Tick Tock- Company — Page 6

I remember the short, sad simplicity of the original version of the scene. Personally, I find the new version redundant and (worse) sentimental.

The original script of Company really caught the hard jagged kind of sophistication that New York stood for in the late 60s-early 70s. The new scene is an anachronism - sweet, neat, and suburban.

And that pocket park (if it's the one on 51st that most people think it's supposed to be) wasn't built until 1971 - a year after Company opened. (Not that it means anything, but the park is younger than the show.)

Updated On: 7/2/13 at 05:25 PM

It's too bad Donna McKechnie didn't get a chance to do that scene.

As they say in Night Music, "it would have been wonderful."

---

Updated On: 7/2/13 at 05:28 PM

The revisions have moved the show's focus HARD towards Bobby's relationship issues. Looking at the original script and remembering that it was in 1971 changes the interpretation of the show's central issue to the birthday and the age being WAY more central then they became in later versions.

Bobby is turning thirty-five, and is the youngest of his friends. Much is made of the number thirty-five, and the implication is, essentially, that Bobby has just become middle-aged. Bobby ought to have a woman, Bobby isn't as young as he used to be, Bobby should settle down and be, well... older.

The change in theatrical performance styles and training, as well as the changes in lifestyle and life expectancy, have both made this version of the show's intent rather harder to play. People are significantly "younger" at thirty-five than they used to be, for one. The location of middle age and "getting old" has moved from late thirties through forties and now seems to be settling at mid-fifties, especially for the affluent. Further complicating things are the voices of our generation, trained and techniqued and influenced by a hundred years of popular music. Voices sound younger, brighter. When Larry Kert or Dean Jones sang Bobby, they sounded like a middle aged man. For lack of a better word, they were thick, stout voices. Aged and solid and masculine. Just like the way the uniquely sharp-toned voice with a more pronounced New-York-Jewish inflection was the voice of the "Women of Broadway" in decades past, but has now gone to the wayside, the voice of the Man of a Certain Age has more or less gone away too.

I've mentioned in a few previous Company threads that if you want to cast a "traditional 1971 Bobby" (or, more specifically, a Robert, as his Bobby appellate is largely a thing of the revision- he was more specifically Robert in conversation in the original), you need a man ten to fifteen years older than Bobby actually is. Jon Hamm conveys the sense of solid, masculine gravitas and "stoutness of voice" that one would expect of 1971 Bobby, the same way Harris is the eternally youthful single friend and Esparza the sensitive but withdrawn fellow with a quiet addiction. Neither of them are men whose immediate trouble screams "midlife crisis," the way 1971's Bobby does- but each are instead archetypes of the sort of thirty-five-year-old man one might find in upper-class New York today.

What Besty said--great post. This is a separate issue, and one discussed here before, but the whole age thing is one reason I never bought the argument that it should be updated to "now" (nevermind that things like the revision's answer machine opening already have dated.)

I have a question.

Is Company the story of a gay man who is pretending to be straight?

Yes, in 1960s New York.

BOBBY! CLOSET!
HOMO PANIC HOMO PANIC!

Phone rings, door chimes-
Homophobia!

But the core of the material is timeless. That's what makes "Company" a classic.

Larry Kert insisted to everyone I know that when HE played the role, he played the "gay Bobby" subtext. (Sorry, PJ, but you probably know this. I remember he was a favorite of yours (and mine).)

But had that interpretation existed anywhere but Larry's mind, a few message boards and a couple of critics, we wouldn't still be talking about the meaning of the play--no more than we spend much time de-constructing BOYS IN THE BAND, despite the latter's historical importance.

***

Great discussion, guys!

Updated On: 7/2/13 at 08:43 PM

(Not a comment on the post above. I just decided my comments here were unnecessary.)

Updated On: 7/2/13 at 09:03 PM

Those are great points, especially about the dialogue which has not been mentioned here yet.

I admit sometimes it feel like a conspiracy to remove dance fro the relatively few Sondheim shows that feature it in a key way--Bolero D'Amour (which as originally staged visually basically shows the entire theme of Follies) is routinely cut from Follies, etc. If they ever did try a full revision or revival of ANyoneCan Whistle the Cookie CHase would probably go at this rate (I believe the Encores production did cut the "Don't Ballet".)

I love MARRY ME A LITTLE and always enjoy hearing it. Ellen Greene was one of the first to sing it in clubs in the 70's, but it was written as a possible ending (as was HAPPILY EVER AFTER) so it does seem out of place where it has been placed because Bobby is not quite that evolved yet and BEING ALIVE is the perfect 11 O Clock decision song.

As for TICK TOCK in the first revival, Rob Marshall spent a lot (too much) time on the opening number, he took a whole tech day to tech it. Nancy Hess and the other female understudies got very little time to rehearse and when she went on for Charlotte (early in the run) she just wasn't ready and they took the easy way out and cut the dance whenever Charlotte was out (which was a lot).