Brief thoughts on COMPANY

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 12:58am

I've had a few people PM me requesting my thoughts on the new revival of COMPANY - so forgive the new thread.

As somebody who was a huge advocate of John Doyle's rethinking of SWEENEY TODD - which I first saw at London's Tralfager studios and numerous times on Broadway, I am terribly disappointed to write that I'm going to have to join the dissenters on Doyle's production of COMPANY.

The problem, I will start right off the bat, is not “directly” to blame on Doyle's signature actor/musician concept: except to say that in stripping COMPANY to the core brilliance of its music and lyrics, he has taken with it the show's passion, emotion and conflict and most of its humor. COMPANY, however, unlike SWEENEY is not a plot driven show. And the fact that it is a more abstract piece of theatre does not, in my opinion make it a better show for Doyle’s concept. Indeed I think Doyle's SWEENEY worked at all because it IS such a great story.

COMPANY has been many things in many different productions over the past thirty years under directors like Sam Mendes and Sam Mathias, but rarely if ever has Sondheim's musical come across so dull - so unlikable.

Doyle seems to be saying that marriage is sterile - antiseptic. His COMPANY is a world where couples are only slight variations on all black fashion ensembles - interchangeable and monotone. Frankly, if I were Robert, struggling with the idea of commitment, I'd have run for the hills seeing a constant parade of robotic Stepford husband and wives. But than too, Robert needs to be an engaging, personable figure. For the couples, he is indeed part of their “company” and there needs to be a reason why they like him and keep him around. Raul Esparza gives a committed performance but one that barely registers until the final moments of the show when we simply don’t care or believe in his dilemma. What’s missing is the journey. The growth – the mounting tension with each failed attempt at connection that warrants the inevitable emotional breakthrough (“Being Alive.”) It is a fatal directorial miscalculation.

Because the performers have been robbed of the individuality of their characters, the performances are largely unmemorable, though I did find some nice pockets of energy in Jane Pfitsch’s Amy (better in the “Not Getting Married” scene than in the song) and in Elizabeth Stanley’s April, who thankfully avoids the trap to play the character as an airhead. Barbara Walsh, however seems to fall not only into the Joanne trap but seems to have reached back into her “Forbidden Broadway” bag of tricks, delivering an actual Elaine Strich impersonation (and not well).

Word of mouth in the theatre following the show held the general air of heady disappointment, and I have to say I largely agree. While I continue to applaud Doyle and his producers for taking risks and producing experimental productions on Broadway – COMPANY is simply an artistic misfire: one in which a directors style is contradictory to the themes and values of the original piece.



Updated On: 11/7/06 at 12:58 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 1:02am

It's funny - up until a few days ago, I had heard only wonderful things about this show. Literally every review I have read after that has been on par with yours. Very strange. I haven't seen it yet, but I cannot wait to.

Just a question: didn't this show receive raves out of town? If so, then what do you think happened?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 1:05am

Munk, it did -- almost unanymously. I honestly didn't expect it to meet THIS much dissent when it came to New York. But it met in a tough NYC audience a surprising amount of opposition, and unfortunately, it seems, disappointment. I continue to find it interesting how divided people are on this one, though -- people are either very positive or very negative, with so little in-between.

Also, Elizabeth Stanley plays April.

Updated On: 11/7/06 at 01:05 AM

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 1:14am

Tons of shows have gotten great reviews out of town only to meet with lack of enthusiasm in New York. And what works in a relatively intimate thrust space may not work so well in an 1,100 seat proscenium house.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 1:18am

I think its *possible* that the show played better in the theatre space in Cincinnati. I think we also can't completely discredit that the show was clearly an "event" for the city, with Doyle fresh off his SWEENEY Broadway victory, and sometimes that biases local audiences and reviewers (they want to like something).

But for me, these problems I think would have been present even out of town. It’s truly a concept and style that doesn’t fit this material (in my opinion, of course). I will add, that the show is at its worst in the book scenes. The pace is just deadly. And while this of course is Doyle’s style at fault as well, it is, again, not a fault specifically related to the musician/actor concept.

Thank you for that correction, Emcee - when I said "Susan" above, I was of course thinking of Susan Browning who created the role of April.


Updated On: 11/7/06 at 01:18 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 1:21am

Not that it's unusual, but I'm just surprised no this one. NYC critics -- and other New Yorkers in the industry -- were out there, too, so they weren't just random people in middle America. The theater in Cincinnati was (I just looked it up) 626 seats, and a big, spread-out house at that. So yes, it was on a thrust (and the transition was made with much more ease than I had expected it to be), but it wasn't exactly that small. About half as big.

It's also strange because the general, fairly educated expectation was that NYC would embrace the show. I hope it wasn't a total wrong shot. But, it is whatever it will be, I guess.

Updated On: 11/7/06 at 01:21 AM

[Luscious]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 7:11am

Disappointing review. I'm seeing it on 11/18 and was looking forward to it more than any other show this fall. Hope I come away with a different opinion. Still can't wait!

[FrontRowCenter2]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 7:31am

Thank you MB for your insightful and thoughtful review. Having seen the original I was looking forward to this revivial, not so much for Doyle's re-imagnination but to see Raul's performance. While I'll still see this production, admittedly after reading your review I'm not quite as excited.

[ken8631]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 8:02am

Thanks for the review. I disagree with it, but thanks. Wife and I thought it was great, and Raul gave an exceptional performance... We are going back to see it again after opening. The audience we were with seemed very enthusiastic!

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 9:07am

well, it better last at least a month from opening, till when I get there!

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 9:21am

Michael Bennett: thanks so much for your review! I agree that I was disappointed in this production. I absolutely loved SWEENEY, but I found this production lacking.

It took me a while to warm up to Raul's performance, but by the end of the show, I did love him. He just seemed very cold in Act 1, but I did love his "Being Alive," which was the highlight of the show.

"Because the performers have been robbed of the individuality of their characters, the performances are largely unmemorable"

I completely agree with this statement. I thought that all five of the husbands were bland and none had much characterization. With the expection of the girl who sang "Not Getting Married Today" and Barbara Walsh, the women were bland as well. While in SWEENEY the instruments enhanced the characters and made them unique, I felt that the instruments in COMPANY prevented any kind of characterization among the ensemble members.

The only point I disagree with is Barabra Walsh. I thought she was fantastic. I loved her "Ladies Who Lunch" and thought she was one of the few people on stage who had actually thought out her character. Her line deliveries, facial expressions and poses on stage were perfect, IMO.

So, I went in wanting to love it and was slightly disappointed. I definitely didn't hate this production, but was more mixed on it. There were parts I loved ("Being Alive," "Ladies Who Lunch," "Not Getting Married") and others I was disappointed with ("Company," "Another Hundred People," "Sorry Grateful").

I am still hopeful that John Doyle will make the necessary changes to make this production a hit and I really want to fall in love with this show after a second and maybe third viewing after opening.

Thanks again, Michael, for your review, and for inspiring me to write my thoughts as well.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 10:41am

I hope people don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way, and no discredit whatsoever to the opinions of MB or WAT or those who were unfortunately disappointed -- everyone's entitled -- but to the people who are becoming less excited after reading ONE review, please keep in mind that it's one person's opinion. That's a little irrational, no, to be like "oh, well, I read your review and now I'm not really all that excited anymore"? The opinions of this show are so all over the place that I can't imagine anyone really thinking that there's a right and a wrong. I've sort of voluntarily given up my own credentials as far as opinions go on this one because people can easily tell just how head-over-heels in love I've fallen -- and I know, who's going to listen to that? -- so I doubt people will give much thought to anything I say about the production anymore, which I do feel kind of stupid for, but I felt I had to say it. It's really unfortunate that people are coming out of this so disappointed.

Another observation that I'm finding pretty interesting is how the opinions on Company fall based on how people felt about Sweeney. A lot of the people who are disliking Company adored Sweeney, which I thought would be the exact opposite (I loved both). And then there's someone like Margo, for whom Sweeney didn't really work at all -- and he quite liked Company.

Lastly, on Raul and on the instrumentation -- aren't two of your complaints kind of the point, WAT? Isn't the point that Bobby is a little bit cold? This discussion has come up a number of times, and I can absolutely see why people feel that way about him and why it doesn't work for everbody, though. And further, the whole conceit of the actor-musician thing here is that Bobby's friends are his "company," literally, figuratively, musically -- so making them a unit seems almost purposeful. I'm not trying to force you into liking said choices, because if they didn't work for you then that's just the way it is, or to convince you one way or the other -- you can't force someone into changing his or her opinion on this type of thing. It's just a little confusing to me, as someone who all of this worked entirely for, why things that are so pointedly purposeful aren't really hitting the nail on the head.

I don't know. I feel like a broken record and people are probably going to start ignoring me any minute now, but I really am... baffled is probably the wrong word -- but kind of curious.

Updated On: 11/7/06 at 10:41 AM

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 10:58am

I totally see your point, Emcee. However, I personally would have liked Raul more in Act 1 if he showed more emotion and I would have enjoyed the ensemble more had the instruments not been so prominent throughout the show.

And I agree with Em that my review and Michael Bennett's review shouldn't discourage people from seeing this show or gets them elss excited. Please go in with an open mind and make your own decision about the show. As I said before, I will definitely see it again and I am hoping to enjoy the show more the second time around.

[FrontRowCenter2]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:04am

Luvtheemcee's point is well taken - just as a clarification, I've always found MB's critiques to be intelligent, well articulated and not based on pure emotion. To that end, while I am still going to see the show (Company has always been one of my favorites), I admit that my enthusiasm has slightly dimmed, but as said, I could be pleasantly surprised.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:08am

just as a clarification, I've always found MB's critiques to be intelligent, well articulated and not based on pure emotion.

Oh, so do I. And I respect that more than I often express because putting aside emotion is something I need to learn how to do better.

The most striking thing about the dissenting opinions for me, again, is that I totally get exactly where it comes from. It's so interesting that the two sides bring up the same points, but the exact opposite feelings toward it; and the opposing points, to me, make perfect sense, which is rare.

Updated On: 11/7/06 at 11:08 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:10am

I definitely do not believe the character of Robert is written to be cold. Its not a story of a loner's ability to become warm, its about a man who is something of a playboy realizing that in order to live fully, he needs the company of not 15 friends, but one person who understands him fully. A character as cold and vacant as Raul Esparza's Bobby didn't seem to me the type of person Robert is described as in the opening number - certainly not the type of person who's answering machine would be loaded with messages from adoring couples clamoring to spend time with him.

But the bigger problem really is in Doyle's sterile treatment of the couples. Bobby has to see the love and affection present in each scene - the bond these married people share that ultimately outweighs the frustration, inconvenience and even occasional anger that permeates their relationships. Simply put, without that observation, there is no journey - there is no character development.

Updated On: 11/7/06 at 11:10 AM

[FrontRowCenter2]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:12am

Yup, exactly. For anyone who has never seen Company, it is a must see - form your own opinions, but at the very least, it's one brilliant score, performed by some exceptionally talented people.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:13am

Lack of character development was probably my biggest complaint as well...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:20am

As far as the general coldness and sterility, I think you have to recognize that Doyle has sort of shifted the relative norm of the characters, though -- *everyone* is a little bit cold and a little bit distant. I think he's making a huge point by doing that. It's not Bobby OR the couples who display that sort of cold quality; they all do. I think Bobby is effectively vacant at times as a consequences of how he's been living, in a way, but not impossible to care for.

For the record, there were moments where I saw your argument about Raul's Bobby, and where I said "wait, why do they like him so much?" And then I felt like there were moments where he answered my question. I find something likable in witty sarcasm, though.

Updated On: 11/7/06 at 11:20 AM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:31am

I haven't seen this production, so I can't weigh in on that, but I know from an acting stand point that witty sarcasm - my favorite type of humor - doesn't come across well on stage, especially something of a Broadway style theater because it's too sublte and therefore it just comes across as not caring, or boring, or cold.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:31am

So...if you hated (and I mean HATED) Sweeney Todd, how do you think I'll react to this piece?

Reason being, I was actually thinking I'd like the concept better with a 'concept' show. Or is it just one concept too many?

Updated On: 11/7/06 at 11:31 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:34am

Anybody's guess. Depends, why did you hate it?

I think Raul, sort of across many of his roles, has been able to get witty sarcasm to work on stage, Rentboy. But it's rare, you're right. And again, yes, that's part of the reason why people think he's a cold, distant performer, because that's what registers for them.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:37am

robbiej: even if you HATED Sweeney, you should still see Company and make your own decision about the show. Yes, the actors are doubling as the orchestra, but it is used in a different way in Company than it was used in Sweeney. You may enjoy this production more.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:38am

That reason might mean you DO like it. *head spins*

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/7/06 at 11:44am

I much enjoyed SWEENEY, though I'd never want a dvd of that production on a desert island, if I could have Lansbury and company performing in the Hal Prince edition.

That's the issue for me: these are intellectually stimulating new interpretations, but they tend to be exercises in directorial deconstruction. Are they that illuminating, finally? Or just ... different? Everyone I know was either indifferent to SWEENEY or downright hated it, except for some individual moments.

I think COMPANY suffers from a sitcom-styled book (just reread it) that makes "depth" quite difficult to achieve in any interpretation. Though the premise inspired some of the best work ever in Sondheim, it's ever more difficult to find layers in the scenes. Sounds like Doyle's take may camouflage some of this thinness without solving the problem. I don't go until December.