John Doyle to direct "BARNUM"- Page 4

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 7:14am

>> I could have more theatrical knowledge than you, you don't know. The difference is I'm not sitting here stating things as fact. I mean really what do YOU do? what makes you so great.

What I do, ma'am, is address the points in a post, unlike you, who respond by saying litle more than "Oh, Sean, you're just a poopie-head." If you think Doyle's work is so wonderful, tell us why instead of castigating the people who just might know a little more about theatre than you.

No, I dont know what your background is, nor do I care. Ive had the pleasure and honour of working with directors and designers and actors that, frankly, you're not worthy to stand in the same room with. Theyre not Great Big Names, but they had far more vision than anything you'll see between 41st and 54th Streets, and I could consider what I learned from them in the process to be every so slightly more than anything you've brought to the table in this thread thus far.

I repeat: if you can back up your opinion, then kindly do so. Because till now, you've done a ****ing miserable job of it.

Insofar as Doyle, I'll say again what I said in an earlier Company thread: to do two Sondheims back to back with the same basic concept was as wrongheaded as it comes. Doyle may be a fabulous director, but all this did was demonstrate he's a one-trick pony with no other way to approach material than through his "actor-musician" stunt work. While it was successful in Sweeney, it simply didnt work in Company: the instruments hindered the performances and sometimes, as with the trio number, get in the way. From a physical standpoint, the show is dull as it gets -- there's a line in the play where one of Bobby's girlfriends says she wants to sit at a bar dressed all in black. Good grief, John Doyle put her in black like everyone else in the show, so what's the point of the line now?

Company is supposed to be an evocation of the difficulties of relationships in New York; there was a reason for Aaronson's steel framework. Does this set even come close to telling us that? Not by a long shot; it's Euro-minimalism, but without the depth of thought to support it. Instead, it's all about the piano, and the set could be a music studio for all it informs us. But once again, it's a Doyle production, so, as with Sweeney, there's a large empty platform so the actor-musicians have plenty of room to lug their instruments around. But beyond that, what does the set really tell us about the play? Zip.

The performances? With the possible exception of Raul's, they're mediocre to acceptable. The singing in some spots is downright grating, and the characterizations run the gamut from "somewhat insightful" to flat out caricatures. There's no consistency. We have to understand why Bobby keeps these people in his life, but the way some of them come across, you sit there thinking, I'd delete them from my speed dial so fast, because they're just so damn unlikable.

The blocking? Better left not even addressed. I still have no idea what Doyle was trying to do up there; some scenes were just inexplicable.

All in all, it's a mindless, superficial stroll through the material, not a presentation with depth. It's a director pretty much showing off how clever he is and not really succeeding because the brilliance of the material keeps upstaging him -- even bad Sondheim is good Sondheim, if you get my meaning. And not even John Doyle, the one trick pony, can completel defeat that, although he does his best to try.

Now, madam, address the points instead of the poster. I await with baited breath.

[D2]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 7:31am

SeanMartin: You elucidated my thoughts about the production perfectly, and I completely agree with your assessment.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 7:44am

Thank you, sir. Coming from a director, that's much appreciated.

I was thinking about the music after I logged off and why it felt like Sweeney would be "easier" than Company. The earlier poster is right: the metres in Sweeney are just as tough, if not more so.

But again it comes down to approach to the material. Sweeney's cast of inmates allowed less than perfect musicianship, because it could be part of the overall concept. But do you get the same latitude with Company, where everyone is supposed to be living perfect lives?

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 12:18pm

SeanMartin, you're really intense about this. Cursing at me and making comments about me that you have no way to back up (not knowing me from Adam). You're so busy addressing the points that you missed that my original post was in fact MEANT to be addressed to the poster. Maybe you should read my entire posts. If you scroll back you'll realize I said I'm not defending anyone's work. I NEVER SAID I LIKED DOYLE'S COMPANY. So I have no opinion to "prove", except that you're entitled to yours. I simply said you don't know everything...that's all I said. My analysis of the Sondheim scores are completely seperate. Please read all of the posts you respond to. You might save yourself some energy and time writing paragraphs defending a point that no one's claiming is wrong.

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 12:23pm

Ok, they really need to stop this whole "Actors playing instruments" thing because if this business wasn't gonna hard enough to get into, now I need to be a quadruple threat?!?!?



ahhhh....

and also...it's been done...like someone else said "new idea!"

ok, end rant.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 12:25pm

>> SeanMartin, you're really intense about this.

Maybe because, as with FOLLIES, I was looking forward to this from the day it was announced and left the theatre on both occasions wondering why they bothered if this was to be the end result.

>> I simply said you don't know everything...that's all I said.

Tone, madam, is everything, even in a posting forum. You said far more than "simply" that I dont know everything. And now you're backpedaling like a three year old. So accept that fact that you were caught out in your inabilty to say anything meaningful in the discussion at hand, and that's all there is to it. Now move along, because you're clearly not equipped to sit at the adults' table.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 12:44pm

You just refuse to read I guess. There wasn't anything to backpedal on. Intersting thing about written text, oh theatrical god that you are, is that you can imbue it with any sort of subtext you want. Actors do it everyday on the stage...I think you put something there that wasn't there. Interestingly you're addressing select sentences of my post and ignoring whole sections.

The intensity of which I was speaking was not of the productions, but of a thread on a chatroom board. If it's very important to you then I hope you feel good now.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 1:41am

Sean and Jazzy, chill out. You two could probably find out you have a great many interests and points in common over a drink at some little bar off Times Square.

And Sean, that "Even bad Sondheim is good Sondheim" line is a classic. I'll be stealing that tonight.....

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 8:28pm

Production apparently cancelled. See parallel thread.

[lite2shine]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 8:44pm

I take my previous comment back. Yes it's canceled. But I'm not disappointed because... I can't say
Updated On: 1/11/07 at 08:44 PM

[davalmar]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 8:51pm

Well there was a big sign posted at the chorus call today at Telsey that said PRODUCTION CANCELLED. It's disappointing to me, the opportunity lost.
All the negativity on this board is depressing!!!