COMPANY reviews, take two- Page 5

[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

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 4:39am

Thanks, Paradox, dear,

I sometimes get thrown by too many consonants all together......


And as for Barnes --


"CONFESSION time: I've never been completely happy with Stephen Sondheim's "Company,"

You're damn right -- you PANNED it back in 1970.


"our dear American musicals"

Huh?

I know he's been here forever, but he's a Brit (or at least used to be -- perhaps he's a citizen now), and demonstrated such a positive slant towards British playwrights and transfers and productions in general over any and all homegrown American ones in his reviews when he was the chief Times critic in the 60s and 70s that there were calls by many in the theatre community to have him replaced -- which eventually came to fruition when the Times fired him in the late 70s.

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 04:39 AM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 8:16am

Daily News is Negative:

"As in his revival of "Sweeney Todd," which won Doyle a Tony, the cast of "Company" doubles as musicians. I'm all for reinvention, and while that idea was original and effective in "Todd," this time the concept gets in the way and weakens the material. All it does is distract.

The ensemble is overall bland and none of the characters ever comes alive. While the set is sleek, the costumes are anything but. The men are stuck in frumpy sweaters and baggy suits. The women, in beads, bows and black lace, just look cheesy.

Doyle's lethargic direction saps the edginess and vitality. He has largely stripped the show of movement, except when performers circle the stage with their instruments, periodically stopping to speak."

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 8:18am

Photos from the opening night party here:

http://www.broadway.com/gen/general.aspx?ci=536203

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 9:46am

I can't get that page to load and I am impatient.

I am also very, very very sleep deprived.

Ah well.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 10:49am

The Daily News Review makes me laugh.

Isn't it funny how Sondheim's shows are suddenly being overrun by teenyboppers all because of one person: Raul Felciano.

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 10:49am

"Barbara Walsh in "Ladies Who Lunch," who sensibly realizes that you can't escape from the Elaine Stritch original, and imitates her impressively"

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Not that I saw her perform the song in the original, but I've heard the cast recording and have seen her perform the number elsewhere...but WALSH & STRITCH'S versions are nothing alike and thats why Walsh's works so well.

Barnes what are you smoking?

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 11:34am

I don't think this one's been posted...they bring up the sexuality issue in a big way.

Connecticut Stage -

John Doyle's new deployment of actor-musicians in "Company," which opened Wednesday at the Ethel Barrymore Theatre, does not conclusively prove that this imaginative and skillful director is a one-trick pony. But his follow-up to the vivid and visceral "Sweeney Todd" falls well short of that stunning revision of Stephen Sondheim.
____________________________________________________________

Though it was not immediately clear, "Company" is now seen as a tale of a sexually confused young man, possibly a closeted gay. Raúl Esparza, who has split with his wife and recently gave an unguarded personal confession to the New York Times, certainly underlines Robert's ambiguities. But until his final breakout with the overpowering "Being Alive," Esparza makes Robert too withdrawn, too wary, true perhaps, but almost invisible at times in the black, white and plexiglas, art-deco production designed by David Gallo (scenery) and Ann Hould-Ward (costumes).
____________________________________________________________

Desai and Walshstand out, with Esparza finishing strong. But many of the couples seem underpowered in a show that has traditionally attracted major actors. This production originated at the Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park, which is still among the producers, and many of the original cast members, including Esparza and Walsh - both Broadway veterans - have moved onto higher visibility. In their Broadway debuts, the neophytes seem likable and musical but without much personality. This is a serious defect in a show that relies on the presences of the players to animate dialogue that is often shallow and dated.

Still, "Company" generates enough heat to boil at times, and at his best, Esparza, who winds up at the Steinway, sings with the elan of the young Bobby Short. This is a likable "Company," though not the revelation that "Sweeney Todd" was. But it should bring some pleasure to Sondheim lovers who cannot get enough of their now-stalled idol.

ctnow.com Review

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 11:42am

Well, in some cases, Esparza causes the hysteria. I think he's insanely talented, but the WICKED-esque fan girl obsessions that follow him are truly baffling.
If you read the first Company reviews thread, you'll see that RAUL was not the cause of the hysteria; it was the leftover Sweeneyboppers that were ranting about how nervous they were and attempting to out-obsess the other posters in their anxious anticipation of the reviews with claims of needed ice cream and alcohol to cope.

BSo, I think I love you.

I *think* that the Philadelphia Inquirer loved the performance, but hates the character of Bobby, and thinks that in comparison to the world of the 1970s, audiences won't understand Company today as much as they did then. Of course, if WE can't understand whether it's a positive or negative, I don't see how he expects the average Inquirer reader to be able to figure it out either.

The NY Post review is the third one to call Bobby a "cipher". Is this description used in the Cliff's Notes of Company or something? It's oddly coincidental.

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 11:42 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 11:48am

A lot of the original reviews in 1970 called Bobby a cipher - thats probably where that description is coming from.

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 12:10pm

If you read the first Company reviews thread, you'll see that RAUL was not the cause of the hysteria; it was the leftover Sweeneyboppers that were ranting about how nervous they were and attempting to out-obsess the other posters in their anxious anticipation of the reviews with claims of needed ice cream and alcohol to cope.

- Exactly. The Raul fans aren't the problem. The Sweeneyboppers are crazy. They can battle the Rentheads.

It still baffles me that Sweeney attracted so many pre-teen fan girls, etc.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 12:28pm

I want to read the rest of them in their entirety, but I'm so tired and I think my brain melted. I stayed up way too late last night.

BUT, having read the clippings posted, I really don't see why professional critics are deeming it necessary to talk about Raul's ACTUAL sexuality. I guess in giving the confession to the Times, he opened up the possibility for that to be said and gave people "permission" to go there; and may well have been asking for it. While I don't think his personal life can be called "irrelevant" to his performance, it's ridiculous to talk about it in a review.

Anyway, I'm being redundant. Again.

The first-thread hysteria was weird because I was like "wow, where did all these people come from?" I think it's great that people loved and care about the show, but it was a strange follow-the-crowd type response, and I think it was in part because people seemed to take my jokes seriously, thinking I was actually going to slit my wrists or drink myself to death or something if Brantley didn't review it favorably... and wanted to express their sympathy on the same apparent level.

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 12:28 PM

[ElphieDefiesGravity]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 12:33pm

Yeah, you'll do that right after you pull a Mark somethingsomething, or whatever that guy's name is.

I would really appreciate it if NY1 would put up their review already. I want more clips!

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 12:33 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 12:36pm

Yes, after I become an assassin. Apparently.

The ONLY reason I'm looking forward to seeing what NY1 has to say (they're generally nice, but... stupid) is because there'll be video clips.

[ElphieDefiesGravity]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 12:42pm

Obviously. :-P

I have seriously been refreshing the NY1 theatre page religiously since about 9 o'clock last night. I'm sorry, but The Coast of Utopia is not what I'm interested in right now.

[Ariella]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 4:52pm

I still haven't gotten anything to come up either. I was checking during free moments at school.

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 8:06pm

I know this probably isn't the place, but can you people take a joke? As one of the main posters on the original board, I'm baffled at the number people who actually took us seriously. We were joking around, taking a bit of anticipation and making into a huge joke. I guess any sort of loosening up and having fun isn't really allowed, only cynicism and b!tchy-ness.. ah, well.

[fflagg]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 8:23pm

A great score and yet another sub-par revival with a B cast and a C production.

I will stick with the OCR and the DVD of the recording session.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 9:01pm

The problem wasn't that we took you seriously. No one did; it was inappropriate. The review thread isn't the place to turn it into a huge joke. Take a look in The Vertical Hour review thread and compare it to what you and the other "main posters" did last night. These threads are for compiling and responding to major reviews on opening nights. They have never been as ridiculous and immature as the one last night. Forgive me expecting Sondheim fans to be able to display the same amount of maturity and decorum as Mary Poppins fans.

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 09:01 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 9:05pm

Opening night photos --

Broadway.com: https://www.broadway.com/Gen/Buzz_Photo_op.aspx?ci=541255

Playbill.com: https://www.playbill.com/news/article/103919.html

BWW: Arrivals - https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=14079
Party - https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=14087

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 12:41pm

The official website posted links to two reviews: Newsday and the Wall Street Journal. But, both of the links are dead. The WSJ website requires a login; does anyone have access who would be willing to post clips from the review? It's titled Corporate Man to 'Company' Man , if that helps at all.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 2:24pm

This isn't quite a review, but it's still pretty positive press from New York magazine:

https://nymag.com/arts/theater/reviews/24979/

I'm especially loving that very sexy photo.

Posted: 12/2/06 at 7:20pm

i just came from COMPANY & i really enjoyed it!
wait, maybe "enjoyed" isnt that right word...i was MOVED.
ive never seen COMPANY performed before, i only know it from the original cast recording.
the story felt very relevant to me & things im going through as a 37 year old (although i would identify more with the characters of April & Marta than with Robert)...by the time BEING ALIVE came around, i was in tears...not for the characters, but that sick feeling in my stomache of "what the hell am i gonna do with *MY* life?!?!!?"
i thought the music was beautiful with these sparse sensitive arrangements, the "bobbys" almost sound like a vesper prayer. i wish i could relisten to it right now!
Raul Esparza is much more charasmatic, charming & handsome on stage than he is in photos or video. The standouts in the cast were Raul, Heather Laws (who stold the show), Angel Desai, & Elizabeth Stanley. I thought Leenya Rideout was a particularly talented musician. I kept expecting Barbara Walsh to steal the show, but she never did...sometimes, it seemed that both she & Heather Laws were in a different show altogether, because of how cartoony they were playing their roles...but Ms. Laws made it work (maybe because of her hairdo?). Actually i wish that EVERYONE had gone a little cartoonier; there were so many characters that the ones that didn't distinguish themselves right away just faded into the set, especially the men. One cast member needs to TURN DOWN her cartooniness, though...Amy Justman, who is doing one of the worst, fakiest southern accents ive ever heard (& ive heard some doozies)...so much so that i thought her fake southerness was going to become a plotpoint.
but on the whole, it is a powerful show that gave me much to think about, many questions to ask myself, & i feel it can inspire emotional growth & change.

[ElFantasma14]

Posted: 12/2/06 at 7:33pm

That article from New York Mag has a new picture by Amy Arbus. I love all her pictures of characters from shows.

Posted: 12/3/06 at 11:57am

i cant wait to hear those haunting "bobby"s again!

also, thinking about it overnight, i want to make sure that it didnt sound like i was putting down Barbara Walsh's JOANNE...i think its the director's choice to underplay LADIES WHO LUNCH so that it builds to the climax & release of BEING ALIVE, rather than having two climaxes so close together.

Barbara Walsh could definitley tear it up if she wanted to!