Company Review 3/14/07....warning there are some spoilers

[singingshowgirl]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 10:43am

Being a Sondheim fan, I am glad that I did get to see Company last night. Raul Esparza was really fierce as Bobby, which was good since I was disappointed in his performance in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

This was the first time I saw the "instrument" gimmick in action because I did not see Sweeney Todd (that's one sondheim show that is just too gross for me haha). I had very mixed feelings about it......Honestly, the problem was that some of the instruments were out of tune and the actors weren't nearly as good at the instruments as they were at their parts. Then there was the other extreme of someone like Elizabeth Stanley, who was clearly very gifted on her instruments, but really lacked any energy or personality to her portrayal of April. It also became difficult to know who was in the scene and who was just musical back-up. I knew since I had seen Company before that the first scene is just Bobby, Sarah, and Harry, but I never would have figured that out because all the other actors were wandering aimlessly throughout the stage with their instruments. Since some of them sang and played in the opening number, there was no indication that they wouldn't do that again. Probably my favorite aspect of the instruments was Joanne dinging the triangle during "Little Things You Do Together" because the song is so sarcastic and cynical.....but overall, I don't like the instrument thing. Does anyone know how the musicians union has agreed to this???? Separately, I don't like this if Doyle is going to continue to do this because it becomes less innovative.

Most of my criticisms of the show had to do with the execution of the show, and not the actors. I have seen Company done with a much larger set....but for example, I didn't like that when Harry and Sarah were fighting that they were on opposite sides of the stage, when they are supposed to be actually FIGHTING. It was interesting, unique, and expressive, but it was just an example of how I felt a lot of the relationships of these different married couples became hard to really see....Bobby is supposed to see that other married couples are intimate, and i don't think he could see this if they weren't physically fighting..Similarly, I felt the lack of a birthday cake and having the actors instead in that formation didn't tell me anything about them.

It got hard to keep track of all the actors because they were all in black and they were all moving around so much. I realize that could be Doyle's intention to prove that we're all the same and we all have "little things" we do that really don't make us any different from any others.

But like I said, some of the actors were great. As I said, I really enjoyed Raul's performance. Angel Desai was great as Marta and I also really loved Heather Laws as Amy and Kristin Huffman as Sarah. Angel's voice was sooo good and she took a song that could be really repetitive and annoying and made me just want to sing it!! I didn't really dislike any of the actors other than Elizabeth Stanley. I thought she was a little too old for the part and had no energy. Barbara Walsh was annoying as Joanne, but I think that is the idea for that part. She was always in character.

So even though I've been negative, I really did enjoy the show because I thought the cast was so good and I love Company, but I think it could have been executed in a better way.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 10:54am

Thanks for the review and opinion.

I know it probably won't make much of a difference to you, but Susan Browning was 29 when she played April. Elizabeth Stanley is, "In my 20's" as stated in her Fresh Face. Jane Krakowski was 26/27 when she played the role.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 10:58am

Probably my favorite aspect of the instruments was Joanne dinging the triangle during "Little Things You Do Together" because the song is so sarcastic and cynical

That was also one of my favorite parts of the show- because she played the "triangle" on the glass she was drinking from. Brilliant.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/15/07 at 11:09am

I was at last night's performance. The cast was particularly great last night.

I didn't like that when Harry and Sarah were fighting that they were on opposite sides of the stage, when they are supposed to be actually FIGHTING. It was interesting, unique, and expressive, but it was just an example of how I felt a lot of the relationships of these different married couples became hard to really see....Bobby is supposed to see that other married couples are intimate, and i don't think he could see this if they weren't physically fighting.

It's okay if you didn't like it, and I won't argue with your taste, but it's really hard for me not to push the "supposed to" button. Yes, in reality they are supposed to -- that is exactly the point -- but not theatrically here. Your problem with it has been a really common one and it is valid, certainly, but I suppose it's worth it to say that the intention (as is my understanding, anyway) is a little bit different here. I actually particularly love the karate scene because of its staging. They're fighting -- an activity for which they should be touching, yet they're not. I think there are a lot of moments woven throughout the show in which Doyle is putting forth disconnect over intimacy. That's one of them. The fact that they're standing so far apart from each other stands to show exactly what Bobby finds missing in his friends' marriages -- one of the things that I'd assume is holding him back. That scene is really similar to the one before Bobby and April sleep together -- there's so much distance between them; he's not even touching her, but rather her tuba.

Again, totally fine if you didn't like it (I'm sorry you didn't!); a lot of people have said similar things about the fact that they don't feel Bobby can see any intimacy because the show is cold and such. It's cool, this whole thing isn't for everybody. I just felt like it woudln't hurt to broach the intention behind the staging, since you said it's not "supposed" to be like that. Doyle's just interpreted it differently, and that's worth pointing out, whether his intention convinces you that it works or not, you know?

Updated On: 3/15/07 at 11:09 AM