| 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 | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: My Company rant in general - not targeted to you, kidmanboy - with staging spoilers - Delvino 10:43 am EST 01/02/22 |
| Next: | A couple of critics on Company's book, 1995 and 2006 - Delvino 11:16 am EST 01/02/22 |
| Thread: | |
Time to render: 0.007965 seconds.