Doyle's "concept" for Company — Page 3

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#51

Why no subject?

Posted: 3/3/08 at 6:09pm

I didn't see the PBS broadcast yet. So I'm not sure how well it transfered to the screen.

But when I saw it live, I wasn't a wholehearted fan. I felt every time the actors started to make an emotional connection with the audience the instruments cut it off.

For the marat/sade Sweeney Todd I thought it worked beautifully. The overall conceit of that production really allowed for so many exciting theatrical liberties.

For Company I found the actor-musician technique stunting.

I'm reminded of that line from Sunday in the Park with George:

"It is becoming more and more about less and less."

What great ones do the less will prattle of

#52

Why no subject?

Posted: 3/3/08 at 7:30pm

And for me, every time he does it, it becomes more and more about more, and how music and theater in musical theater has become less and less about the music and more about the spectacle. This is taking that idea and being spectacular with it.

It's genius, pure and simple. And more than that, it's socially aware, which is far more that I can say for any other director I've seen doing a musical in years.

#53

Why no subject?

Posted: 3/3/08 at 7:44pm

I am all for integration of the elements of theatre, but when one aspect becomes so much more prominent that you forget the rest and it prevents you from engaging in the complete work, then it is a problem. In this case it was more about the instruments and how they were used than about Company.

Of course I am happy some were captivated by it.

PEACE.

#54

Why no subject?

Posted: 3/3/08 at 7:50pm

"I am all for integration of the elements of theatre, but when one aspect becomes so much more prominent that you forget the rest and it prevents you from engaging in the complete work, then it is a problem. In this case it was more about the instruments and how they were used than about Company. "

I don't think its a problem and I completely disagree with your last assertion. I didn't forget the rest, in fact the instruments brought it all together for me and made the dramatic aspect that much more real, and I mean real in the sense of it being a sincere work of art, which is saying a lot for Broadway.

I'm concerned that after all of this discussion you still posit your "opinion" as fact. It seems as though you made up your mind before you even started this thread, and it's a waste of time to argue (especially artistic merit) with a closed mind.

I hope that you find more of the standard cutesy lets-just-watch-and-never-really-think-about-what's-going-on-in-a-wider-context fare that you hold so dear.

#55

Why no subject?

Posted: 3/3/08 at 8:14pm

BkCollector said:
"I hope that you find more of the standard cutesy lets-just-watch-and-never-really-think-about-what's-going-on-in-a-wider-context fare that you hold so dear."

Talk about a closed mind

#56

Why no subject?

Posted: 3/3/08 at 8:17pm

Actually, I love ALL kinds of theatre. I have a very open mind when it comes to new interpretations of classics. As long as a concept makes sense and ADDS to the original and does not detract from it, I find it exhilarating. It seems to me that YOU are the one who seems so offended that someone would dare to challenge a show that you obviously have extremely strong opinions on.

As for "making my mind up" before starting this thread, yes, I had an opinion on this production and wondered if it was possible for someone to ARTICLATE the CONCEPT so that I might see what others see that obviously eluded me.

Emcee came closest, but did not convince me that the focus on the instruments ADDED to Company. And in fact ADMITTED it was a gimmick that was used for economic reasons, not artistic.

And I am sorry for YOU if you can't enjoy shows simply on an entertainment level, because god knows, like it or not, that is what is being produced.

(Yea, I KNOW, out of necessity, blah blah, but it still doesn't make much sense to ME.)

PEACE.

#57

Why no subject?

Posted: 3/3/08 at 8:21pm

I LOOOVE just fun, and on many levels, I enjoyed Drowsy Chaperone for just that reason, but John Doyle is doing amazing things for theater.

I didnt mean to ruffle feathers, it just seems like you won't even entertain the idea that the "gimmick" (which this is not) has a basis and a foundation in real, respectable ideas about theater and people and relationships, not to mention MUSIC, which after all, is what makes Musical Theater unique.

Can you entertain that idea?

#58

Why no subject?

Posted: 3/3/08 at 8:21pm

I did not admit that it was a gimmick. I explained how it came about for this particular show. You took that information and decided that it was a gimmick. It's absolutely your prerogative to interpret the explanation that way, but not to twist my words to make it seem like I feel the same way. In what universe, after all I've expressed in admiration of and respect for Doyle's work, would I say that it's a cheap trick?

A work of art is an invitation to love.

Updated On: 3/3/08 at 08:21 PM

#59

Why no subject?

Posted: 3/3/08 at 8:37pm

Sueleengay started this with her mind already made up, and nothing anyone has said in nearly three pages, no matter how accurate, well stated and factual, will make her change her mind. On the contrary, she's taken everything we've said and twisted it around to fit her own view, no matter how much that warped the original statement.

Not liking something is a personal opinion, that's fine. But when you try and turn that opinion into the definitive fact, and try and make everything adhere to that fact, it ends up looking foolish.

Sarcasm is an allergic reaction to stupid people.

#60

Why no subject?

Posted: 3/3/08 at 8:50pm

Good god you all are crazier than the claymates.
Enjoy your shows, and I will try not to make you think too deeply about anything else. Ever.

PEACE.

#61

Posted: 3/3/08 at 8:53pm

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 08:53 PM

#62

I'm with you on this on Sue

Posted: 3/3/08 at 8:57pm

Don't take it to heart, Sue.

For what it is worth.. not much, I'm sure.. I see and agree with your point.

It didn't work for me either.

What great ones do the less will prattle of

#63

I'm with you on this on Sue

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:01pm

"Good god you all are crazier than the claymates.
Enjoy your shows, and I will try not to make you think too deeply about anything else. Ever."

Actually, we're the ones doing the deep thinking and talking, aren't we?

And I still haven't gotten an answer to my question, but I won't ask it again.

#64

Why not let them ACT?

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:09pm

But but but...

So he uses this "Instrument" idea to drive home the point that Bobby has no partner- a theme driven home (Brillantly, shockingly, concisely) in one gesture, in a few seconds of muisc and staging, in the original production. That's an improvement? In my opinion, it's a director's job to put the show across as effectively as possible. Doyle didn't do that. I think a lot of people unfamiliar with the show (through previous viewings or listening to a cast recording) would be utterly LOST. Where are we? Is this Bobby's home? Someone else's home? Everyone's home? What, do they live in a commune?

And his friends are a marching band? Are they in the room together? Are they real? Why are they playing instruments? If playing an instrument means being part of a couple does playing the kazoo symbolize masturbation? And even if they all play instruments, why do they have to march in circles around the stage? Again and again and again and again.

Company is a moving and powerful show. I've seen professional productions, college productions, even a brave community production. This was the worst staged. There were some great performances, but in every case, the director did his actors no favors. Is it a coincidence that the best numbers are the ones where he allows his performers to stand there and sing?

Oh yeah, all you smart people: If the playing of instruments symbolizes relationships (Which it does, right? We agree? That's the concept?) Then why do the the three single girls play saxophones in "Drive a Person Crazy"? They are all as alone as Bobby, aren't they?

#65

I'm with you on this on Sue

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:09pm

With all this analysis of what the instruments do, function as and represent, it occurred to me that usually ACTORS do, function as and represent the same things.

But in this production, to me, the actors where frustratingly stunted by the instruments.

I'd much rather see an actor do the acting rather than a cello.

What great ones do the less will prattle of

Updated On: 3/3/08 at 09:09 PM

#66

I'm with you on this on Sue

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:11pm

"I'd much rather see an actor do the acting rather than a cello."

A good actor/musician can do both, and they all were

Personally, I'd rather see a good musician who is also a good actor rather than a great actor who is a bad musician, and there are a hell of a lot of them out there.

#67

I'm with you on this on Sue

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:13pm

Sure an actor can act and play an instrument.. but can a cello "act."

I know what the instruments are supposed to do, function as or represent.. but a a hunk of wood with some strings can't do what a skilled actor can and to put that much emotional and intellectual emphasis on them didn't for me.

I'd much rather the focus be on the actor acting rather that a kazoo in front of them "representing."

Maxims:

People beat scenery

Actors beat instruments.

What great ones do the less will prattle of

Updated On: 3/3/08 at 09:13 PM

#68

I'm with you on this on Sue

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:18pm

"Oh yeah, all you smart people: If the playing of instruments symbolizes relationships (Which it does, right? We agree? That's the concept?) Then why do the the three single girls play saxophones in "Drive a Person Crazy"? They are all as alone as Bobby, aren't they? "

That was never my interpretation. Although the instruments work in that paradigm. I think the stronger explanation/interpretation is the one about the integration of music and drama on such a strong scale.

Music itself (even without lyrics) has meaning. Coupling music and lyrics is a tricky process. Sometimes composers who write to text don't add musical meaning to their music (Mr. Herman) and let the Lyrics do the work, in fact most Broadway songwriters do just that.

Mr. Sondheim does not do that. He writes music and lyrics with meaning, and Doyle's concept brilliantly illustrates that. The integration of musical meaning and dramatic meaning. Even the kazoo is meaningful.

That's my last attempt at putting an interpretation on this piece.

#69

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:22pm

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 09:22 PM

#70

I'm with you on this on Sue

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:23pm

I'd much rather see an actor do the acting rather than a cello.

"I think they were able to do both very well and it worked."

The cello acted?

What great ones do the less will prattle of

#71

I'm with you on this on Sue

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:25pm

Okay, one more try, BK.

I understand what you are saying, but it seems you are defending Doyle's use to illustrate Doyle's views on MUSICAL THEATRE and NOT the characters of the musical play Company.
Your explanation has nothing to do with how this concept helps this particular piece of theatre tell the story of these people's lives.

Little Cheese, I get what you are saying, too. I just think it is a very convoluted and a bit of a stretch.

Oh, and BFB, it means a lot.

PEACE.

#72

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:25pm

Updated On: 5/7/09 at 09:25 PM

#73

I'm with you on this on Sue

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:32pm

Oh my. What started as an intelligent discussion about different opinions has become a snark fest. Who would have thought that could happen on BWW. I also think that some here are really stretching for symbolism when it comes to this show.

The instruments also lend to a modern interpretation of the role technology plays in our lives, in that it brings us together, yet keeps us apart because it's an artificial form of communication. We crave the connectedness of technology, yet want to keep the safety barrier of computers and palm pilots, just as the characters use the instruments to communicate, but the instruments also create a barrier.

I am sorry, but I really don't understand this. A lot of ideas people have brought up here make some sense to me, but this one goes completely over my head. I don't see that concept represented anywhere in the book, the music, or Doyle's vision.

#74

I'm with you on this on Sue

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:34pm

Actually, I think the concept works with Sweeney, in that it is a very theatrical, Brechtian show.

PEACE.

#75

I'm with you on this on Sue

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:38pm

"Yes. Performance of music by a musician is very much akin to acting. Have you never been moved by a piece of music?"

Often.

But the cello isn't just a cello according the lengthy interpretations ... the cello represents, does and function as a myriad of ideas and emotions.

My claim is that the ACTORS do, function as and represent the same ideas and emotions BETTER without dragging around some symbol..or cymbal.

And, as I've written before, the emotion and intellectual emphasis given to the what the instruments are supposed to do, function as and represent inhibited the magic the actor can offer.

I felt that the instruments weren't an extension of what the actor expresses .. but rather a block to it.

It would be like seeing a production of My Fair Lady where Higgins walks around in every scene carrying a giant stone tablet in front of him.

You'd wonder "what the hell is that?" But then someone one would chime in with ... oh that's the Rosetta Stone, it represent Higgin's carrying the tradtion of language where ever he goes.

Again..

I'd much rather see the actors do the acting rather than a cello.

What great ones do the less will prattle of

Updated On: 3/3/08 at 09:38 PM

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95