Disclaimer: slightly different material than the notorious defensive rant.
Anthony Tommasini has an article in the Times this weekend (Arts and Leisure, Music section) in which he talks quite a bit about Company, and his interpretation of the concept's behavior. For me, he gets it. He talks about just what it is the instrument concept does for the piece, and echos Brantley's sentiment that it's not until Bobby's friends make music together that his problem is really driven home. It doesn't appear to be online yet, but it's worth a read when it goes up, or if anyone is able to find it.
I agree with sweetestsiren that this Company is about isolated disconnect, and probably much sadder than a show like Company might seem at first glance. The staging asks you to look at isolation, both within the marriages and between Bobby and his friends -- there are so many moments with unusual amounts of space between the charcters -- without insinuating that distance is the only thing at play. The relationships still work, but there is an isolated element. And for me, it's so deeply emotional because of that -- and because the instruments show it to you. Take Side by Side, for example. When nobody is there to answer Bobby's kazoo solo, he is for the rest of the song sidelined, alone, and absolutely freaking out. It's probably one of the show's most heartbreaking moments, and one of the best examples of moments in which the instruments demonstrate his isolation. There are also smaller moments to be caught. If you watch carefully, wives often instrumentally accompany their husbands (Sorry-Grateful is just one example of when this happens) or a couple will play off of one another and the instruments do help you see the bonds, too, but in much smaller ways. But back to the other point, the show is filled with moments in which Bobby just sits in the center while everyone sings, dances and plays instruments around him. The concept is very symbolic, but I think it really emphasizes Bobby's isolation from the group sensibility of being in a relationship. So I don't think BobPopa's assessment is wrong, per se, but nor do I think it's a "problem." I (obviously to most) think it's a strength.
This reminds of me something else I've been considering, too, which is how I'd react to seeing a traditional production after falling so in love with Doyle's interpretation (the first I'd ever seen). I keep saying to people that I can't see myself falling in love with a traditional production of the show, because Doyle's interpretation gives this production the emotional weight and darkness that's allowed it to be so moving for me. Last night, I watched a clip of a traditional production, and was disappointed to find myself saying "well, that's boring." This may be a bold, blasphemous statement, but for the above reasons and then some, I can't imagine being moved as much by a production without the instruments after seeing it this way. I think it's a show that'll be revived again within my lifetime, though, and I would love to see it despite that, in hopes of being proven wrong.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Updated On: 1/6/07 at 12:01 PM
