Questions about "Company" libretto

[fiyero8132]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 9:46am

A) I recently co-developed a small theatre group with a couple of my friends. There are 14 members of the group in total and we are looking at presenting Sondheim's "Company" as our premiere production. We are all in 10th - 12th grade and have lots of musical theatre experience so we thought it appropriate to try a challenging piece (i.e. Sondheim). We were shy at first about portraying married couples, quite a stretch from our actual ages. But we decided - this show is meant to be a mockery of married life (albeit with a touch of poignancy and truth). Overall, it is just a spoof, if you will. It would even add another dimension of humor if we, high school students, were portraying these couples. What's your opinion on this?
B) Is there anything really race in the libretto? Coarse language is fine, alchohol usage is do-able, the "Tick Tock" number is manageable, but is there anything else we should be aware of? I've heard that there is a scene in which David and Jenny smoke pot. Is this a script-specific necessity? Are there any lines that require it? How might it be avoided?
C) Has anyone ever been involved with/seen a youth (high school or college) production of Company? How does it come off? Have any alterations been made to the book? Any answers would be much appreciated. Bottom line - we want to make this show work because we've got the perfect cast for it!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 9:51am

COMPANY is about married couples, but it's not necessarily a spoof at all. Misunderstanding of what the show is about (and the most effective way to pull it off) will undoubtedly lead to a bad production.

I think it's great that younger people want to do COMPANY, but I think it's also a little dangerous. Most of the characters in COMPANY have experienced things and gone through things that most 15-18 olds haven't even thought of, and I think the integrity would suffer.

The script isn't necessaily racey, but it's not completely take either. Yes, they smoke pot, and yes, it's necessary. Any changes to the script are illegal. I hope you're paying for the rights to this...

I have seen one other production with younger people - and they were a tad older than you guys - and it was a disaster.

[folkyboy]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 9:59am

i agree, munku. i can almost hear the awful version of Being Alive now

[fiyero8132]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:00am

The rights? Um... only way to do it, munkustrap! But just to be clear, adding to the show is illegal - eliminating a line or two is not. Thank you so much for your input and concern. I'd like to just let it be known that this is a very mature group, who can handle a production of this sort. Thanks for recognizing that it is good that younger people want to present a Sondheim show. But also - Company is not supposed to be "real". It illustrates real values but the only character who is real is Robert. The couples and girlfriends are all very much two-dimensional. And for good reason. They are there to present vignettes illustrating different aspects of marriage. I understand that it is not supposed to be taken as a joke, but we would not want to portray it as though "we know the ropes of married life". Hard to explain, but we've got a vision haha!

[fiyero8132]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:07am

Anyone else care to add anything on the matter? I'd really appreciate it.

[folkyboy]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:10am

you may get more responses in the Student Board

[fiyero8132]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:10am

Okay, thanks.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:11am

Well, I don't think there is anything wrong with younger actors attempting this show. It's no different than high schools who try Tennessee Williams or Shakespeare.

"Company" is non-linear story-telling. That's the revolutionary concept that Prince, Sondheim & Furth (with his original plays & stories) were going for.

But it's not a spoof, and the characters ARE real. The situation, however, is not. The story (if you want to call it that) takes place in an instant of time, inside the mind of "Bobby" as he gathers with his friends to celebrate his birthday.

That's the reason for the vignettes and the lack of character development. But the characters are real, not cartoons. It's as if Bobby is flipping through a scrapbook in his mind, on the very moment he blows out his candles.

I think if you're going to attempt this show with a young group of actors, they ought to be very clear about the show and the dawn of the "concept musical" age.

Updated On: 6/1/06 at 10:11 AM

[fiyero8132]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:12am

Thanks. Good advice.

[fiyero8132]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:16am

Does anyone know which specific lines refer to pot smoking?

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:20am

The pot-smoking is definitely in the script, and intended. It's a very funny scene, too. I realize the hurdles you'll face with this one. (It's an entire vignette scene, not just one or two lines of dialogue.)

That leads me to my next thought... this show is solidly a product of its time... it screams "1970," not just musically, but mostly with its attitudes toward social behavior in big-city America. If you try to update that or "revise history," you will likely remove the heart and soul of the piece along with it.

I don't want to see "Hair" set in 1997, either, in other words. It would lose its emotional impact completely.

Updated On: 6/1/06 at 10:20 AM

[sicetergo]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:21am

I first did Company in the final year of school and it was received very well. I understand the issues regarding the maturity of the cast - as a cast we'd worked we were veterans of some demanding fare ranging from Macbeth, through Pirandello to Duerrenmatt and Brecht, so perhaps we were "ready" for Company, but with sensitive direction, I'm sure a cast can be guided through the issues raised.

On a personal level, I found Company very useful in my development. Not perhaps educational, but it certainly opened my eyes..

[pab]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:21am

Read it here

Updated On: 6/1/06 at 10:21 AM

[fiyero8132]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:23am

That's just the lyrics. But thanks for trying. Do you remember some of the text in the "pot" vignette?

[sicetergo]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:27am

"Maybe they gave you real grass, right off the front lawn...."


I would disagree about updating the show, all the productions I've seen have had a contemporary setting and the heart and soul, hasn't been taken out of it.

The pot smoking scene is about so much more than smoking pot and I'm glad now that it doesn't have the same sense of the shock value, because the actors and the audience can really concentrate on the particular dynamic of David and Jenny's relationship, which is a great deal more interesting.
Updated On: 6/1/06 at 10:27 AM

[fiyero8132]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:30am

I agree. I just ordered to the perusal libretto so I haven't read the text myself, but I think it's more about David and Jenny's relationship than smoking pot. It can be done tastefully. Also, for the sake of fun costumes and scenery we want to keep it set in the 1970s.

[fiyero8132]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:39am

I'm heading to school for a couple of hours. Keep the advice coming. You've all been so helpful.

[Princeton78]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:47am

Few random thoughts here...

*Having just done 'Company,' I wouldn't call it a spoof at all. I found the relationships to be very real and poignant.

*In my production, all the actors were of the age they were supposed to be playing, and it made the ending all the more moving.

*I personally can't see an 18 year old Joanne. "The Ladies Who Lunch" and the interplay with Bobby is only meaningful from a woman who has seen things that a teenager hasn't.

*If you do choose to do it, please keep it in the 70's.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 10:50am

The pot smoking is played for laughs mostly, and a bit of shock-value.

I'm not saying "Company" can't be updated, but it does lose impact. I've seen two productions of it that tried to set the show in "modern times" and while they were both terrifically cast and directed, the show felt very weak, as far as sensibilities for so many reasons.

"The Ladies Who Lunch" is a very dated piece on women standing up and being counted as human beings. This was written and performed right in the middle of the Women's Lib movement, where it made so much more sense and had more of a dramatic effect at the time. Joanne's excessive drinking is not the "socially acceptable norm" that it was in 1970. They were trying to expose it for what it was during her number, and that's not exactly new "news" now. The single women in Bobby's life are not exactly self-sufficient, proud women. Not any one of them. The necessity of marriage itself isn't as relevant today.

These and many other factors lessen the shows dramatic impact if you try to set it in today's world.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 11:02am

The new production is updated, but not with specificity; the pot-smoking scene is still there, and it doesn't feel *all* that weird. It's still hilarious. If they were explicitly to say that this was 2006, or whatever, it might feel a little strange, but it's sort of, to be cliché, timeless. It's definitely been taken out of the 70's, but it works. It could be 1985, or 1990, or whatever. I didn't find myself questioning what year it might be, I just accepted that it was whenever.

That said, as far as the original question, come November, won't you have some trouble getting the rights? If that's the case, why is this even an issue?

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 11:05am

This is not really a good show for young people to do. Age is really an issue with these characters. That doesn't mean you guys aren't great performers... but age is really a motivating factor for many of the characters in the play. It would sort of like be doing Hairspray with all white people... could it be done? Maybe... but why would you want to do that? You would be putting yourself at such a disadvantage. Do something where age is not an issue. Follies perhaps.


kmc

[timote316]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 11:07am

I may be (and probably am) way off-base here, but I don't think revivals affect right availability. My high school did Fiddler in April, 2004, just after the latest revival opened.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 11:08am

The age of the characters in FOLLIES is detrimental, are you kidding mE?

I agree - stay away from shows like this. I love them to death, but I would never put productions on with younger people - I think too much of the integrity would suffer.

Regardless of how talented you all think you are, age is something that cannot be faked.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 11:09am

Revivals absolutely affect rights availabilities.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 11:10am

When shows are revived in New York, they often limit the rights, but not restrict them entirely.

Sometimes it's only full-scale professional productions that are restricted entirely while a revival is running on Broadway.

Sometimes it's only for certain regions (like a 200 mile radius, or "the East Coast," etc.).

It varies, based on individual decisions... but it's definitely worth looking into, since I'm sure there will be at least LIMITED rights.

Updated On: 6/1/06 at 11:10 AM