Company Commentary Thread — Page 15

If you do get married, you will certainly be THINKING "Getting Married Today" the entire time. I was with my husband for nine years before we got married and I was still ready to bolt at the slightest sign from above.

I'm really, really, REALLY late to the party on this one... but I finally watched "Company." I didn't see it on stage in NY, and I must admit that from the friends that did see it, I wasn't that eager to give it a go. I had heard it was low-energy, dull and forgettable, except for "Being Alive." I also cringed at the idea of the Partridge Family Band concept from Doyle. I had also heard that the singer/actors were not so great, because they had to also play instruments, so they weren't necessarily the best for the roles, but rather the best "triple threats" around that could act, sing AND play something.

Again... ALL hearsay for me. Not my own opinion at all, but it didn't set me up to get excited about seeing it at all. Still, I recorded it on my DVR and thought, "well, I'll get around to watching it one day."

Then I got a call from my dad, and we were talking away about this and that, and he said, "Hey, did you watch Company?" I told him not yet. He proceeded to tell me just how much he loved it. He wasn't familiar with the show, the story or the songs. My father was an avid theatre-goer in his day. A first-nighter in fact. He was there for the opening nights (as a kid or young adult) of Oklahoma!, Carousel, The King and I, A Streetcar Named Desire, and SO many others from the Golden Age. But we moved to Kansas in the summer of '66 and that pretty much ended by father's Broadway patronage. He's been back once or twice over the past 40 years, but that's it. Still, I greatly value his opinion of shows and theatre in general, so HELL, now I got excited about seeing Company with an open mind.

I loved it from start to finish. What may have been "low-key" and "low energy" in the theatre played BEAUTIFULLY on television. The acting and emotions were real, the characters fascinating, the pacing perfect (again for TV) and I was pretty much blown away by the entire thing. I loved the set, lighting, the staging, the camera work, the direction for television (I REALLY hope Lonny Price scores an Emmy nod for this), and I was surprised to find that I liked the orchestrations so much.

Bottom line: it all WORKED.

And then there's Raul. After his performance on the Tony's, my first exposure to his singing, I HATED it. He bleats like a goat, and has serious pitch problems. I couldn't imagine why the fuss?! He's only marginally good-looking at face value, but it's an "interesting" face. But watching him play Bobby, I was floored, drawn-in, and ultimately very moved by his acting and whole performance. He's still not a great singer, but he's a fantastic singing ACTOR. And I fell in love with him while watching this. (No, not REALLY, but hopefully you know what I mean). He became more and more attractive to me as the show went on. The brooding eyes, the reactions and connections and sometimes disconnections to the other characters. I wouldn't want to listen to an album of him sing "greatest hits" any more than I would Zero Mostel... but he is a true Theatre Star, and it's well-deserved. I can think of so many roles I'd like to see him do, but I also kept thinking he'd be so great in film or on a (good) TV series. His acting and his "look" are unique and very attractive and compelling.

So, I'm glad I took a chance on Company. It surprised me in just about every way it could. And in such wonderful ways!

---

Since Best bumped this thread, I thought I'd add my two cents, since I was also a little late to the party.

Emcee has already heard my thoughts, of course. :)

So anyhow, what surprised me was that I don't hate it. From the clips that made it look like it was a bunch of people in the Georgian room of the art museum doing some singspiel fundraiser and the album which I thought had some lovely harmonies but none of the character of the original cast, which I adore, I'm found it mostly enjoyable. I'd love some color in their costumes and I miss the fact that it's not really set in 1970 it's not so bad.

And actually, I thought "What Would We Do Without You?" was the first moment where I dug the concept.

I'm still not sure what to MAKE of it as a whole, I guess. Is it making the case that this whole thing was in his head?

One thing - and this is something that always confounded me from the original - isn't it weird that none of his friends knew one another? I guess with it being conceptually that's a sticking point to just gloss over, but I did find that very weird.

I'm also curious to know if we're supposed to assume this version is taking place in the 70s?

I just thinking it's in the now kind of screws it up a bit for me, since to me it's such a product of its time. So many of the references just don't jibe with it taken place now, from the talk of the "service will explain" or pretty much all of "Have Got I Girl For You."

best12bars...what a fabulous post! Nicely written and glad to hear you enjoyed it. :)

Btw, if you go on YouTube and search for Raul Esaprza and/or Pushing Daisies, you can see his guest spots on that show. He works so well with the the atmosphere created, not to mention the quirkiness. :)

Okay, I've actually gone ahead and found a clip joining only his and Kristen Chenoweth's scenes, as they are a potential couple fans like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ126Ct8gbI
(Kristen's a regular on the show.)

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 04:11 PM

BrodyFosse123... I didn't say everyone here didn't know that. But obviously this person who made the original post was not familiar with the show because most people ALSO know Raul was on the show - and they said they'd love to see him on tv what with his acting abilities. I know everyone who follows Kristin knows she is on the show. And pardon my spelling mistake, please, I am a fan of two other KristEn's, so it is simply a typo that I don't notice.

Way to be harsh, though...

I enjoyed watching this again. (I saw it on Broadway when it was in previews)

as amazing as it is, there are certain parts that I think can get a little boring or tend to drag on but nevertheless Raul Esparza kept me drawn in.

---

Hey OVERTHEMOO! I didn't know.

Don't care for Kristin and have never seen the show.

Thanks for the info!

*shrugs*

---

Updated On: 2/27/08 at 05:17 PM

Yes, however the party that's shown isn't a specific party. It's more of just a symbolic gathering... i think.

I'm fairly new to the show, so I may have no idea what I'm talking about.

And that's what I love about the show; the vagueness of it, you are allowed to draw up your own conclusions.

It's kind of like Our Town, in that sense.

And, as for Raul's success onscreen - he did have a small (but pitival role) in Find Me Guilty.

---

Updated On: 2/27/08 at 05:21 PM

I would also have to add that there is a difference between "confusion" and "vagueness."

Nothing in Company confuses me. I'm not at odds with the characters their lack of interaction between the couples, the lack of a traditional linear plot. That's Mr. Sondheim, the puzzle-maker and puzzle-solver. His foundation in this show is rock solid, on its own terms.

If one or two couples had interacted with each other, then some of the other behavior might be confusing. He doesn't slip up though. He was also quick to point out in the interview that NONE of the songs arises organically out of the dialogue, as with most traditional musicals. The songs are inserted or "forced" into each of the scenes. They just START and END. That was also intentional, when they began working with George Furth's book.

What we have before us is a "concept musical." One of the first (if not THE first?) created for Broadway. The concept is clear, even if elements presented are vague.

It's CLEARLY vague!

I think that's what I'm trying to say.

I think.

I am!

Aren't I?

---

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 05:38 PM