Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: kieran 02:52 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| nm | |
| Link | “Company” |
| reply to this message | |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: Robt 10:55 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - kieran 02:52 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for sharing; I would not have seen this otherwise. One question, though. Why the applause at about the 3:33 mark? It's hard to tell from the clip. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: FrenchDip 01:47 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Robt 10:55 am EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| The orchestra is revealed at the top of the stage. Not sure why they didn't zoom out to include that in the video. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: Robt 04:34 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - FrenchDip 01:47 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:47 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - FrenchDip 01:47 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Another of many times "why" is my response to this staging. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Audiences like an orchestra reveal | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:40 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Chazwaza 02:47 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| That's why. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 08:55 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 08:51 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - kieran 02:52 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| This staging gives me a severe feeling of claustrophobia. I don't think that's what Sondheim intended. I'm all for "realism" even in a musical, but "literalism" in a number like this (with everyone cramped into that ersatz storage cubicle for way way way too long) is just awful. Maybe one section of the song that way, to make the point - but then, please god, open it up. Or does the whole show take place in that little box? I'm reminded of "Marta" from Kiss Of The Spider Woman, where all the men were packed together in a cell as a torture technique. "Talk, goddammit, Bobbie, talk!" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: Jasonandbroadway 11:58 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Chromolume 08:51 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Sondheim is literally on record saying the claustrophobia is what he loves about Marianne's staging of the opening. I'd have to look for the interview. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 07:54 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:51 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Jasonandbroadway 11:58 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Sondheim is also on recorded saying he didn't think John Tiffany's gay Company reading worked at all because it's not how or why the show was written, and then completely contradicts that pure originalism for his own work by letting Marianne do a version changing Bobby's gender which that makes far less sense for maintaining how/why/what it was written for. The Bobby and friends of Company as written has MUCH more in common with what gay life is currently like than what it is for straight people or a woman. But he couldn't see it and held that it can't be done because it just isn't want they wrote... well, I'm sorry but neither is a female Bobbie with half-baked gender-switching of some of the rest of the cast, and a half-baked update to 2020, again, even less what they wrote than a gay Company, in updated for 2020 or set in 1970. You know, it's *almost* as if Sondheim had blinders on with regard to this because of perhaps some deep internalized homophobia and lack of connection to modern gay life. Hmmm... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:54 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Chazwaza 07:51 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know, I think this revival has proved that it's very hard to make the three girlfriends work as men, so I don't think turning them into gay men is the answer. My only real complaint about the gender swap - which works well all things considered - is that Bobbie should have still been into women, primarily so we could keep the three girlfriends. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Last Edit: Ann 08:55 am EST 02/17/22 | |
| Posted by: Ann 08:53 am EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Singapore/Fling 11:54 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| In the first "Bobbie" production I saw, at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, she was bi. It made more sense to me (it wasn't presented as the crux of why she wasn't married). Of course, it was completely unauthorized, and they changed the gender of other characters, dropped some characters, dropped songs, and all the actors were around 20 years old. But fun! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:59 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Jasonandbroadway 11:58 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Ok, well, I'm wrong about Sondheim then. I still think it's ineffective staging in general. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 10:58 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Chromolume 08:51 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Not sure what Bobbie is up to. Posing on the table? I know the character runs the risk of being passive, but that’s the director’s job...to unearth Bobbie’s intentions and actions. She could be getting dressed, redecorating, fixing the table-legs. I’d like her to be dealing with the electricity in the building, and there could be brilliantly timed black-outs. Did we ever know what Bobby’s job is? Is he a trustfund playboy? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 10:05 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Chromolume 08:51 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| What gave anyone the idea that Company was about claustrophobia? The claustrophobia of NYC apartments, or of... aging while being single and not ready to connect... or of having coupled friends? I dunno... it's extremely unnecessary. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:08 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Chazwaza 10:05 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know if you're kidding or not. Of course there's an element of that in the show. But do we need the majority of the opening number to literally illustrate that? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I'm with chromeo.... | |
| Last Edit: DistantDrumming 10:48 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| Posted by: DistantDrumming 10:45 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Chromolume 10:08 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| ...there's suggestion and then there's flat-footed literalism. The cramped staging leaves their movements hampered and the choreography, yeah, feels very community theatre. Even the barebones (except for the incredible orchestra and cast) NY Phil Company concert opening felt more dynamic and engaging. And despite being on a large stage, I was impressed with the sense of intimacy those actors and their director were able to convey in the book scenes. I felt like I was in their apartments. Don't get me wrong, nothing could keep me away from seeing what may be the last revival of Company to run while I still have a full head of hair and what could very likely be Patti's last Broadway musical, but my expectations get lowered every time I get a peek at this production. You can tell this is Elliott's first major musical production. I guess others who've seen the production can comment on whether this staging is indicative of Liam Steel's work, too. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I'm with chromeo.... | |
| Posted by: Guillaume 11:05 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: I'm with chromeo.... - DistantDrumming 10:45 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| .. yes but with the thrilling, focused and contemporary staging she provided to Curious Dog I marvel at how puerile Company seems. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I'm with chromeo.... | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 11:08 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 11:03 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I'm with chromeo.... - Guillaume 11:05 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| I get the concept. I even think the execution is mostly clever and spatially intriguing with the bold design. But -- a significant but -- this musical number is one of the most exciting in the last 60 years, genuinely thrilling when it builds well. It's hard to feel that from this. And for me, the use of the cell phones just reads as repetitive and somehow overkill in the updating; it grows precious. Individual players -- LuPone, and then Andy and Paul, who end up with the best story beat -- don't come off well. But some of us have complained about the costumes before and been smacked down for supposedly not understanding that this is what NYC looks like. I stand by my reservations. The costuming doesn't help here. A positive: Lenk's singing is fine here. I wish more were going on around it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I'm with chromeo.... | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:53 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I'm with chromeo.... - Delvino 11:03 am EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Lenk's singing is fine... her acting is like out of a cartoon. I'm consistently shocked at the way she seems to approach this character and show, like she were doing a Summer Stock production of Annie Get Your Gun, all smiles and winking. And yeah, the choreo would be static and repetitive and uninventive and lacking dynamics and momentum enough without the selfie stuff... and as if doing it once isn't enough, she has them repeat the EXACT same selfie section of the staging at least once, if not twice (not watching it again to be sure). Just so stupid, lazy, unimaginative, and pandering. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I'm with chromeo.... | |
| Posted by: PlazaBoy 03:11 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I'm with chromeo.... - Chazwaza 02:53 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| The repetition is particularly odd to me. Seeing LuPone grab the glass out of Lenk's had twice in exactly the same way just looks peculiar. I suppose one could say it is trying to make a point about being in a rut or at least a routine, but that's a stretch. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| one of the most poorly staged numbers I've seen on bway in a long time | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 08:10 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:06 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - kieran 02:52 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| For a director with so much acclaim (and known for dynamic staging of plays), it still shocks me. It's embarrassing, and sadly reflective of her directing of the entire production, in terms of the entire staging and design, and the direction of the material into this "updated" and half-baked gender-switch (and as I say every time this comes up, I think a gender switch version could work, I don't think this is it). As another poster said it looks like a bad musical sitcom. I've seen high school and college directors do a better job with this number. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: one of the most poorly staged numbers I've seen on bway in a long time | |
| Last Edit: PlazaBoy 12:58 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| Posted by: PlazaBoy 12:57 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: one of the most poorly staged numbers I've seen on bway in a long time - Chazwaza 08:06 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| I like this performance (see link) by the cast so much better. I realize they are all seated, so not suggesting this could have been the opening number. I do think the look and feel seem to serve the song better though. At least these costumes are flattering and convey a sense of time and place. | |
| Link | Company: Tiny Desk (Home) Concert |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: PlazaBoy 06:50 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - kieran 02:52 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think of Company as such a sophisticated show, but clearly that is not what they are going for here. It has the dumb downed look of a dated sit-com. I almost expect a laugh track. I've said it before, but the costumes bewilder me. Having said that, I'd still go see it. I'm sure there are elements to enjoy. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: dante 08:02 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - PlazaBoy 06:50 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| I did not love it but it was not as bad as I feared. But the costumes really are truly horrible. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: Thom915 05:36 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - kieran 02:52 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for posting this. Loved this when I saw it and everone in it. You have convinced me to go again. It is also a production that takes advantage of all the humor in the play. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: Guillaume 05:05 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - kieran 02:52 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for the clip! Just when I was thinking again that I really should go see this I am saved from spending money on it by another clip of how exceedingly poorly designed and misdirected it is!! Do they boost the volume on Lenk a lot, because she gets lost in this. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 07:28 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - Guillaume 05:05 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, while I have read the mixed reports (and have liked her in other things), I was surprised by how anemic her voice sounded in this clip. I think I'll stick with the OBC and my memories of Esparza and that revival. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: student_rush 02:59 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - kieran 02:52 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Is this better in the theatre? So dull. What story is being told? Hate the phone choreography. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 03:17 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - student_rush 02:59 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| I actually liked that a lot...it seems like a choreographed representation of how suffocating this Bobbie's life can seem to her, even though this large extended group of friends and lovers literally revolves around her. And I liked that, at times, she seems just this side of completely overwhelmed by her friends, who are, frankly...a lot. And that set piece also seems like a nod to the shoebox size apartments in which a lot of New Yorkers live and how difficult it can be to have more than a couple of people over at once. I haven't seen this production yet, but, if I came into this opening number knowing nothing about the show, I think I'd have a pretty good idea of what I was in for during the evening: a person trying to find herself, while also trying to keep her head above water with her friends, who don't seem to think about her, as a person, at all, only as a convenient accessory to their own lives when needed. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The choices made | |
| Posted by: peter3053 05:30 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Video of the “Company” opening number (current production). - JereNYC 03:17 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Having looked at this very fine ensemble of actors in the video, I am left wondering if the original theater in London was very small - why is everything so boxed in? I have seen clips of the set boxes, but that's not what I mean. The build in the number suggests expansiveness of staging towards the end (didn't the original in 1970 use an elevator as a surprise and got the actors down onto the open stage for the final section?). Also, why did they start so inert, like statues - and then why did they come alive when they did? Does a full stage picture from the audience make the motivations clearer? Some of the choices seem unusual. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The choices made | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 08:12 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:08 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: The choices made - peter3053 05:30 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| I saw it on the West End... the theater was not small at all. Felt like a standard broadway sized theater. Possibly on the smaller side of broadway but no, nothing to explain the awkward and lazy staging here. (And even if it had been, what is the excuse for not re-staging it for a new theater on Broadway?) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It was at the Gielgud. | |
| Posted by: portenopete 06:51 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: The choices made - peter3053 05:30 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| I saw it at the Gielgud, which has 986 seats in the traditional West End configuration of stalls, dress circle and balcony. I saw it from the back half of the stalls behind the overhang line (which is usually much closer to the stage than in Broadway theatres). The Gielgud is not usually occupied by musicals but it is still a large theatre and the point of the design seemed to be to create airless and suffocating spaces for the ensemble to surround Bobbie. I didn't love it in London (I saw it late in previews) but I enjoyed it more than any clip I've seen of the New York iteration. I don't really think the concept makes much sense of the original idea of the show (one man's inability to connect emotionally with a lover) ad it turns into a show about a woman who is worried about getting too old to have a baby (at least that's what I took away from it). But what this clip is putting on display is pretty much unwatchable. And while Rosalie Craig didn't wow me, she was miles ahead of what I'm hearing from Katrina Link (whom I loved in The Band's Visit). And I can't imagine anyone bettering Bridgerton's Jonny Bailey singing "Getting married today", which was the undoubted show stopper. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It was at the Gielgud. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 08:30 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: It was at the Gielgud. - portenopete 06:51 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Matt Doyle is pretty incredible in "Getting Married Today". I thought this production largely works when they're in their boxes, and loses its way when they leave the boxes - this number captures both aspects of that. I do think that Lenk has gotten stronger in the show since this was filmed, though she remains miscast. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It was at the Gielgud. | |
| Posted by: lonlad 09:40 am EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: It was at the Gielgud. - Singapore/Fling 08:30 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Except that Bailey is SO much more impish and sexier and fun to watch. And Rosalie, whom I saw four times, got better and better and emerged a total knockout: a genuine Everywoman which in a way is what the subject requires. This is not a musical version of SEX AND THE CITY (thank God). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.118458 seconds.