COMPANY...Raul's performance- Page 2

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 2:15am

I think they have the original tour as well; I'd probably benefit more from checking that out, given that the '95 revival was supposedly dreadful on some accounts, but I do plan to go over there soon.

I own the libretto (hell, I know it by heart), but again, I read it in the framework of this revival's imprint on my perceptions. I didn't get a copy until after seeing it, so reading the script, I don't see the argument that this isn't how he's written, you know? I see open-ended. There are so many questions. Do they play the happiness real? If it's not real and there aren't depressive undertones, how is the audience told it's a put-on? I do believe that Bobby is inherently confused, but if he is truly so cheerful, it'd seem that the conflict is more stemming from the pressure his friends put on him (i.e. being told that "marriage may be where it's been but it's not where it's at" versus that a person isn't complete until he's married) than it is from a very personal, internal uncertainty. That's why I'm so curious to hear from people who have seen it the traditional way and believe Raúl's version to be "wrong," and to see it for myself in terms of just how it was done. I'd also assume part of the inversion comes from updating it -- the mentality in the 70s was so different... less ambivalent.

Frankly, I think the beauty of the show is in how confusing it is, because it's confusing due to the fact that it is so well-written and not because it's a trainwreck. That's rare.

Updated On: 2/25/07 at 02:15 AM

[CurtainPullDowner]

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

the 95 revival was FAR from dreadfull
It had some of the best Actor/Singers from Broadway,
Scott Ellis directed the book scenes beautifully and Rob Marshall did great staging work.

If you have never seen another production,
mark yer words about them being "Dreadful"

But we have found a common appreciation that this is a great confusing thought provoking Musical.
Now let's "dress all in black, have a drink and Cry"
Updated On: 2/25/07 at 02:25 AM

[gumbo2]

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

On that site that we don't talk about, I've seen John Barrowman doing the opening number and also Being Alive, and that production appeared to be more of the traditional '70s style and sound...He was completely obnoxious, dancing around and being so upbeat. Did people like Barrowman's interpretation? From those clips he seemed pretty awful. I too have only seen the whole show via the current revival, but the interpretation in the Barrowman show didn't really hit me right. Just my opinion from the little I saw.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 2:34am

I have the CD; there's no disputing the talent of the cast. I'm willing to give it a chance, certainly. I've just read a lot of opinions that were... well, not too high (but hey, different strokes) and also thought it best to start with something as close to the show's origins as possible.

Barrowman's Being Alive is beautiful to listen to, but in context his performance bored me virtually to tears. He sounds lovely, but... that was about it for me. And he like... salsa dances in the opening. I would love to know why.

But truly, agree on the Doyle/Esparza factor or not, my apprecation for the material has come to run very deep because it of its intelligence and the way it's provoked so very much thought and questioning. What better mark for good theater?

"Honest to God sophistication!" I'll drink to that.

Updated On: 2/25/07 at 02:34 AM

[Craww]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 4:39am

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"

There's a very fine line between upbeat and smarmy when you're dealing with material like Company. Raul's Bobby still has a sense of humor and availability, his friends don't need him to be outwardly cheerful for them to find that in him. Their reliance on him is their reliance on his bachelor archetype, not on his disposition.

It's a very modern take on the character, which you have every right to dislike, but it's not entirely inconsistent with Bobby's type. The new real life Bobbys are more droll, and Bobby's attitude is the first thing to date the show. It almost creates a fascinating juxtaposition that Bobby's attitude is so current and his friends seem so much more retro in comparison.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 8:52am

I must second all of the sentiment about early previews. I saw a very early preview and Bobby was cold, bitter, and quite a jerk. Raul has grown so much and he is so warm now, so loving and giving such a gorgeous performance.

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 9:58am

The first live production of Company that I'd seen was last year in Seattle w/ Hugh Panaro playing Bobby. That production used the original libretto & orchestrations (so no "Marry Me a Little" or dialogue revisions.) His portrayal of the character was very warm, funny & seductive. His "Being Alive" brought me to tears because it was so heavy with emotion. Having seen that first, when I later saw Doyle's Company, it seemed "wrong" to me. However after seeing it a second time and listening to it much more, I've realized that it's not "wrong," it's just a new way of interpreting the material, and I've come to love Raul's portrayal much more. I think Raul's Bobby works great within Doyle's modern setting but would be way too cold for the original.


And yes, during the Seattle production, Bobby dances around a bit during Company & Side By Side. They are really big numbers with Side By Side having this big marching band and twirling plates and dancing. He's much more playful.

Updated On: 2/25/07 at 09:58 AM

[ElphabaRose]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 11:17am

I saw Company last night. I should probably preface my comments by saying that I don't love the show (I saw a community production about 3 years ago). I thought that the entire cast was incredibly talented but the production left me cold. I found Raul to do a serviceable job, but I thought that he did need to either lighten Bobby up, or at least show that there was something trying to cover his depression and loneliness. The way that Raul played Bobby made me wonder why his friends were still there. The two points where I really felt that he got the character were in the scene with Joanne (which WOWed me) and the beginning of Being Alive where he was alone at the piano.

I found SPARRMAN's post about the effectiveness of Company as opposed to Sweeney Todd very interesting because my sentiments were exactly the opposite. I felt that Company didn't work as well. My biggest qualm was that people were not playing as constantly as the cast of Sweeney was and it looked odd to just have some people sitting there for so much of the show. The person that I really noticed this with was the woman who played Susan. I felt like she was sitting there for so much of the time while everyone else was playing. I feel that the actor-musician concept only works if the instrument is truly integrated into the character, something that many of the actors in this production seemed to miss. When the character of Bobby is the only one not playing an instrument, it works. I could understand why Joanne barely played (although it did sometimes seem out of place), but I think that there were times that there were a number of people who were not playing and it made things appear unbalanced.

Sorry if that's not quite clear, I'm still clarifying my thoughts in my own head...I'll probably edit to make things clearer later.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 12:59pm

Re: Barrowman's Bobby.

I only saw a tape of it. Yeah he was more "up." But he was also one-note and obnoxious and had no layers whatsoever. He sounded fine singing, but his acting left a lot to be desired and his song interpretation was virtually non-exisitent.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 2:36pm

Craww - beautifully stated. Bobby isn't the class clown for his friends - he just makes up the numbers so the marrieds have somebody else to pal around with. In 1970, the wandering bachelor type was just coming into existence (thanks to the Pill and no AIDS yet) and Bobby could have been any type of personality taking advantage of that. But these days Bobby can't be too glib without seeming heartless (or stupid). The whole point of the play in current terms seems to be Bobby's inability to commit is hurting him - he really has gotten to the point where he doesn't enjoy meeting a girl a minute (which is why the husbands' cracks about his amorous advantures sound false). So Bobby shouldn't be too happy - he isn't happy - that's what makes his final song ring true.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 2/25/07 at 2:38pm

I've seen Raul's, John Barrowman's and Adrian Lester's Bobbys, and have heard a few more than that. In response to your question, Emcee, yes, when Bobby is a more cheerful, fun, "up" kind of guy, the emotional arc of the show is vastly different -- and, if I may, quite a bit shallower. Bobby is, traditionally, more of a man who never grew up, and he's only just beginning to be nagged by questions on commitment, because he's...well, pretty happy as a bachelor. He knows there's probably something missing, but doesn't know if it's a big enough deal to warrant changing his lifestyle. Marriage is such a bother, after all. In productions like that, "Being Alive" isn't a breakdown; it's a pretty slow realization that there is something missing, and that it's something that he might not want to go his entire life without. Because to do so would be basically fine, but kind of empty. The resolution is sweet, but hardly emotionally devastating, despite the beauty of the song -- which is perhaps why many people have always found it hard to "buy."

So that's basically Barrowman's interpretation as I see it, and definitely more in line with the traditional presentation of the character. I thought that Lester in Mendes' production took more chances, gave the character more of an emotional core and presented a considerably more affecting Bobby. For the first time, we see that Bobby is truly unhappy with the way that his life's going. He's not merely nagged by the question of commitment: he's plagued by it. It's obvious that he's profoundly lonely despite his many friends and girlfriends, and fear and confusion are the things holding him back, rather than the banal discomforts of marriage. Raul's Bobby is also in this vein, obviously, although taken a step further to become almost completely closed-off emotionally (though I do definitely agree that Raul's performance has warmed up quite a bit since previews).

When Bobby is miserable, "Being Alive" IS a breakthrough. It's him tearing down his defenses and through his anxieties, fears and expectations to say that he's through being pushed and pulled around by his friends and that he wants to share his life for someone, in whatever way proves to be right for him. His entire emotional wellbeing depends on it. It's a release, and it's cathartic and thrilling and terrifying all at once. It's, honestly, the kind of ending I think the song deserves, whether it was the original intention or not. Without that sort of emotional anchorage, Bobby's just floating around, and more a shell of a person than someone to whom the audience can relate on greater than a surface level. You could argue that the more somber take on the character isn't supported by the material, but I can't help but think that it was always in there somewhere, and different directorial approaches can bring it out.

ETA: And I also agree with craww and kean's observations on the modern bachelor. Updated On: 2/25/07 at 02:38 PM