Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.012955 seconds.