Brief thoughts on COMPANY- Page 4

[All_For_Laura]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 11:04am

I saw it yesterday afternoon, front row center, and having just performed as David in a production of Company, the script was fresh in my mind. So many things opened up in this production that I had not even considered before. There are so many underlying messages that I cannot even begin to explain, but the portrayals of all the characters were incredible. Also, Raul gave the performance of a lifetime. I could not believe what I was hearing, just amazing. I was almost tearing during "Someone is Waiting". I have never been so emotional during that song. Just a spectacularperformance and a spectacular show!

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 11:17am

(except there is a lot of mediocre singing in this revival as an inevitable byproduct).

- Sorry, MB. But I think you are so out of place here. I know it's your opinion. But, I simply thought the vocals were FANTASTIC. I've never heard the title song sung so perfectly. The chords were sung with such ease. Not once did I hear mediocre singing in the revival. Raul is easily singing at the level of Dean Jones, and obviously leagues beyond Botyd Gaines. Their vocals as an ensemble simply blew me away.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 11:18am

I promise that this post is much less frantic in tone than was yesterday's. It's the morning, and I'm calm in the mornings.

While I am going to side with Jane that your tone was condescending, Sondheim Geek, I'm going to side with you as far as what you said. From what I gather, the thrust of the original was Bobby not wanting to get married and being convinced that he should when he sees his friends' marriages. I've often wondered if that's not too simplistic, but... was it really that way? Before I saw this production, I was familiar with the story and the score, but not with many interpretive nuances at all. People seem so thrown by the fact that the mood has changed with this revival, but the book itself hasn't, so lines that indicate less-than-total happiness have always been there. I guess much lies in the interpretation, but I can't imagine that it's always been bluntly clear-cut that Bobby wasn't ready to get married and then decided after observing his friends that he was and wanted to. That seems almost too simplistic.... and it seems only natural to assume that there was more than just one layer to Bobby's journey, but I don't know. I can see it being that he wanted to get married even after seeing that marriage wasn't perfect, because he did want the good things he saw. To have as much inner conflict as Doyle has injected into the show and into Bobby by making him not only want the good in his friends' married lives, but rather want a combination of what he observes present and what he observes lacking in their lives seems much more human to me. This isn't "look how great marriage is, so I'm gonna do it!!" Bobby, but rather a Bobby who sees good and bad, and longs for the good both present and absent in his friends' relationships. I think he knows he's going to get imperfection, but still very much longs for something perfect. I have to wonder if the original had elements of that, and I also, on that case, have to hold that the emptiness is probably purposeful. When he sings Being Alive, it's a composite -- he does want someone to do all of the things he sings about in the song, which he may or may not see when he looks at his friends -- ultimately a marriage that isn't perfect, because that's the way it is, but I think he's also telling is that he longs for a perfect marriage. The song is injected with both positives and negatives -- what's interesting to me about the lyrics is that a lot of the positives he sings about are given a negative spin; "somebody need me too much, somebody know me too well." Those are frightening things for Bobby, but he's giving in to wanting them. Raul once called sitting down at the piano to play the song the biggest "act of bravery," both for him as an actor and for Bobby as a character. And as far as Bobby goes, I think it's true. He's afraid, but he knows he should go forward anyway.

Moving on, I think you did hit the nail on the head about Raul, physically. I know a lot of people who think there's something fairly unusual looking about him, but at the same time (while he's not actually all that tall, he appears it on stage), you can easily plop him into that tall, dark and (perhaps unconventionally) handsome category. And as Bobby, he's a clean-cut, well-dressed walking bucket of charm. I also happen to think he's beautiful, but even if you don't, I think you can see that this is, well, like Joanne says, the type of guy women always want but can never seem to get.

I think Bobby is a deceptively difficult role to take on. I'm also a little confused by the idea of not caring for him in this production, even if he is cold and distant, because a character who's hurt and confused definitely gets an emotional connection from me. But again, I gather that this is different from a typical openly warm Bobby, which is fair, I guess.

I know the points in this post are sort of all over the place, but bear with me... a lot of interesting things were said since I last popped in.

I'm certainly not presuming at my age to understand marriage, and I don't exactly think my rhetorical questioning of what marriage is actually perfect did any such thing -- I think it's blatantly illogical to assume that the your average relationship isn't without at least a few (even if they be minor) quirks. Spend enough time with someone, even not in a romantic context, and something about them is going get on your nerves. You don't have to have been married to know that. Speaking within the context of these character and the show doesn't mean I'm claiming to know what it's like to be married.

Also, I wanted to address this, because you didn't have to write my name, but I'm perceptive enough to assume you're talking to me.

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.

I don't understand why so often when someone tries to engage in a discussion about a piece that may involve opposing opinions, people are so quick to throw up their hands and play this card. I know you're so much smarter than that, so I was kind of taken aback to see you so quickly play that card with me. I won't say you're wrong in calling me defensive, because I am trying to defend a piece with which I have fallen deeply in love, just like some people did with the original when they were young. People read these threads to help them decide whether or not to see shows; and in defense of something I love, people should be able to see both sides. But you've called me defensive with a very negative connotation and the feeling that I'm trying to change your opinions. I'm fully aware that you didn't like it. I'm fully aware that you're sure of that. And in fact, I'm even fully aware that your opinion is not going to change. I'm not trying to. Why, whenever someone presents an opposite perspective on this board does it have to be negatively defensive or in hopes of trying to change someone's mind simply because they don't agree with (editorial) you? It bugs me that so often when people try to engage in discussions, as long as an opinion is different, that person is automatically the bad guy. Why, as soon as agreement falls through, does it stop being a discussion, which is standardly permissible, and become a battle?

I apologized for the way my longer post yesterday may or may not have come off, and I'll apologize for it again. I didn't intend to make anyone feel like I was trying to change minds, nor did I insinuate or say that you or anyone else was wrong for not liking the show show. I'm smart enough to understand that opinions about art are some of the farthest things from having "right" and "wrong." So while I think that what you said, miss pennywise is in fact (rather ironically) a bit defensive toward me and that it's a bit hypocritical for you to give me that rather than recognizing the difference between being defensive and looking to flesh out a discussion, I am sorry if I made you feel that way, because it was unintended.

Updated On: 11/12/06 at 11:18 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 11:44am

"I can see it that he wanted to get married even after seeing that marriage wasn't perfect, because he did want the good things he saw. To have as much inner conflict as Doyle has injected into the show and into Bobby by making him not only want his friends' married lives, but rather want a combination of what he observes in his friends and what he observes lacking in their lives seems much more human to be. This isn't "look how great marriage is, so I'm gonna do it!!" Bobby, but rather a Bobby who sees good and bad, and longs for the good both present and absent in his friends' relationships. "

No offense intended, but I think what you have stated above, as your opinion, is quite obvious. There's nothing hidden in this story. It's a simple story . Why make it into something more complex?

So, the premise is clear cut and simple. I and others don't happen to like the way this premise is presented in Doyle's version. Why does that have to be so hard to understand? No amount of "explaining" is going to change a person's opinion, as Miss P said.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 12:00pm

If you think it should be obvious, then I worded it wrong, because I'm expressing curiousity about something I don't know about the original. There are three fairly clear-cut options: Bobby sees his friends and goes "oh, I want what they have!" Bobby sees his friends and recognizes that they're imperfect, but he wants it anyway. Bobby sees what's MISSING in his friends' marriages, and he wants what they have not succeeded in getting. So I'm basically asking how much of what was present in the show in its original form.

It is not a simple story. That's exactly what I'm saying. I think it's complicated and complex, and that Doyle has made it even more complex (kind of backwards, since it's so stripped down, but that's another story). The reason I posted what you quoted is because I'm wondering if it was in fact originally much simpler than it is now. But thanks for the condescension!

Honestly, now you're just being bitchy because my opinion's different from yours, which is even more ridiculous than that the fact that you've decided that I'm trying to explain you into agreement with me. It's not "hard" for me to understand. You've turned a discussion of the piece into feeling like I've attacked you (which I did not do) because you've decided that a Sondheim piece is "simple," which it pretty much by definition is not. I posed a question and you decided that that means it's hard for me to understand that you didn't like it, which is totally illogical. Like I said before, this board's mantra is that if a discussion involves opposition, it's no longer a discussion, but a battle for the win. I'm not trying to make you like it, nor am I dense enough to think that I can change someone's mind, so please stop accusing me of trying to do so. There's a big difference that is, well, clear-cut.

Updated On: 11/12/06 at 12:00 PM

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 12:02pm

Em...when do you plan to go again?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 12:04pm

Toward the end of previews, so I can see it once more before it freezes.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 12:05pm

Have you tried RUSH? Is it whatever's left over?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 12:08pm

I have. They start with the front row and then fill in whatever else is left in the house. Not bad. :)

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 12:10pm

I'm there.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 12:15pm

EMcee-I said right off the bat no offense intended. Sorry you're offended.

Talk about condescension-the people who like this production keep mentioning how we who do not, don't "get it". I'm saying for the last time that it's not hard to get. We just don't like it.

And I'm going to quit this discussion because a show isn't all that important to me.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 12:19pm

See, but when someone says "no offense intended," both they and the recipient know that what they're about to say is going to offend.

When I use terms about not "getting it," I don't mean that people are not UNDERSTANDING. I think Doyle is making what he's exploring within the piece extremely clear, even if he's making the story more complex than it may originally have been. I think there are people who are assuming that the emptiness is by fault, rather than by design, which is a completely different story -- the realizations of what's going on and the result just aren't mixing. I'm not saying anyone is stupid or incapable of knowing what's going on. I'm not sure if that makes sense.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 12:26pm

One more post-Emcee, I really didn't mean to offend. I'm not a bullsh****er. I said what you opined was obvious because I keep reading posts which say the same thing over and over again, and I wanted to let you know that in essence-"We know that already!"

Anyway, I know you're sincere in your love of Raul and the show itself, but I just want to try to clarify one important thing and that is this-No matter what the explanations are-the final product is on the stage, and some people didn't like it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 12:42pm

No, I know. I was just saying it again to be clear -- not about what I thought, because I know that's clear, but about where I was unsure about the differences from one interpretion to the other -- not because I think people need to be beaten over the head with what I think. I give people enough credit to think they can figure that one out.

And yes, I get that some people just didn't like it. I get that no amount of explaining the show will change that. I really do, I promise. I fully grasp that and it is crystal clear. I don't know how to make it much clearer that I understand that, because it seems like no matter what, someone who I disagree with is going to think that my motive is to get another one on my side simply by default. Saying what you think does not imply that. By talking about it, I don't automatically assume that I can change opinions. One does not imply the other. I don't know how to be much clearer about the fact that the assumption that by simply saying what you think, you're trying to get people to agree with you is incorrect.

People didn't like it, they're not going to change their minds, but having differing opinions don't have to mean a flame war rather than a civil discussion, which is, perhaps contrary, what I'm interested in.

Updated On: 11/12/06 at 12:42 PM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 3:51pm

I am still slapping myself for not yet seeing the revival, so while I can't comment on that, since some questions came up about the original production, I wanted to contribute what I could.

"If you think it should be obvious, then I worded it wrong, because I'm expressing curiousity about something I don't know about the original. There are three fairly clear-cut options: Bobby sees his friends and goes "oh, I want what they have!" Bobby sees his friends and recognizes that they're imperfect, but he wants it anyway. Bobby sees what's MISSING in his friends' marriages, and he wants what they have not succeeded in getting. So I'm basically asking how much of what was present in the show in its original form."

In the original show, it's most definitely the second one. He sees the imperfections in his friend's marriages, but realizes he wants those imperfections, which I think is a very important aspect of Being Alive. Earlier in Someone is Waiting, he expresses a desire to marry the perfect woman, to have a perfect relationship. I felt that part of his revelation in Being Alive was accepting the imperfect. He can't be ready to commit until he is ready to accept those imperfections, and that's why he isn't ready when he sings Someone is Waiting.

Again, not commenting on how the revival did this, but the original production intentionally portrayed a less-than-happy portrait of Bobby's friend's marriages. This is because we are seeing all of these scenes through Bobby's eyes. Bobby is choosing to see and remember these particular aspects of his friends' marriages.

Finally, this may be a bit of a jump. I am taking what Sondheim wanted the audience to get out of the show and projecting that feeling onto Bobby, but since as I explained we are seeing the show through Bobby's eyes, I think that makes sense. I would certainly respect and understand anyone who wants to argue that the audience's view is different than Bobby's. But anyway, Sondheim, in response to some audiences and critics complaining that the show was too anti-marriage, said he thought it was one of the most pro-marriage shows out there. He said people misunderstand the message of it. It's not that marriage is impossible, but marriage is difficult--imperfect. The main thing the audience is meant to understand about marriage from Company, and in turn perhaps Bobby is simply stated in lyrics: "It's the little things you do together that makes marriage a joy." Again, it's about accepting marriages aren't perfect, but they beat the alternative of being alone, of not being alive.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 4:48pm

I confess--this was indeed the first time I had seen a production of company, but that does not discredit my opinion one bit. it simply means that I didn't have any baggage about who these characters were 'supposed' to be and what the musical was 'supposed' to be.

I love (gauging from comments made) that they treated the script as if it arrived in the mail today. they created a consistent world that did not betray the script. it was an interpretation. a choice. some of you don't agree with it. that's ok. but I would argue that they executed their choice well. and some of you may not. that's ok.

i'm sure if I had seen the dc production, which I hear was stunning, I would have a preference I could make. but I was thrilled with the revival. I am now officially a fan of the musical. I would love to see differ takes on the piece. that's why shows are revived and produced around the country--why we see them.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 5:00pm

I want to add that 2 seasons ago, I was on the opposite side of this debate regarding who's afraid of virginia woolf? I wasn't as thrilled by it as everyone else was. I love that play and I def carry much baggage about it. I had to realize that I didn't agree with all the choices in that production, but they were indeed executed well and that most people were loving it. and their loving it was valid. my being unable to was valid, too. and that's not me saying 'all opinions are valid'. that's saying that there can be reasons greater to people's opinions of a piece than a generic sense of good and bad.

it's kinda like politics. I don't agree with what some politians say but I can respect that they say it well and stand by it. other politicians I will agree with, but they suck at speaking or even standing by what they say.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 5:47pm

I think that some lack of communication is going on and perhaps I can clear it up a bit.

I don't think that anyone thinks that Robert looks at his friends' marriages and says to himself, "Oh, what great marriages. Marriage really is good. I gotta get me some of that."

Indeed, a lot of what he sees is just grist for his anti-marriage mill.

Still, his interactions with each couple do affect him, both intellectually and emotionally, he learns something (not necessarily something positive) from each of them that moves him along. And the scenes with April and Joanne are crucial. Even the second scene with Peter and Susan is quite crucial.

So each of the couples has to have strongly defined personalities, personalities that are different from the others, each husband and wife has to be a strong personality or it all is in danger of becoming a gray mass.

Because Robert's emotional movement is not explicitly stated with songs where he says, "Oh, I learned this," each scene along the way must have a strong, individual effect. This is not a show about people who wear the hearts on their sleeves. Most of what goes on is subtextual, which means that that subtext has to be played strongly.

I haven't seen this production yet, but I do think that's important for any production of the show.

[Jimbo2]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 7:22pm

My problems with this production were two:

Barbara Walsh (whom I am a huge fan of) and the character that plays Marta.

Another Hundred People falls flat on it's face and Barbara didn't impress me at all.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 7:53pm

"- Sorry, MB. But I think you are so out of place here. I know it's your opinion. But, I simply thought the vocals were FANTASTIC."

They sound fine as an ensemble. Some of the individual singing (particularly "Another Hundred People") was incredibly weak, IMO.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/12/06 at 9:33pm

Thanks for the replies about the original. That definitely helps clear up what I was wondering. The impression I got was that if people were feeling like Doyle's production was so off in portraying marriage as something that's not necessarily great all the time, the original portrayed them as the complete opposite of that -- and in turn much happier. That's an incredible oversimplification on my part, but I don't feel like stirring up more debate right now. It's interesting nonetheless to learn that there's more consistency in that respect than I would have originally assumed based on the reactions. In a way, that makes the claims feel even more confusing to me, but such is the nature of opinion.

Updated On: 11/12/06 at 09:33 PM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 11/13/06 at 10:35am

"So each of the couples has to have strongly defined personalities, personalities that are different from the others, each husband and wife has to be a strong personality or it all is in danger of becoming a gray mass.

Because Robert's emotional movement is not explicitly stated with songs where he says, "Oh, I learned this," each scene along the way must have a strong, individual effect. This is not a show about people who wear the hearts on their sleeves. Most of what goes on is subtextual, which means that that subtext has to be played strongly."

In response to your last post Emcee, maybe this is what people feel are missing from the revival? Or as I mentioned, the idea that it's the little things doesn't come through?

Somebody please kidnap me to the Company revival. Thanks.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/13/06 at 10:44am

You mean that people feel the strong subtext is missing? I think that's exactly what people feel is missing, but I think many of them feel it's missing in comparison to the original. I certainly see it, and I think the fact that Marry Me a Little was included (plus the way Raul delivers Someone is Waiting) helps the journey to be pretty clear-cut. But anyway, I think that Raul turning down the heavy dramatic emotion might be making him a little bit more subtle than people really want, or something.

I'm seeing it again soon. It's strange to go into it with all of these things swirling around in my head, because that changes what I look for, in a way.

Updated On: 11/13/06 at 10:44 AM

[Luscious]

Posted: 11/13/06 at 4:45pm

I'm seeing it Saturday night. Should the show be "frozen" by then?

Updated On: 11/13/06 at 04:45 PM

[ChecksintheMayo]

Posted: 11/13/06 at 4:51pm

I saw Company in Seattle with Hugh Panaro, Kendra Kassebaum & Shelly Burch. I'll be seeing this version later on this month. It'll make for an interesting comparison, if nothing else.