#76
Posted: 1/10/07 at 7:14am
>> I could have more theatrical knowledge than you, you don't know. The difference is I'm not sitting here stating things as fact. I mean really what do YOU do? what makes you so great.
What I do, ma'am, is address the points in a post, unlike you, who respond by saying litle more than "Oh, Sean, you're just a poopie-head." If you think Doyle's work is so wonderful, tell us why instead of castigating the people who just might know a little more about theatre than you.
No, I dont know what your background is, nor do I care. Ive had the pleasure and honour of working with directors and designers and actors that, frankly, you're not worthy to stand in the same room with. Theyre not Great Big Names, but they had far more vision than anything you'll see between 41st and 54th Streets, and I could consider what I learned from them in the process to be every so slightly more than anything you've brought to the table in this thread thus far.
I repeat: if you can back up your opinion, then kindly do so. Because till now, you've done a ****ing miserable job of it.
Insofar as Doyle, I'll say again what I said in an earlier Company thread: to do two Sondheims back to back with the same basic concept was as wrongheaded as it comes. Doyle may be a fabulous director, but all this did was demonstrate he's a one-trick pony with no other way to approach material than through his "actor-musician" stunt work. While it was successful in Sweeney, it simply didnt work in Company: the instruments hindered the performances and sometimes, as with the trio number, get in the way. From a physical standpoint, the show is dull as it gets -- there's a line in the play where one of Bobby's girlfriends says she wants to sit at a bar dressed all in black. Good grief, John Doyle put her in black like everyone else in the show, so what's the point of the line now?
Company is supposed to be an evocation of the difficulties of relationships in New York; there was a reason for Aaronson's steel framework. Does this set even come close to telling us that? Not by a long shot; it's Euro-minimalism, but without the depth of thought to support it. Instead, it's all about the piano, and the set could be a music studio for all it informs us. But once again, it's a Doyle production, so, as with Sweeney, there's a large empty platform so the actor-musicians have plenty of room to lug their instruments around. But beyond that, what does the set really tell us about the play? Zip.
The performances? With the possible exception of Raul's, they're mediocre to acceptable. The singing in some spots is downright grating, and the characterizations run the gamut from "somewhat insightful" to flat out caricatures. There's no consistency. We have to understand why Bobby keeps these people in his life, but the way some of them come across, you sit there thinking, I'd delete them from my speed dial so fast, because they're just so damn unlikable.
The blocking? Better left not even addressed. I still have no idea what Doyle was trying to do up there; some scenes were just inexplicable.
All in all, it's a mindless, superficial stroll through the material, not a presentation with depth. It's a director pretty much showing off how clever he is and not really succeeding because the brilliance of the material keeps upstaging him -- even bad Sondheim is good Sondheim, if you get my meaning. And not even John Doyle, the one trick pony, can completel defeat that, although he does his best to try.
Now, madam, address the points instead of the poster. I await with baited breath.
What I do, ma'am, is address the points in a post, unlike you, who respond by saying litle more than "Oh, Sean, you're just a poopie-head." If you think Doyle's work is so wonderful, tell us why instead of castigating the people who just might know a little more about theatre than you.
No, I dont know what your background is, nor do I care. Ive had the pleasure and honour of working with directors and designers and actors that, frankly, you're not worthy to stand in the same room with. Theyre not Great Big Names, but they had far more vision than anything you'll see between 41st and 54th Streets, and I could consider what I learned from them in the process to be every so slightly more than anything you've brought to the table in this thread thus far.
I repeat: if you can back up your opinion, then kindly do so. Because till now, you've done a ****ing miserable job of it.
Insofar as Doyle, I'll say again what I said in an earlier Company thread: to do two Sondheims back to back with the same basic concept was as wrongheaded as it comes. Doyle may be a fabulous director, but all this did was demonstrate he's a one-trick pony with no other way to approach material than through his "actor-musician" stunt work. While it was successful in Sweeney, it simply didnt work in Company: the instruments hindered the performances and sometimes, as with the trio number, get in the way. From a physical standpoint, the show is dull as it gets -- there's a line in the play where one of Bobby's girlfriends says she wants to sit at a bar dressed all in black. Good grief, John Doyle put her in black like everyone else in the show, so what's the point of the line now?
Company is supposed to be an evocation of the difficulties of relationships in New York; there was a reason for Aaronson's steel framework. Does this set even come close to telling us that? Not by a long shot; it's Euro-minimalism, but without the depth of thought to support it. Instead, it's all about the piano, and the set could be a music studio for all it informs us. But once again, it's a Doyle production, so, as with Sweeney, there's a large empty platform so the actor-musicians have plenty of room to lug their instruments around. But beyond that, what does the set really tell us about the play? Zip.
The performances? With the possible exception of Raul's, they're mediocre to acceptable. The singing in some spots is downright grating, and the characterizations run the gamut from "somewhat insightful" to flat out caricatures. There's no consistency. We have to understand why Bobby keeps these people in his life, but the way some of them come across, you sit there thinking, I'd delete them from my speed dial so fast, because they're just so damn unlikable.
The blocking? Better left not even addressed. I still have no idea what Doyle was trying to do up there; some scenes were just inexplicable.
All in all, it's a mindless, superficial stroll through the material, not a presentation with depth. It's a director pretty much showing off how clever he is and not really succeeding because the brilliance of the material keeps upstaging him -- even bad Sondheim is good Sondheim, if you get my meaning. And not even John Doyle, the one trick pony, can completel defeat that, although he does his best to try.
Now, madam, address the points instead of the poster. I await with baited breath.
http://docandraider.com
