Esparza out of Company this weekend -- thoughts on his standby?- Page 2

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 4:05pm

I remember that interview Emcee. Something about him probably being able to play the notes, but too scared to actually do it in the show? Is that the same one maybe?

[whatever2]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 4:11pm

been meaning to post here ...

i saw the show last nite, too. i, too, was one of those initially disappointed people in the lobby someone mentioned earlier ... there were four of us, and we seriously considered changing tickets.

mostly, im glad we didn't.

if your purpose in seeing this show is to gawk at (the entirely gawkable) raul esparza, obviously you are going to be disappointed.

if, however, your purpose is to see an interesting treatment and clever revival of an important part of the canon, you will not be disappointed with dean.

the four of us liked it, anyway.

[alliez92092]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 4:20pm

I didn't know Bradley Dean was in the show! I saw him on the Spamalot tour and he's my friend's father. That's really cool.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 4:37pm

To digress a little, on Raul's piano playing, at the matinee on 1/24 after the first sixteen bars at the piano, Raul paused and for just a second I remember my daughter in a piano recital doing that and then taking a deep breath and continuing without a mistake. Sure enough, that's what Raul did, too. If it was intentional, it was very dramatic. If it was a blank moment at the keyboard, he recovered beautifully!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 5:23pm

One thing I did wonder about was the question of Bobby's homosexuality. I remembered reading in at least one review (NYT?) that this is somehow highlighted more, or alluded to more, in Esparza's performance. I didn't catch any of that in Dean's performance. The exchange he had with Peter about it seemed just awkward, but not illuminating, if that makes sense.

The interpretation that Bobby is gay is completely invented by the public- Stephen Sondheim and George Furth have both said that Bobby is never meant to be interpreted or portrayed as gay. The reviews are what highlighted that aspect of the performance, specifically because Raul had recently "come out" in an interview and it makes for a good story. There's nothing in his performance to suggest that Bobby is meant to be gay, and the scene with Peter is awkward; it's played as a comedic scene, not as a huge "reveal" to a hidden plotline.

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 5:43pm

While it's true that Sondheim and Furth have denied that Bobby's gay, it's certainly a valid reading of the text that existed even before Raul Esparza's interpretation. In the context in which the show was written, a 1970's 35 year old bachelor in NYC, the question of the character's sexuality was inevitably in the audience's mind. Since the question of "Why hasn't Bobby gotten married?" is constantly being adressed in the show (regardless of how much the question itself matters), it's a valid point to ask whether his sexuality factors into it. An author's, or even the performer's intention when creating a character doesn't necessarily deny other readings, as long as they don't contradict what's in the text. I, for one, think it's a valid interpretation in this show, and this production that doesn't necessarily negate the heart of the piece as a whole.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 5:56pm

The scene, to me (and I'm sure this is partially because of the "textbook" explanation for its existence -- to stand behind Sondhem and Furth's denial that Bobby is gay), doesn't really confirm or deny Bobby's sexuality one way or the other, but rather just stands to be another question, another monkey wrench, and another possibility. I mean, Peter's wondering it. (And by Doyle's staging, the rest of Bobby's friends may well be, too). I think the scene serves to say "here's another valid question for just WHY this man is alone," rather than to say "look, Bobby's gay!" or, really, to flat-out show you that he isn't. I think a production could obviously do just fine without having it and that it's a little bit extraneous, but I wouldn't quite call it useless; it does add something, IMO, in the sense that I see it as an additional layer to possibly consider in looking at Bobby's problem, but neither an answer, nor a means to an answer. It's a tough scene to wrestle with, I think, and one that's clearly very open to interpretaton. it's another angle from which to question.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 05:56 PM

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 6:05pm

Yes, I completely agree. I think that by having the scene in the show, you take a question that may be in the audience's mind, the subtext of a "bachelor"'s sexuality and openly address it.. The confirmed bachelor, or the dandy, is a prototype of many dramas, that is often read as closeted homosexual. It's certainly valid to assume Bobby falls into that category. As you said, the scene doesn't confirm or deny either possibility, but it takes the issue, puts it in the spotlight (quite literally in this production), and allows us something to ponder at.

[Perfectly Marvelous]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 6:35pm

I believe that Raul already plays the piano, he sure did in Caberet and Tick Tick Boom

The Emcee does not play the piano, or any other instrument, during the course of Cabaret. Unless, you saw a different production and that's what they had the character doing.

I would still like to see Company [I've been nagging my parents since Christmas] - Raul or not. Preferably, I would like to see Raul and stare in amazement at his talent. However, I would also give the alternate a chance, that's a tough job, and I admire anyone who is an understudy.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 06:35 PM

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 7:01pm

I love Raul, and I would be disappointed if he were absent but certainly this musical itself, and this production, have a lot going for them in any event.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 7:08pm

In my opinion, the author is infallible, so what Sondheim and Furth state as a fact isn't up for interpretation. They created the story and the character, so if they say that Bobby isn't gay, he's not gay, regardless of how actors or audiences read the scene. Creators rarely tell their audience how to interpret their work, so when they do, it's obviously they feel something is completely against their intention of the show. Has Sondheim ever spoken out and said "No, this interpretation is wrong" about any other character or plotline within his own shows? It's obviously not something he takes lightly, so why can't people accept it? Subtextual reading that the author has specifically denied and is still argued for is no better than crap like Harry/Draco fanfiction.

Sondheim and Furth spoke out about it because people were letting the "Bobby is gay and that's why he's not married" interpretation completely override any other interpretations of the show. Hence many people's dislike of the added scene. It provides too easy of an answer and overly simplifies Bobby and his story to be able to point to this excuse.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 07:08 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 7:13pm

I'd speculate that they've been so adamant about saying "Bobby isn't gay" because really, if the answer to "why isn't Bobby married" were simply that he's just gay, wouldn't that be a little bit too easy? If the intention (perhaps) that Bobby is somehow damaged or troubled, then to assume he's not married simply because he's gay is sort of an easy way out and can almost override everything else that we explore in his head. But at the same tme, people are going to interpret what they will, given authority to do so or not -- for example, you probably *can* also make a case that his sexuality might be the reason behind his dating troubles and so forth.

I think one of the problems with the scene is that despite its probable intention, and the fact that to some it *doesn't* provide an answer, but rather complicates the questions, to others, it's the tipping point and (against intention) makes people go "oh, that's it. He's gay." My other issue with the scene is that while it's too ambiguous to give an answer, its omission also begs questions -- whether spoken or not, I'd think, someone's interpretation is going to run along the lines of "maybe this unmarried man is gay." The doors to interpret would probably be open *both* by addressing it and leaving it out. Of course, that all begs the question that would ask why, then, if Sondheim and Furth were out to stand firmly on the notion that Bobby is *not* gay, the scene isn't more concrete, but that seems out of their control, and rather in an actor's hands.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 07:13 PM

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 7:20pm

Subtextual reading that specifically goes against the author's denials and is still argued for is no better than crap like Harry/Draco fanfiction.

Sorry, skittles, but on this point you're just completely wrong. I'll just give you a very basic example:

John Milton wrote Paradise Lost as, in his own words, an attempt to "justify" God's plan in the universe. He certainly didn't mean to portray Satan as a romantic hero. Yet Milton's intentions in no way negate the multitude of readings that have been attributed to Paradise Lost (Marxist theory comes to mind, something Milton would have adamantly renounced had he been alive to witness) These are all valuable readings in Academia that have little ot nothing to do with the author's intentions.

In fact, if the whole of literary (or any other realm of art) theory were reduced to merely extrapolating the artists' intentions, there would BE no critical theory to begin with! Why analyze a piece of art if we already know the artists' intentions?

I should be clear: This doesn't mean that it's a free for all, and any and all interpretations are valid. There has to be a thoughtful process at play, and even then, not all interpretations have the same merit (some, like for example Freudian readings of Hamlet are often often discredited by leading Academists) But there can, and ARE, different, sometimes even contradictory readings of the same work of art. As long as it's there in the TEXT, whether intentionally or not on the artist's behalf, it can be a VALID interpretation.

So, yes, even if Sondheim openly states "No, Bobby isn't gay", the work of art he created, which once out there belongs as much to the public as the creator, IS open to interpretation even if it goes against the artist's personal intent. The whole of literary theory (which is my field, and why I keep bringing it up) is about looking for different interpretations that exist in the text, even the ones that have been openly rejected by the artist. Their intention when creating a work of art is by no means the ONLY possible interpretation.

For the record, I don't think Bobby is gay in this, or any other production of Company. But I think it's a VERY possible interpretation of the text, regardless of what Sondheim's personal views are.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 07:20 PM

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 7:27pm

I'll edit my original entry (and do so separately) to say that, no, you're not wrong (I shouldn't have phrased it that way) But I strongly disagree. Many Academics do share the view that an author's word is infallible, though it's not the norm to think that way, and I honestly think it shouldn't be.

A work of art is greater than the artist. And since Company, once out there, belongs as much to us as it does to Sondheim, we're all free to disagree with his interpretation of the text (which, again, in this case I don't - I'm just making a point for those who do) Just as he's free to disagree with us
Updated On: 1/27/07 at 07:27 PM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 7:49pm

Wasn't Bradley Dean in the Evita tour?

Either way, I just hope Raul's voice comes off well on the Company recording. His words are almost unintelligble on the TTB recording. I still don't know half the words he says.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 8:02pm

Yeah, he was in the recent one. He was Che. How ironic.

His bio says he did it regionally, but some Googling brings up the 25th anniversary tour.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 08:02 PM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 8:07pm

I thought so because I remember someone said he was good, but then either got fired from the tour, or was just replaced because he's not who I saw in the tour this time last year.

[Craww]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 8:33pm

In my opinion, the author is infallible, so what Sondheim and Furth state as a fact isn't up for interpretation.

I disagree. BroadwayChica already explained why more eloquently than I could, and certainly in a more literary sense. I don't think it's disrespectful to have different interpretations than the one specified by the author as long as you don't attempt to argue that the author is somehow wrong in theirs.

I live to appreciate the layers in art. I appreciate a show like Company for what it was intended to be, and that's the foundation for appreciating all the various things it could suggest. Especially with live theatre, where subtle differences in performance can create a whole new undertone each time you see it.

Whether you're silently appreciating and pondering your interpretations or discussing them on a message board or even writing silly fanfiction about it, no matter how wrong headed you may be, your opinion can never change the change the art itself.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 9:57pm

This all brings up sort of an interesting question about interpretation and how much authority an author or composer has in regulating the presentation of his work. Didn't Sondheim do something to stop a production where Marta was turned into a male character? He'd be justified, of course, since that would require changes to the text itself. I guess there's a clearer line to distinguish between variable interpretations of the text and manipulating the text to suit your interpretation.

Anyway, I definitely agree that people experiencing a piece of theater will see different things, and that's something that's definitely not invalidated by the author's intentions while writing it. I suppose I see how it could be frustrating to think that people are oversimplifying something that you created and saw a certain meaning in, but that's something that you have to be prepared for when you offer your work for public consumption.

As for personal impressions, it seems a little simplistic to me to say, "Bobby is gay, and that's why he's unable to commit to a woman." I would imagine that the material point is that Bobby is generally commitment-phobic -- and that, in particular, is what the scene between Peter and Robert indicates to me. I see that scene and think, "Ah. He could have this -- want it, even, but he'd still have the underlying commitment issues. It's about not being able to commit to a person, regardless of gender." It's also, as others have mentioned, yet another crack that Bobby sees in the establishment of marriage that leads up to his confrontation with Joanne.

(Edited for lots of typos. Sometimes I forget how much I've come to rely on Firefox's built-in spell-check.)
Updated On: 1/27/07 at 09:57 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 10:00pm

There's a difference between the interpretation of ideas and concepts, and the interpretation of the physical facts that make up a character. This isn't about someone interpreting Bobby as a Marxist; sexuality is ingrained in a person, just as much as their gender or the fact that they have 2 legs and a head. Arguing Bobby is gay when Sondheim says he isn't makes a much sense as arguing that Bobby is a FM transsexual. I'm sure someone could find evidence in the text for that interpretation as well.

There are probably over a million possible different interpretations of Company that the public is more than welcome to accept and discuss. Sondheim has said this *one* is incorrect. That's not something that should be taken lightly; like you said, art belongs to the public, so when an artist does make an official declaration like this, it shouldn't be shrugged off as just being the artist's personal opinion and no more valid than yours or mine. And like I said, Sondheim has never done this before for any other character/show/plotline interpretation. I'm not suggesting that every unintended interpretation of the show is wrong, but the one he specifically addressed and said incorrect was should be given up on. And if it's truly about literary theory, why give so much attention to this one theory instead of looking into something new and different that isn't the easy answer?

I don't think it's disrespectful to have different interpretations than the one specified by the author as long as you don't attempt to argue that the author is somehow wrong in theirs.
If Sondheim and Furth say Bobby isn't gay and people continue to argue that he can be gay regardless of what they say, that's the same as saying they're is wrong.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 10:00 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/27/07 at 10:09pm

Well, I dunno. Sondheim and Furth didn't intend for him to be gay, and therefore he isn't. And while as factually as you can get about a fictional character, Bobby is fundamentally straight, it's still possible for people to think that he is/could be gay, and to see things that point them to said conclusion. I think that what's messy about saying that the writers' word is the be-all, end-all is that you're talking about the interpretation of a character, something that is passed from the writers into the hands of a performer and a director, and then in turn passed to the audience. All of those channels sort of make it like a game of telephone -- and the audience, to a large degree, interprets what it's are given.

Sexuality may very well be some physical characteristic in a person, but we're looking at a "person" who is in fact a creation and who naturally by virtue of... well, not being real, turns out differently every time he's brought to life, so to speak. He's not one absolute emulation each time, and that (to me, anyway) is expected. Even if it "shouldn't" be because in theory the writer is the authority, it's inevitable in creating a character, and I think it's hard to expect to control how he's interpreted past a certain degree, even if you're explicit about it. It's like when writers put notes on the sets or staging in their scripts -- should they be held to? Probably. Are they always? No way. Sondheim and Furth can say all they want that Bobby isn't gay, but they can't be in absolute control of what an audience sees. In an ideal world, they would be -- and then audiences wouldn't be given those clues. Say Company never existed on stage and only on paper. Then I think it would be fair to say that you "can't" interpret Bobby as gay, because without rampant interpretations of him by actors all over the place, and only one written version, while still not quite entirely absolute, it would be easier to take Sondheim and Furth's word as truth.

When you consider the possiblity that an audience could potentially be given clues that point that way, it's possible that people can and will. In that sense, I don't know that I'd even call it "wrong," but rather just "unintended." To me, a "wrong" interpretation is one that sort of comes out of the sky, and has no basis in what was seen, which the notion that Bobby is gay doesn't necessarily present itself as.

I'm not sure if that makes sense.

Updated On: 1/27/07 at 10:09 PM

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 1/28/07 at 12:06am

I'd respond, but emcee summed up what I wanted to say.

Seeing homosexual subtext in a work of art IS the same as a so-called Marxist reading; it's an interpretation of the text that could very well be valid regardless of the author's intention. I've said it before, I'll say it again; it doesn't MATTER that Sondheim has stated that Bobby is not gay. If a director, an audience member or an actor chooses to interpret it that way, nothing Sondheim can do will stop them. Disagreeing with Sondheim's interpretation of the character (regardless of the fact that he created it, it IS an interpretation) is not the same as saying he's wrong.

Saying you could argue that Bobby is transexual is a gross exaggeration, but the fact of the matter is, you're correct. If someone chooses to argue that Bobby is a transexual, and can provide a smart, thoughtful analysis of that interpretation that in no way contradicts what's in the text, then it's valid.

It would be a sad state of the arts if we simply limited ourselves to the artist's intentions. They may all WANT it that way (understandably), but it's our responsability as critics to see ALL the possibilities and ideas art has to offer, and not just what the artist wants us to see.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 1/28/07 at 12:07am

Saw it tonight for my fifth time. I mainly go to witness Walsh's devestating performance that breaks my heart over and over again. But tonight was a treat in seeing a change.

The show is a completely different show without Esparza. But just as good. The ensemble around him is a solid one and they carry the show on their backs just as much as he does.

His understudy is beautifully voiced, but it seemed as if he were straining - one can only wonder if he would've been able to do this 8 times a week. It seems not from tonight's performance, but he could be sick, too, I suppose. His acting ability is decent. I moved from the mezzanine to second row center. His performance effected me more in Act II after the move than Act I when I was in the mezzanine. It seemed as if he couldn't really reach the back of the house with his acting, though his voice was not thin at all. He seems a little dull at times and not entirely enthused, while Esparza is much more commanding. They are both extremely different, and while I enjoyed both, I must say I prefer Esparza.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/28/07 at 12:13am

I've been meaning to ask someone who's seen both to go into more detail about Dean's Being Alive -- vocally and otherwise... how emotional he is, etc. I don't think I'll be able to get to see him this time around because I just saw the show last weekend and cannot in good conscience go again so soon, so I'll have to live out my curiosity vicarously until he goes on again.

Updated On: 1/28/07 at 12:13 AM

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 1/28/07 at 12:14am

I thought of an example to illustrate my point:

In the most recent Broadway revival of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way To The Forum, Whoopi Goldberg replaced Nathan Lane in the role of Polonius (It's Polonius, right? I'm too lazy to look it up). As I recall, only a few minor changes were made to the text to allow for this change (I assume, though don't know for sure, that Sondheim approved these changes). Because there's a scene in which Polonius is seduced by female courtesans, the issue of sexuality as well as gender came into play heavily (needless to say, it's not the same for a MALE to be seduced and attracted to courtesans than a female). The part wasn't intended for a female to play, and yet, it was. Likewise, if someone chooses to look for homosexual subtext in Company, and it's a smart, thought out analysis, I don't see why it should be completely written off simply because Sondheim or Furth don't want it to be. Ultimately, it's the director's decision, and for the audience to interpret as they see fit.