Company Reviews (and beyond)- Page 5

[PianoMann]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 12:48pm

The biggest discrepancy between Shaw's and Green's reviews is that Shaw meets and critiques this production on its own terms, while Green seems to judge this work predominantly based on its relationship to the original. It's fine to be an originalist – it was a delight revisiting the Kennedy Center "Follies" thread recently and reliving the debates about the original versus revival staging of the ghosts, etc. – but not when the original concept and staging becomes a barrier to attending to what is on stage now. That does a disservice to any production.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 12:52pm

PianoMann said: "The biggest discrepancy between Shaw's and Green's reviews is that Shaw meets and critiques this production on its own terms, while Green seems to judge this work predominantly based on its relationship to the original. It's fine to be an originalist – it was a delight revisiting the Kennedy Center "Follies" thread recently and reliving the debates about the original versus revival staging of the ghosts, etc. – but not when the original concept and staging becomes a barrier to attending to what is on stage now. That does a disservice to any production."

Say it louder.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 12:56pm

PianoMann said: "The biggest discrepancy between Shaw's and Green's reviews is that Shaw meets and critiques this production on its own terms, while Green seems to judge this work predominantly based on its relationship to the original. It's fine to be an originalist – it was a delight revisiting the Kennedy Center "Follies" thread recently and reliving the debates about the original versus revival staging of the ghosts, etc. – but not when the original concept and staging becomes a barrier to attending to what is on stage now. That does a disservice to any production."

Exactly. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 1:14pm

The beauty of reviews is each critic brings their own perspective. If you go see POWER OF THE DOG as a fan of the source material and you take issue with the way Jane Campion chose to adapt it, that's going to factor into your review; if you aren't familiar with the novel or don't like it, that will factor into your opinion. This is why a range of opinions is good and helpful.

It's also an important question of any revival, especially for a show as well-known as COMPANY where much of the NYT readership has seen one of the previous revivals: how does a show written in 1970 resonate today?

I would love to know what a person who has never seen or heard COMPANY thinks of this production, because I think it would be pretty weird and confusing if you don't know the context going in.

Updated On: 12/10/21 at 01:14 PM

[binau]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 1:39pm

I have taken people to see this show in London and New York, who didn’t know much about musicals, Sondheim or Company and they all loved it (can’t say the same about other Sondheim shows I’ve taken people to). This is what is so annoying about the NYtimes review claiming that the changes don’t work because in my experience they do. People tell me they are surprised that it was written in 1970 and Bobbi was once a guy. 

I actually cringed a little at reading the NYtimes article because the criticism just felt so left-field/unexpected and tone deaf for 2021. 
 

It’s also one of the few reviews I really can’t even see where they were coming from. I at least understand why people might say they had issues with Bernadette’s voice in Gypsy or Follies, or why people might have had reservations about the Trevor Nunn Night Music, even if it didn’t affect my enjoyment or I disagree. But it’s very hard to understand how Jesse Green could have felt the production was so fundamentally misguided it deserved what is basically a pan. It’s like he was on a different planet. 
 

I can’t help but feel Brantley would have given a rave and love letter for the same show. 

Updated On: 12/10/21 at 01:39 PM

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 1:49pm

I had never seen a production of  Company before I went on November 15th. I was familiar with some of the songs out of context, mainly "Ladies Who Lunch" and "Being Alive," but, as far as the plot (or lack thereof) was concerned, I went in blind, and I was very confused by the timeline of the vignettes. Were they in chronological order? Were they flashbacks? Did it matter? The fact that Bobbie kept repeating her 35th birthday didn't help matters. I spent all of Act 1 trying to figure out what the f*ck was going on, so that obviously had an effect on my overall reaction to it. I had other issues with the production, as well, and it just didn't speak to me. There were moments of brilliance, but on the whole, I found it non-cohesive.

In the moment, I felt dumb for not quite understanding what I was seeing on stage. Did I just not "get" it? Maybe, but that doesn't make my opinion of it any less relevant, since I'm certain I'm not the only one who feels this way.

However, the experience of being there on the first night back, with Sondheim in attendance, was unforgettable, and I feel very fortunate to have been there.

 

 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 1:53pm

BJR said: "Who said Patti's "Being Alive" was one Sondheim liked?

Elliot and Sondheim twice cast this Bobbie with an actor with a lovely-but-not-powerful singing voice when, as some have said, it's 2021 and there are high belters everywhere. Clearly, it ain't what they wanted.

All that aside, as I read Isherwood's rave review for New York Stage, I thought, How must it feel being Elliot and weathering the many years of this projects, and of course the pandemic, and have the NYTimes reviewer there to greet you not be the one who raved in London, nor in a greater time travel leap, the former NYTimes critic Isherwood. Instead, you get this turd of a review. Oh this industry (and life) - all about timing.

I love the production, and I'm glad they're selling well. I hope Green didn't kill it."

No offense to them, but they clearly don't know what 2021 audiences want. I get they want an actor who sings. But you know what? There are def. actors in NYC who can do both. And do both well. 

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:00pm

TaffyDavenport said: "I had never seen a production ofCompanybefore I went on November 15th. I was familiar with some of the songs out of context, mainly "Ladies Who Lunch" and "Being Alive," but, as far as the plot (or lack thereof) was concerned, I went in blind, and I was very confused by the timeline of the vignettes. Were they in chronological order? Were they flashbacks? Did it matter? The fact that Bobbie kept repeating her 35th birthday didn't help matters. I spent all of Act 1 trying to figure out what the f*ck was going on, so that obviously had an effect on my overall reaction to it. I had other issues with the production, as well, and it just didn't speak to me. There were moments of brilliance, but on the whole, I found it non-cohesive.

In the moment, I felt dumb for not quite understanding what I was seeing on stage. Did I just not "get" it? Maybe, but that doesn't make my opinion of it any less relevant, since I'm certain I'm not the only one who feels this way.

However, the experience of being there on the first night back, with Sondheim in attendance, was unforgettable, and I feel very fortunate to have been there.



"

Just to be clear, the questions in the above post are rhetorical, and I don't want anyone who thinks they know better to try to explain the show to me.

[Zion24]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:11pm

Wick3 said: "A Director said: "Jesse Green has a problem with women directors and playwrights. His review stinks of male chauvinism."

Green recently gave Critic's Pick to Clyde's, written by Lynn Nottage and directed by Kate Whoriskey."

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I disagree with Green's review here-- i loved this production-- but the childish need to ad hominem respond by attacking.... Green for disagreeing? The whole notion of "critics" is that for some reason we pay people to tell us what they think of shows as if the NYT reviewer's opinion matters any more than mine or yours. Its not Green's fault that we do this, and its certainly not his obligation to like this show?

And then to beclown yourself by pretending that Green doesn't like shows directed by women? When we have ample evidence to the contrary? Grow up. 

 

[Zion24]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:15pm

RippedMan said: "No offense to them, but they clearly don't know what 2021 audiences want. I get they want an actor who sings. But you know what? There are def. actors in NYC who can do both. And do both well."

So I disagree re Katina's singing, which i thought was perfect and moving. But assuming I agreed with you that she can't sing the score, are you really suggesting that Elliott and Sondheim and the production team should ignore what they think is best for the show, and instead cast "what 2021 audiences want"--as if this is a monolithic, obvious thing?

By that logic, wouldn't they not do this production AT ALL, and just focus on pop music revues and adaptations of every single hit movie ever made?

I understand not liking what Lenk is doing, but I don;t understand the hostility to her/those who cast her, as if they owe you someone or something else. 

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:25pm

TaffyDavenport said: "TaffyDavenport said: "I had never seen a production ofCompanybefore I went on November 15th. I was familiar with some of the songs out of context, mainly "Ladies Who Lunch" and "Being Alive," but, as far as the plot (or lack thereof) was concerned, I went in blind, and I was very confused by the timeline of the vignettes. Were they in chronological order? Were they flashbacks? Did it matter? The fact that Bobbie kept repeating her 35th birthday didn't help matters. I spent all of Act 1 trying to figure out what the f*ck was going on, so that obviously had an effect on my overall reaction to it. I had other issues with the production, as well, and it just didn't speak to me. There were moments of brilliance, but on the whole, I found it non-cohesive.

In the moment, I felt dumb for not quite understanding what I was seeing on stage. Did I just not "get" it? Maybe, but that doesn't make my opinion of it any less relevant, since I'm certain I'm not the only one who feels this way.

However, the experience of being there on the first night back, with Sondheim in attendance, was unforgettable, and I feel very fortunate to have been there.



"

Just to be clear, the questions in the above post are rhetorical, and I don't want anyone who thinks they know better to try to explain the show to me."

Just so you know, every production of Company is like this.  I don't know why everyone is acting like this is the first production of Company to have this kind of surreal jumping through time.  This is not a flaw of this particular production.

BTW, the issue with Green's review is that it's poorly written.  Shaw's is fine because she at least properly articulates why the show didn't work for her (but again, a lot of her criticisms are of things that Company, in any iteration, is often criticized for).

 

Updated On: 12/10/21 at 02:25 PM

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:33pm

Georgeanddot2 said: "TaffyDavenport said: "TaffyDavenport said: "I had never seen a production ofCompanybefore I went on November 15th. I was familiar with some of the songs out of context, mainly "Ladies Who Lunch" and "Being Alive," but, as far as the plot (or lack thereof) was concerned, I went in blind, and I was very confused by the timeline of the vignettes. Were they in chronological order? Were they flashbacks? Did it matter? The fact that Bobbie kept repeating her 35th birthday didn't help matters. I spent all of Act 1 trying to figure out what the f*ck was going on, so that obviously had an effect on my overall reaction to it. I had other issues with the production, as well, and it just didn't speak to me. There were moments of brilliance, but on the whole, I found it non-cohesive.

In the moment, I felt dumb for not quite understanding what I was seeing on stage. Did I just not "get" it? Maybe, but that doesn't make my opinion of it any less relevant, since I'm certain I'm not the only one who feels this way.

However, the experience of being there on the first night back, with Sondheim in attendance, was unforgettable, and I feel very fortunate to have been there.



"

Just to be clear, the questions in the above post are rhetorical, and I don't want anyone who thinks they know better to try to explain the show to me."

Just so you know, every production of Company is like this. I don't know why everyone is acting like this is the first production of Company to have this kind of surreal jumping through time. This is not a flaw of this particular production."

I'm aware of this now, but I also had other issues related to this production on its own, apart from the content. Primarily, I was responding to Ermegarde's post about how a first-timer would react to the show.

[bwaydreamer]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:33pm

Green's review is the correct review.  Patti is the stand out obviously, and there are some funny moments and good performances, but we all know Katrina can't sing it.  Anyone who says otherwise is just lying to themselves.  And the direction is way too busy and detracts from the core of the show.  It's a fun night of theatre but it doesn't hit like Company should.  

[RippedMan]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:34pm

JDonaghy4 said: "RippedMan said: "No offense to them, but they clearly don't know what 2021 audiences want. I get they want an actor who sings. But you know what? There are def. actors in NYC who can do both. And do both well."

So I disagree re Katina's singing, which i thought was perfect and moving. But assuming I agreed with you that she can't sing the score, are you really suggesting that Elliott and Sondheim and the production team should ignore what they think is best for the show, and instead cast "what 2021 audiences want"--as if this is a monolithic, obvious thing?

By that logic, wouldn't they not do this production AT ALL, and just focus on pop music revues and adaptations of every single hit movie ever made?

I understand not liking what Lenk is doing, but I don;t understand the hostility to her/those who cast her, as if they owe you someone or something else."

Not at all, and no hostility here. I'm just of a generation that has grown up with Wicked, Hamilton, American Idol, The Voice, etc. So to me, I know we can have both. I personally don't really get why a composer would want an actor who can't handle his score? Like, I just don't understand why that would work. I LOVED this production and plan to go back, but "Being Alive" and all of Bobbie's solos were just painful to watch/listen to. They didn't work. When you're watching an actress struggle to hit the notes it's tough to justify why when there are so many actresses out there that can deliver.

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:46pm

The girl behind me at the show said she wished they had cast Jessica Vosk.  I wanted to pass away.

[SophiaPetrillo]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:46pm

bwaydreamer said: "Green's review is the correct review. Patti is the stand out obviously, and there are some funny moments and good performances, but we all know Katrina can't sing it. Anyone who says otherwise is just lying to themselves. And the direction is way too busy and detracts from the core of the show. It's a fun night of theatre but it doesn't hit like Company should. "

Sounds like you’re lying to yourself because you can’t accept that your experience isn’t the only correct one.

[JaglinSays]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:49pm

Blame the music director for not tailoring the keys 

for Lenk do that she was presented in a more favorable light. Although I still think she’s profoundly miscast. 

[UrNotAMachine]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:49pm

RippedMan said: "Not at all, and no hostility here. I'm just of a generation that has grown up with Wicked, Hamilton, American Idol, The Voice, etc. So to me, I know we can have both. I personally don't really get why a composer would want an actor who can't handle his score?"

 

I'm of the same generation as you and the issue is that Company is decidedly not  Wicked or Hamilton or American Idol (lol). It's not the kind of show that needs high belting to "prove" to the audience that the character is feeling heightened emotion. I understand some of the qualms with Lenk, even though I personally loved her in the show, but I hate the idea that because Lenk isn't screlting every night she's not doing justice to the part. Wicked and other mega-musicals have completely upended what female leads on Broadway are "supposed" to sound like, and not for the better in my opinion. 

Yes, Company has always had well established book issues (it's one of the things I find endearing about the piece) and Lenk's inner journey and transformation does the best job of any other performance of Bobby (except possibly Raul Esparza) of making me believe her arc. I don't find that to be diminished because she doesn't sing Being Alive like it's Defying Gravity. This isn't that kind of show.

 

Updated On: 12/10/21 at 02:49 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:53pm

UrNotAMachine said: "RippedMan said: "JDonaghy4 said: "Not at all, and no hostility here. I'm just of a generation that has grown up with Wicked, Hamilton, American Idol, The Voice, etc. So to me, I know we can have both. I personally don't really get why a composer would want an actor who can't handle his score?"



I'm of the same generation as you and the issue is that Company is decidedlynotWicked or Hamilton or American Idol (lol). It's not the kind of show that needs high belting to "prove" to the audience that the character is feeling heightened emotion. I understand some of the qualms with Lenk, even though I personally loved her in the show, but I hate the idea that because Lenk isn't screlting every night she's not doing justice to the part. Wicked and other mega-musicals have completely upended what female leads on Broadway are "supposed" to sound like, and not for the better in my opinion.

Yes, Company has always had well established book issues (it's one of the things I find endearing about the piece) and Lenk's inner journey and transformation does the best job of any other performance of Bobby (except possibly Raul Esparza) of making me believe her arc. I don't find that to be diminished because she doesn't sing Being Alive like it's Defying Gravity. This isn't that kind of show.

"

I agree with every word of this. This discussion over Lenk’s voice seems like it’ll never end. I do feel confident that they will get some wonderful vocal takes for the inevitable cast recording. 

[UrNotAMachine]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:55pm

JDonaghy4 said: "Wick3 said: "A Director said: "And then to beclown yourself by pretending that Green doesn't like shows directed by women? When we have ample evidence to the contrary? Grow up."

Someone who likes other shows directed by woman can still make comments that come across misogynistic. That's like the theater critic equivalent of "I have a black friend..."

 

[PianoMann]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 2:58pm

bwaydreamer said: "Green's review is the correct review."

There is, of course, no such thing.

There are thoughtful reviews, well-written reviews, and poorly written reviews, but no correct reviews. I think the majority of folks here take issue with the shaky foundation upon which Green constructs his review, not that he did not express the "correct" opinion. Shaw isn't getting raked over the coals for her mixed notice because she at least supported her take on the piece well.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 4:07pm

UrNotAMachine said: "JDonaghy4 said: "Wick3 said: "A Director said: "And then to beclown yourself by pretending that Green doesn't like shows directed by women? When we have ample evidence to the contrary? Grow up."

Someone who likes other shows directed by woman can still make comments that come across misogynistic. That's like the theater critic equivalent of "I have a black friend..."

"

Similarly, women can absolutely be misogynistic. I don't think Shaw's is just because she didn't like it, but there is no question that many women are misogynistic.

[normadesmond2]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 4:15pm

Had this production of "Company" opened, as originally scheduled, in March 2020, Ben Brantley would have undoubtedly reviewed it in the Times, just as he had reviewed this new version in London.

But I wouldn't be so sure that he would have raved again.  If one looks up his London review (from early 2019; the production opened in 2018 ), one sees that Brantley's Times rave gave equal credit to the staging and to the leading lady, Rosalie Craig.  Brantley thought that Craig reinvented the role just as the director had done.

So there's no telling what his reaction to Lenk would have been.  Brantley raved over the National Theatre/Trevor Nunn production of "Oklahoma!" when it opened in London in 1998 and starred Hugh Jackman.  When he reviewed the NY incarnation in 2002, he did not hesitate to state that this production had been much more effective in London, with Jackman.  (I thought Patrick Wilson was just fine in NY.) 

 

Updated On: 12/10/21 at 04:15 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 4:19pm

He also loved Nunn’s “A Little Night Music” in London and hated it on Broadway. 

[JasonC3]

Posted: 12/10/21 at 4:24pm

I thought Matt Wolf did the official NYT review for the London production and that Brantley also praised the piece in a column he wrote about both Company and Caroline or Change.  Or were they both "official" reviews with Wolf's simply appearing a few months ahead?

Wolf: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/theater/sondheim-company-london.html

Brantley: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/theater/company-caroline-or-change-reviews-london.html