Company--Tick Tock

[lula2]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 11:30am

I know that the current revival of company cut this song, but does anyone have any insight as to what Kathy's dancing represents in this song? I understand April and Bobby's dialogue and such but what is Kathy's arc in this song?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 11:46am

It's an orgasm thing.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 11:50am

I love the "Tick-tock" number. There have been some who have argued (perhaps successfully) that the reason the dance was created in the first place was to give something for Donna McKechnie (Michael Bennett's muse) to do in the original production.

But I've always felt the number was great because it represents the physical loneliness of not being able to connect with another human being. Robert's "hook-up" with April is something of a meaningless one night stand - and McKechnie's dance articulated the different feelings that go a long with that and was particularly powerful juxtaposed with the warm "I Love Yous" of the married couples.

I personally think it’s an important part of artistically representing Robert's struggle with commitment and connection and I'm a bit sorry that so many productions cut it now.

And for the record, the number is cut in the current script made available from MTI, who licenses the show, but is apparently available upon request.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 11:55am

Seeing McKecknie dance this in the 25th anniversary concert was one of those moments in the theater I'll never forget.

(almost every number that night was magic.)

D'Amboise dancing in the 90's revival meant nothing at all...so much of that production sucked.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 11:59am

Doodle (and MB), I imagine this might be why they just cut it except by request.
After all, can you just imagine the number of really bad "Tick Tock"s that would be perpetrated upon the community theatre-going audience?

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 12:04pm

that's what I'm thinkin', bway.

In Doyle's version, she'd have to dance with a trombone, right?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 12:06pm

I think thats part of it Bwaysinger, but the other part of it is that increasingly, COMPANY has become a "chamber piece" of sorts: almost every staging I've ever seen, outside of NYC, has been in a tiny black-box theatre which don't generally have stage room for a big dance number. I think thats actually the main reason why the number was cut from the Donmar production.

People tend to forget that the original Broadway staging of COMPANY was pretty big. Huge orchestrations etc.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 12:08pm

I believe, when they had her dancing it during tryouts in Cincy, she was playing the theremin.

[Gingersnap]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 12:16pm

The recent Seattle production had the sufficient stage room (and the full, wonderful orchestrations) for the number and Anna Lauris, who played the part, was the show's dance caption...so I was rather let down that they didn't include it...mainly out of curiousity because I've never seen the scene with the dance included. Looking back, I wish I'd asked David Armstrong about that when I had the brief chance to talk with him...I'm going to blame hunge and jet lag.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 12:22pm

Could it also maybe be expectations of what the audience will accept? So few shows - except those marketed AS dance shows - feature all-out dancing anymore, much less a very specific number for a solo dancer designed to pull out a plot point.
It's a lot to ask.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 12:25pm

They didn't use it at the Kennedy Center either.

I think Sondheim and George Furth feel the show works fine without the number. And the orchestral demands for including it (you really also need the vocal minority choral parts) plus the demands of finding a dancer who can really do it justice probably are viewed, more often than not, as just more trouble then they are worth.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 12:38pm

I long to see McKechnie do it. I would love to see how it was done.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 12:46pm

To add a bit more to the original question, in the original libretto, the stage directions for the dance are that the dance represents the difference between having sex and making love. Hope that helped!

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 12:48pm

SG,

brilliantly...even at 50 she was stunning.

Magical night.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 12:50pm

You can see McKechnie do the dance in the video of the touring production of COMPANY (from 1972) at the Lincoln Center archives.

[jewishboy]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 12:54pm

Waht does Donna/Kathy wear when she dances the number? I keep picturing her in the original prouduction in that red outfit from ACL.
Updated On: 12/20/06 at 12:54 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 1:09pm

"In Doyle's version, she'd have to dance with a trombone, right?"

Actually she would bump it with a trumpet.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 1:11pm

There's a picture of her in the outfit in the Ken Bloom/Steven Suskin coffee table book.

She wore kind of a short 70s teddy/negligee two piece thing.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 1:14pm

"And the orchestral demands for including it (you really also need the vocal minority choral parts) plus the demands of finding a dancer who can really do it justice probably are viewed, more often than not, as just more trouble then they are worth."

Musicians, singing and dancing in a musical are trouble? Right there is where musical theater dies.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 1:23pm

I agree that it would be fascinating to see the original number as danced by Ms. McKenchie (oh, the things I'd see at Lincon Center if only I had time), but it does make perfect sense that it's usually cut. Most community theater productions won't have the necessary combination of a star dancer, choreographer and the space needed for such a number. I think that the dialogue parts add to the story, but it's also next to impossible not to know that Robert and April don't have a meaningful connection while the married couples do.

I was also going to say that the idea of representing sex vs. love that way seems very late-'60s/early-'70s to me (meaning that I'm not sure how audiences today would accept it) -- but I suppose that's no more fair than to place a date on using instruments to signify being an active participant in the world.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 1:26pm

I think the idea signifies the late 60s/early 70s shifts, too, but I think as far as a general commentary on relationships, it's still a valid differentiation today. If ideas of detachment are in fact more valid today, I think that plays in, even if the distinction of having sex versus making love isn't one that people... actively consider as much today. Not sure if that makes sense.

I've gotta get to Lincoln Center sometime soon. I like Tick Tock on the CD, but I'm really curious to see how it was staged.

Updated On: 12/20/06 at 01:26 PM

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 1:26pm

The performance to which Doodle is referring was filmed for something. My professor had a recording that appeared to come from PBS or some such and we got to see the 50 year old Donna still strut it around in the Tick Tock Dance.

[lula2]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 1:41pm

Its such a shame when it is cut. Kathy's part becomes so much smaller and less developed.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 1:49pm

bwaysinger...is your professor known as "bwaybootlegger" online, by any chance?

:)

[mateo]

Posted: 12/20/06 at 1:54pm

its one of my favorite pieces of music.