Esparza out of Company this weekend -- thoughts on his standby?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/26/07 at 11:35pm

A post on ATC indicates that Raúl's out all weekend (I hope he's okay). I'm curious to hear thoughts on his standby, Bradley Dean. I saw Dean go on for Stokes in Man of La Mancha a few summers ago, and he's really talented. I think his take on Bobby will be pretty different from Esparza's, but that could be interesting. If anyone saw him -- or is going to see him sometime this weekend -- I'd really like to hear about his performance.

Any takers?

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 11:35 PM

[sfrp]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:18am

I was there tonight, and you're right -- Bradley Dean's Bobby was incredibly different from Esparza's.

It's clear that Dean is talented, and he has a lovely voice. I'm not quite sure what I think of him in the context of this production, largely because this cast and the way they react to each other hinges so much on the energy and style of their Bobby -- who has always been (up until tonight) Raúl Esparza. I'd like to see him again after he's performed the role a few more times, as I think the timing of the book scenes would improve dramatically.

Happily, it didn't seem that many people in the audience were upset with Esparza's absence. Dean got a lovely round of applause after "Being Alive," and most of the audience rose to a standing ovation during his bow. The cast also clapped and cheered loudly for him after they exited the stage.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:29am

Thanks! That's really interesting. Could you elaborate some, if you have a moment? Did he take that dry, deadpan approach like Raúl, or not at all? I'm really interested to know what was different about his interpretation, especially because Raúl's is so very powerful. How did the rest of the cast reactions to Bobby change? It seems like Dean would play a slightly more traditional Bobby, perhaps with not as much (or a different kind of) vulnerability.

I want to see Dean out of curiosity, especially given my attachment to Esparza's interpretation, but I probably won't be able to get down there this weekend. It sounds like you've seen both, so I'd love to hear an even more detailed comparison, if it isn't too much trouble.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 12:29 AM

[sfrp]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:46am

I'd love to give it a shot, but it's late and I'm not at my most articulate, so please forgive me :)

Esparza's Bobby, even when he's essentially just a witness and a set piece, is impossible to ignore. I always feel like Esparza could start crying or screaming at any second, even when he's projecting calm, detached, control through most of the first act. Dean's Bobby blends in a lot better, and there were times when he had an almost Kennedy-esque Just A Normal Guy appeal. His smile is less bitter, there's no palpable sense of unease, and he just seems more laid-back.

His interactions with the women were less familiar than Esparza's, which I can't fault him for -- this was his first time on. Still, I felt like Joanne wouldn't be interested in Dean's Bobby. Their scene together was where I most missed Raúl's intensity.

If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to take a crack at them!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 12:53am

You're doing fine.

That's exactly what I expected. I'm glad people seemed to enjoy him, though. I'm trying to imagine the show without that constant, almost-explosive undertone of brooding intensity. I think that exact kind of detachment isn't something that could be easily replicated, so it's probably a good thing that Dean's giving his own take as opposed to trying to recreate what Esparza's doing. There's something much sweeter and more docile about his presence on stage, too, I think -- did that come across? It's so hard for me to imagine the arc of the story with a more laid back Bobby, and one who might be somewhat happier than Esparza's (fairly depressive) Bobby is.

How's his humor?

[sfrp]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 1:01am

I'm trying to imagine the show without that constant, almost-explosive undertone of brooding intensity.

Exactly. It was a different energy entirely, and the rest of the cast's performances seemed a little manic and unmoored as a response to that -- they were reacting to something that wasn't there.

Dean's humor didn't come across as strongly in the first act, but what did come across was the sense that he was an affable, likable guy. In the second act, his timing seemed to improve (he was probably more comfortable) and more humor came through.

Weirdest moment: his story to April about the champagne and baby oil was unimaginably creepy, largely because it didn't seem in character for that particular Bobby and came out of nowhere -- it was like being seduced by Bobby Kennedy. Some people are probably up for that! I am not one of them!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 1:07am

Heh, maybe it'll be better to see him after he's been on a few times, then.

That's so... creepy! From what I remember, Dean is an attractive guy, but I can't see that scene being as effective with a typical boy-next-door sort of persona.

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 2:09am

Oh man, heh I knew this would happen! I have been raving to my boss about this show and telling him about Raúl and how he has to see the show. He & his boyfriend finally bought tickets to the show and they're going to be seeing it at the matinee... tomorrow. Of course, lol.

Well I'll be curious to hear from him how the understudy was, but I really wanted to hear his thoughts on Raúl and if he felt the same way about the show as I did.

[Liverpool]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 7:53am

well ****, i decide to go to company on my birthday and Raul is out. clearly god hates me.


No offense to the stand by, i love seeing shows with back up cast memebers, just, after I've seen it with the regular cast. Oh well, i'll have to find sometime to go back and see Raul.

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 8:32am

No Raul? No way. And I'm telling you, I'm not going! (Oops, wrong show.) No offense to his stand-in, but I'd ask for a refund. His name is above the title. It shouldn't be a problem.

[Horton]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 8:59am

How did Being Alive work, did his standby play piano, or did one of the other cast members play it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 9:19am

Liverpool, since Raúl is above the title, you can switch your tickets for another day, even if you won't get to see the show on your birthday.

Bradley plays the piano for Being Alive as well. Bobby has to play piano during that scene. Raúl didn't play beforehand and was taught what he needed to know for the show, so even if Bradley didn't have prior piano experience, I'd assume that the same was done in his case. Unlike the situation would be when another cast member with more music to play is out, I can't see any reason why someone else would have to cover Bobby's piano part. Besides, that would reall f*ck the entire show, wouldn't it?

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 09:19 AM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 10:35am

Not to threadjack completely, but am I the only one disenchanted with Raul's performance? I find his intensity doesn't work for the show at all, it makes Bobby off putting, making the others off putting. His lack of heart really makes me not care about this really not overly nice group of people. If, and it's how it comes off to me, the understudy is taking a more controled, less intense stance, then, to me, the show sounds better already.

P.S. Luscious- that's really kinda mean. How would you feel if you were an understudy and read about people exchanging tickets? If I had done that at the "La Cage" revival, I'd have missed out on Byan Batt's AMAZING performance of ZaZa, and he was way better than Beach. Just food for thought.

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 10:40am

i am, but not that upset considering i have seen it 3 times with raul. Now all we need is Neil Patrick Harris in that role!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 10:44am

husk_charmer, no, you're not the only one. I'm curious though, when did you see him? He's softened Bobby's edges quite a bit over time. Although I disagree with what you said because I think the guarded, damaged approach makes Bobby's breakthrough all that much more intense, I can definitely see where you're coming from, and why people think that about his interpretation.

I'm on my way out right now and I'm so tempted to try to get tickets. I'm seeing a show with my dad today, though, and he's never seen the production before. If it weren't for him, I'd go in a heartbeat, but I really, really want him to see Raúl.

Purpleprince, post your thoughts!

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 10:44 AM

[D2]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 10:46am

Husk: I agree with your post. When I first saw COMPANY, I was mesmerized by Raul's performance, but as I've thought about it I've become less enchanted and more concerned with the over the top histrionics going on. I also wonder how much of the performance is excused because of the Times article. And you are spot on about the rest of the characters being a "not overly nice group of people." That's putting it mildly - they are downright unpleasant people. (The characters, not the actors. I don't know the actors.)

But I have to disagree with your PS. It might be disheartening, but part of an understudy's job is to take it in stride when people don't want to see their performance. Especially when they are covering for an over the title performer. I'm not one of those people, I've always marveled at the skills an understudy has. But most non-theater geeks don't get this and they want to see THE STAR, even if they've never heard of him/her before.

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 10:47am

I will!

[karen24]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 10:49am

My son and I saw the show last night--we got the tickets a while ago, and had no idea that Raul would be out--was it announced ahead of time? I was a little confused, because Bradley Dean isn't listed as Raul's standby (that is Fred Rose, who plays David, and who was in the show last night in his usual role.) Does anyone know why the decision was made to have Dean play the part, instead of Rose?

There were quite a few disappointed people in the lobby before they let us in--people would come in, look at the "At This Performance" board, and their faces would fall--so I think the fact that Raul was out was a surprise to many. But, the theater seemed full to me (we were sitting in the front mezzanine, row D left, and all the seats I could see were filled), so it didn't seem to me that many people exchanged tickets. Maybe it was different down in the orchestra!

I haven't seen Raul play the role--my son and I are definitely going to try to go back when he's there--so I can't comment on his interpretation vs. Esparza's. He does have a lovely voice and he certainly can be proud of his performance. I agree with the other posters that his interpretation was of Bobby as kind of everybody's friend, an observer, a bit detached. He did "blend in" quite a bit when he was onstage, but not participating.

One thing I did wonder about was the question of Bobby's homosexuality. I remembered reading in at least one review (NYT?) that this is somehow highlighted more, or alluded to more, in Esparza's performance. I didn't catch any of that in Dean's performance. The exchange he had with Peter about it seemed just awkward, but not illuminating, if that makes sense. I didn't really believe that he had actually had such an experience before, despite his saying so.
Still, overall, I thought he did a very good job in what must have been a very difficult situation.

(I do appreciate the comments above about the way the other cast members responded to him; it didn't occur to me that some of their performances were geared towards Esparza's interpretation of the role, which makes a lot of sense when I look back on it.)

Karen

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 11:16am

I saw the show in previews. "Company" is tied for my favorite Sondheim show, and I was miserable.

Karen- The scene between Bobby and Peter is perhaps one of the most pointless revisions ever. Handled properly, it could be touching. However, most of the time, Peter comes off as a predator, which is exactly how I felt with Raul. (However, by this point the lack of emotion and heart had made me totally stop caring.)

[karen24]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 11:30am

That's interesting--could you explain how it was revised? I never saw the original production, so I wasn't sure if that scene was even in the show from the beginning. To me, last night, it did seem that Peter was being predatory, and Bobby just seemed really uncomfortable, but not in the sense that he was attracted and trying to fight it.
Karen

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 11:57am

In the early 1990s, they did a concert staging in Los Angeles with Carol Burnett as Joanne, and the audience reacted badly. And part of it, not Burnett's fault, was in today's world, Joanne was almost too big of a bitch. So they decided to sit down and some changes. Then, the Donmar Warehouse took over and helped finsih them. The changes were slight in some cases, they added "Marry Me a Little" back into the score, and changed the lyric in "You Could Drive a Person Crazy" to say "Gay" instead of "Fag" (Which, as a gay man, the word didn't bother me in the context). The biggest change was some scene fleshing (including the scene between Peter and Bobby), and the removal of "Tick Tock." (Which was a crime to humanity.) All in all, the changes were not all that swell, but sadly, it's what is liscenced now.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 3:19pm

Thanks for that post, Karen. Bradley is a fairly recent addition to the cast, which might be why he isn't listed in the Playbill yet. Fred had been Raúl's standby previously, but he was the only standby to have a regular part in the show, so Bradley was cast to cover Bobby and in turn avoid the ripple effect.

It's really interesting to me that people are saying Dean's Bobby blends in more --one of the things I love most about the dramatic effects of Esparza's performance is the fact that even when he's just sitting there observing, he sticks out and creates a huge amount of dissonance with the rest of the cast, often swirling around him in song. It's sort of a paradox because while his Bobby is still very much lost in the chaos, you can't help but look at him.

In any event, I'm definitely going to make sure I see his performance at some point -- I'm just so curious to see the show with a totally different interpretation of Bobby because I have Raúl's dark intensity so ingrained in my understanding of the show. I think it will be fascinating to see it another way, but I think if I'm seeing him by choice, I'd rather wait until he's mad more experience playing Bobby and until the cast has more time to get used to him. It must be strange to see them reacting to something that's not there, since we're talking about a role on which the whole dynamic hinges.

I also wonder how much of the performance is excused because of the Times article.

I think "excused" is sort of the wrong term, because his interpretation of the character on the whole didn't change in conjunction with the article. I think certain things in his performance it can be "attributed" to that article, but by saying that maybe much of it is "excused" because of it, are you insinuating that he's been let off the hook in terms of criticism because of what the article reveals he's going through? Being Alive became distinctly more emotional; I saw the show the week before and the week after the article. It was always emotionally heavy, but the difference was enormous -- he cried through the entire thing, and seemed to have quite a bit of trouble getting through it. It's awful and sadistic of me, but I thought it was more stunning than it had ever been. I felt as though someone had punched me clear into and through my gut. But that was the only part of the performance that saw a change. I'm sure one could speculate and say that the things addressed in the Times article play into his interpretation, but if it's been that way since he started out with the role, can it really be said that the detachment, etc. that some are disenchanted with is "excused" because of that article?

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 03:19 PM

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 3:34pm

As noted elsewhere, I saw Raul at the Wednesday matinee and thought he seemed much warmer, funnier, than when the show opened. I guess I thought at the opening that he seemed like an outsider by choice, kind of withdrawn - now he seems more like a kid who knows that certain behavior is expected of him but can't figure out what is missing to make it happen. It made BEING ALIVE a real "AHA!" moment this time - I liked the entire flow of the performance a lot better as a result. Hope Raul is okay -

[Horton]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 4:00pm

I believe that Raul already plays the piano, he sure did in Caberet and Tick Tick Boom

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 4:03pm

I'm like... 95% sure there's an intervew out there in which he says he faked it for TTB. And... piano playing in Cabaret? What part? There's also definitely Company press in which he talks says he doesn't. He's able to play the notes (obviously), but that's kind of it -- it's nowhere near the level of proficiency his castmates have.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 04:03 PM