 01/02/22 | |
| In reply to: re: One-two punch for Company - Chromolume 10:03 pm EST 01/01/22 | |
|
|
|
| And Ben Cook can be seen as Mouthpiece, one of the Jets, in Spielberg's ''West Side Story.'' Can't miss him in ''Gee, Officer Krupke.'' | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I didn’t get the WSS projections. | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:15 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: One-two punch for Company - manchurch03104 12:10 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| It worked for Network because it was a news show and novel way to present some of the scenes. But the director repeated it in WSS that made no sense. Actors standing still and yet the projection is slowly moving down the street. Having scenes at very back of the stage and then project on screen. It was distracting and annoying. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.163044 seconds.