COMPANY: my feelings and thoughts

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:40am

As a big champion and lover of Doyle's SWEENEY TODD, I was basically too excited for my own good to see this production. I worship Sondheim, respect Doyle, and adore Esparza. How could I not love this?

Well, I don't know. But I didn't. I certainly liked it, but I didn't love it.

I found this production to be confusing. It has taken me nearly 5 hours to process what I saw this afternoon, and I think I have finally focused in on what didn't (and did) work for me.

The actor/instrument concept here just doesn't work as well as it did with SWEENEY. Excuse the comparison, but it's practically inevitable. I felt every single instrument/actor combination served a purpose, and I thought it was brilliant how in some cases, the instruments actually served to enhance the already vivid characterization. It didn't seem like a gimmick last time, while this time - I don't see a whole lot of justification for the unique concept.

Putting aside character work for now, the overall orchestral sound was rather uneven and shoddy in most instances. I thought some of the orchestrations were excellent ("You Could Drive a Person Crazy", "Another Hundred People", "Side by Side by Side", "Poor Baby") and just completely mediocre at times ("Company", "The Little Things...", "Marry Me a Little", "The Ladies Who Lunch", "Being Alive"). The rest of the songs fall somewhere in between, though generally closer to the mediocre end of the scale.

I missed the driving and exciting percussion in the opening number, and I found the arrangements for "The Ladies Who Lunch" and "Being Alive" to be not only disappointing, but distracting. It's fascinating that this is a concept that, at least on paper, seemed to be much better suited for COMPANY than SWEENEY. Not the case at all. Don't get me wrong - all of the musicians are insanely talented - but in many songs, I found the lyrics to be uninteligible.

It's not all negative, though - I am being extremely nit-picky. As a musician, that's simply the first thing that struck me as being odd.

There is some charming "instrument characterizaton" (for lack of a better phrase) work here - mostly involving the different couples. In fact, I found several moments to be beautifully staged and chill-inducing.

What seems to have happened is that much of the humor is toned down here. Yes, the jokes and quirks are all still there - but they're almost all tossed away.

Raul Esparza is a fine, fine performer who has delivered several brilliant performances. I, like many of you, was hoping that this would be his time to shine (and to win a Tony). His approach to the role of Robert is a strange one. He is too alienating, too cold, and relies solely on dry wit and sarcasm to garner laughs. Yeah, he still gets the laughs - and I'm a fan of sarcasm - but it's really the only comedic tactic he chose to take advantage of. Aside from a fine voice and an otherwise charming personality, his rather cold interpretation is one of the main faults of this piece. Other than Esparza's inherently irresistable quality, I quite honestly don't understand why someone like Robert would have so many friends that seem to seek his company, or so many women that seem to take a liking to him. The hottness factor is on his side - but he doesn't offer much by way of character.

Esparza has moments of sheer brilliance - moments of being oh-so-close to nailing it. Mainly, his "homosexual encounters" scene, his pre-"Barcelona" scene, and his post "Ladies/Lunch" scene with Joanne. I was looking forward to his rendition of "Being Alive" from the very first moments of the show, and I really hate to say that I was not completely satisfied. It just didn't pack the emotional punch that the song (even out of context) usually carries. I understand the symbolism (which I quite like) by having Robert not play an instrument until that moment, but I didn't feel that he was given ample opportunity to sell the song, as he was confined to a piano for half of it playing choppy, abrasive notes on the piano. Finally, he gets up and takes center stage as the rest of the ensemble joins in - but still - I did not see the necessary realization and transformation. It seemed almost as if they were performing the song out of context and in a concert setting. The paired down orchestrations did not do anything for the usual climax of the song, and I was left severely underwhelmed. I needed something physical from him, and unfortunately, he never physicalized the rawness of desperation that the song calls for. He could be brilliant. He just needs to be pushed.

Barbara Walsh is a supreme disappointment. Doing her best Elaine Strich by-way-of Beth Leavel, she fails on almost every level. She has the best supporting role in the show. A brilliant song, and some really terrific zingers. She throws all of her jokes away and relies solely on stereotypes to get through the rest of her performance. I did find her wonderful in one scene: the scene following "Ladies/Lunch." Some terrific acting there. As she delivered one of the most infamous cue lines in musical history, "I'd like to propose a toast," there was a collective sigh with subsequent murmur amongst audience members. "This is it!", "This is the song!", "Wait 'til you hear this one!" For the first half of the song, I thought she was fine. Her performance did not cross over into embarrassing until late in the song, with her crowning achievement being her off-key, horrendous "RISE! RISE! RISE!" She didn't even pronounce the word "rise." It was more like "Rauise! Rauise! Rauise!." Absolutely horrible. The performed the entire song leaning against the piano. I don't understand that decision, and it doesn't work. Doyle: Push her, or sack her.

The rest of the supporting cast is decent - some better than others. Standouts include Elizabeth Stanley, Angel Desai, Heather Laws, and Leenya Rideout. The entire cast is generally better during the musical numbers than they are during the book scenes.

This is already long enough, and I don't want to make this longer - but overall, I really didn't find any of the couples likable or believable. They were all stiff and sterile, and I saw very little reality infused in any of their performances, save for a couple moments from a few different people.

I truly hope that I am wrong about this production. I hope it is brilliantly reviewed, and I hope that I am wrong in saying that it just doesn't work as well as I had hoped. I want nothing more than for this show to succeed.

I will see this show again, as I found it to be a modestly rewarding experience - but I certainly hope they do some work.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:49am

Munk, I totally agree with you. I posted this in another thread, but here it is again:

I think the biggest mistake was trying to set the show in the present. And here's why: You can rewrite the book and make it contemporary. But if you're going to rewrite the book, you have to rewrite the Sondheim. You can't have it one way or the other.

Maybe "Company" should be updated. I doubt it, but IF you're going to update one portion of the show, you have to update all of it.

The biggest failure along this line is "The Ladies Who Lunch." I'm not a big Barbara Walsh fan, but I don't think her performance in this case is her fault.

They eviscerated the character. The song is about baby boomer women from the 1950s who ended up without careers, and Joanne is pissed off that she wasn't able to make a choice. If you update the show, and make here a 90's woman, it simply says that Joanne always had the choice, and instead of the character being trapped, she's simply vapid.

Now, as far as Doyle is concerned, I think he's very talented. That "Sweeney" was devestating. And there were moments in this show that were good, but they were very far and few between, and they never served the overall good.

I think the biggest problem was this whole idea of actors playing musical instruments.

This is not a "cost saving" device on Broadway. The producers have to pay nightly for musicians that aren't playin whether they are there nor not. It's a union thing.

But there's no point in this show. Actually, there's one single point. Everyone plays an instrument except Bobby. It's a simple concept. It's a good concept, except that it screws the score. "Company" is a very brassy score, and the arrangements in this production are airey fairy at best.

But Doyle's biggest flub up was this: He was loyal.

So the current Broadway cast is filled with a bunch of (frankly, horrible) actors that would have gone to Cincinnati. I admire his loyalty. But if he had recast this show, it might have worked.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:55am

I agree with many of your points. I should have just posted this in the other thread, but I forgot it existed until after I created this one.

Sorry for the excess, guys.

Veuve: I didn't think the majority of the cast was horrible, persay, but I think they need to be pushed.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:06am

"Veuve: I didn't think the majority of the cast was horrible, persay, but I think they need to be pushed."

Pushed how?

And I must say, that gal who played Amy was very, very fine. Otherwise? Those women were crap.

Now, the men in Company are always beneath the point, and frankly, these guys were okay.

But those gals were awful. The blonde that played the Barbara Barrie role? Yuck. The readhead that played the Teri Ralston role? Beyond yuck. And the barcelona blonde? Well, you saw it.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 5:35am

For me, COMPANY is Sondheim's most brilliantly vivid and immediate score, but except for Esparza, I found it the acting and singing drab and colorless.

With SWEENEY, the cast was so mesmeric and charismatic I didn't really notice the musical instruments. With this largely anonymous COMPANY, I couldn't avoid the "concept".

Updated On: 11/16/06 at 05:35 AM

[All_For_Laura]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:10am

I loved the Ladies who Lunch choice and staging. There is a power that comes out, but by the end, her off key belts and her desolate unapplauded ending make the character of Joanne seem just that pathetic. It really is a depressing song and I think it is emotionally wrenching to see her standing up there, almost alone. I loved the show and thought it worked extremely well. I respect your opinions and agree that there are things that could be changed, but for the most part it works.

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:13am

her off key belts and her desolate unapplauded ending make the character of Joanne seem just that pathetic.

EXACTLY!! I loved Walsh. Thought she was awesome.

[InfiniteGirl]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 8:04am

I can't comment on the orchestrations and lack of brass, because I'm not a musician. I come at it from a writing pov, and for me, the play COMPANY has never played better!

I loved the acting - or better - the non-acting. Found the performances completely realistic and engaging, every one - and especially Raul. Jokes weren't pushed - laughs were discovered, and if one of the iconic one-liners that usually hits us over the head, instead sneaks up and surprises us - well, what a delight to be surprised by a show we by now know by heart!

The instruments are integrated beautifully into the staging and performances - as in Sweeney. They add interest and illumination to the characters and their relationships. It never occured to me these weren't pit musicians playing it as a dedicated score.

It was simply a wonderful, full, thrilling, and moving evening of theater - and a joy to re-discover good old Company brand new.
Updated On: 11/16/06 at 08:04 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 9:22am

Munk, I'm glad you were finally able to hammer out what you thought, for better or for worse. But I know your expectations were perhaps even unrealistically high, and like I said to you last night, I see a lot of your nitpicks; I'm just past-it as far as allowing them to stop me from loving it. But, based on a lot of what you said, both in the post and off-the-boards, I think seeing it again might push some of them away. And I'm glad you did enjoy it, nitpicks aside.

Veuve, being that you considered the whole thing a "total misfire," it doesn't make all that much sense for you to say you "totally agree" with him, because he didn't entirely hate it, which I get the impression you did. You two make a few similar points, but you're not really saying the same thing. But whatever.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 10:19am

I found Company to be a misfire. This is a deceptively hard show since very little is on the surface. Some things do work, but the concept takes too much from the show. ("The play's the thing.")

I fault the concept (which did not work for me with Sweeney Todd either) since I feel the instruments get in the way of the show. The actors couldn't concentrate on their roles and their songs because they had cues to make. Too many times they were singing with the mouthpieces in front of their faces.

I wonder if Mr. Doyle can direct. I see staging (that isn't that interesting) and a concept, but very little character development. It was like the actors were on their own.

Raul Esparza is a very talented actor, but where he needs to be witty, smart, funny and charming--how else does he get to be best friends with these New Yorkers?--here he is portrayed as an alcoholic depressive. He has a glass in his hand for what, two thirds of the show?

And then there is New York which I have always called the 15th character in Company. There is no sense of that New York City urgency that ought to underlie the whole musical.

And where is the comedy? The show describes itself as "a musical comedy", and the audience did not laugh all that much.

Amy always steals the show. The role may be actor-proof.

I think John Doyle's 15 minutes are long up.

[Esparzafan]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 10:24am

Munk, I can't thank you enough for your thoughts. You hit directly on the head the way I felt about each aspect of the show brilliantly. I eagerly anticipated Company since it opened in Cincinatti and maybe my expectation level was unreasonably high, but after the show, I walked away feeling that, while I liked it, I didn't love it. I've been trying to wrap my head around my feelings for the show - and I feel infinitely better having read your thoughts put into words so eloquently.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 10:28am

The fact that Raul constantly has a glass in his hand needs. to. go. I can't see what purpose it possibly serves; maybe Bobby does drink his sorrows away, but the consistency just makes it seem like he's an alcoholic. It gets a little distracting, and that's not an actor who needs a security blanket prop.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 11:32am

Thanks for your review - I've already posted my thoughts which are pretty much in accordance - The more I think back on this production (and I hate when this happens) the more I dislike it.

I just don't think Doyle's angle on deconstructing the script *unlike SWEENEY* jives with the original author intentions, particularly after going back and watching some of the other productions (the Sam Mendes Donmar and Sean Mathias Kennedy Center stagings) which managed to bring new insights while remaining faithful to the over all arc and emotional journey of the characters.

I will be very curious to see what the reviews for this production are like.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 11:41am

I don't understand how anyone can think that Barbara Walsh was excellent. She wasted the part, and completely threw it away.

Joanne doesn't have to be a singer - and her off-key screeching at the end of the song wouldn't have been so horribly inappropriate and grotesque if she had an actual character developed. I have seen and heard "The Ladies Who Lunch" performed and interpreted many different ways - and what was missing from this version was an interpretation at all. It was almost as if she was singing it JUST to sing it. It didn't pack a punch. She didn't get into the song. She sort of performed it as if she were just throwing it to the wind. It really bothered me.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 11:45am

You need an actress in the role of Joanne. A first rate actress. With all respect, Barbara Walsh isn't really a first rate anything.

Lynn Redgrave was brilliant at the KC. I'd love to see what her niece would do with the role.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 11:45am

Munk-excellent critique, and I agree with all of it. I can't add a thing.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 11:48am

Lynn Redgrave was indeed brilliant. She's the only one I have seen in an actual full production.

I know Roundabout's 1995 COMPANY was a complete misfire, but Monk's rendition of the song on the album is fantastic. She gets it.

I agree, Bennett. You need a first rate actress. I do not understand why Walsh was cast at all. She also seemed a bit too young for me. Joanne is supposed to be an older woman. If I didn't know any better, I would have thought she was the same age as Bobby. BLAH.

[rbxprs]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 11:49am

I was there last night and I was completely bored except the last 20 minutes, which really saved it. Raul really nailed "Being Alive" so much so that he was shaking while singing it. It was powerful. I see a Tony nom coming his way. The rest of them were kind of blah though.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 11:52am

Well, Joanne isn't supposed to really be that much older than Bobby. Elaine Strich was 45 in the original production - ten years older than Bobby's character - but I agree Walsh doesn't seem much older than Esparza at all so you don't have the stringent contrast in their scenes together.

Monk was absolutely awful in the Roundabout production, IMO. However - she is a good actress and at least made strong choices in the role. I'd rather see that than the sort of Strich homage Walsh is doing.
Updated On: 11/16/06 at 11:52 AM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 12:01pm

Thanks for your thoughts, Munk. I'm pretty sure I'm finally going tonight. It will be quite interesting. Before it came here, all I had heard was amazing things. But since it opened, I've heard more and more negative things. Usually, I don't read opinions on shows or whatever until I see it, for logical reasons, but for some reason I couldn't resist with this production. I'm at least glad that I won't be going in with such high expectations. I really have never gone into a show so unsure of what I'll think about it--which certainly isn't a bad thing.

Another thing that is hard for me just reading what people are saying here, is to think a performer is brilliant for singing off-key. It just hurts my ear too much, even if it makes perfect sense for the character to be singing off-key.

But I'm going in with a completely open mind, really having no clue how I feel, or expectations one way or the other. It should be interesting.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 12:25pm

"Raul really nailed "Being Alive" so much so that he was shaking while singing it. "

He shakes every time.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/20/06 at 10:36pm

"But I'm going in with a completely open mind, really having no clue how I feel, or expectations one way or the other. It should be interesting."

Well, wicked, that's exactly what you SHOULD do.

I feel a little bad about my responses to this "Company," and I feel the need to say this:

Yes, I found this production of "Company" problematic.

But I hope people realize that while I stand by what I said, this production is better than 90% of the crap that is going on in NYC right now.

Go see this "Company." And then judge for yourself.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/20/06 at 10:36pm

"But I'm going in with a completely open mind, really having no clue how I feel, or expectations one way or the other. It should be interesting."

Well, wicked, that's exactly what you SHOULD do.

I feel a little bad about my responses to this "Company," and I feel the need to say this:

Yes, I found this production of "Company" problematic.

But I hope people realize that while I stand by what I said, this production is better than 90% of the crap that is going on in NYC right now.

Go see this "Company." And then judge for yourself.

[JoizeyActor]

Posted: 11/21/06 at 2:39am

Ugh, I have no desire to see this show. I saw it at NYU once and I wanted to vomit.