COMPANY plot questions- Page 2

[wiggum2]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 7:44pm

"You're right, and the yawns were added in... I don't remember when."

Dean Jones did the yawns as well(at least in Boston and in the recording booth)

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 8:09pm

do you realize you bumped a thread that was well over 4 years old?

[wiggum2]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 8:17pm

ha
thankfully LuvtheEmcee referenced the thread in another thread so I read a thread I don't think I had ever seen!

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 11:24pm

Strangely enough, it's mentioned several times in this thread how nonlinear the plot to Company is. Today, it doesn't seem that experimental or "nonlinear." Its style of storytelling feels like a typical indie-film take on a single guy looking for some sort of fulfillment- the first time I saw it, I didn't even think of it as a concept musical or a plotless series of scenes at all.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 12:05am

do think Joanne means it, but I think on one level she's pretty sure he won't say anything, and on a second level at that point she's VERY drunk. So it's not like she's actually thinking the consequences through or anything. I'm sure at least some of us *ahem* can relate to that aspect.

Re Barcelona, I think with April, he never had any intention of having a relationship, unlike the other two girlfriends. I mean the seduction scene is all about him kinda playing into her stupidity--not in a particularly mean way, all things, considered, but it's about the sex. When they wake up, he's largely, I think just doing what he thinks you should do the next morning, knowing full well she has to go, already. I do agree with FrontRowCenter that the scene works better after Tick Tock (I will NEVER understand those who think Tick Tock is superfluous, just another example of directors who don't understand the function of dance trying to remove it from the early Sondheim shows)

I had a friend who used to insist that the final line should be "Oy Vey" to rhyme with "stay" lol, though of course Sondheim picked the non rhyming Oh God on purpose.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 3:13am

We're a lot more used to unconventional structures now, to the point that something built like Company doesn't seem like a big deal. But -- at least so says the literature, because that's the best this 25-year-old can do -- when it was written, it was a huge jolt to the art form. Sure, history has a tendency to sensationalize a little bit, but if you look at the transitions and the timelines, it was pretty revolutionary. Our being "used" to stuff like this is really thanks to Company.

As for Bobby and Joanne, I think the more important thing than whether she really wants to sleep with him or not is what she is to him; the reflection, the future, the fear that Bobby sees when he looks at Joanne is something that I don't think is as up for debate and interpretation as is whether she is interested in him sexually or just trying to wake him up. The latter you can play around with, and it will work either way. The former is so totally essential to making the show work. He'll get that awakening from her whether she's serious or not because of the way he regards her -- if you do it right.

Updated On: 7/17/11 at 03:13 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 10:11am

I always thought Stritch as Joanne was daring him, as if to say "You sleep with all these girls one after another--when are you gonna sleep with me?"

She knows she's not his type, she knows he sleeps with girls his own age or younger, and she doesn't care if he "rejects" her. She wants the question to shock him. (That said, if he were to say yes, should would probably do it with him in right there at the disco, in a bathroom.)

But the question is more as a way of prodding him into a serious discussion about when he's going to actually make a commitment to someone.

The Barcelona Question has had many answers for me over the 40 years (!) since I first saw the show and memorized the lyrics.

For me, it's not about the morning after as much as the moment after. Bobby is still in that moment after good sex when physical connection becomes psychic connection become emotional connection--that moment when one can mean to say "I loved that" but it comes out as "I love you."

I think there's also an element of Bobby's need to be liked by everyone, including the women he has sex with then stops calling. So he says the things he thinks they want to hear.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 10:22am

1 - having seen Lupone's terrific performance, it works a great deal better when Joanne isn't genuinely coming on to Bobby, IMHO. Which is not to imply that Joanne doesn't love Bobby and isn't attracted to him. It's merely that she is on to him and knows exactly what she is doing. Which brings us to your next question.

2 - What she is on to is that Bobby is commitment phobic and afraid of intimacy, which is exactly what we observe in his morning after with April. He is also arguably a bit of a chauvinist, but, given the period, at most slightly.

The entire show is clearly about his being commitment phobic and afraid of intimacy. And, in a very Sondheimian sense keenly aware that he emotionally needs a mate at the same time strongly avoidant.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 10:50am

To me the biggest plot question remaining is the ending. For me this is still a puzzlement even after Price's production, which in terms of plot, motivation and character, I find otherwise definitive.

I realize Company has been called The Twilight Zone of American musicals. The twist that Bobby hasn't been at his surprise party all along, even though we've believed him to have been there, is, of course, obvious. But what exactly, beyond a gratuitous twist, does it mean that he hasn't been there, in terms of where he is and where he is going? If he has moved on? Moved on from what? From being the "by side" after the "side by side"? From being the somewhat contented single in his married crowd? Where is he moving to?

And, if we simply don't know the answers to where Bobby has moved on to - which if fine and can be very effective, I usually love ambiguous endings - wouldn't a simpler openly ambiguous closing been more effective than a big Rod Serlingesque twist? Is Bobby's merely not having been at the party somehow so packed with meaning that it's conducive to that kind of theatricality?

It has never worked for me and I'd really like to know how it's worked, if it has, for others.

In addition, the fact that Price - so on the money for other parts of this production, dramatically if not always musically - staged it, unintentionally one would presume, to look as if Bobby had been hiding in the closet during the party - and the flat irony with Harris playing the role - may not have helped matters.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 12:16pm

PJ, I agree with you about Barcelona. Well said. At the end of the day, April isn't much more to Bobby than a sex object, but in the moment, he realizes he's got someone there, even if the intensity behind the connection is mistaken to him. I really do always feel a little bit sorry for both of them during that scene.

The twist that Bobby hasn't been at his surprise party all along, even though we've believed him to have been there, is, of course, obvious.

I think it depends how you stage it. I've seen it staged several times (including the John Doyle revival) where it was never such that you were supposed to believe he was there the entire time. And I've seen some where it's very obvious that that's what you're supposed to think the entire time. There's a sense in which it's all an imaginary birthday party; I've said this before, but in crude linear terms, Company looks like this: Bobby comes home from work. He hears his messages. He hears about the party. He freaks out. He sits home getting drunk by himself for God knows how long. Everything you see watching the show is a memory, it's all stuff he's running over in his head (except Side by Side, which is arguably THE imaginary moment, a sort of cartoon-like portrayal of his friends, and maybe the one vignette that never actually happening). Being Alive happens/he leaves the apartment, which is when his friends don't find him there.

Bobby not having been at the party that's going on the entire time can take on a huge symbolic meaning, especially if you look at Bobby as this sort of simultaneous everything and nothing; he is entirely molded by the world around him, he is what everyone wants him to be when they want him to be it, and yet, himself, nothing. And so while he's always "there" for his friends, there's also a sense in which Bobby doesn't fully exist. He is just what they make him. If you stage it so that his party has been going on the entire time in his absence (which actually doesn't make total sense to me, to be honest) and his friends don't even notice that absence, you're playing up the superficiality of his relationships with them.

I love the ambiguity of the ending for its theatrical sake, but I've always been so in love with Bobby that I hate not knowing what happens to him. Raul has talked about this a little bit, and though he's obviously not the end-all authority, it is interesting to hear how he sees it; he said he doesn't think Bobby sees his friends for a while, (though it's more of taking a break than a banishment) or necessarily goes off and gets married right away. But he did say he thinks Bobby eventually settles down with someone. I wonder what Sondheim would say, but I certainly hope that's true.

Updated On: 7/17/11 at 12:16 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 12:37pm

thanks, luvtheEmcee

What you say registers a lot with me, even if it doesn't fully reconcile my doubts about the value of Company's ending.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 12:47pm

I'll take it.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 1:30pm

I've always thought that the ending scene wasn't necessarily the *same* birthday party that begins the piece. Who says it has to be? Could it not be the next year? Could not the events of Company transpire between Bobby's 35th and 36th birthdays?

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 1:39pm

Just my 0.02...

I dont think she's seriously coming onto him. She's just forcing him out of his emotional shell with a big hunk of tough love. I dont completely buy it, actually, but it seems to work within the confines of the story.

"Barcelona"? I think he wants her to stay because at this point in the story development, he's feeling a tad desperate. He wants *someone* in his life, and as a result it's the realization of the Chinese saying about being careful what you wish for. And I find that underscored a bit in the revised London script when Peter tries to come onto Robert.

When you think about it, this whole play is about missed connections, literally, emotionally, societally. Even the married couples are like passing trains... and IMHO this is why they never found a truly satisfying ending. How do you conclude a story that's constantly shifting before your eyes?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 5:01pm

I've actually thought about that possibility, Kad, but decided that isn't what's intended; if it's a future birthday party, that could and would have been explained; not to mention that the guests all be wearing the same clothes they wore at the beginning of the play when they were at Bobby's arguable earlier birthday party.

Even if it isn't the same birthday party, the questions still remains: does Bobby's not showing up work, does it have sufficient impact, or is it perhaps a failed, obtuse device, a murky and gratuitous twist?

[Kad]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 5:58pm

But none of the characters have a costume change explicitly mentioned in the script- even in the case of the second Peter and Susan scene, which is obviously set at a later date than the first. It'd arguably be up for the director to decide, though I've never seen it done.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 6:19pm

I've never thought of it that way, Kad, and I'm personally not terribly fond of thinking of it that way, but I think it's definitely possible and valid to do so. I just think if you keep it all sort of tightly knit in that vaguely linear structure, that's the most powerful -- you see Bobby go through it all right there in one "day," as it were. I think linking the first and last scenes back to one another gives a stronger impact than stretching it out, though I can see it working your way in careful hands. I'm pretty sure I have read/heard somewhere legit that the former is how it was intended, but I can't remember precisely where, unfortunately.

I've seen costume changes from scene to scene, but they were minor -- just to suggest different times. I don't know that it's super necessary, but it definitely helps convey that very directly to the audience.

Even if it isn't the same birthday party, the questions still remains: does Bobby's not showing up work, does it have sufficient impact, or is it perhaps a failed, obtuse device, a murky and gratuitous twist?

I think the very point of it is that that's left up to the audience. Sondheim didn't want to tie everything up all neatly and give you all the answers -- he wanted people to go home thinking, and feeling. Leaving you to think about what might happen to him, or to take what he learns back into your own life is exactly how that gets done. I understand the frustration in not knowing for sure, and often I wish I did, but I have trouble with the notion of considering that to be a failure.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:07pm

IIRC, both Sondheim and Prince have said that this wss their attempt at a "surrealist musical", that these were indeed different birthday parties, but all taking place on the same day (if that makes sense?). I dont think they ever quite figured that one out either.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:14pm

I don't remember reading that, but I think it's related to what I was saying about imaginary versus real parties in terms of what's going on in Bobby's head. Most of what we're seeing is filtered through him.

[wonkit]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 7:55pm

Haven't I read somewhere that Doyle proposed that it is all just going on in Bobby's head so that time frames don't have to align? Or was it a Raul quote? Wish I could remember.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/17/11 at 8:18pm

Don't know what you're talking about re: time frame alignment but yes, John was very open in interviews, etc. about his production taking place in Bobby's head. And in that case, the sequence in which we see things happen on stage is not necessarily the sequence in which they happened. But it's also not necessarily not the sequence in which they happened. Is that what you mean? It always felt very much like a memory play to me -- and in subsequent years, more in his production than any other I've seen since.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/18/11 at 3:13am

I believe they do say the Mendes production is all in Bobby's head during the televised version's mid show chat. Not sure I fully buy that approach (they do cast Side By Side as a coke induced hallucination--which makes me think Bobby musta snorted a TON of coke, or his dealer slipped him some other drug, for it to make him hallucinate...)

As for the ending, I think it just sorta means Bobby no longer will always be at the beck and call of his friends, he doesn't need them to define him the way he used to. But obviously it can be read many ways--I personally love the party framework, and the fact the scenes could be shuffled around and it would make as much sense (although obviously they're structured in such a way that they have some sort of emotional build).

Having listened to the Boston recording, I'm still amazed that they EVER thought it was a good idea to open Act II with Poor Baby and use Side by Side as the penultimate number--it just feels so wrong (granted partly because I know the finished structure much better). Of course it's interesting that back then Side by Side had a short reprise, sped up, of Poor Baby in it. It's not as damaging as the elongated Have I Got a Girl For You with the wives' bits which, as Sondheim says in Finishing the Hat, indeed make them come off as utterly shrewish, in a way even the husband's chauvinism in the same song can't balance.

I *love* Happily Ever After as a song (and wish we had a decent recording of it all with those great Tunick orchestrations), but I also am a bit shocked they ever allowed it to play with that ending in boston. It just feels so... Like a non ending, but not even in an intriguingly ambiguous way. As a teen, I used to think Happily was the more honest ending, as some have said, but I've completely changed that opinion (in the Boston audio you can actually hear the audience members by the recording kinda make a ton of "huh? WTF" type comments when it finishes LOL).

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/18/11 at 7:41pm

Where can one procure this Boston recording? Please please please share.

[chewy5000]

Posted: 7/18/11 at 10:09pm

I too have been on the search for this audio, ahem.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/18/11 at 11:52pm

I posted a link a month back lol but send me a PM...