"the revival resurfaces as a rejuvenated triumph, mounted with insights both touching and stinging, and a canny understanding of the complicated mechanics of a show that takes place largely in the abstract."
"So I guess I’m sorry-grateful. Sorry for not liking this version of “Company” better — and grateful to Sondheim for providing the chance to find out."
"This table, he is over one hundred years old. If I could, I would take an old gramophone needle and run it along the surface of the wood. To hear the music of the voices. All that was said." - Doug Wright, I Am My Own Wife
What a bizarre review from Green. He veers from criticizing the original text’s lack of coherence… to criticizing Marianne Elliott’s attempt to make it cohere (which, in my opinion, she has done more successfully than any other version of the show). And ends it by saying he transfixed the whole time… but not in the way he wanted? He really seems to want to have his cake and eat it, too. But all he’ll get is another mark against him as a critic.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Far be it from me to tell the NYT critics what to do, but I wish they had sent a woman to review this. Jesse Green seems too tied to the original concept of Company to appreciate how the changes made to the show have not only modernized it but made it strike a deeper chord with a whole other subset of the population that can now relate to it in a different way. Obviously I'm not saying that only women can appreciate this production but his review just seems to ignore the nuances of what the gender swapping provides.
"I’m skeptical about the larger point of these changes [to modernize the show]. After all, the original “Company,” like “Angels in America,” is now a history play, a kind of theatrical time capsule in which Mr. Sondheim and George Furth, who wrote the book, show us what it was like to be a member of what Whit Stillman has called the “urban haute bourgeoisie” at the exact moment when Americans were starting to collectively renounce the concept of marriage for life, even as an ideal. Yet all the revivals of the show that I’ve reviewed on Broadway and elsewhere have updated it in one way or another, not trusting their audiences to be able to make the imaginative leap between past and present.[...]
What, conversely, is good about this production? To begin with, the “Getting Married Today” scene is phenomenally well-staged and sung, so much so that Mr. Doyle’s headlong sprint through Mr. Sondheim’s tongue-twisting, incomparably virtuosic patter song came within a hair of stopping the show at the preview I saw. On top of that, you never feel that same-sex marriage has been tacked onto “Company” as an afterthought: Instead, it appears to arise organically out of the original material [...]
So yes, I had sharply mixed feelings about this “Company,” but I still got much pleasure out of it—and it was a comfort to be able to see it at a moment when those of us who love Stephen Sondheim’s work are bereft at his passing. For that reason alone, it deserves a long, successful run."
ashley0139 said: "It's not even a coherent or well-written review."
I think its perfectly coherent, even though I disagree with it. I do agree with him that the post-Getting Married Today scene between Bobbi and Jamie did not work and felt shoe-horned in. But otherwise its just baffling to me that he is so tough on this show but was a gushing fan over, say, Jagged Little Pill.
Meanwhile, I thought the hostility to Lenk in these parts was just plain silly but both Green and more harshly Rooney in the Hollywood Reporter echo those sentiments so mea culpa there.
Most of the shows positive reviews even mention the unfortunate miscasting of Lenk and being unable to vocally handle the role. Not only is it a shame, it’s a problem. I wouldn’t mind seeing the understudy go on myself either.
CityLights3 said: "Most of the shows positive reviews even mention the unfortunate miscasting of Lenk and being unable to vocally handle the role. Not only is it a shame, it’s a problem. I wouldn’t mind seeing the understudy go on myself either."
I’m no critic, but my experience of her performance was completely different, and I’m not the only one. Whether she’s miscast is a matter of opinion, not a fact.
SophiaPetrillo said: "CityLights3 said: "Most of the shows positive reviews even mention the unfortunate miscasting of Lenk and being unable to vocally handle the role. Not only is it a shame, it’s a problem. I wouldn’t mind seeing the understudy go on myself either."
I’m no critic, but my experience of her performance was completely different, and I’m not the only one. Whether she’s miscast is a matter of opinion, not a fact."
agreed-- and i can understand thinking she is miscast (though im not sure i've ever seen anyone turn Bobbi into anything remotely charming). but so many insist she can't sing this score and i just.dont.get.it.
Georgeanddot2 said: "Suddenly remembering why I turned my back on Broadway. Not even professional critics have any f*cking taste."
I'm with you. I took a break for a while after I moved away from NYC and though I've seen many shows since I left in 2012, this is the first one that really gave me that magical, musical theatre feeling again. The first show that I said "I need to see that again immediately" and fall in love with a single person's performance so much again.
"This table, he is over one hundred years old. If I could, I would take an old gramophone needle and run it along the surface of the wood. To hear the music of the voices. All that was said." - Doug Wright, I Am My Own Wife