#1
Posted: 11/7/06 at 12:58am
I've had a few people PM me requesting my thoughts on the new revival of COMPANY - so forgive the new thread.
As somebody who was a huge advocate of John Doyle's rethinking of SWEENEY TODD - which I first saw at London's Tralfager studios and numerous times on Broadway, I am terribly disappointed to write that I'm going to have to join the dissenters on Doyle's production of COMPANY.
The problem, I will start right off the bat, is not “directly” to blame on Doyle's signature actor/musician concept: except to say that in stripping COMPANY to the core brilliance of its music and lyrics, he has taken with it the show's passion, emotion and conflict and most of its humor. COMPANY, however, unlike SWEENEY is not a plot driven show. And the fact that it is a more abstract piece of theatre does not, in my opinion make it a better show for Doyle’s concept. Indeed I think Doyle's SWEENEY worked at all because it IS such a great story.
COMPANY has been many things in many different productions over the past thirty years under directors like Sam Mendes and Sam Mathias, but rarely if ever has Sondheim's musical come across so dull - so unlikable.
Doyle seems to be saying that marriage is sterile - antiseptic. His COMPANY is a world where couples are only slight variations on all black fashion ensembles - interchangeable and monotone. Frankly, if I were Robert, struggling with the idea of commitment, I'd have run for the hills seeing a constant parade of robotic Stepford husband and wives. But than too, Robert needs to be an engaging, personable figure. For the couples, he is indeed part of their “company” and there needs to be a reason why they like him and keep him around. Raul Esparza gives a committed performance but one that barely registers until the final moments of the show when we simply don’t care or believe in his dilemma. What’s missing is the journey. The growth – the mounting tension with each failed attempt at connection that warrants the inevitable emotional breakthrough (“Being Alive.”) It is a fatal directorial miscalculation.
Because the performers have been robbed of the individuality of their characters, the performances are largely unmemorable, though I did find some nice pockets of energy in Jane Pfitsch’s Amy (better in the “Not Getting Married” scene than in the song) and in Elizabeth Stanley’s April, who thankfully avoids the trap to play the character as an airhead. Barbara Walsh, however seems to fall not only into the Joanne trap but seems to have reached back into her “Forbidden Broadway” bag of tricks, delivering an actual Elaine Strich impersonation (and not well).
Word of mouth in the theatre following the show held the general air of heady disappointment, and I have to say I largely agree. While I continue to applaud Doyle and his producers for taking risks and producing experimental productions on Broadway – COMPANY is simply an artistic misfire: one in which a directors style is contradictory to the themes and values of the original piece.
As somebody who was a huge advocate of John Doyle's rethinking of SWEENEY TODD - which I first saw at London's Tralfager studios and numerous times on Broadway, I am terribly disappointed to write that I'm going to have to join the dissenters on Doyle's production of COMPANY.
The problem, I will start right off the bat, is not “directly” to blame on Doyle's signature actor/musician concept: except to say that in stripping COMPANY to the core brilliance of its music and lyrics, he has taken with it the show's passion, emotion and conflict and most of its humor. COMPANY, however, unlike SWEENEY is not a plot driven show. And the fact that it is a more abstract piece of theatre does not, in my opinion make it a better show for Doyle’s concept. Indeed I think Doyle's SWEENEY worked at all because it IS such a great story.
COMPANY has been many things in many different productions over the past thirty years under directors like Sam Mendes and Sam Mathias, but rarely if ever has Sondheim's musical come across so dull - so unlikable.
Doyle seems to be saying that marriage is sterile - antiseptic. His COMPANY is a world where couples are only slight variations on all black fashion ensembles - interchangeable and monotone. Frankly, if I were Robert, struggling with the idea of commitment, I'd have run for the hills seeing a constant parade of robotic Stepford husband and wives. But than too, Robert needs to be an engaging, personable figure. For the couples, he is indeed part of their “company” and there needs to be a reason why they like him and keep him around. Raul Esparza gives a committed performance but one that barely registers until the final moments of the show when we simply don’t care or believe in his dilemma. What’s missing is the journey. The growth – the mounting tension with each failed attempt at connection that warrants the inevitable emotional breakthrough (“Being Alive.”) It is a fatal directorial miscalculation.
Because the performers have been robbed of the individuality of their characters, the performances are largely unmemorable, though I did find some nice pockets of energy in Jane Pfitsch’s Amy (better in the “Not Getting Married” scene than in the song) and in Elizabeth Stanley’s April, who thankfully avoids the trap to play the character as an airhead. Barbara Walsh, however seems to fall not only into the Joanne trap but seems to have reached back into her “Forbidden Broadway” bag of tricks, delivering an actual Elaine Strich impersonation (and not well).
Word of mouth in the theatre following the show held the general air of heady disappointment, and I have to say I largely agree. While I continue to applaud Doyle and his producers for taking risks and producing experimental productions on Broadway – COMPANY is simply an artistic misfire: one in which a directors style is contradictory to the themes and values of the original piece.
Updated On: 11/7/06 at 12:58 AM
