COMPANY reviews, take two- Page 4

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 12:51am

Sorry, Em.

I'll have to give those kids a talking to........

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 12:56am

John Simon likes Raul (and some of the women), but is mixed on Doyle's staging (if I remember correctly, he didn't like the show in 1970 either):


"What makes Raul Esparza the best Bobby I've seen is his ability to turn befuddlement into something quite touching. He is not just amused, bemused or put off by what he sees, he is more: sympathetically stymied, helplessly hamstrung. Esparza recently revealed in a New York Times profile that he is bisexual; so, presumably, is Bobby, which the text may suggest but does not assert.

Moreover, Bobby's sundry unsatisfactory encounters are based by book writer George Furth on a number of his short plays. This makes for a certain fragmentation of plot only partly alleviated by the uniform high quality of Sondheim's songs, with their pointed or poignant, but always pertinent, coherence.

Still, such set pieces as spouses demonstrating ostensibly friendly judo that turns hateful do not register when staged with the combatants at opposite ends of the stage. Similarly, Bobby's bedroom scene with April has the couple fully dressed and barely in proximity to one another. Such abstraction sorely detracts. So does, in some cases, casting for musicianship rather than for looks and acting.

Even so, there are especially noteworthy performances from Barbara Walsh (who, as the cynical Joanne, delivers two of the score's best-known numbers, ``The Little Things You Do Together' and ``The Ladies Who Lunch'), Angel Desai (spectacularly singing ``Another Hundred People') and Elizabeth Stanley (as the benighted April). And I doubt whether the ``Flight-of-the- Bumblebee'-like ``Getting Married Today' has ever been more exhilaratingly put across than it is by Heather Laws.

________________________________________________________________

In a musical, artists strive for a rounded whole. In this variety-show version, characters file past us two-dimensionally. There are serial impressions, but the full impact of Sondheim's splendid work is diminished by the packaging."




http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aNza4JFNdtls&refer=muse

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 12:56 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 12:59am

Simon seems often to be in Raul's favor, no? He liked him in Chitty, too, but if I remember correctly he more or less went nuts and gave it a good review overall.

Is his assumption then, though, that since Raul is bisexual he is in fact interpreting Bobby that way? I guess that's a typical John Simon assumption, but I don't think it's accurate...

I suppose you could presume that Bobby is or might be, but it's a little unfair to say that since the actor is, oh, he must be playing the character that way. Maybe I'm misreading? I kind of hope I am.

And yes, please do. :P I cracked my whip, but to little avail. :)

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 12:59 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:01am

Yeah, leave it to Simon to bring up his sexuality.

I thought Simon's review was well written, even-mannered, and very fair. Many of his sentiments echo my own.

Simon loved Raul in TABOO, didn't he?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:02am

Exactly. He would. I WILL contest that the confession has changed his performance, but I still think that critically, it's irrelevant.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:04am

I agree, Em. It just makes him more appealling

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:05am

Hey, freely admitted. In that "oh, bisexuality is so hot because I'm a straight female" sort of way. The whole thing is entirely heartbreaking, but let's not go into that here. :)

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:06am

I agree that Simon's review was logical and well-written, which hasn't struck me as the case for a few of the other negative reviews.

Margo, I've been waiting for that Washington Post review all night, and you just beat me to it. Updated On: 11/30/06 at 01:06 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:06am

Oh sweetheart, it opened up doors of possibility for me!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:07am

And I wish you the best in that endeavor.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:10am

Well, I'm kidding. But admitedly, when I was reading the times article I kept thinking "Okay! Okay! Sounds good! Keep going!", and then when they references his current "interest", I was kind of disappointed.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:14am

I was waiting for one of the critics to bring up that Raul interview in his review. Brantley didn't take the bait, but somehow I just knew Simon would (Barnes may too, later).

Simon panned most of Sondheim's shows in the 70s (including the music and lyrics that he now terms "splendid"), but I guess realizing that he was on the wrong side of history (and it would make him lose all credibility as a theatre critic if he didn't), he now falls all over himself to praise Sondheim's genius -- not to mention that several years ago, he married a woman who is a Sondheim fanatic who MADE him re-listen to those cast albums again and change his mind.

But, whatever, while his review was fairly mixed, he had some positive things to say about the cast and the show itself -- not that anyone gives a fig about his opinion anymore since he got kicked out of New York Magazine and now writes for Bloomberg.com (do any theatre fans, other than us, read that?).

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 01:14 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:15am

Margo, surely you don't mean that.

Barnes doesn't read The Times.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:16am

I had very much expected one of them to at the very least insinuate that his performance was good because of the personal demons he's fighting, or because of the interivew. I guess that could still happen.

I sort of wonder why Bloomberg.com even HAS theater reviews. Hah.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:20am

Newark Star-Ledger is Positive:

"Such a daring concept was forged years earlier by Doyle in British regional theaters, where he often didn't have the money to do musicals with a full complement of actors and musicians.

Love it or loathe it -- there was no middle ground in opinion -- "Sweeney Todd" ultimately proved a fairly popular attraction and even turned a profit.

Now Doyle successfully exercises the same approach on yet another challenging musical with a Stephen Sondheim score. Opening yesterday at the Ethel Barrymore Theatre, a reinvigorated "Company" looks and sounds like a contemporary show, rather than as a period piece dated by its 1970 stylistics.

______________________________________________________________


The significant difference here is the sound of Sondheim's coolly brilliant score, which sharply comments on relationships and New York living. The original orchestrations were infused with a buzzy electronic edge that's very early '70s in flavor.

Newly redone by Mary-Mitchell Campbell to be performed by a dozen actors onstage rather than by an orchestra in the pit, the music seems both warmer in quality and more spontaneous in nature. The effect is one of deeper humanity than before.

Doyle wittily integrates this music-making into his staging.

________________________________________________________________

Certain performers appear overtaxed by playing instruments as well as acting and singing tricky material, but they manage to satisfy. Her ironic crocodile smile gleaming, Barbara Walsh is a perfectly wry Joanne. Usually looking stricken with anxiety, Raúl Esparza's obviously lonely Robert at last thaws with an impassioned "Being Alive." The man's transformation into being a player rather than merely an observer offers as touching a conclusion as anyone could desire."

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/ledger/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-1/1164865278256050.xml&coll=1

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:21am

So far, this season is getting a strange amount of positive reviews. What's happening!? Is Broadway making a comeback?!

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:28am

No - all the really good things that normally would transfer Off Broadway are braving the Big White Way - thats why we are getting so many well received shows in the NY TIMES.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:31am

Yeah, the slate, so far is not as mixed as I expected. The AP was fairly negative. Murray at Talkin Broadway has zero impact on ticket sales (or anything else really -- the only people who read him are a few hundred people who log in here and at ATC). Or Simon at this point. And Joe UnpronounceableName at the Daily News has little impact either.

Brantley is the big one -- the only critic who by himself can cause a bump in ticket sales or really hurt a show (and he loved it). And most of the rest are fairly (or very) positive (the rave from the Jersey paper helps with the suburbs and the nice review from USA Today can help nationally). A pretty good night for the show, all in all.

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 01:31 AM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:41am

NY Sun is Mixed-to-Negative:

"On the face of it, an abstract mounting of "Company" makes perfect sense. With the possible exception of "Pacific Overtures," "Company" is the most presentational of all of Stephen Sondheim's musicals. All but a few of the deceptively bouncy songs in his 1970 examination of romantic ambivalence are delivered with a sort of faux-Brechtian overlay, as singers overlap, interrupt, or otherwise comment upon George Furth's acidic dialogue.

Enter director John Doyle, whose pared-down reinvention of Mr. Sondheim's "Sweeney Todd" earned him strong reviews and a Tony Award last season. Mr. Doyle's "Company," sounder in conception but muddier in execution than his previous outing, follows the same basic template — the 14-member cast accompanies itself on musical instruments, eliminating the need for a conventional pit orchestra.

But despite the occasional bit of staging trickery and Raúl Esparza's magnetic performance as Bobby, the charming but slippery commitment-phobe at the play's center, a conceit that leapt off the stage in "Sweeney" now feels hogtied by its own logistical requirements. Owing in part to an overall dip in quality among the performers in their traditional, as well as in their new responsibilities, Mr. Doyle's polarizing style feels less like a refreshing (if sometimes confusing) rethinking this time around and more like a cost-cutting novelty.

_____________________________________________________________

David Gallo's minimalist set devoted to Lucite cubes on which the musicians sit and to a central piano, there isn't much room for Mr. Doyle to maneuver his performers around the stage; the result is a procession of couples filing past Bobby to little effect.

It doesn't help that the overall level of both musical and acting ability is markedly lower this time. (Dance is essentially a nonfactor, as the sultry "Tick Tock" solo has been cut.) Mr. Furth's brittle bons mots can be tough to put over, true, but much of the cast fails to imbue them with the wit or pathos they require. And even with Mary-Mitchell Campbell's simplified orchestrations, not all of the lyrics are intelligible, a fate that the more complex "Sweeney" avoided.

There are certainly exceptions: Elizabeth Stanley and Kelly Jeanne Grant are convincing as two of Bobby's three girlfriends, while Leenya Rideout and Fred Rose acquit themselves as Jenny and David, whose brief walk on the wild side comprises one of Mr. Furth's more belabored sequences. (Ms. Rideout's instrumental skills are also quite strong.) And Mr. Esparza, who almost never leaves the stage, offers a wholly plausible blend of charisma, aloofness, and crippling uncertainty to guide his splendid tenor through such masterful musical distillations of uncertainty as "Someone Is Waiting" and "Marry Me a Little" (a relatively recent addition to the score). Overall, though, the enforced versatility appears to have resulted in artistic compromises on the performance side of the equation.

________________________________________________________________

After a piercing scream against the misgivings and hesitations that have thus far defined Bobby's life, Mr. Esparza sits down at the piano and begins playing "Being Alive" with a violent insistence that gradually calms down into a harmonious accompaniment. It is by far Mr. Doyle's finest moment in "Company," and a welcome reminder that the actor-musician notion is more than just a gimmick. Unfortunately, the very existence of such a reminder shows that Mr. Doyle has failed to make the case sufficiently this time out. It's possible to be grateful for his inventive efforts and sorry at the result."


http://www.nysun.com/article/44370

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:47am

"With the possible exception of "Pacific Overtures," "Company" is the most presentational of all of Stephen Sondheim's musicals."

I'd also throw in ASSASSINS and perhaps, ANYONE CAN WHISTLE. And FOLLIES (including several of the solo turns and especially, the entire "Loveland" sequence of Act II) is also VERY "presentational."

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 2:26am

Well, this has been great fun. I need to sleep. Congratulations again, Company.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 2:40am

'night, dear. Pleasant dreams......

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 4:20am

Ok, I'm confused. I think the Philadelphia Inquirer (in a weird review) likes the production (Doyle, the actors etc...), but hates the show itself -- I think...... I'm not sure:


"This revival is a marvelously staged anachronism with a cast composed of many Broadway first-timers, so profusely dripping with talent it's a wonder the crew doesn't bring out Wet Vacs during intermission.

I was enchanted by the cast and the orchestra - who are the same 14 people, many switching among three different instruments as they act, sing Sondheim's lustrous staccato score and lyrics, and dance. This does not spread their talents thin; these performers are as fine as any orchestra in a Broadway pit, and as engaged as any tight acting ensemble.

Director John Doyle, who now displays a Tony for his first Broadway effort last season, used actor-musicians in that haunting revival of Sondheim's Sweeney Todd; their instruments became a part of their characters. Here, in Company, their versatility is as much for show as to make a point, and it works to jaw-dropping effect.

_______________________________________________________________

Bobby, the character who is dissected and celebrated for Company's bloated 2 hours and 40 minutes, could, in fact, drive a person crazy. It's hard to tell whether he's mainly egotistical, passionless or simply naive.

It's his 35th birthday and he's not married, and all his friends are. (That's the plot.) Will he ever get married? Should he? Should you? Should anyone? (That's the tension.) In 1970, when the baby boom was young, maybe we responded to these questions and the utter cynicism Company projects, and I can only guess that a person currently in the market, so to speak, might find the discussion posed by George Furth's script relevant. I found it spurious.

The couples who constantly invite Bobby to dinner and carp about his singlehood are Lucite souls with Plexiglas psyches - the sorts of plastic used in David Gallo's spartan, effective set. And the mood is generally as black (when it's not sentimental) as the New York evening dress designed for the cast by Ann Hould-Ward.

Raúl Esparza, as Bobby, moves through the show with a hollow-eyed sense of irony; his character is built to stand apart from the action while wallowing in it - a tough act that Esparza pulls off thoroughly, and in full voice with a nice range.

____________________________________________________________

By the end of Act I, I couldn't have cared less whether Bobby ever married. By the middle of Act II, bombarded with Company's bubblegum logic about the institution, I hoped he would never get married. By the end of Company, I condemned him to live miserably ever after. But with a great supporting cast that brings off Sondheim so perfectly.


http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/entertainment/weekend/16126861.htm

[paradox_error]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 4:24am

Margo, it's Jem-i-uhn-o-vitch. A lovely Polish name, with Lithuanian roots.

The reviews are better than I expected! I'm pleased, especially with the Times review!
Updated On: 11/30/06 at 04:24 AM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 4:29am

Clives Barnes gives it three out of four stars (not sure if he stayed awake for all of this one -- some of the criticisms go back to his 1970 review; and yes, while he doesn't specifically mention the Times Esparza interview, he does make a point of firmly stating that Bobby is bisexual):

"CONFESSION time: I've never been completely happy with Stephen Sondheim's "Company," which exuberantly returned to Broadway last night in director John Doyle's inventive reinvention.

We've become accustomed to British directors coming and, for better or worse, reshaping our dear American musicals. But as we saw with Doyle's wonderful "Sweeney Todd" last season, like those strippers in "Gypsy," he's a guy with a strangely workable gimmick.

_______________________________________________________________


There's a lot to praise in "Company," especially Sondheim's compelling music and lyrics. Looking back, this was the musical in which Sondheim became indisputably Sondheim - and the Broadway musical theater would never be the same again.

But musicals don't live by their scores alone. There's the book, which, although it won George Furth a Tony Award, had my then-colleague, the late Walter Kerr, "feeling rather cool and queasy."

Yet the fact remains, from the ambiguous, eternal bachelor hero Bobby on down - apart from the sweet little stewardess who needs to get to Barcelona - it's difficult to feel sympathy for any of them.

The book, which was updated for the 1995 London production, is explicit, in a way it wasn't in 1970, about Bobby, who's now more or less an uncloseted bisexual.

Yet it remains a series of sketches about communication and marriage, sustained, albeit shakily, by a fantastic score.

____________________________________________________________


The role of Bobby has always been problematic. He's a cipher, and Raul Esparza, who plays a mean piano in the finale, goes through the show looking as though he's smiling bravely through a terminal case of dyspepsia.

He sings beautifully and has star quality, but like his last musical, "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," this one doesn't bring it out.

All the performances - including Barbara Walsh in "Ladies Who Lunch," who sensibly realizes that you can't escape from the Elaine Stritch original, and imitates her impressively - are splendid, but I particularly loved Angel Desai, Elizabeth Stanley and Kelly Jeanne Grant, who have a great saxophone trio worthy of some philharmonic.

All are remarkably good, especially under the circumstances. Fancy auditioning for Hamlet and being asked if you can play the fluegelhorn. "


http://www.nypost.com/seven/11302006/entertainment/theater/sweeney_touches_deftly_reinvent_sondheim_classic_theater_clive_barnes.htm