Doyle's "concept" for Company- Page 2
Doyle's "concept" for Company
#25re: Doyle's 'concept' for Company
Posted: 3/3/08 at 2:58pm
Be glad he didn't do it with A Catered Affair.
Then it would've truly been awful.
"Writing is like prostitution. First, you do it for love, then you do it for a few friends, and finally you do it for money." ~ Moliere
#26re: Doyle's 'concept' for Company
Posted: 3/3/08 at 3:05pm
First, I want to apologize because I know I'm not being very articulate today. I'm having one of those days where it's just difficult to get your thoughts out on paper. Or the screen, as it were. So, for anything I posted that didn't quite click, I'm sorry.
Anyway.
Sueleen: Yes, I did misunderstand what you wrote. Again, apologies. But, on the same token, the moment with the kazoo really conveys the same thing, through the metaphor of the instruments. Bobby doesn't have a partner. Those musical lines are actually, I believe, based on the tap lines you hear in the original.
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".
I don't think that was really the point. I think a huge element of this production was the fact that a great deal of what Company is about is our inability to fully connect with one another. And so the staging, as I understand it, was meant to convey that inability, but not to say that the couples cannot connect at all. There's still something there; there's all the good that Bobby sees. Isn't his realization ultimately that you've got to accept the bad with the good if you ever want to be with somebody? If you tried to make the point that there was no connection, how would that realization ever make sense?
I do agree with what you said about the use of the lack of physical contact, though, and that it could have been played up more; it's most overt during the karate scene, and then much more subtle throughout. But it's there. Look at Bobby and April: they have sex, perhaps the most intimate of interpersonal acts, but they never take off their clothes (other than her jacket).
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.
Sweeney was staged with the actors as the orchestra due to financial constraints at the Watermill. (It wasn't the first time he'd used actor-musicians.) It moved to the West End and obviously became a pretty big success. Someone from the producing team at the Cincinnati Playhouse had seen Sweeney in England, loved it, and asked Doyle to stage a show there with actor-musicians. He chose Company. I don't know very much about how his production of Mack and Mabel came about, but I think what's happening now is that his work has caught on, and people are asking to have it done.
All of that being said, I realize that to those who think Doyle is just a gimmicky one-trick pony, this is probably going to look like I'm blindly making excuses for something I loved. Yes, I will defend it because yes, I loved it and I believed in it very, very much; but something about the way Doyle tells a story really spoke to me, and I also think I've developed a pretty solid understanding of the way it all worked. I hope you this doesn't come across as though I'm trying to convince you to buy into the concept. That's certainly not my intention; if I learned anything from those heated threads when the show was running, it's that if you don't see it, you're probably just not going to see it. And so if you found it distracting, that's fine. I can accept that without trying to change your mind. I'm just trying to help provide the explanation you asked for. 
sanda
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/10/04
#27re: Doyle's 'concept' for Company
Posted: 3/3/08 at 3:09pmI am not distracted by this 'concept' in Company. I did have an issue with it in Sweeney Todd. Maybe because Sweeney Todd is more of a book musical and I found this 'concept' distracted me from enjoying the story. On the other side, Company offers more space and flexibility to be presented in this way.
LePetiteFromage
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/19/08
SueleenGay
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/9/03
#29:
Posted: 3/3/08 at 3:21pm
Thanks for clarifying a little bit, emcee.
But what you say disturbs me even MORE.
So the original idea for using actors as musicians was one of MONEY and not of an ARTISTIC concept for specific show. Then some company (no pun intended) LIKED that idea and wanted to use it on another show...thus, COMPANY ( I mean they could have been doing Oklahoma or Meet Me in St.Louis for all it mattered, right?). So the concept did not come out of an ORGANIC NEED to tell a specific story in a specific way, but it is just APPLIQUED to a show, any show, to save money? And THAT is why I have a problem with it.
Anyone can make up a theory why this works with Company, or Sweeney or ANY show after the fact.
As for April and Bobby not getting naked, well, the whole show is so stylized that I don't think anyone would say, "Hey, they still have their CLOTHES on! That must mean SOMETHING!"
And isn't the fact that Harry and Sarah are touching but she is HURTING him enough to get the concept that sometimes love hurts?
And not to beat a dead horse, my point about the Kazoo vs. Tap is that sometimes you can make a dramatic point in a much simpler and organic manner.
PEACE.
LePetiteFromage
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/19/08
#31:
Posted: 3/3/08 at 3:37pm
Originally, yes. But my understanding is that it was a matter of "okay, we don't have a big enough budget to do a full production, so how can we make one work with what we've got?" So it was both. I think when you're looking at Doyle's work, it's really easy to get caught up in the instruments because it's so glaringly obvious, but it's not the only interesting choice he's making. The other really important factor is the stripped-down minimalist thing. He doesn't work with anything he doesn't feel is necessary to telling whatever story he's telling.
ETA: Exactly what LePetiteFromage said: artistic ideas born out of financial constraints.
So, while the decision to have the actors double as the orchestra was financial, it was also a matter of finding a way in which that worked artistically -- to create an artistic vision in which that worked. That's where you get the Marat/Sade-esque conceit that he used in Sweeney. That was a way to make the instruments serve the story. Company, then, because it was not an issue of money, was a matter of figuring out how to tell that story in a way that jived with the concept. And from that came another conceit.
As for April and Bobby not getting naked, well, the whole show is so stylized that I don't think anyone would say, "Hey, they still have their CLOTHES on! That must mean SOMETHING!"
I did. 
But I looked at it from a perspective of knowing that everything was very deliberately decided. Because the show was so stylized, it made sense to see it as part of that. Maybe I over analyzed it. Maybe it was just more convenient not to get naked, and it just so happened to work anyway.
And isn't the fact that Harry and Sarah are touching but she is HURTING him enough to get the concept that sometimes love hurts?
Yes, but love hurting is not the only point to be made there. Having them on opposite sides of the stage layers in the inability to fully connect and engage.
And point taken on the tap thing. Mine was just that the instrumental method was a way to demonstrate it in this particular world.
SueleenGay
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/9/03
#34:
Posted: 3/3/08 at 3:40pmYes, it was. And I think part of the reason I was so willing to accept what he was doing was because I'd had no previous exposure to Company. I listened to the original album once or twice before I went to Cincinnati, but that was it.
philcrosby
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/17/04
sparrman
Broadway Star Joined: 2/21/07
#37:
Posted: 3/3/08 at 3:47pm
What's the line in the show itself? Something like:
Married people aren't "marriage" any more than musicians are "music".
A pretty good jumping off point for the entire concept, I'd say!
I saw it live, thought it was brilliant. Not the first production I'd seen of "Company", either. I didn't see Doyle's "Sweeney", but it's hard to believe it could have worked as well.
Updated On: 3/3/08 at 03:47 PM
LePetiteFromage
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/19/08
Tom148502
Featured Actor Joined: 5/21/07
#40:
Posted: 3/3/08 at 4:01pmI saw the original production wih Kert and Stritch and I've seen it many times in stock and regional productions. What I saw at the Ethel Barrymore theatre last year was not as hard to take as I had expected. However, I thought that Esparza was extremely over-rated. Doye's production of Peter Grimes opened at the Metropolitan Opera in NYC very recently. The only review I read was not good. In fairness to Doyle, he has done hundreds of shows and the actor as musician concept has been used in only 3 (I think) productions.
SueleenGay
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/9/03
#42:
Posted: 3/3/08 at 4:09pmI am kind of amused by the label "minimalist" regarding this production. Yes, no props or costumes or set, BUT the BUSINESS of all those instruments and the distracting marching patterns that did not seem to make any sense kind of made up for any "minimalist" concept.
PEACE.
LePetiteFromage
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/19/08
BkCollector
Broadway Star Joined: 2/6/08
#45:
Posted: 3/3/08 at 4:25pm
Suleen,
Doyle is making a musical in what he sees as the truest sense. What he is trying to do by making the actors also make the music is to concentrate the art form. While you may have found it distracting, I found it the most integral theater I've ever experienced. These people are consummate artists...AND musicians. I have nothing but respect for them and for Mr. Doyle.
thevolleyballer
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/29/04
#46Why no subject?
Posted: 3/3/08 at 5:03pmI feel as if because Doyle used the instruments once in Sweeney, it's impossible to use them again and pretend they have another meaning in this show. John Doyle is a nut.
misschung
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/18/07
#47Why no subject?
Posted: 3/3/08 at 5:05pmPlease tell me you're joking.
The morning star always gets wonderful bright the minute before it has to go --doesn't it?
BkCollector
Broadway Star Joined: 2/6/08
#48Why no subject?
Posted: 3/3/08 at 5:13pm
"I feel as if because Doyle used the instruments once in Sweeney, it's impossible to use them again and pretend they have another meaning in this show. John Doyle is a nut."
But thats just it. I don't think it has another meaning, it's about really delving into what makes musical theater "musical" It's certainly a technique that has brought me back to musical theater after a long hiatus. I thought it was getting stale and not really reaching for new ideas or even new ways of interpreting old ones. John Doyle has made me a fan of musical theater again.
LePetiteFromage
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/19/08
Videos