Brief thoughts on COMPANY- Page 3

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 1:00pm

What I think has been said by a number of people scattered among several threads. So here is my condensed view:

1. Raul Esparza is a major talent, no question. I have always thought he could do "anything." Perhaps he still can, but he needs a director whose vision will bring out theose qualities in the character essential to the story's development and denouement. Didn't happen.

2. By show's end, I should at least have some sense of who Bobby is, why people love him so much and what makes him so romantically appealing. By the time he sings "Being Alive," we should want for him what he wants himself, feel his longing and support his dream. While Raul delivered a chilling rendition of the song, it could have been at a concert...it didn't seem like a natural step in the evolution of a human being.

I didn't "like" Bobby. I didn't really "like" any of the characters. I have to care about a character in order to rejoice in their epiphany (or whatever). And I agree with other posters who said it makes no sense that this guy wants to be in a loving, committed relationship so much when he is surrounded by couples who offer us no reason for what they are doing together! There was no chemistry between them. No tenderness. No intimacy Just because someone says, "I love you" at the end of their vignette, it doesn't mean I'm going to think, "OH! I get it! They LOVE each other! Okay, then. Whew!"

Perhaps the characters could be developed if they were up there acting, singing and dancing...rather than lugging instruments around the stage and distracting the audience from getting to know anything about them.

3. I want my orchestra back! I want to hear Sondheim's music performed by people who are focused on it and only it.

4. This discussion about "sarcasm and wit"...very briefly al I will say is that people can be sarcastic and witty...AND warm. Bobby--in this production-is not "warm." He seems barely human at all to me. Raul just "reacts" throughout the show. He mugs a lot and drinks invisible booze a lot (more on that later), but he has no depth. At the end of the show when he admits that he wants to be with someone that he can "take care of," it's hard to believe because there is no reason for him to want to take care of anyone. We have no positive examples of that among the couples (again, "saying" they have to "take care" of each other isn't the same as making us believe they are committed to doing it). And he doesn't demonstrate that he is even capable of it.

Gotta go to a matinee now. I'll come back to this later sometime.

I still ADORE this score (no matter how feebly it was delivered last night!)

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 1:19pm

Ditto.
The few minutes of Raul singing "Petrified" in Taboo held more emotion and understanding of his character than the entire production of Company.

Updated On: 11/11/06 at 01:19 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 2:03pm

Not to disparage opinions, even though that's what it's going to sound like I'm doing, but what's baffling me about all of the dissent is that people are coming up with these lists of problems they're having with the production, and I'm wondering why it feels like the entire point has just sailed right over the heads of posters -- many of whom I know are very intelligent and well-versed theatergoers. I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong or whatever, nor is this to say that someone is crazy for simply not digging the show and you're only well-versed if you liked it, but I'm really kind of confused by all of this. Nothing I have said so far or am about to say in this post is directed at any one person, but it's been triggered by a lot of things I've been reading here and elsewhere (namely ATC).

Yes, the production is, in many places, cold. But isn't that, in so many ways, the point? I mean, are we looking for warmth in the theater just because it's comforting and safe? I think the coldness pushes into ideas of urban isolation and desolation in Bobby's sort of melancholy state -- which IS alienating and possibly uncomfortable to watch; and to me, that's very powerful. Doyle's Company is still "a musical comedy," but he has darkened it, and I think people are failing to suspend what they know Company to be, which is causing a failure to tap into that. It seems that there's this image that Company should be uplifting and fairly happy; and perhaps that because it's entertainment in the form of labelled "musical comedy," it shouldn't be alienating and harsh. I think the polarization is making itself increasingly apparent as a generational one. People who saw and were so moved by the original may not be ready for what Doyle is doing to the show, and in turn are not being moved by it at all.

This idea of marriage being about love and warmth and unconditional caring versus obligation to care (for the record, I think Bobby really does feel like he's truly ready) or making Bobby think "oh, that's it, I want to be just like that -- I'm going to get married RIGHT NOW!" is also kind of striking to me because... this is the first time I saw Company. So right off the bat, that struck me as being integral to raising the bar of conflict for Bobby. If ALL of his friends are happy all the time and thrilled with their marriages, he's not going to be as conflicted as he is if some are happy and some are (like Joanne) on the verge of breakdown, so rather he sees obligatory "I love yous" and irritating quirks in addition to relationships of which he's envious. He sees coldness and detachment, too. The mixture shows that he's being pushed and pulled in many different directions as opposed to just being a single, slutty guy who's being pressured into settling down. Doyle instead brings to the fore that he's troubled and by simple human nature in need of a relationship in which he can love and be loved, even if the marriages he examines are not picture perfect. What marriage is? So when Bobby sings Being Alive, he wants both what he sees around him and what he doesn't see. I don't think he needs to be beaten over the head with examples of only perfection to know that he's lonely, or wants to love and be loved.

I find Raul to be an intensely emotional actor, and I find it interesting that for a lot of his time as Bobby, he shuts that off -- or at least turns it down. It frustrates me that people are faulting him for something that may very well be the point of his performance; and again, I think people are looking for something easy and comfortable rather than something that's difficult and pushes the envelope a little bit. His Bobby is not devoid of emotion by any means, but he's also distant, probably a product of all of his pain; the result is that he's happy on the surface, hurting underneath, and bottled up. There's something much more complex about that than about open happiness or sadness in not having shut down. I agree that he's very reactive throughout the show, but to me, that emphasizes every single one of the points that by spinning the understanding of the show on its head, Doyle is trying to make. I have to vehemently disagree with the notion that Doyle didn't bring out the character, especially when given on the grounds that he's not emotional enough. The downplay is hugely effecitve, I think. Maybe what he brings out isn't what people are used to, I don't know, but he and Raul collaboratively brought out something that is, in my opinion, deeply moving and cathartic about Bobby. (And if anyone tries to tell me I feel this way simply because of some delusion bred of the fact that I'm attracted to Raul and am a huge fan of his work, well... argh. Please don't, I've heard it all before and it's weak.)

I'm sorry to be redundant, and apparently make people feel threatened as I've heard, but I'm just really, really frustrated by this. If I come across angry or defensive about the fact that people aren't liking the show, that's not how I mean to appear -- I'm neither of those. Disappointed, perhaps, but that's a personal issue more than it is anything else. I'm just struck oddly by how many people seem to rather than simply dislike it, are party to this appearance of failure to realize that it's not cold or distant by flaw, but rather in places by design -- to me, there's a fundamental difference between not liking something and having dislike stand as a euphemism (perhaps unintentionally) for missing the point, which is what I see from a lot of reactions here and elsewhere. I feel like people are missing what Doyle is trying to say... and frankly, I don't get it.

Updated On: 11/11/06 at 02:03 PM

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 2:24pm

I'm with emcee on this one.

See, I don't really understand some of the points detractors of this production are making. Bobby's supposed to want marriage because he sees the happiness in his friends' life? That's not even the case in a traditional production of Company.

Despite being a romantic comedy, this is a show that, at heart, is about the emptiness in the then contemporary lives of upper class New Yorkers. It's about isolation, and, no, not JUST Robert's. Bobby's plight and confusion arises out of the need to love, and be loved, which his friends, REGARDLESS of the situation of their marriages, do have.

Bobby's so called epiphany isn't that he wants what his friends already have (or what they want FOR him)- it's that he needs to find himself, his own identity, independent from his overbearing circle of friends, and only THEN can reach out to another human being. At the end of the show Bobby lets go of the need to "fit in" with the people in his life (hence why he doesn't show up to the party).

And I think these themes come across beautifully in Doyle's production. People are free to disagree, but I think one should at least understand the director's vision before completely dismissing it.

[moulinrougehk]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 2:34pm

Agree with any Doyle's production (blindly, haha)!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 2:35pm

Um, huh?

[Cages or Wings]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 2:41pm

I couldn't agree more with Em. I have seen Company many times, and this production taps into many different aspects of the show including letting the audience see the darkness and isolation of Bobby's experience. One aspect that I haven't seen talked about is the idea of Bobby running out of time. We see that when the scenes quickly change from one apartment to the next that Bobby feels like the transition was too quick (Raul double takes quite a bit). This shows that he sees his life (as we are supposed to assume these scenes are happening on different occasions) is moving by too quickly. The idea that Bobby's time to find someone is running out feels much more urgent in the way Doyle stages these scenes, and consequently gives songs like "Someone is Waiting" and "Marry me a Little" much more power.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 2:46pm

Thank you.

To draw more upon that, aren't there lines throughout the show that reference aging, being too old, or wanting to be married by a certain point in your life? I think the way Doyle stages and paces the show is crucial to demonstrating his acute understanding of the material. I assume typically those lines would just be spoken and then passed right by -- but theater is fundamentally about showing, not just telling. That's exactly what he's doing. Bobby's constant double-takes as one vignette transitions into the next seem to say that he's lost in time, and not sure how it all got away from him so quickly. He always meant to settle down and get married some day, but suddenly he's thirty-five and still very single.

Updated On: 11/11/06 at 02:46 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 6:04pm

count me in the liked column. I fully enjoyed this production. I think the actors playing the instruments concept works even better for this show because it becomes a direct metaphor for the piece.

it also works better because you don't have to know the show beforehand to enjoy the story--which was often commented as a problem for sweeney todd.

I didn't see an elaine stritch imitation though God bless any actor who has to sing that song knowing that stritch is so engraved in our heads. walsh did a great job.

I think at present, this is the show to beat for revival, actor, director, and is going to make for one heck of a best featured actress category (can see at least 2 possible noms)--though i still think wilson will win for grey gardens.

one thing I will add, and I dunno if this is an insult or a compliment, but speaking strictly on visuals, the show looks like a blending of the recent revivals of nine (costumes, period, aspects of the set) and sweeney todd (instruments and blocking).

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 6:10pm

Which two are you leaning toward for feature actress, jerby?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 6:14pm

There is no way in hell, John Doyle is going to win the Best Director Tony two years in a row...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 6:18pm

I do agree with that -- especially because he's employing so many of the same ideas.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 6:20pm

well it was a terrific ensemble

walsh, of course. and I would guess that laws will should she be as good as pfitsch, who blew me away.

it all depends on how the season fans out. many seasons contain featured performances worthy of a tony that don't even get nominated.

oh--regarding intimacy, I can't say whether or not the production plays well in that size theatre as I was second row. but the audience seemed to be thrilled with the show.

and they ran to the box office at intermission to buy more tickets!!!! just kidding. :P

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 6:26pm

it wouldn't be the first time a director won two years in a row. and these are two very different musicals despite sharing instruments.

but who knows? there is a whole season ahead.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 6:41pm

I vehemently reaffirm that Doyle did not bring out any characters. Maybe Amy a little, but I think that's because the actress is so charming and the character so kooky. I didn't get to know anyone else in the show. No one. I read many analyses of what the show is "supposed" to be about by various people on line,but to me none of that matters if you don't like what you see on stage. That's my one simple criterion. I feel that whatever Doyle was trying to do either didn't work out, or is just plain awful.

I was looking forward to seeing Raul after the show but I didn't stay to speak with him because I didn't leave the theater exhilarated. His talent deserves to be showcased in a different production. Looking forward to that.

Updated On: 11/11/06 at 06:41 PM

[moulinrougehk]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 7:12pm

I don't know why some people said that the worst thing of the show is the lighting. The only technical award Company won in the regional awards (forgot the name) was lighting design.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 7:20pm

It would help if you knew which region awards you were referring to, but whatever. I think there are probably still some lighting kinks; the lighting changes have to catch up to the staging changes, which are still happening at a very rapid pace.

[moulinrougehk]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 7:53pm

It's the Cincinatti Entertainment Awards. I forgot that not even it won the lighting design, Company also won costume design in technical awards, but only these 2. Other awards that won were:

Acting Performance by Visting Actor: Raul Esparza
Acting Performance by Visiting Actress: Barbara Walsh
Ensemble Acting Performance
Outstanding Musical

Here's the full list of winners and nominations:



http://www.citybeat.com/cea/06pages/theater.html

Updated On: 11/11/06 at 07:53 PM

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 11/11/06 at 10:36pm

One of my thoughts on Bobby in this particular production is that if we accept that the music represents his friends, and thus their presence in every part of his life, including all of his thoughts, I think that maybe the lack of a consistent arc is extremely effective. Bobby is pushed over the edge so to speak in the Ladies Who Lunch scene, leading into Being Alive, which serves as the musical epiphany, and then silence, symbolic of letting those presences go. I feel like there doesn't need to be a visible arc that is consistant throughout the show in order to tell the story in this way.

That made no sense, but I tried.

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 2:24am

The sarcastic humor could come off as disingenuous, but that, IMHO, is just showing how cold Bobby is. I know from experience that sarcasm is mostly used as a defense mechanism, and that in fact is one of the reasons I find Esparza’s Bobby so brilliant.

I would never think, or talk down to anyone on this thread. I’ve read most of your other posts, and I find them very interesting, well said, and intelligent, but I believe that you have completely lost the thread of what the character is, what the production is about, and what Company is in general. Bobby isn’t supposed to want to get married… he doesn’t want a Stepford life, and creating the bland characters as husband and wife makes perfect sense to me. It seems like after many years, couples become more of a unit than separate personalities, and that is one of the points. Bobby can’t commit, and is a playboy because well, marriage seems so unappetizing to him, which is entirely due to what he sees with his friends.

Esparza’s look is a type, and a type that is generally… lets say appreciated by women and men in general. Even though I do find him attractive, I saw the show with someone who does not, and they understood that women would generally like his appearance.

Another thing to do with that is that Bobby isn’t just a ‘playboy’, so it shouldn’t come off as that. If his sarcasm attracts women, it’s entirely not his fault. Dig deeper, and it’ll make sense.

I was slightly worried about his performance, only because I saw his misdirected George a bit ago, and was very disappointed. He created a character that was too passionate in a world that should be cut off. I was delighted to see that no only did he cut off, you could also tell how hurt he was.

Third thing- the fact that we don’t care about Bobby is not this productions’ fault what so ever. People have been complaining about Sondheim’s shows creating non-likable characters since day one. What I liked about this production is that it didn’t matter if you cared about the couples or not (which is always the hardest to pull off), but it did matter for Bobby. I assume that it’s personal experience that made me feel for Bobby so much, but I really thought that any person would understand his real emotional pain far before Being Alive.

Okay, now onto responding to this thread. Forgive me, I’m in tech week and should be sleeping now.

I didn’t love Walsh… because I am too in love with Stritch (gosh, I just wrote Streep… wouldn’t that be interesting?) to be able to even accept any other actor playing that role or singing that song. Bless her, she tried, but she couldn’t break my barrier.

There is no way in hell Doyle’s going to win Best Director. They might just give Company best revival because of the snub last year, but I seriously doubt it.

What’s most funny to me about this is that this is almost exactly what people said about the original production, and makes me want to clip this quote of Emcee’s to something.

“Yes, the production is, in many places, cold. But isn't that, in so many ways, the point? I mean, are we looking for warmth in the theater just because it's comforting and safe?”

The reason the original production wasn’t embraced by the general public is because the theatergoers at the time were basically Bobby’s friends, who didn’t want to see their life on stage when they were looking for something ‘comforting and safe’. Not that anyone here is that close minded, I just needed to stick it in because I found it fascinating.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 3:05am

"I would never think, or talk down to anyone on this thread. I’ve read most of your other posts, and I find them very interesting, well said, and intelligent, but I believe that you have completely lost the thread of what the character is, what the production is about, and what Company is in general. Bobby isn’t supposed to want to get married… he doesn’t want a Stepford life, and creating the bland characters as husband and wife makes perfect sense to me. It seems like after many years, couples become more of a unit than separate personalities, and that is one of the points. Bobby can’t commit, and is a playboy because well, marriage seems so unappetizing to him, which is entirely due to what he sees with his friends. "

I feel you have talked down to the posters on this thread in your assumption that they have "lost the thread of what this production is about, etc.....and what company is in general.

I "get it". There's nothing about this production that's hard to understand. It's obvious that at the time this story takes place Bobby doesn't want to get married. I think everything's pretty clear in this show. And in this paragraph of yours-

"It seems like after many years, couples become more of a unit than separate personalities, and that is one of the points. Bobby can’t commit, and is a playboy because well, marriage seems so unappetizing to him, which is entirely due to what he sees with his friends. "


I don't see it that way. I see Bobby digesting all the scenarios of his friends' marriages, and coming to the final conclusion that although marriage is not perfect, his friends have something that he wants-and he tells us so in Being Alive.

All the opinions I have read in defense of this production mention how the show is "supposed to be cold" . That's a matter of opinion, and even if it weren't-I for one, don't want to see a show which I'm going to call unengaging and at times-alienating.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 3:59am

I don't know that it's accurate to say that the original production wasn't embraced by audiences. It ran 700 performances, a good run for that particular time period when Broadway was in decline and shows weren't running as long as they had been in the 1960s or as they would be again a couple of years later. It returned its investment and made a small profit.

We all know that no Sondheim show has ever been a smash. Company was one of the most successful in its original production.

Funny, but I've seen Raul Esparza in three shows and the only one which I thought he was really good was Sunday in the Park With George.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 4:26am

Sondheim said that HE didn't really understand Bobby until the Sean Mathias production at the Kennedy Center in '02 starring John Barrowman.

I don't understand why someone can't say, "I didn't like this production and here are some of the reasons" without other people getting defensive.

I didn't like it. I'm not "wrong" about that. In fact, I'm certain I didn't like it, and nothing anyone says is going to change my opinion.


P.S. With all due respect, I think it presumptuous for anyone who has never been married (or in an equivalent union) to speak with any "authority" about marriage.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 5:24am

"P.S. With all due respect, I think it presumptuous for anyone who has never been married (or in an equivalent union) to speak with any "authority" about marriage."

Does that mean that someone who's never been married or in an equivalent relationship can't write about marriage with any authority?

I liked the Kennedy Center production of Company a lot, but first Sondheim said that David Carroll in the York production had been the only Robert to make "Being Alive" really work for him, then he said something like the Mendes production and Adrian Lester's Robert was the first time Robert really seemed the central character, then he said a few years later that Barrowman made him understand that the show is about a boy growing up. I don't know about this guy . . .

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 10:47am

What I would be curious to know is how many of the strong supporters of this production have ever seen a production of COMPANY before...

I strongly disagree with the posters who say that COMPANY is a cold musical. It is not. This is a cold production of COMPANY. And for me, again the problem has absolutely nothing to do with the actor/musician concept (except there is a lot of mediocre singing in this revival as an inevitable byproduct). I simply don't like Doyle's sterile concept of the piece and his direction of the book scenes, which I found lifeless.

And I think all you need to do is read the description of Bobby given by his friends in the lyrics of the opening number and "What Would We Do Without You" to quickly realize that he is not written to be a cold, sarcastic character.

I agree with Nobodyhome and I suppose Sondheim (on one of his various variations of the compliment) but I think John Barrowman is about the most effective Bobby I've heard or seen. In fact the entire Kennedy Center production was first rate, with warmth and a lot of humour and is indeed closer to what the tone was like of the original production than most of the other major revivals - The Roundabout, Donmar etc.






Updated On: 11/12/06 at 10:47 AM