COMPANY...Raul's performance

[Phantom2]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 12:17pm

I recently has the opportunity to catch COMPANY. In a single word, Raul was phenomenal. His Being Alive blew the roof off. I couldn't help but think, he would have made a great Guido Contini in NINE. Barbara Walsh's performance was very moving as well. Great set, costumes and lighting. Did I mention I loved the set and costumes??!!! Go see it...definitely a great piece of Sondheim.

[RockabyeHamlet]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 12:27pm

*sigh* I am beginning to truly believe I am the only one that does not agree with that sentiment.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 12:59pm

Raul's portrayal of Bobby is beautiful - it is so layered and so complex. I'm definately rooting for him this year at the Tonys - in fact, I can't think of anyone who brings any competition.

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 1:05pm

I too think Raul's performance is a Bobby for the record books...layered and neuanced to perfection...but Michael Cerveris as Kurt Weill...hmmmmm. That could be delicious as well. But as of now - no, there is no other leading man in a new show who comes anywhere near as good as Raul in Company. But the season is just about to heat up.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 1:08pm

"*sigh* I am beginning to truly believe I am the only one that does not agree with that sentiment."

You are not the only one, but there have been threads and arguments on this. I'm not saying any more on the topic!

[Spacedog78]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 1:14pm

RockabyeHamlet

Are you saying you didnt like his performance?

If that is what you are saying then I totally agree. I didnt think he was as great as everyone is making him out to be. His portrayal of Bobby was rather boring and monotonous. The best part of his performance was "Being Alive" but for me that doesnt save the rest of his performance.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 1:19pm

I thought Raul was good, but honestly, I don't feel his performance was anything extraordinary. I think that any attractive male actor in his 30's with a good voice could have done just as good.

[JustABroadwaybaby2]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 1:33pm

Raul was incredible. I sat in the 5th row, center, right in his sight line, which was very nice, and his singing and cating was spot-on. His Being Alive was great, and his last note was held so long he was shaking, nicely though. What a phenomenal actor.

Updated On: 2/24/07 at 01:33 PM

[JamesMacon]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 2:01pm

So glad you enjoyed it Phantom! I really need to see Raul. Like right now.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 2:32pm

Bobby is an extremely difficult role and many good-to-great actors have been swallowed up by it. It is such a hard role to get right, and Raul nails it perfectly, which is an extraordinary acheivement.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 2:54pm

I just want to add one thing to clarify-It isn't Raul's Bobby that I have a problem with. He's one of the most talented and gifted performers of our day. It's John Doyle's Bobby that I have a problem with. Doesn't matter who's doing it.

[sparrman]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 3:40pm

I agree, Raul is phenomenal. When he comes downstage center and sings his guts out at the end of "Being Alive"...that's what it's all about. Who needs church?

But I also think his performance is inseparable from the entire brilliant production, which is a highlight of my 30 years of theatregoing. I didn't see Doyle's "Sweeney", but it's hard for me to imagine that it worked as well as "Company." The idea of everyone playing an instrument except Bobby was a stroke of genius, but it was carried out so thoroughly that it was much more than a "gimmicky idea". When Raul crossed slowly over to the piano, looked at it, raised the lid on the keys, sat down, and started haltingly to play...that was a very moving moment to me.

The essay in the CD notes by Jeremy McCarter is really wonderful, and puts beautifully into words some feelings I had about how the production ultimately is about so much more than "relationships" and "connecting". It's about "being alive"...and the alternative.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 3:46pm

If you saw COMPANY early on - in previews or right around opening night, and you weren't touched by it or by Raul's performance, I strongly suggest you see it again. I saw it in late January, and it is warmer, funnier and more moving than when I saw it in November. I now equate the power of Marry Me a Little with Being Alive. A second viewing is called for - I'm going back for a third time in a couple of weeks.
Updated On: 2/24/07 at 03:46 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 4:14pm

you could be right, Keen.

[Phantom2]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 4:39pm

There was not a moment in Raul's performance I did not love. He did not skip a beat.

Updated On: 2/24/07 at 04:39 PM

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 4:56pm

Many people have posted that his performance has warmed up and changed - I saw it a few days before opening and loved it, but I definately plan on going back.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 5:30pm

Nice post, sparrman.

The performance has changed a great deal. Keen is right. It's become warmer and funnier.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 6:31pm

I'm definately rooting for him this year at the Tonys - in fact, I can't think of anyone who brings any competition.

David Hyde Pierce

[JumpJumpJumpSoHigh]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 12:33am

SPARRMAN, what you wrote was pretty much exactly what I wanted to post -- with the exception of the fact that I DID see Doyle's Sweeney... and as you surmised, no, it didn't work as well. (I know a lot of people who loved it, but I just didn't.) To me, Sweeney is a brilliant piece of writing, one of THE most brilliant in fact, but it's so firmly rooted in its specific time and place, that Doyle's abstraction of the show just made it flounder, and I spent most of the show wondering when it would take root and grow into something as powerful as it ought to be. But it never did.

Company, however, is an abstract show to begin with -- it's ABOUT a guy who's floundering through his own life, trying to find something to ground himself so that he can grow into his own potential as a human being. And with Doyle's instruments, you can SEE the moment when that happens: the moment that he touches the piano keys. The instruments, which had been unobstrusive up until this point, suddenly took on a new meaning -- Bobby was able to accompany his own life all of a sudden, instead of letting everyone else do it for him. I can't even begin to describe how much I loved that.

As for Raul? It takes a genuinely great actor to be able to carry a show where the role of the leading man is mainly to stand there and watch other people interact, only to share his thoughts with us in monologue/song form afterwards. But he did it. And beautifully, too.

~JJJ

[My Name in Lights]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 12:46am

Raul was definitely a standout in an otherwise boring show. A few of the other performers were also good, but the show itself could have been done as a 30 minute special with just Raul's singing as icing on the cake. COMPANY was a big disappointment for me...but Raul, YES!

[JerseyScoundrel]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 1:09am

He is really the standout of the entire show. His performance is so well layered as many have said on the boards. Just give him the dam Tony.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 1:26am

Trying to hold my tongue but since someone started the thread I will add my 2 cents (again)
Raul is a fine actor, when the role fits him, but his Bobby so confused me.
Bobby is suppose to be the "up" one in the group, the Happy guy, the best Friend "who cheers you up when you're Blue-ooh"
He is not playing that.
He delivers the role in a mostly monotone.
He seems depressed most of the time.
I don't see any of this "layering" so many talk about.
And yes, Bobby has a moment of "STOP"
but it is not a nervous breakdown or a primal scream moment as he plays it, it is simply a "stop"
I would maybe like my life to change, but I actually think Bobby goes right on with his life as a single observer, (perhaps Sondheim's most autobiographical character)
Doyle and Raul have decided who their Bobby is and have run with it, I just don't think the script upholds their choice.
Raul's BEING ALIVE is just fine, but for me, it comes out of nowhere.
I have seen many Bobbys and it is a great part, Boyd Gaines and Dean Jones had the charisma and fun side down pat, but I would never let Raul's Bobby "take my kids to the Zoo-ooh".

I wanna see Hyde Pierce and Cerveris before I hand out the TONY, but so far Raul is the performance to beat.

Updated On: 2/25/07 at 01:26 AM

[allvocal]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 1:41am

I was not a fan of Raul's performace. I thought it was a bit boring, whiny and vocally weak. I thought actually the show was an "eh" too.

When he did that big.. AHHHHHHHHH scream.. I almost laughed. Also that HUGE HUGE pause in the joanne/bobby scene near the end.. man.. That was long.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 1:53am

CPD, I'm not going to refute your points because we've gotten into the same debate a number of times and I'm really tired of it, which stands aside from the fact that we each know where the other stands. At this point, I also don't feel the need to be yet again toss in my pocket change on the matter, because where I stand is pretty widely known. I'm certainly not backing down on the firmness of my opinions, but being redundant for the umpteenth time isn't going to change anything. So if you were hoping to get a rise out of me, sorry. I'm not going to bite tonight.

However, reading your post posed an interesting question in my head, given the way that Esparza and Doyle have chosen to create their version of Bobby. This is the only way I know Bobby; the current revival is the only production of Company I've ever seen. So to me, it seems very natural and right for Bobby to be detached, depressed, broken, etc. the way he is in the revival. I have trouble imagining him any other way, so when I read that he's "supposed" to be (as in "usually is") this happy-go-lucky guy who is constantly cheery, I have to scratch my head a little bit. I do agree that there are minor points at which the depressive Bobby becomes problematic; I can't see him taking kids to the zoo, either. But what works for me about his Bobby is that you see in a really distinct way that his happiness (when you see it, anyway) is something of a put-on, and that underneath it, he's hurting a lot and very conflicted and you get major basis for the breakdown/breakthrough, primal scream, and so forth. If the supposed ideal or tradition is a Bobby that's much cheerier than Esparza is playing it, where's the arc? I mean, I know it's there, so I suppose the better question is actually the "how" and not the "where." Sure, he changes by virtue of the huge decision he makes and the leap of faith that'll go along with it, but it seems a little bit counterintuitive to me, given that I came to "know" Bobby in a very particular way. Or is it just not played that way at all, and the happiness is in fact genuine, simply laden with commitment-phobia?

So, all of that said, I pose this question in all seriousness to anyone who cares to discuss it, neither in defense of Esparza nor in defense of Doyle, but for my own understanding. If Bobby is typically a more "up" character than this production allows him to be, then is there a way to show that the happiness is just surface? How do productions that swing that way illustrate all of his internal conflict? Is it a somehow less tumultous, more external conflict? I'm really curious, and do at some point hope to see a more traditional production.

Updated On: 2/25/07 at 01:53 AM

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 2:08am

Go to the Lincoln Center Library and see the Roundabout revival.
Bobby is a young attractive man dating many woman, which he may be confused about, but "broken" NO.
Just at a point where he is asking some questions.
Read the script, listen to the lyrics, (I know that you have)
He IS suppose to be the cheerful one (yes there is some cover up of lonliness) but this is the 70's and most "Another Hundred People" felt that, but we enjoyed the times and had fun.
Just proves that this is one of the best written confusing Musicals ever written.
Updated On: 2/25/07 at 02:08 AM