Brief thoughts on COMPANY- Page 5

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/13/06 at 4:55pm

Probably not fully, but close to, Luscious. From what I gather, it seems the rate at which the biggest changes are being made has already begun to slow down... but anything could still happen, I guess.

Updated On: 11/13/06 at 04:55 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/13/06 at 7:14pm

If I remember correctly, tonight is Heather Laws' first performance as Amy. Anybody going? (Then again, you've probably already headed out if you are...)

Updated On: 11/13/06 at 07:14 PM

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 11/13/06 at 7:16pm

Just popping in to say my science teacher says he "loved loved loved it".

I would also love to hear any thoughts on Laws' performance.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/13/06 at 11:30pm

Bump -- so did anybody see Heather? :)

[cabarethed]

Posted: 11/14/06 at 4:29am

Ok, wow, I haven't posted here in forever. I did see the show tonight, thrilled that I was able to catch Heather on her first night back. I'm exhausted so I can't say much now, but the production blew me away. True, I'm not particularly familiar with the show, but I can't even picture it being done any other way. I enjoyed it more than Sweeney Todd. It just felt real underneath all the stark black/white/crystal/instruments. The whole time I watched ST, I kept wondering what the original concept was like (yes, I'm terrible that I don't know that)...but I didn't think that once during Company.

Every time Raul began a solo, I started to cry. Couldn't help it. I haven't seen him in a good show in 2 years, and this role was everything I could have asked for. Once again, exhausted so not much with the detail. Someone Is Waiting was sublime, and of course Being Alive goes without saying.

Heather was just wonderful. I loved her Getting Married, and her neuroses were so dead on. She looked great. And this Cabaret fan was delighted to see Raul, Heather, Fred Rose, and Leenya Rideout all on one stage together. Hee.

I haven't been able to see much theatre lately, but this was seriously the best show I've seen in a long time.

[Gingersnap]

Posted: 11/14/06 at 10:00am

"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."

(First of all...ChecksinTheMayo, I love your username)

I'm hoping to see Company on my next trip down to the city - if I can talk my friend out of dragging me to Hairspray.

But I want to see it for comparison's sake, mainly. I've never cared for Raul Esparza...he's one of those people who has a voice I should love, but it just hits me wrong for whatever reason. Though he might be incentive for my friend to forget Hairspray.

At any rate, one of the first things Hugh wanted to know before the performance was, "Did you see the revival in NYC yet?" I told him no, I hadn't even been back since September. And he said he was glad I was seeing the Seattle production first because he was afraid I'd be spoiled by the Broadway revival and that the Seattle one would suffer if I compared.

Not to mention, I'm curious to see how the actor/musical instrument concept feels for me in this. I liked it in Sweeney, though I wasn't able to get used to it until about 2/3 of the way through Act I. It's not something I'd want to see in every show every time, but it worked for me in Sweeney.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/14/06 at 12:21pm

Just a general FYI, Raul's scheduled to do a BC/EFA benefit this coming Monday, November 20th, which is before the flip in Company's performance schedule. So I guess he'll be out of the show that night. That'd make sense, anyway. Fred Rose (David) is his understudy... I'm curious to hear about his take on the role.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 11/14/06 at 1:02pm

Oh, $hit. My parents are going that night. I guess they could get a refund since Raul is above the title...

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:45am

MichaelBennet, you nailed this one.

What a misfire.

I think the biggest mistake was trying to set the show in the present. And here's why: You can rewrite the book and make it contemporary. But if you're going to rewrite the book, you have to rewrite the Sondheim. You can't have it one way or the other.

Maybe "Company" should be updated. I doubt it, but IF you're going to update one portion of the show, you have to update all of it.

The biggest failure along this line is "The Ladies Who Lunch." I'm not a big Barbara Walsh fan, but I don't think her performance in this case is her fault.

They eviscerated the character. The song is about baby boomer women from the 1950s who ended up without careers, and Joanne is pissed off that she wasn't able to make a choice. If you update the show, and make here a 90's woman, it simply says that Joanne always had the choice, and instead of the character being trapped, she's simply vapid.

Now, as far as Doyle is concerned, I think he's very talented. That "Sweeney" was devestating. And there were moments in this show that were good, but they were very far and few between, and they never served the overall good.

I think the biggest problem was this whole idea of actors playing musical instruments.

This is not a "cost saving" device on Broadway. The producers have to pay nightly for musicians that aren't playin whether they are there nor not. It's a union thing.

But there's no point in this show. Actually, there's one single point. Everyone plays an instrument except Bobby. It's a simple concept. It's a good concept, except that it screws the score. "Company" is a very brassy score, and the arrangements in this production are airey fairy at best.

But Doyle's biggest flub up was this: He was loyal.

So the current Broadway cast is filled with a bunch of (frankly, horrible) actors that would have gone to Cincinnati. I admire his loyalty. But if he had recast this show, it might have worked.
Updated On: 11/16/06 at 01:45 AM

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:55am

One more thing:

I LOVE Raul. I think he is the best male musical theatre actor working today.

His voice is butter, and his acting is devestating.

I have no idea what he was doing in this show.

It's as if Doyle said "You MUST play Bobby as a cipher", and he did.

But Bobby IS a cipher, he always has been one. To play him like one opens up a black hole in the center of the musical, to its detriment.

I thought Raul's "Being Alive" was by far the best performance that song ever had. But it was rather a case of too little, too late.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:05am

"This is not a 'cost saving' device on Broadway. The producers have to pay nightly for musicians that aren't playin whether they are there nor not. It's a union thing."

I don't think so. They worked out a deal with the union on Sweeney, which might not have recouped (and certainly would certainly not have recouped so quickly) otherwise. I suspect they've done the same here.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:07am

Ditto what nobodyhome said. From what I understand, both the Sweeney and Company cast members are being paid salaries as actors and musicians.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:10am

Exactly, the act of having actors play musical instruments is NOT cost saving on Broadway.

So why do it? If it makes sense, like "Sweeney" did, that's one thing.

Otherwise, I don't get it. And in the case of this "Company," I REALLY don't get it.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:18am

"I don't think so. They worked out a deal with the union on Sweeney, which might not have recouped (and certainly would certainly not have recouped so quickly) otherwise. I suspect they've done the same here."

Really, nobodyhome? Why on earth would the Local do that?

(I'm not questioning you, I just missed this development. And if it happened like you say, that Union is screwed beyond belief.)

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:19am

Though you made a lot of points that I'd contest, I'm not going to argue with you, because I know that if I try that again right now, I'm asking to have my head handed to me.

But you posted that there was no point, and then oh, wait, there was one point -- and went on to describe the whole conceit of the show. Then you held that it was too simplistic. My question is why it "has" to be complicated. Doyle isnt about complicating, he'd about simplifying, but I get the impression that you want the concept to be more complicated than it was in Sweeney.

Why do it? Because it makes sense. Maybe not to you, but surely to some power that be. It's new and different, and that's what revivals should be about; not carbon-copying. It makes sense in a different way than it did for Sweeney -- what I don't understand about what you're suggesting is that you posted exactly how the concept works, but then turned around to say that it makes no sense. It making no sense at all and not making sense in the way Sweeney made sense are two totally different things -- and you're totally correct in saying that it doesn't as Sweeney did; the concept takes on a whole new life and a whole new behavior pattern. But... the why do it is so easily answered in the idea of Bobby's friends literally being his "company," in a very meta-theatrical sense. I'm just not sure I understand how you can make all of the opposing things you're saying work together.

This stopped being a cost-saving device a while ago, and from what I understand that's been made pretty public and clear; it began as such when Doyle first staged Sweeney in the UK, but it turned out that it worked artistically, and now it's taken on a life of its own as an artistic vision. Cost wasn't the reason Sweeney was done on Broadway under Doyle's vision, and no one is claiming it to be the reason Company is being staged this way, either. The actor-musician thing isn't even intended to be cost-saving anymore; the minimalist sets obviously cut costs some, but again, with commercial production behind this one, that wasn't the motivation for making the set sparse.

Updated On: 11/16/06 at 02:19 AM

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:37am

At first the word was that the performers in Sweeney were going to get double salaries, as both musicians and performers, but later it was said that that wasn't the agreement.

Perhaps I shouldn't say anything because I'm really not sure what the deal was. But as long as I acknowledge that this is hearsay and I'm not sure about it, I guess it's OK.

The last thing I heard was that the Sweeney cast had to join the musicians' union, and their minimum was the higher of the two salaries.

I would guess that all of the cast got paid enough above minimum for the whole thing to have been worthwhile since I would guess they were paying dues to both unions.

If someone knows that this is incorrect, perhaps they will post it.

In any case, given how quickly Sweeney recouped when it never did spectacular business, the weekly nut had to have been very low.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:45am

I don't know either, nobody, but I'm dead curious.

I remember there was a HUGE stink when "Grand Hotel" tried to replace two of its cellists with synthestyers, and the end result was that those cellists ended up getting paid.

Now, we're years later, but I can't imagine that Local 123 has lost all of its power.

And the rule used to be, you had to pay for a certain number of musicians, depending on the house you were in, no matter if they were playing or not.

Is that still the case?

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:45am

I don't know either, nobody, but I'm dead curious.

I remember there was a HUGE stink when "Grand Hotel" tried to replace two of its cellists with synthestyers, and the end result was that those cellists ended up getting paid.

Now, we're years later, but I can't imagine that Local 123 has lost all of its power.

And the rule used to be, you had to pay for a certain number of musicians, depending on the house you were in, no matter if they were playing or not.

Is that still the case?

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:05am

The musicians' union has lost a great deal of power. There are still minimums for musicals, but they are considerably smaller than they used to be.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:11am

Local 802 is the musician's union for Broadway.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:13am

"The musicians' union has lost a great deal of power. There are still minimums for musicals, but they are considerably smaller than they used to be."

I get this.

And, nobody, I have no idea what's really going on. But somebody must know.

Are there any Local 802 members online? Here's my question: Are the producers of "Company," in addition to paying extra salaries to the actors for playing musical instruments, also paying for phantom players in the pit?
Updated On: 11/16/06 at 03:13 AM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:17am

Very few, if any, shows have to pay "walkers" in the pit anymore. Most of those requirements were eliminated during the last contract renegotiation.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, they've ALL been eliminated at this point (and have been for over a decade).

Updated On: 11/16/06 at 03:17 AM

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:22am

"Very few, if any, shows have to pay "walkers" in the pit anymore. Most of those requirements were eliminated during the last contract renegotiation.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, they've ALL been eliminated at this point (and have been for over a decade). "

Yikes, Margo. If this is true (and I have NO reason to doubt you), this means that Local 802 is utterly and completely pointless.

I realize that many musicians are high on drugs, but how did they let this happen? They used to have such power!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:27am

I certainly could be wrong, but I seem to recall a brief conversation on this subject a few months ago and I was assured (by someone in a position to know) that there were no more "walkers" on Broadway and hadn't been for quite some time. However, I stand corrected if anyone else knows for sure.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:31am

And nobodyhome is correct that the SWEENEY cast was paid the higher of the two minimums -- not BOTH the actor and musician minimums (in most cases they received the musicians' minimum which included bonuses for each additional instrument played). I would assume that the COMPANY cast has a similar deal.