Could a Broadway Revival of COMPANY Still Work Today?- Page 2

[asimplegal2]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 4:32pm

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. JOSH GROBAN

[Jarethan]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 4:59pm

bk said: "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."

 

Actually, I saw it four or five times, starting with Dean Jones and the original cast about a week after it opened.  I subsequently saw Larry Kert all other times, even once with Jane Russell in the role of Joanne towards the end of the run...to my surprise, she was not bad at all.  I intensely disliked the show the first time I saw it, mainly because of Furth's book, which I thought was awful.  Only when I came to love Sondheim's score did I go back to see it again; and, in subsequent viewings (and in subsequent productions) I have loved it despite Furth's mediocre contribution.

The show was absolutely groundbreaking.  The reasons for that would be attributed to:

  -- Stephen Sondheim's score

  -- Harold Prince's direction

  -- Boris Aronson's design

  -- Michael Bennett's choroegraphy

  -- Jonathan Tunick's orchestrations.

It was also helped by a great cast.

Its book was not groundbreaking.  It was too episodic, too predictable, the laughs were sitcom-level.  And don't go telling me it won the Tony.  We all know there are a lot of Tony wins based on the momentum of the show or the lack of competition.  This benefitted from both. 

I have always thought that the book might not have seemed so bad if -- as brilliant as his direction was -- Prince had elected to deviate a little from its episodic nature, i.e., now we have the pot smokers, ensemble, now we have the martial arts couple, ensemble, now we have Amy and her fiancé, etc. and somehow edited it like a movie..

I emphatically disagree with your comments that it will always fail unless they go back to the original book.  Why settle for mediocre?  Also, as much as I love it -- and here we can debate the definition of success or failure till the cows come home -- Company has never, to my knowledge, been a financial success.  Why not improve the book and possible improve its chance of being a financial success as well as a critical success.

Finally, I may be wrong in my assessments occasionally or frequently, but I do not provide strong statements on productions that I have not seen.  And I hope that I am not as obnoxiously on the attack when I disagree with someone as you are, although I imagine that I have been occasionally, when people have meade hyperbolic statements that just rankled me.  I remember reading that Mr. Roxy stopped participating in this board -- which is far the worse for his non-participation -- because he was tired of all the bitchiness.  I am thinking he was referring to responses like yours.

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 5:25pm

poisonivy2 said: "Two words: LUCAS STEELE. He has the charisma to make the obsession over Bobby understandable."

Ooooooii

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 5:30pm

darquegk said: "I want to see a film. And I'd like to see Matthew Weiner in charge of creative development (ditto for Follies); his guidance on the slow, vignette-heavy character development juggernaut Mad Men makes me think he gets the world of mid-period Sondheim better than most."

Sure but... movie musicals need a special mind of direction. There needs to be suspension of disbelief, and each musical number should be developed like a separate music video. Lighting and editing are also so important. 

To me, that is where the into the woods musical fails miserably. 

[wonkit]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 5:55pm

In my opinion, Matthew Weiner created a masterpiece and then personally ran it into the ground by turning everything into a sexual escapade. The first two seasons and portions of the final season of MAD MEN were my favorite TV shows ever. Everything else was tasteless and mind-numbing trash. I would want him nowhere near COMPANY. 

[bk]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 6:03pm

Jarethan, I don't think my post was especially bitchy.  Believe me, I've read bitchy posts and my posts are a country mile from those.  I read posts and more often than not in cases like this (like 99% of the time) the people posting never saw the original production of the show being discussed (if it's older than twenty-five years).   We can agree to disagree about the book of this show.  And, by the way, if I'd wanted to throw "the book won a Tony" at you I would have - but I don't give a crap about what show won what award.  I think the show as a whole, including the episodic nature of the book, was absolutely groundbreaking and absolutely right for this show, and, in fact, that production and the way the show was structured basically changed musical theater - a true game changer.  Without Company I doubt there would have ever been A Chorus Line.  So, I give Mr. Furth his due even though I have never thought he was a great writer.  Company works.  Merrily, for example, never worked (original or revisions, which were worse) - now THAT was a terrible book.  And the less said about The Act the better.  

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 9/21/17 at 8:03pm

Okay, so when’re we getting Patti do this on the Broadway?

http://www.broadway.com/buzz/189771/well-drink-to-that-gender-swapped-company-with-patti-lupone-heading-to-the-west-end/

[AADA81]

Posted: 9/22/17 at 12:29pm

I've only seen the 2006 revival with Raul Esparza, which I didn't care for, but I think the show itself mostly works and is open for interpretations.  I agree that the book is its weakest link, but the score's terrific and with a talented cast it's always going to be worth it, although a Broadway revival now would be too soon, I think.  Sondheim's been revival-ed to death on Broadway over the past 15 years.