Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.012659 seconds.