"Company" without Bennett

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 7:05pm

OK dont flame me. I don't know a whole lot about the Doyle production of "Company" but I am guessing Bennetts dancing is not included?

I have seen the tape of the OBC the revival (which I hated)and was lucky enough to see it at the Kennedy Center.

Do you think the lack of Bennetts narrative dances will hurt this production?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 7:12pm

Definitely

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 7:14pm

This production recieved raves out of town...so I doubt it's going to hurt that much.

The lack of Tunick's orchestrations didn't hurt the revival of SWEENEY. In fact, Sarah Travis won the TONY for her orchestrations of the revival.

"Tick Tock" has been cut from this revival.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 7:30pm

Why was it cut? Was it because of Doyles signature concept re actors playing the instruments as well ?

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 7:32pm

That upsets me, I love "Tick Tock". Was there an explanation given?

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 7:33pm

TICK TOCK is usually cut from COMPANY nowadays. I don't even think MTI licenses it anymore.

But anyway there is NO dancing in the Doyle production. It wouldn't have fit. There's even no dancing in YOU COULD DRIVE A PERSON CRAZY.

Though I would've liked to have had it (Tick Tock( as an instrumental with the same dialogue.

Updated On: 10/16/06 at 07:33 PM

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 7:35pm

I believe part of it has to do with Doyle's staging concept but the majority has to do that Bennett choreographed it for a specific performer.

But, emcee would know better than I do.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 7:36pm

Doubt anyone carry a tuba could dance worth a damn

Sounds really great - 1 number cut & no dancing

Thanks but I will remember the original production as seeing Company & take a pass here

Updated On: 10/16/06 at 07:36 PM

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 7:59pm

I'm sure that the actor-musician concept is a large part of why there's no dancing, but it'd also be way out of place for the tone of this production. While it's still very funny, there's a much darker undercurrent and it isn't presented in the traditional musical comedy form. I thought that it worked very nicely and is definitely worth checking out, though I guess it isn't for everyone.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 8:20pm

I still don't understand why people are insisting that Tick Tock has such an enormous impact on the show that it should never be cut. It's not like there's some major revelation that happens within the song that can't otherwise be portrayed. I have to wonder if the real issue is a serious attachment to Tick Tock specifically, or just an overall resistance to any changes.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 8:46pm

Hi.

Roxy, you'll tell me that you're entitled to your opinion, which is true, but for God's sake, get an informed opinion and stop being the bitter peanut gallery. See it and then whine, okay?

Here's why you, yet again, are wrong. Being wrong is what you get by being stuck in your "traditions," as I'm sure you think they are, and having an opinion based on simple cynical bitterness disguised as "nostalgia."

Okay, again. Tick Tock is just... not a plot piece. It was a showcase dance number. You don't need it. Everything implied in Tick Tock is still implied in Doyle's staging. They have sex. Great. Yay. You really don't need the dance to explain that to you.

Secondly, it's completly unnecessary for Doyle's staging to have a dance sequence; there's very, very little dance in the show at all, and having a full-out dance number would look ridiculous and just throw everything off. There's hardly any dance in his production because there doesn't need to be, plain and simple. I'm sorry, but dance is in no way integral to this show. It's just as well without.

I'm sure it COULD have been pulled off even within the actor musician concept, because the dancer could get away without playing in that particular song, so I definitely hesitate to assume that the "concept" is the sole reason for the cut. And if you must, look at it this way; Tick Tock went, Marry Me a Little Came back. It's a much bigger attribute -- plot driving and integral to this production. And f*cking gorgeous.

PS, Foa, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm not the only one who saw it.

Updated On: 10/16/06 at 08:46 PM

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 8:52pm

True that there is not a lot of dancing but I love "Side By Side". I'm just curious to see how they do it.

[StephenSondheimWHOO]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 8:52pm

I am actualy fine with Tick Tock getting cut, I mean i liked it but as Emcee said its not that vital to the plot. Wen you say no dancing does that mean NO Choreography at all? I find it sorta weird not to dance in you can drive a person crazy. Thats a song that whenever i hear it, i want to dance

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 8:55pm

"I'm sorry, but dance is in no way integral to this show"

Yeah but Bennetts choreography for "Side By Side" was awesome!! Especially when Robert does his little dance. It's funny and sad all at the same time. I also think the above quote from you is a pretty brave one and I can certainly respect that. I don't know how Bennett would feel(RIP) about his work not being integral to the show.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 9:00pm

Right, but consider awesome and nice to look at versus necessary. And it may have been necessary, or at least an enhancement to the original production -- that I don't doubt. But dance and really serious choreography is just too much for a stripped down production like this. It doesn't fit.

I'm not saying it's not integral to Company; i didn't see the original, so I can't speak to that. But, I believe in judging separate productions of the same show as just that -- separate productions. Obviously some comparison is inevitable, but in order to be open, you have to consider them as separate entities as best you can, in my opinion. And looking at Doyle's production, choreography and elaborate dance is in no way necessary, nor would it add anything. I mean, you want to consider if not having it would hurt Doyle's production, but frankly, I think the presence would hurt it more than you might think does the absence. There's a little bit of dance in Side by Side by Side, but again, it's very minimal.

Updated On: 10/16/06 at 09:00 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 9:02pm

And if you must, look at it this way; Tick Tock went, Marry Me a Little Came back. It's a much bigger attribute

- You're STILL saying this. It was never an either or. I think you realize that though. All I'm saying is, the 96 revival had both TICK TOCK and MARRY ME A LITTLE. And it worked.

I'm sure TICK TOCK probally just would not fit with this revival. And I'm fine with that. Though most long time COMPANY fanatics probally won't like the idea of YOU COULD DRIVE A PERSON CRAZY with no dancing, just the three spotlights. But why hire a choreography for what, 2 songs?


But I DO believe choreography was a very important aspect of the original production. But there better not be a day, where it's said that Bennet's choreography wasn't an integral part of the original FOLLIES. That would just be like blasphemy. Updated On: 10/16/06 at 09:02 PM

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 9:03pm

So in answer to my thread you are saying it's gonna be worth it? I liked his "Sweeney". Liked Londons a hell of a lot better but I did like the NY version.

I think Doyle is awesome. Can't wait for him to do "Follies"....we all know he'll get to it.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 9:05pm

He better not do FOLLIES. FOLLIES can't be done without dancing. Unless he stages without the actor/musician concept. Which would be fine. Though the original FOLLIES did have an onstage band, who were technically in character.
Updated On: 10/16/06 at 09:05 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 9:08pm

No, no, ljay. I'm not saying it IS an either or, or that that was at all the decision process. I have no idea what was used to make or break the decision. You're misreading. I used the phrase "if you must," in the sense that that's just a last resort as some possibly plausible idea. I mean, if people are that attached to Tick Tock, yeah, you lost something, but you also gained something, too. No causation involved. Does that make better sense? I'm SURE that having both can and did work, but I'm saying that having Tick Tock would have been ridiculous in this production. Having seen it, I certainly can't picture it looking anything but to just randomly break out into traditional choreography, cut scene or otherwise. It may have been important to the original production, but I think it would hurt more than it would help Doyle's production.

So in answer to my thread you are saying it's gonna be worth it?

What, if it's worth seeing? Absolutely, without shadow of doubt. It's beautiful, and frankly, better than Sweeney... in my humble opinion, anyway. Doyle got a chance to refine his ideas here, and it shows.

Updated On: 10/16/06 at 09:08 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 9:11pm

I understand what you're saying Emcee.

And I do belive you would be crazy to skip this production because it has no dancing. I am very much excited for this production. So I can live without TICK TOCK, because it would just be out of context here.
Updated On: 10/16/06 at 09:11 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 9:17pm

Just go in open to the fact that it's totally different, you know? I think you'll like it.

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 9:24pm

In a related story,

my Company tickets came today.

I nearly pissed myself

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 9:30pm

I want to go opening night. I need to see this now!

[Cages or Wings]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 9:44pm

Em is right. I saw the show in Cincinnati, and Doyle's reimagination of it is genius. The actors/musicians concept works better here than it did in Sweeney (in my opinion), and you certainly don't miss Tick Tock or the dancing. Go in with an open mind. It's different than how you've seen it before, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad.

Additionally ( and somewhat off topic) a great facet of this production is that all the actors are on stage the entire time. Although this may not seem to be a huge deal, the impact it plays on the show is tremendous. It really helps you feel the pressure and tension between the everyone and Bobby, since they are all always there shooting each other looks and such. It seems small, but it gives the show an entirely different feel than other productions of Company that I have seen.

I don't know. Just a thought.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 10/16/06 at 10:06pm

"There's a little bit of dance in Side by Side by Side, but again, it's very minimal."

I'm curious, is the part where the couples separate into a tap routine part of this minimal dancing? Where each husband and wife taps out an exchange to each other, but Robert is left tapping without a partner? It just seemed like that was the most important piece of choreography in the original production, so my thought is if there is even minimal dancing that would be included...but hey, I never saw this production, maybe it's totally different choreography that fits better with the new production. Just curious.

The dance to TICK TOCK is supposed to express the difference between having sex and making love. Interesting. (not trying to say it should or shouldn't be in the new production, just remarking that it's interesting stage directions)

Cage, I imagine it adds value to the production to have the cast on stage the whole time. I'm quite excited to see this.

Updated On: 10/16/06 at 10:06 PM