COMPANY: my feelings and thoughts

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.

---

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.

---

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

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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

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

He shakes every time.

---

"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.