Could a Broadway Revival of COMPANY Still Work Today?

Extremely near and dear to my heart, Company is my very favorite Sondheim musical. I'm really interested in the on-and-off conversation that's been happening in the thread about Aaron Tveit's Company at Barrington Stage this summer, and wanted to pose three questions to create a broader discussion and ongoing dialogue, given that the last Broadway revival opened now nearly 11 years ago (which is crazy!).

1) Could a Broadway revival of Company—and all of its themes—still feel pertinent and relevant today?

2) Could a new Broadway revival of Company be financially fruitful (and if so, how)?

3) The classic question: who would be in your dream cast of a Company revival?

Of course, with that score and the opportunities it offers a talented cast. But...



I really think they need to throw away the book and start all over again. It was stupid in 1970/1, playing for cheap laughs when it was not singing. George Furth was a hack who must have been very good friends with Sondheim and / or Prince. The whole 'here is the funny pot smoking couple' followed by the 'here is the funny martial arts couple' etc. is really bad. While the show is not about them, I think they could do a better job framing those people, without such arch attempts at comedy.

As with all Sondheim shows -- possible exception, A Funny Thing, which doesn't feel like a Sondheim show -- it will never be a smash hit, because the masses just don't like Sondheim, and that is not likely to change.

I really like the idea of mixing it a little by having a Bobbie instead of a Bobby, but they'd have to do something with You Could Drive a Person Crazy. Off the top of my head, that is the only thing I can think of that really needs to be re-worked if they are going to have men replace women in those roles to accommodate a heterosexual Bobbie.

1. Yes

2. Yes. By not making it bad and ruining it like some revivals of other good shows have done.

3. Gavin Creel, although I doubt it because he said he wants to do something new.

I like the idea of Gyllenhall, and I would suggest Jane Lynch as Joanne. I could see her doing justice to "Ladies Who Lunch", 'The Little Things We Do Together', etc.

After Jake's passionately beautiful performance in Sunday, he is the ONLY option for a Company revival right now, in my eyes.

I would love to see Gyllenhaal as Bobby. I'd also love to see LuPone take on Joanne again, but under more focused direction. I don't love her performance in the NPH Concert version, but I think like we saw with her Lovett, she's drastically changed her interpretation of a role before (with the right direction).

I think it is now truly a period piece, but can still work as such, like the Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals. It does have a great score.

Have to disagree with anyone who says A revival can only work if ____ plays Bobby. I'm positive that there are a dozen actor-singers who could play the part exceptionally well-Steel, Creel, NPH, Groban,Karl,Gyllenhaal among them.

A few years down the road I would love to see Daniel Radcliffe as Bobby!

Totally unexpected, but I heard through the grapevine this morning that we should keep our eyes out for a potential future for Aaron Tveit's Company at Barrington Stage... not sure what that entails, but there could be more life in store for it.

Although I don't know if he has the voice to handle songs like "Marry Me a Little" or "Being Alive," I would love to see Radcliffe in the role because he has the ability to act on several levels at the same time, to be both arrogant and vulnerable. "The Cripple of Innishman" was an eye-opener to me about his acting ability.

Jarethan said: "Of course, with that score and the opportunities it offers a talented cast. But...



I really think they need to throw away the book and start all over again. It wasstupid in 1970/1, playing for cheap laughs when it was not singing. George Furth was a hack who must have been very good friends with Sondheim and / or Prince. The whole 'here is the funny pot smoking couple' followed by the 'here is the funny martial arts couple' etc. is really bad. While the show is not about them, I think they could do a better job framing those people, without such arch attempts at comedy.

As with all Sondheim shows -- possible exception, A Funny Thing, which doesn't feel like a Sondheim show -- it will never be a smash hit, because the masses just don't like Sondheim, and that is not likely to change.

I really like the idea of mixing it a little by having a Bobbie instead of a Bobby, but they'd have to do something with You Could Drive a Person Crazy. Off the top of my head, that is the only thing I can think of that really needs to be re-worked if they are going to have men replace women in those roles to accommodate a heterosexual Bobbie."

How would YOU know it was stupid in 1970? Were you there? Did you see it back then? I'm gonna guess that would be a big no. It was not stupid back then, it was groundbreaking and completely fresh back then. I can say that because I WAS there, I DID see it.

And yes, there could be a successful revival of the show but since I don't think much of any directors or choreographers working today, I'm not sure exactly who would do it. BUT - and here's the big BUT - it will never succeed on Broadway in a revival unless they do it as written - the changes made for the Roundabout (and before and after that) are HORRIBLE and hurt the show. You trust the damn material as it was written and it is set in the year it takes place in - no updates, no rewrites, no Marry Me a Little which not only ruins the flow and trajectory of the first act curtain but also robs Being Alive of its power.

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. JOSH GROBAN