Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.040604 seconds.