Brief thoughts on COMPANY — Page 2

Well witty sarcasm also doesn't come across as sincere, which could across as "not connecting" or "not caring" or "indifferent" - none of which are strong choices for an actor. Not saying Raul is bad or anything, but maybe he should pick a stronger choice, an action he play rather than use his witty sarcasm as a fall-back.

The book of COMPANY is dated. I actually think stripping the show to its core only further exposes that. The lyrics are also filled with 70s vernacular, slang and references.

At the end of the day, COMPANY is not a musical that as a whole is going to stand the test of time. SWEENEY TOOD is. Maybe thats why, for me, SWEENEY better withstands Doyle's experimental deconstruction. You have to have a great STORY at the heart of any play to do that. Stripping COMPANY just reveals that under Sondheim's brilliant insights into relationships - there just isn't much there.

And to add to the arguement regarding "sarcastic wit" = As written, Bobby is not a sarcastic wit - he is irresistable. Big difference.

Pretty much. He's a ladies' man. One of the big themes is the difference between love and sex, though.

I think witty sarcasm is sexy.

---

"Its not a story of a loner's ability to become warm, its about a man who is something of a playboy realizing that in order to live fully, he needs the company of not 15 friends, but one person who understands him fully."

This is so interesting, and I think that this, even more so than the actor-musician concept, is probably the main issue in determining someone's opinion of this production. I don't see Bobby quite the way you describe, though I've seen productions where that description is completely accurate (it seems pretty spot-on as a description of John Barrowman's Bobby). I find it less interesting, and I think that for the emotional journey to be at its most compelling, you really need to see that Bobby is unhappy with his situation. Going from basically content but a little something is missing to totally content isn't much of a journey, at least to me. I think that you need to see that conflict for Bobby to be a compelling character. This is where the whole Bobby-as-a-cipher vs. a fully-formed character debate comes in, I think.

Mendes took a similar approach to Doyle in terms of framing it as Bobby's story and having him as someone who's kind of disconnected, and the results were heartbreaking. Contrary to your analysis of what kind of story Company is, I would say that it can be -- and is at its best, in my opinion -- the story of a man who keeps everyone, even his best friends, at arm's length learning that he has to let at least one person in. He isn't a loner, but that doesn't mean that he isn't profoundly lonely. I do think that it's about the character warming up, to some extent. I think that this, more than anything, is what Doyle's production is trying to convey... whether it does so successfully is up for debate, of course. But I think that this is the core of that production, and if that's not what you want or expect from Company, you'll be fundamentally disappointed that it seems so cold. It will work really well for some people, and others will dislike it.

It's a reimagination, and you could probably argue that it isn't in line with the text (though the creators can't be that discontented with it), but I think that framing Company this way is an improvement and something that strengthens the show.

Updated On: 11/7/06 at 12:17 PM

Robbie, the staging is fairly rigid, and I think it sort of relies on suspension of disbelief. The first scene, when Bobby goes to visit Harry and Sarah has one of the more abstract staging elements, I think -- they do their karate sequence from opoosite sides of the sort of artificial thrust. So if you're willing to accept that much, the rest of it will probably work for you. There's a lot of movement around the periphery, and it's fairly active, but abstract, which you might like.

As far as Bobby being irresistable and sexy and all that, this MAY be a limb, but I think there's a fair amount of agreement on the idea that Raul is... well, naturally a very sexually-charged actor. So if you're looking at an actor who just by being on stage in and of itself can be irresistably sexy, I think that almost gives his performance the luxury of being able to head over into that desolate, lonely, melancholy place while not losing what makes him "irresistable." He doesn't have to *try* to push the sex appeal agenda, it just exists by putting him on stage, so he has room to do more than make the character a total ladies' man... and further, I think he's doing it without losing that quality. I don't know if that makes any sense. It does in my head.

---

Yes, Robbie, SWEENEY tried to have it both ways: to offer up the story in traditional enough terms, while employing a very erratic framing device (many inconsistencies. Easy one: If in a santatorium, done by inmates, seemingly in one sitting, why did Patti -- alone -- get to change between acts? Where did those props come from? Why were some real, some stylized, some mimed?) Many scenes used standard blocking, with a general investment in a 4th, unbroken wall. Then, we'd get a "Brechtian" presentational touch that ignored all that. Sometimes, it seemed to lack a real cohesive concept -- just settled for being "different" with actors playing music.

In a way, it was more like ZORBA, a traditional show framed by a bouzuki circle, wherein the circle participants told the story. As they started, scenery flew in, etc, diluting even that Prince-ian concept. SWEENEY did that, too, though scaled down (the upstage wall.)

COMPANY, about a group of friends, at least suggest a built-in unity for the concept. I'll be curious to see.

---

Yes, Robbie, SWEENEY tried to have it both ways: to offer up the story in traditional enough terms, while employing a very erratic framing device (many inconsistencies. Easy one: If in a santatorium, done by inmates, seemingly in one sitting, why did Patti -- alone -- get to change between acts? Where did those props come from? Why were some real, some stylized, some mimed?) Many scenes used standard blocking, with a general investment in a 4th, unbroken wall. Then, we'd get a "Brechtian" presentational touch that ignored all that. Sometimes, it seemed to lack a real cohesive concept -- just settled for being "different" with actors playing music.

In a way, it was more like ZORBA, a traditional show framed by a bouzuki circle, wherein the circle participants told the story. As they started, scenery flew in, etc, diluting even that Prince-ian concept. SWEENEY did that, too, though scaled down (the upstage wall.)

COMPANY, about a group of friends, at least suggest a built-in unity for the concept. I'll be curious to see.

---

I didn't say there is anything wrong with the fact that COMPANY is dated, but I do feel it works best when, like the Kennedy Center production, it is presented as a period piece. I think because Doyle is setting the show present day in such a minimalist way, the period slang/lingo are actually much more noticeable and distracting, whereas when it is set in 1970 you simply ignore that aspect of the show and CAN focus on the interpersonal relationships(the root of the show). Updating the text/lyrics would certainly not work.

Mendes may have taken a similar approach to the character of Robert, but to echo what I say earlier - the breakthrough with Adrian Lester was palpable because you saw the arc of his journey through his interaction with each couple. Esparza seems to take it all in, and decides to change at the 11th hour as a sort of afterthought.

I will admit, I don't find Raul Esparza particularly attractive or sexy. Perhaps that is a personal bias, and perhaps if I felt differently, I would have bought Doyle's concept more. Though I think you can also make the arguement, that if you DO find Esparza incredibly attracive, it may equally slant your bias about the production the other way...

Updated On: 11/7/06 at 02:44 PM

I will admit, I don't find Raul Esparza particularly attractive or sexy. Perhaps that is a personal bias, and perhaps if I felt differently, I would have bought Doyle's concept more. Though I think you can also make the arguement, that if you DO find Esparza incredibly attracive, it may equally slant your bias about the production the other way...

Point taken on Esparza; and I WILL admit that I think it helps skew how you feel about the production, because if you buy into the sex appeal of his Bobby, then you buy into his performance much moreso than if you don't. I won't, however, admit that the way I feel about the production is based entirely upon the fact that I am unabasahedly attracted to the guy, because it's just not true. I won't personally concede to the argument that finding him attractive slants my entire bias of the production -- remember, I didn't love the whole thing at first. Not until I really spent some time thinking about it did I really come to love it. I think it can slant you one way or the other as far as the *character* goes, but to say that it's slanting opinions of the production *as a whole* I think goes too far and dumbs things down.

I also think you have to look at the difference between considering someone attractive and considering the fact that they're just overtly sexual -- the difference between recognizing sexual energy and just thinking they're attractive. I think it no coincidence that the powers that be cast someone capable of emanating quite a bit of sexual energy, whether you (editorial) personally find him attractive or not -- no smack to his talent, obviously the main factor in his casting. I don't think it has a single thing to do with how one might buy Doyle's concept as far as stripping down the show or his actor-musicians, but I think his.... persona, or sorts (NOT being or not being attracted to him), has a hell of a lot to do with how you feel about Raul's Bobby. The point I was making was not to dumb it down enough to say "well, if you think Raul is gorgeous, you'll totally buy into the show. And if not, then hey, you won't at all." It's a piece of the pie, I'm saying -- and to call it something like sexual energy does not equal being found attractive. MB, I think we've had this discussion before about him.

Make sense? I'm afraid I'm not making much today.

---

Updated On: 11/7/06 at 02:58 PM

Mendes may have taken a similar approach to the character of Robert, but to echo what I say earlier - the breakthrough with Adrian Lester was palpable because you saw the arc of his journey through his interaction with each couple. Esparza seems to take it all in, and decides to change at the 11th hour as a sort of afterthought.

That's totally fair, and I would say that that's more of a problem in the execution of the character that you didn't feel that. I was mainly disagreeing with the suggestion that Bobby isn't lonely or isolated despite his many friends and lovers. Lester's Bobby, of whom you seem to have approved, seemed to be coming from a similar place as Bobby in Doyle's production. I just wanted to chime in that it isn't always so cut and dry what the journey of the character is or is meant to be.

Wait, wait, wait...

I'm jumping back because I'm reading with great interest the comments about witty sarcasm playing on stage.

IMHO, it can certainly work, but the wittier and more sarcastic you are, the bigger the raw beating heart underneath it needs to be, or else you just come off as unlikeable. The actor can show tiny flashes of the emotional current, sure, but those moments are crucially important.

Sarcasm, cynicism, etc can work as a cover tactic, but unless the director is trying to make the point that a character's humanity is dead and gone, that can't be all that's there.

Haven't seen this show yet, so not a comment on Esparza's performance at all. This just jumped out at me as something to be mentioned.

When I saw the first preview, I went in as a complete and loyal fan of Stephen Sondheim, John Doyle, Raul Esparza, and Company's music. I wasn't very familiar with the story, but I knew and loved the score. I enjoyed the show, but when I exited the theatre, I felt this gnawing at my heart. Perhaps I expected too much from this production. My friend and I saw it togethr, and we both thought the same thing. We loved it, but not as much as Sweeney Todd. And I just wished I could have seen Company before I saw Sweeney. I can't help wondering if being so much in love with the production of Sweeney affected my standards for Company. I don't think it's fair that people are gonna inevitably compare it to Sweeney Todd, cause Sweeney's story is so powerful even without the music. But I feel as though Company somehow relies on the music to really capture the audience. And since I was comparing the two, I felt as though that would be a major hurdle for the show.

I hope people make their own decicions about this one, cause it's certainly worth seeing. Especially if you are like me and never had a chance to see a professional production of Company. I didn't leave dissapointed, I just wished I could have reversed the order in which I saw the two shows.

---