COMPANY in Cincinnati Review — Page 3

Well, before I knew a thing about the show (yet had tickets in hand) I was asking a few Sondheim fanatic friends of mine, and one said that Bobby is, no-ifs-ands-or-buts bisexual. The other was like "no way, he's definitely not."

That's a question I'd like to ask Raul. It seems like no matter what you think that scene meant, it could be the opposite.

---

YAY!

But he is an awfully sexy little playboy.

I'm finding that the more I let it sort of sit and the more I think about it, the more I love it -- and the more affecting it becomes. Especially his performance. After getting over the initial "whoa, he's incredible!" I'm thinking back and realizing how truly layered and calibrated the performance was; those are the kinds of things he does that I can't get over, and that make him worth flying over 500 miles for.

---

Updated On: 3/21/06 at 10:36 AM

I've got to say that Raul's "Marry Me a Little" and "Being Alive" broke my heart. I was crying during both.

And need I say that hearing "Sorry-Grateful" live for my first time ever made me cry? Kudos to the men of the cast (I've completely blanked on their names) for doing this song so beautifully. And the orchestrations for it? Oh my GAWD.

---

Updated On: 3/21/06 at 10:43 AM

"If I ever directed the show, I'd lobby to cut that new dialogue."

Far too much is made of the re-instatement of the Peter-Robert scene. The issue with doing the scene as it was previously constituted was that it didn't really work, it just becomes a one joke moment, that led nowhere. The additional dialogue makes it an important differencein the arc of Robert's experience - Robert gets hit on by Peter and then Joanne, is this really what he's got in store for himself? What is the alternative?

That scene starts the final push for Robert to start to make up his mind. If the scene becomes a question of sexuality then it's just been played for the surface and not well at all - just as with the earlier scene with Jenny and David and the pot, if that's just about the pot then you've missed the point.

I think I spent too much time trying to figure out what the trick was there -- and what you were SUPPOSED to think of him to really see what I thought. I think the intended interpretation is that he's like "God, no!" and means it. I had definitely been curious to see how he would play that.

---

I'm sure that it does factor in, but wouldn't that be the case for most heterosexual male roles in theatre? I guess it's more of an issue with Company because Bobby's sexuality is in question already because we wonder why he's still alone and what he's afraid of that keeps him from committing to a relationship. I think that a particularly good actor, regardless of his own sexuality, can convincingly play Bobby as completely straight... but, then again, it's possible that nuances of the actor's own personality will show through. Honestly, though, the perception that Bobby is bisexual sounds like it's aided by that scene more than anything. Though it doesn't sound like it's about sexuality as much as highlighting yet more reasons to fear marriage and committment, if it weren't included I doubt that many people would jump on the idea that Bobby might be insecure about his sexuality. (This is my very subjective opinion, as I've never seen Company staged before.)

Well, "recouped" doesn't mean that it's quite bringing home the bacon, right? I took that to mean that it hasn't been particularly profitable so far.

Good points.

Broadway.com's review re-cap:

http://www.broadway.com/Gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=526482

Okay I'll throw it out there. How much of the question of Bobby's sexuality do you think is determined, not by the script, but by the actor playing him?

Assuming you meant the actor's performance and not the actor's off-stage orientation (and that latter doesn't bleed into the former), I think that's a huge determining factor. Maybe THE determining factor. I think with a scene like that, you only know what the actor gives you. I saw it written before I had any actor's interpretation in my mind, and I wasn't sure what I thought he was "supposed" to be. I think it's very easily the actor's decision, a la the basketball scene in Doubt

On a related note, I've always thought it interesting how much we let our prior knowledge of an actor's preference influence what we see in his performance -- I do think it can change how we see things in a lot of ways. You can't really erase what you know, and I don't think letting it project itself onto the way you view the performance is really something that can be helped.

I wonder if it's not so much an actor's ability to convincingly abandon his own orientation and play Bobby as a believable straight man as it is the way he would CHOOSE to interpret the character. I think having the scene alone -- the very simple fact of its presence -- probably naturally leads the audience to think he might at least be a little bisexual, even if the intent was just to add more to the conflict mix. I still think what the audience ends up thinking is entirely at the mercy of what the actor offers in that scene. If the scene weren't there at all, would you wonder "oh, maybe he's gay?" I'm not so sure.

As for Raul's particular take on Bobby, even though the homosexual experience scene is still not completely cut-and-dry, his performance is free of his usual on-stage flambuoyance. He's playing the part without any hint of a thing but heterosexuality. (And effing genius.)

---

Updated On: 3/22/06 at 12:56 AM

Go, Company, go!!!

---

I was searching around for Company info and came across this interview with Raul Esparza about Company.

Not a review but scroll down for an MP3 of a 12-13 minute audio of an interview with Raul.

91.7 WVXU Cincinnati/Around Cincinnati

Here's another little review from the Dayton Daily News, just because it's nice to read great reviews of this show:


Second Thoughts

Thank you! I'm listening to it now.

AHA! I'd been wondering for YEARS if that was actually Sondheim on the answering machine at the end of tick tick BOOM!

---