Doyle's "concept" for Company

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:07pm

Could someone PLEASE articulate the reason the actors are playing instruments? PLEASE? I found it so distracting. I was pulled away from the heart of Company by the marching band and just trying to figure out WTF?
I am sure there is a reason for it, but for the life of me can not figure it out.

Can anyone explain in 25 words or less?

Sorry this is old topic, but I just saw the PBS broadcast.
I tried to get through that long thread regarding the PBS version, but it did not seem as if this was addressed.
Thanks in advance.

[nitsua]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:10pm

As far as I could gather, the couples played the same instruments.

Except for Joanne and her husband. They didn't match.

Only the married or wanna-be married people played instruments. Bobby, who resisted, didn't play until he accepted the idea, thus singing and playing "Being Alive".

That last paragraph is 25 words.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:16pm

Mainly, the instruments are a metaphor for marriage and commitment and all of those things Bobby is afraid of. That's why Bobby is the only one who doesn't play an instrument for the majority of the show until he reaches that epiphany at Being Alive. So then you have all of those full-company numbers where people are moving and playing instruments all around him, but he's just sitting there watching. Because he doesn't have an instrument, he literally cannot participate; until he can take that step, he'll continue to be lost and separated from his friends, at least in the sense of having someone. It's also about taking the meaning of "company" on another, very literal, theatrical level. The cast in and of itself (aside from tech stuff, obviously) is its own self-contained company.

There's a lot more to be discussed in terms of specific examples, I think that's the shortest explanation I can give.

[Dancin Thru Life]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:18pm

He did not have to pay an orchestra.

That's 8 words....unless you include these too, then it's 18 words...which is still less than you asked for....oh crap! - TOO MANY!!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:19pm

As far as I could gather, the couples played the same instruments.

No, they didn't. With the exception of Amy and Paul, but even then, only on occasion. Jenny plays the violin (and guitar); David plays the cello. Harry plays trumpet and trombone; Sarah plays flute and sax. They don't even look remotely the same. And so forth. There's stuff on record from both Doyle and Mary-Mitchell Campbell about how the instruments reflected individual characterizations, and there are a few instances of coincidental pairings (such as families of instruments), but none of the couples played the same instruments.

Updated On: 3/3/08 at 12:19 PM

[Midnight Radio]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:21pm

How about 2 words:
Character Development.

Well, that or budget crunch...
Updated On: 3/3/08 at 12:21 PM

[ChiChi]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:23pm

I enjoy company and LOVE Raul Esparza. I knew what to expect in watching the PBS broadcast so there were no surprised. Nevertheless, I wasn't a fan of the casts dual role as orchestra. I completely understand the reasoning and the artistic interpretation, but I just would have preferred it without the instruments.

[acrocksyo]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:28pm

The couples played instruments from the same family of instruments. Brass, Woodwinds, Strings.

But totally distracting watching them play instruments, I wanted to like it, but I wanted to hear the songs and enjoy them, not be distracted by someone walking a Bass around the stage.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:40pm

Thanks for trying to make sense of it, emcee, but I think that is a real stretch (Bobby plays the kazoo) and much more distract than it is worth. I am sure there are clearer ways to get that message across without taking the audience out of the drama and let the actors actually become part of the scene instead of destroying it.

Does anyone else have an explanation?

[philcrosby]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:41pm

I have to agree with Sueleen on this one ... I just didn't get it. Had the show really been done in a tiny black box (which is what it was designed to look like) might have been an interesting way to solve a problem. (Yes, I know that is how Doyle came up with these things, his little theater in England.)

The opening number was like a marching band funeral. Why was Bobby always standing on a box? Why did they make poor Peter lug that cello all around?

Seriously, what really saddened me is that the book scenes were all really well played, beautifully acted, nicely directed. And then the musical numbers were such a let down.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:44pm

In fact, now that I think about it for a second, that entire concept is illustrated in one moment during What Would We Do when everyone does a little dance, mirrored by their partner, and Bobby does it by himself...(in the original production, that is). Of course Doyle does it with the instruments (and Bobby's kazoo).

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:45pm

I didn't think I would like it after seeing this done with "Sweeney". I have watched it 3 times and plan to buy the DVD. It worked for me. Now I don't know how Merrily will work for me if I have the chance to see it. It might feel like overkill with the concept. JMO

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:53pm

Well, being that that IS the concept, whether you buy it or not, I think it's a little much to call it a "stretch."

The kazoo actually started out as a pair of cymbals, which were cut between Cincinnati and Broadway. There were a few cymbal crashes during that part where you see him standing on a cube, elevated above and separated from all of his friends. On Broadway, though, he clapped his hands a few times and then gave up and started drinking.

Everything in John Doyle's staging is incredibly deliberate. I had interpreted Bobby playing the cymbals as an attempt to try to fit in. He's trying to join the band, so to speak. But I think it did take away from the impact of Being Alive, a little bit, which is why the kazoo actually, to me, makes a lot of sense. With the kazoo, he's still trying to join in and participate, but with nobody there to echo him, he can't. And that moment where everybody looks and sees nothing but empty space, after which Bobby is again relegated to the sidelines, is really powerful. The other thing, of course, is, well, look at what he's playing. It's a tiny piece of plastic that anyone with a mouth can play. It's completely insignificant. So I don't think having him play something there completely crashes the concept at all; it's just another layer of it.

ETA: Exactly; it's what you posted about "What Would We Do Without You?" His isolation is illustrated through that moment.

Updated On: 5/16/08 at 12:53 PM

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:54pm

And Emcee, I know you defended the "no touching" thing in the other thread, but that seems like a concept that was not used to full effect. It is so blatant in the karate scene early on, yet NEVER used like that again. Now there was not a lot of TOUCHING at all, which is fine, but to use it SO stylistically in that one scene and never again is just ill conceived.

If the point was to show how couples cannot truly connect, even the married couples, why were Bobby and April and Bobby and Kathy allowed to get so close? The scene leading up to Barcelona and that song should have been played at opposite sides of the stage, it that is the "concept".

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:56pm

The only time I thought the concept was distracting was Bobby's use of a kazoo in What Would We Do Without You?: not that he plays an instrument, but that kazoos sound really funny and it made the scene funny instead of the full-on-devastating it could have been (like in the original production, when Bobby had no partner to echo his dance steps, and he spends the rest of the song staring at the blank spot on the stage where his partner should be).

[trinaaron]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:58pm

I am having a very hard time putting any conceptual meaning to this, other than it is now the director's signature. It is having a gimmick and using the material to support it rather than having an original idea and then coming up with a way to express it. Having said that, I do think that knowing Doyle's history and future plans as a director may have hurt MY ability to connect with this particular use of this in this particular play. I knew nothing of Doyle prior to Sweeney and thought it was spectacular. Would I have had that same reaction to Company if I went in blind? I don't know, but I wish I could find out. I think what Luvtheemcee says is fascinating and I really wish I could agree, but I just keep remembering my reaction to Sweeney Todd, and the been there, done that feeling that I had with Company.
Updated On: 3/3/08 at 12:58 PM

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 12:59pm

I know you will defend it until your dying day, and love it as many did.
I just found it deathly and suffocating and distracting and kept me at a good distance from feeling for the characters but feeling REALLY sorry for the actors. It is a strong cast for the most part and it is a pity they didn't get to shine as they should have.

Lets face it, we have all seen and heard better versions of You Could Drive a Person Crazy in a drag show.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 1:03pm

Exactly; it's what you posted about "What Would We Do Without You?" His isolation is illustrated through that moment.

I think you missed my point. I was using that moment from the ORIGINAL production, which basically took 4 beats to make the point that the "instrument concept" takes a whole SHOW to make.
Economy!

[humbugfoto]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 1:13pm

And Emcee, I know you defended the "no touching" thing in the other thread, but that seems like a concept that was not used to full effect. It is so blatant in the karate scene early on, yet NEVER used like that again. Now there was not a lot of TOUCHING at all, which is fine, but to use it SO stylistically in that one scene and never again is just ill conceived.

But that's the point. It only needed to be used to the full effect once to make the point. John Doyle doesn't believe in the sledgehammer style of direction. That scene has a terrific impact (witness the fact that you remember it so clearly). He made the point, there's no need to say it again.

If the point was to show how couples cannot truly connect, even the married couples, why were Bobby and April and Bobby and Kathy allowed to get so close? The scene leading up to Barcelona and that song should have been played at opposite sides of the stage, it that is the "concept".

But Sarah and Harry are a bonded couple, Bobby and April are on what amounts to a first date (maybe second) and there is no connection between them except for the physical - the next morning he can't even remember her name. The point is made there by the contrast between their extreme physical closeness but total lack of emotional closeness.

I think you missed my point. I was using that moment from the ORIGINAL production, which basically took 4 beats to make the point that the "instrument concept" takes a whole SHOW to make.

But Doyle makes the same point in this production. The only difference is the couples play instruments instead of dancing. Bobby is just as isolated when no one answers his kazoo (which really doesn't even qualify as an instrument) as he is when there's no one to answer his dance move. Personally, I think it works better in Doyle's production than it did in the original (which I saw).

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 1:25pm

It only needed to be used to the full effect once to make the point. John Doyle doesn't believe in the sledgehammer style of direction. That scene has a terrific impact (witness the fact that you remember it so clearly). He made the point, there's no need to say it again.

I can't tell you how much I disagree with everything you said above.
I did not "remember" it because of its "terrific impact", I remembered it because it STUCK OUT AS BEING STYLISTICALLY OUT OF PLACE.

As far as the What Would We Do moment, what I am saying is that in the original production the impact was the SAME (if not clearer, in my opinion) without saddling the actors with a freaking Bass and Tuba for the entire show.

[trinaaron]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 1:37pm

I liked the karate scene on the purely shallow level that I thought it was funny.

[MrBundles]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 1:44pm

Not necessarily completely on topic but after seeying Doyle's Sweeney, Company and Mack and Mabel, the concept of using the instruments still worked the best in Mack and Mabel, in my opinion. What a wonderful production.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 2:03pm

I see Bobby as being very child-like, and his married friends baby him and provide him with the "company" that keeps him from feeling alone. So they also play the music for him to sing to - they "support" his vocal expressions. When he finally accompanies himself, he is showing signs of growing up.

During "Sorry/Grateful" when a husband is singing, his wife accompanies him.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 2:13pm

I could buy this concept a little better if he had only used it for ONE show. It is a very strong choice, but to stretch it through three dispartate shows (at least) as Sweeney, Company and Mack and Mable just says it is a "signature gimmick" that he can bend to fit into any genre, not a choice made as a director to fully illustrate the themes of one particular show.

Does he have plans for more of the same? What shows will he force this on next?

[WestVillage]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 2:39pm

His recent Merrily We Roll Along also used actor/musicians. Like you, Sueleen, I think this signature gimmick is so tired. I never liked it to begin with. Its completely distracting and does a complete disservice to character development.