Company Previews Thread — Page 7

I saw this tonight and was in the front row of the mezz all the way house left in the "partial view" seat. But I didn't miss anything. Maybe a line or two, but 99% o the show I saw just fine. It's all done pretty downstage center.

Elliot nailed it. I fell in love with her direction when I saw her "Angels in America" in London, and she did not disappoint. I love stagecraft, and she just keeps the audience excited and guessing in the design and direction. The little Alice in Wonderland door?! C'mon! So great

Lupone is Lupone, but she's incredible. Just some really hilarious line readings. And she is that part. And her voice is fantastic.

I wasn't so taken with Doyle. The audience went nuts after, but I was more a fan of the direction of the scene rather than his particular performance.

Everyone was on fire. I love Jennifer S!!! She set the tone for the show with her scene and the laughing never stopped.

I, for one, was really taken with Lenk. It's a star turn. She is just so charismatic and charming. I also love that she has a masculine energy about her. She just felt very cool and laid back and I wanted to have a drink with her Bobbie. Her vocals were a little off, but her acting was incredible. I loved her "Being Alive." Sure, she's a musical theater actress, but she's done shows like "A Band's Visit" and "Once." This is a different beast. And she's the lead. She's on stage the whole time. I'm sure it's a difficult thing to navigate and figure out. I'm excited to return in a few weeks and see how she's grown. She's gonna grow into it without a doubt. It's a big show, and I"m sure a lot of the time was spent on the tech and not the moment to moment and whatnot. I expect raves for her.

Yeah I got that too ljay.

I'm not totally familiar with Company. I've seen a crappy college production and the Doyle one on PBS.

What normally happens during that number?

Also what normally happens with the Larry/Bobbie characters after "Ladies Who Lunch?" Lenk and Lupone's friendship made sense to me, but I couldn't imagine it as a single guy and an older lady? And then she offers up her husband?

Just got back from the Tuesday night preview. I've seen about 10 productions of COMPANY over the years, including the Doyle version, the concert version that was shown in theaters, and numerous regional theatre productions. I love that score, appreciate the time and place of that book and setting, and look forward to seeing new interpretations of it.

The gender/switch works fine....didn't bother me at all. What DID bother me in this production was the relentless mugging and smiling and over-doing everything. It's one thing when someone like Sieber, Simard or Fitzgerald go broad-- they are masters at it, and-- for me, at least-- they were wonderful. But the whole cast is doing it, all the time, and it really hurts the performance.

Two very big issues for me were the excessive business about selfies and smartphones...and the costumes. Are people in their mid-to-late thirties that consumed with taking group selfies that do it constantly (and un-ironically?). It left most of the performers with silly grins on their faces throughout most of the group numbers. Costuming is also terrible, with Rashidra Scott (who seems like she must be talented) dressed like she's in a different show (and of a very different age).

It was very tough to believe that any of these people were parents. COMPANY leaves the kids off-stage, but I've seen productions where the performances, and costuming and direction, allowed you to believe these were all flesh and blood couples....and they were all good friends with Bobby. Not here. I couldn't buy it at all, except in the scenes with the maybe-marrying Jamie and Paul.

On the plus side, beyond Fitzgerald, Sieber and Simard: Fabulous orchestra! and NOT GETTING MARRIED works well (though, again, too much 'business' going on-- why do we have a drunk priest in there to pull focus from the core drama/comedy?), YOU COULD DRIVE A PERSON CRAZY totally works-- a delight that was pure showmanship, Elder's work overall is great, and SORRY GRATEFUL was nicely staged and sung.

On the negative side: Lenk-- whom I loved in BAND'S VISIT-- does not seem to be in the same world as these people-- can't tell if it's her or if it's them. And her voice is too weak, except I did like her BEING ALIVE. The choreography for SIDE BY SIDE is terrible-- I have no idea what was intended. And, to answer one of the earlier posters, LuPone delivers LADIES completely seated... which takes away a lot of the power. She's also doing a lot of stuff with the song and not in a good way--- have heard her do it so much better (and straighter) in the past, and was hoping for that.

Anyway, it's early in previews but they were certainly getting rapturous encouragement from the audience, so I bet they're not gonna change much....

Talented people, all. But not one of the Top 5 or even 10 COMPANY's I've seen.

I agree about "Side by Side" and the choreography in general. Not good. I didn't get the point or what was going on.

I also felt the end of Act 1 was bad. It just kind of ended. I know this isn't a typical musical and not structurally set up like one, but Act 1 felt a bit "eh" when the curtain came down.

Jarethan said: "A number of people have commented on the poor book,

I saw Company 3 times when it first opened in 1970. I have seen it at least 8-10 timestimes since then. There has never been a single time when I didn't cringe multiple times during the book scenes, sometimes uncomfortably because some of them were just so forced or, eventually, forced AND dated. IMO George Furth was a hack, and every production I have seen would have been much better if the book had been thrown out and redone from scratch. I have always wondered why Hal Prince didn't try to make it seem less episodic, e.g., now is the scene with the pot smokers, nowis the scene with the scared bride-to-be, etc.

Thatsaid, I have always felt the best way to view Company is simply to endure the book scenes and wait for the next musical number, since they are all so damned entertaining. By preparing myselffor the fact that the book sucks, I find that I enjoy it more. Based on what I have read here, I am expecting that I will have to cringe more during some of the scenes, are pot smokers in 2000 remotely funny?

Two last points: I am among the group people who hated Raul Esparza in the role. I thought that he was so cold that no-one would want to be his friend. His Being Alive was sung beautifully, however. I saw Boyd Gaines twice, once when he was having vocal issues early in the run (just as BP had early in the run of Gypsy), and once when his voice was better. I thought his performance was excellent, especially his Being Alive. He had a likability that made his aloneness all the more hard to observe.

In either version, the book still kept (and has always kept) Companyfrom being a truly great musical, even though I have loved most versionsI have seen to date."

Thanks for this, it gave me context because I agree, the book is a cringe fest.

I’m confused about the whole Joanne/Larry/Bobbie thing.

Regardless, I am very excited to see this at the end of the month! I splurged and got my partner and I first row mezzanine seats.

Lenk does not have that typical B'way belt, nor does she tend to interpret songs in a traditional way. Anyone who saw her eccentric New Year's Eve performance knows she's her own thing (with the musical theater repertoire), and the people who cast her knew they'd get an iconoclastic approach, not a big-voiced young diva. She just isn't that. I'm reading reports here that either seize that as a plus, or regret the decision to cast her. She has been given two of Sondheim's songs that in the past gave actor singers a chance to open up, thri (Jones, Esparza). She doesn't really have that rangy style, so disappointment must be from those who didn't know what to expect. The show asks us to watch the protagonist almost coast through two acts, and then wear her heart on her sleeve in two numbers. If her acting is as impassioned as many attest, does it compensate for the less traditional vocals? A question.

Ever since the first preview I can't stop wondering something I really shouldn't, but has been on my mind....with so many big names, I can't help but wonder about the longevity of this production. Am I the only one? Will it still draw audiences when someone like LuPone or Lenk leaves? I don't know. I don't know why this entered my mind when I enjoyed it so much (like I couldn't stop thinking about it yesterday). Just couldn't help but wonder.

Auggie27 said: "If her acting is as impassioned as many attest, does it compensate for the less traditional vocals? A question."

No, it does not.

It wasn't bad, but it also wasn't knocking my socks off. Like you said though, I think it's the role.

KitKatBoy24 said: "I don’t think they’ve intentionally cast Bobbie with restrained vocals. People are claiming that Rosalie was the same but that’s just not true. Rosalie still had a versatility and strength in all aspects of her voice. The problems I had with Lenk’s voice do not exist with Rosalie. Rosalie is giving so much emotional and also sounds fantastic."

!!!! THIS