#1
Posted: 10/15/13 at 5:31pm
Sondheim Working On A Revised (Gay) Version Of COMPANY
#2
Posted: 10/15/13 at 5:33pm
As skeptical as I am about the idea, if you're going to do it, this is the cast to do it with.
#3
Posted: 10/15/13 at 5:35pm
I'm actually not skeptical at all about it. I think it would be amazing.
#4
Posted: 10/15/13 at 5:36pm
I hope this gets a full production...sounds promising.
#5
Posted: 10/15/13 at 5:54pm
The students at NYU tried this some years back and Sondheim shut them down pretty quickly when he got wind of it. I wonder if he'll send them an apology.
#6
Posted: 10/15/13 at 6:04pm
I'm not sure he has any reason to apologize. Sondheim gets to decide how he wants his works to be performed. What's happening at Roundabout is playing at a very different level than a student production.
#7
Posted: 10/15/13 at 6:09pm
Exactly. He's like Julia Roberts in PRETTY WOMAN. He says who, he says when, he says how much.
#8
Posted: 10/15/13 at 6:19pm
';m glad you posted this Jordan inasmuch as I had previously read the BWW "Rialto Chatter" story that so obscured the idea behind this revisal that I came away from the story thinking "Ho hum ANOTHER company production." Why in the world were they so coy about the gender switch???"
Updated On: 10/15/13 at 06:19 PM
#9
Posted: 10/15/13 at 6:29pm
Let's see if everyone who screamed about the "I Do, I Do" in DC that changed the one straight couple to being played by a straight, gay and lesbian couple (with the authors full support) will also complain about this. They won't of course, but hypocrisy reigns here.
#10
Posted: 10/15/13 at 6:32pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the problem with past gay-centric productions was they they tried to make this a "coming out" musical, where Bobby finally accepts he is a gay man with "Being Alive."
Sondheim didn't like that because he says this is a "commitment" story not a "coming out" story. It's about Bobby allowing himself to love and be loved, not about him realizing and accepting his orientation.
I think that's why he objected strongly to past productions, right? (Not positive about that, but I remember him objecting to changing the intent.)
Sondheim didn't like that because he says this is a "commitment" story not a "coming out" story. It's about Bobby allowing himself to love and be loved, not about him realizing and accepting his orientation.
I think that's why he objected strongly to past productions, right? (Not positive about that, but I remember him objecting to changing the intent.)
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 10/15/13 at 06:32 PM
#11
Posted: 10/15/13 at 6:37pm
I read this and thought "but John Doyle's Company was so RECENT".
WHERE HAVE THE LAST SEVEN YEARS GONE.
Daniel Evans played Bobby here in the UK at the Crucible (the theatre he runs in Sheffield) to pretty great reviews - I'm pretty sure he was straight in that production, though (well, as straight as Daniel Evans gets). Be interesting to see how he gets on with another version of the show.
WHERE HAVE THE LAST SEVEN YEARS GONE.
Daniel Evans played Bobby here in the UK at the Crucible (the theatre he runs in Sheffield) to pretty great reviews - I'm pretty sure he was straight in that production, though (well, as straight as Daniel Evans gets). Be interesting to see how he gets on with another version of the show.
#12
Posted: 10/15/13 at 6:54pm
This sounds incredible! Besty, you are right; I think the problem some people have had in the past depicting Bobby as gay is that the gay "thing" becomes the way to explain the character's conflict throughout the whole show. This revision would take care of that, since I assume the "girlfriends" would all be gay. God, what I would give to play Marta! I wonder what the roles look like, Urie would be hilarious as April, for example, and Cumming would kill it as Joanne. I love this so much.
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
#13
Posted: 10/15/13 at 7:20pm
The only question I have is "Is Tick Tock in or out?"
I hope whoever plays the Kathy role gets a pretty dressing room because with Tick Tock out, that's where that actor will be spending his time.
I hope whoever plays the Kathy role gets a pretty dressing room because with Tick Tock out, that's where that actor will be spending his time.
If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
#14
Posted: 10/15/13 at 7:24pm
Why Company though? Why doesn't Sondheim write a new musical about a gay bachelor? Does he figure that someone is going to do it after he dies so he better do it himself now?
#15
Posted: 10/15/13 at 7:37pm
Might not have it in him to write a brand-new musical...
#16
Posted: 10/15/13 at 7:39pm
But he IS writing a brand new musical with David Ives.
#17
Posted: 10/15/13 at 7:52pm
best12bars, I saw an all-male production at NYU several years ago that definitely managed to keep it from becoming a coming out piece. For example, one of the most brilliant things I think they did was to set Another Hundred People in a loud, raunchy club. It was, on a more literal level than I've ever seen otherwise, so much about our failure to connect with each other. To the point of looking at a place that's devoid of the kind of connection that's the force behind Being Alive. It was absolutely a Company about commitment, and Company how it should have been. I remember hearing, however, that Sondheim was furious about the production - I'm not sure if it was because it was done, period, or because it was done without permission.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
#18
Posted: 10/15/13 at 8:04pm
If this comes to broadway, I really hope Raul does it again so he can finally get his Tony for it
#19
Posted: 10/15/13 at 8:50pm
There were so many missed casting opportunities over the years. I'd love to hear Paul Lynde's take on The Ladies Who Lunch.
#20
Posted: 10/15/13 at 9:05pm
As mentioned, there have been a few "gay" versions of Company Sondheim has objected to. I know of one in Seattle in the mid 90s, as well. To be fair, those were using the existing sacript, (either the revised or original script though I'll assume Paul's "gay scene" in the revised version wasn't kept...) this version will be revised to address the change.
I think it sounds interesting, and I love the cast (although a gay Joanne might come off a bit too much like a throwback to Harold from Boys in the Band--not that there's anything wrong with that, I suppose Joanne as played by Stritch could be seen as a stereotype too...) My main issue is the one Ihave with every production of Company that tries to set it "now" and not in 1970. Very basic issues, like Bobby seeing turning 35 as such a big deal, down to many lyrics and many of the jokes, just don't play to me when moved to 2013 or whenever. I'll be curious to see how many of the lyrics (and dialogue--again I'll assume the Paul gay scene is cut) will be changed.
And yeah, the argument that he should just write an original show with gay characters seems to miss the point. Maybe his new show will have gay characters (Road Show did,) but regardless, obviously it's much easier for him to work with a director's vision on revising an existing piece, and will take a Hell of a lot less time than writing a new show. It's too bad Furth won't be able to give his approval, but otherwise it is Sondheim's show, and while I usually don't like the changes he's made to his shows over the years, he can do with it what he wants.
I think it sounds interesting, and I love the cast (although a gay Joanne might come off a bit too much like a throwback to Harold from Boys in the Band--not that there's anything wrong with that, I suppose Joanne as played by Stritch could be seen as a stereotype too...) My main issue is the one Ihave with every production of Company that tries to set it "now" and not in 1970. Very basic issues, like Bobby seeing turning 35 as such a big deal, down to many lyrics and many of the jokes, just don't play to me when moved to 2013 or whenever. I'll be curious to see how many of the lyrics (and dialogue--again I'll assume the Paul gay scene is cut) will be changed.
And yeah, the argument that he should just write an original show with gay characters seems to miss the point. Maybe his new show will have gay characters (Road Show did,) but regardless, obviously it's much easier for him to work with a director's vision on revising an existing piece, and will take a Hell of a lot less time than writing a new show. It's too bad Furth won't be able to give his approval, but otherwise it is Sondheim's show, and while I usually don't like the changes he's made to his shows over the years, he can do with it what he wants.
#21
Posted: 10/15/13 at 9:06pm
Totally open to this, but for some reason can't warm up to the idea of a male "Joanne." I think keeping some of the married couples as "straight" couples would work.
#22
Posted: 10/15/13 at 9:07pm
The BWW articles mentions Nathan Lane was rumored? Could you imagine him ripping into The Ladies Who Lunch. I'd pay full price just to see that number.
#23
Posted: 10/15/13 at 9:10pm
OMG. I'd pay full price just to NOT hear him shriek that song.
#24
Posted: 10/15/13 at 9:12pm
"If this comes to broadway, I really hope Raul does it again so he can finally get his Tony for it"
Except that he's already played and been nominated for the role so he wouldn't be eligible for consideration.
Except that he's already played and been nominated for the role so he wouldn't be eligible for consideration.
#25
Posted: 10/15/13 at 9:16pm
But he didn win. He still couldn't even be nominated?
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95