I thought Matt Wolf did the official NYT review for the London production and that Brantley also praised the piece in a column he wrote about both Company and Caroline or Change. Or were they both "official" reviews with Wolf's simply appearing a few months ahead?
Both count as reviews, even if Brantley filed less formal pieces on his annual London sojourns. Wolf's articles, from an American abroad, also tend to cover several shows at once and rarely appear on opening nights (Wolf's recent Times review of ALW's "Cinderella" was an exception).
But Wolf's articles have never had the influence on producers that Brantley's had. It's fair to say that Brantley's London reviews got the new "Caroline" and the new "Color Purple" to Broadway; he did not particularly care for either show when it premiered in NY. His rave for the 2018 London "Company" helped seal the deal on bringing it in. Likewise, his London pans were at least partly responsible for a number of shows not coming to NY.
Also, Company often gets these reviews and/or responses on here.
People always think the Bobby isn't right. Raul mightt have been an exception, but there were detractors, too. And many had lots to say about that revival, too.
Ditto Roundabout's.
I'm starting to think Company is like Follies or West Side where everyone compares it to a production they've never seen.
You’re right, I remember people saying Raul’s Bobby seemed on the verge of suicide. Now some find Elliot and Lenk’s interpretation too dark. As you said, it’s very hard to please some people with Sondheim revivals.
ljay889 said: "UrNotAMachine said: "RippedMan said: "JDonaghy4 said: "Not at all, and no hostility here. I'm just of a generation that has grown up with Wicked, Hamilton, American Idol, The Voice, etc. So to me, I know we can have both. I personally don't really get why a composer would want an actor who can't handle his score?"
I'm of the same generation as you and the issue is that Company is decidedlynotWicked or Hamilton or American Idol (lol). It's not the kind of show that needs high belting to "prove" to the audience that the character is feeling heightened emotion. I understand some of the qualms with Lenk, even though I personally loved her in the show, but I hate the idea that because Lenk isn't screlting every night she's not doing justice to the part. Wicked and other mega-musicals have completely upended what female leads on Broadway are "supposed" to sound like, and not for the better in my opinion.
Yes, Company has always had well established book issues (it's one of the things I find endearing about the piece) and Lenk's inner journey and transformation does the best job of any other performance of Bobby (except possibly Raul Esparza) of making me believe her arc. I don't find that to be diminished because she doesn't sing Being Alive like it's Defying Gravity. This isn't that kind of show.
"
I agree with every word of this. This discussion over Lenk’s voice seems like it’ll never end. I do feel confident that they will get some wonderful vocal takes for the inevitable cast recording."
More often than not, Elphabas tend to hit the notes just fine but are dead behind the eyes. Give me Katrina Lenk any day of the week. Even when she’s miscast (and I don’t think she is here), she’s fascinating. We’re talking about Company, a show where the biggest star in the original cast couldn’t sing a single note on pitch and we love her anyway.
I'll take a Bobbie who can't sing over a Bobbie who can't act, and I think Lenk can do the first fine and the second wonderfully. She plays it frightened, on the verge of an irreversible loss of self, but not quite there yet, which I think works better with Furth's zany (and often shallow) script than the dirgelike Doyle revival where Raul Esparza was basically walking around the stage shaking a big bottle of barbiturates. The juxtaposition of nightmare visuals (harkening back better than any of the other revivals I've seen to Aronson's original kaleidoscopic set), sitcom comedy, and the gradual slide into a sort of Cassavetes-esque breakdown.
It's part of why, up until now, my favorite revival was the NPH version, which was underrehearsed and a little too light but was also the first version I've seen where you really understand the final scene. I also really liked the switch here, where instead of Joanne suggesting she'll take care of Bobby as a kind of kept man, Joanne suggests Larry will take care of her as a kept woman, and it's just a beautifully nasty jolt that underlines the fury of Ladies Who Lunch. You can't really go alone, certainly not in this economy.
Anyways, I think this revival is a gem, and as A Gay it's really fun to see a version where I really get (cough) why she would fool around with the three lunkheads.
edit: also, Bobbie coming through the little tiny door to her little tiny apartment right before the last scene has entered my brain library as an iconic Broadway image.
Charley Kringas Inc said: "I'll take a Bobbie who can't sing over a Bobbie who can't act
I don't know why it's being presented in this thread as an either/or. I'll take a Bobbie who can sing and act. There are plenty of actors who can do both. Company is one of my favorite musicals and I found Lenk's "Being Alive" to be rather blah. I saw the show in March 2020 and then again last week and I actually liked her better back in March.
Cape Twirl of Doom said: "Charley Kringas Inc said: "I'll take a Bobbie who can't sing over a Bobbie who can't act
I don't know why it's being presented in this thread as an either/or. I'll take a Bobbie who can sing and act. There are plenty of actors who can do both. Company is one of my favorite musicals and I found Lenk's "Being Alive" to be rather blah. I saw the show in March 2020 and then again last week and I actually liked her better back in March."
I think she can do both. I love her voice, it is unique and beautiful. I thought she sounded fantastic.
"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
So am I. I like her voice because it's different than most,not despite that. I have the compilation CD "Some Lovers",composed by Burt Bachrach and Steven Slater,on which Katrina sings a song. I play her song all the time because I love it so much.
I saw the show, loved it. Thought it was electric, every supporting player was brilliant. I went in really wanting to love Katrina and I did aside from her two big numbers. She is fascinating onstage and I like her interpretations of the beginning of both Marry Me a Little and Being Alive but I feel like neither really built to the climax you want from those numbers. Still a thrilling night of theatre just wanted a little more belt.
If Marianne Elliott wanted a big-voiced singer to play Bobbie, she could have very easily found one. There is no shortage of big voices in this city.
For me, Lenk was pretty much perfect. She had the detachment that, remember, is explicitly mentioned in the script multiple times as a main trait of the character, while also being effortlessly cool and compelling. She’s the cool and hard to pin down friend that everyone loves but few really know.
i also deeply appreciated how funny the production was- not only those book scenes, but Sondheim’s songs. It seems that a downside to elevating Sondheim to the level of genius has been taking his work very very very seriously. But Company is first and foremost a comedy, and many of the songs are comedic.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
An extremely extensive interview with Patti from the the Times. She reveals a letter Sondheim wrote her right before the pandemic where he finally complimented her as a singer.
Kad said: "If Marianne Elliott wanted a big-voiced singer to play Bobbie, she could have very easily found one. There is no shortage of big voices in this city. "
I haven't yet seen the show and have no opinion of Lenk in it, but I've seen this comment made several times over the past two years in her defense and it has always seemed like a complete non sequitor.
Everyone knows that every aspect of a production is there because the director wanted it to be. When someone expresses that they didn't care for something in a show, they're not expressing ignorance of how that element came to be. I'm sure no one believes Katrina Lenk kicks her way through the stage door, forces her way onto the stage every night despite valiant attempts to stop her, and declares herself the lead. She is obviously there because Marianne Elliott wants her to be. Those who don't care for her performance are specifically criticizing Elliott's vision and decision to cast her.
Has there ever been another performance that's been defended in such a way?
"I didn't think he fit the role."
"Well, if the director had wanted someone else in the role, they would have gotten someone else in the role! There is no shortage of performers in New York!"
Does it apply to other stage elements?
"I thought the set was ugly and misjudged."
"Well, if the director had wanted a different set, they could have very easily found one! There is no shortage of set designers in New York!"
Which...yeah. The director decides what makes it on stage. Everyone gets it. That's less a rebuttal than an attempt to stop any criticism of any element of any production ever.
It is not a non-sequitur. And the criticism of Lenk's vocals seems targeted to Lenk herself, not the overall vision of Elliott. No one seems to be bothering to ask why Elliott went with a performer who is not a vocal powerhouse, what the rationale was, what Elliott was trying to do/say about the text of the show by picking a performer who is more adept at interpreting lyrics and acting beats than belting (and frankly, Rosalie Craig's singing on the West End recording isn't exactly barnburning, either). They're just saying Lenk can't sing the part and therefore is not giving a good performance or undermining the production. It is a specific casting decision that people seem unwilling to actually interrogate.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
BJR said: "Also, Company often gets these reviews and/or responses on here.
People always think the Bobby isn't right. Raul mightt have been an exception, but there were detractors, too. And many had lots to say about that revival, too.
Ditto Roundabout's.
I'm starting to think Company is like Follies or West Side where everyone compares it to a production they've never seen."
One of the best comments I've seen on this thread. Well put.
Kad said: "It is not a non-sequitur. And the criticism of Lenk's vocals seems targeted to Lenk herself, not the overall vision of Elliott. No one seems to be bothering to ask why Elliott went with a performer who is not a vocal powerhouse, what the rationale was, what Elliott was trying to do/say about the text of the show by picking a performer who is more adept at interpreting lyrics and acting beats than belting (and frankly, Rosalie Craig's singing on the West End recording isn't exactly barnburning, either). They're just saying Lenk can't sing the part and therefore is not giving a good performance or undermining the production. It is a specific casting decision that people seem unwilling to actually interrogate."
Expertly put, Kad! To me, this production can't really be separated from its star, and both are terrific! The couples are great clowns, but the whole thing only gels brilliantly because Lenk sits at the center with her cool reactiveness. Because of Lenk, I spent three hours pretty much enthralled — twice! It was just musical comedy magic. That's what real stage presence buys you, even if other things are sacrificed. In a world where so few younger musical actors have that "it" quality, I was happy charisma was prioritized. Plus she has a lovely sounding voice, even if she can't bow the roof off the theatre.
I see what you're saying, Kad. But two things can be true: She's terrific in the book scenes and a great actress and her voice isn't up for the score. Sounds like some loved her, I loved her acting and I think she has the right vibe as Bobbie, I just didn't care for her voice. Especially after Lupone's "Ladies Who Lunch" brings the house down and then we get this whispy "Being Alive." Didn't work for me. Other than that an insane production that I will be going back to.
I know this is a bit premature but I hope the show lasts long enough for us to see Donna Murphy step into Joanne! I can't stop thinking about how perfect she would probably be in the role.
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
I read that her attendance in The Band's Visit was great,except for a scheduled vacation and a few sick days. She very rarely called out. I don't know how her attendance was in Indecent.