Tick Tock- Company- Page 7

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/2/13 at 10:33pm

the same way Harris is the eternally youthful single friend and Esparza the sensitive but withdrawn fellow with a quiet addiction.

And what was Boyd Gaines?

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/2/13 at 10:41pm

What was Boyd Gaines?

Less iconic, less archetypal. Perhaps a little closer to a flawed portrayal of the traditional midlife-crisis Bobby than any of the two who came after.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/2/13 at 11:14pm

I find that Boston bootleg fascinating--it's been a while since I played it, but I believe Side by Side is still the penultimate number (when it just seems to make so much sense as an at opener.)

I'm not sure if my recording is the same one as that youtube clip posted, but from what I remember afterHappily Ever Afteryou can actually hear the audience reacting with a sorta "that's the ending?!" reaction. As a cynical teen I used to subscribe to the opinion that Being Alive was a cop out and Happily made more sense, but I've long since changed my mind.

CurtainPull tanks for that anecdote about the Marshall production. I really would be curious to see clips--anything from it. The CD isn't exactly thrilling but I like some parts--and I like the fact that Bobby as sung by Boyd has his songs transposed lower so that I can actually sing along (though I'm not sure if anyone around me when I listen to it would be pleased by that.)

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/2/13 at 11:24pm

Does anyone know if Michael Bennett adjusted the Tick Tock choreography to suit specific dancers like he did with Cassie in ACL? I think Priscilla Lopez took over when Donna left the NY company.

[qazdannywsx]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 1:23am

Wow, just came back to read so many interesting, insightful useful posts. Thank you everyone for all the replies and a really great thread!
And specifically about the generation thing- Joanne gives a speech about how they are the generation gap. I never understud that line, but this whole being born in the mid thirties things helps that line make sense...

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 2:15am

Gaines (on paper) was a perfect Bobby, totally lovable and an actor who could play the flaws in the character. He has to be lovable for the audience, and his married friends to keep the audience rooting for him. Unfortunately singing the score done him (and the production) in. The cast loved him, as did Scot and Sondheim (read his letter to the editor). Even great Actors have insecurities. People put down that revival all the time, but that cast, Gaines, Monk, Cox, Bernstein, Burton, Canova, Krakowski, D'Amboise, et al were all wonderful and some of it is captured on the CD. But it got bad buzz and was a misstep of bad decisions and press. It would have been interesting to hear Rupert's take on Bobby.

[Fan123]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 7:10am

Great thread. On Tick-Tock, perhaps somebody here can help me understand the tone intended by that number. I've never seen the number performed live, but judging from the original broadway album liner notes and the libretto, I had assumed it was meant to be rather tongue-in-cheek and euphemistic (if dance can be said to be euphemistic). The liner notes, by Marc Kirkeby, say "...in lieu of a sex scene, we get a show-stoppingly sexy dance (dream on, folks) from McKechnie". I thought the "dream on, folks" meant that Tick-Tock it was a less-than-sexy dance about sex, perhaps something like that metaphoric failed leap-n-catch in Pippin. The libretto, meanwhile, says that "Kathy's dance expresses the difference between having sex and making love" - which I read as meaning that the dance was intentionally a bit ridiculous, perhaps a bit of a parody of interpretive dance. But the clip that EricMontreal22 posted earlier seems, to me, to have been played pretty straight. What do you think the tone of number is meant to be, or how have you seen it interpreted?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 7:46am

which I read as meaning that the dance was intentionally a bit ridiculous, perhaps a bit of a parody of interpretive dance

It was not in the least parodic.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 7:57am

I wonder how long before we can have a gay Bobby. Not because he's closeted, but because in 20 or 30 years, gay marriage is legal everywhere and so normal that his being gay isn't an excuse not to be married or settled down anymore.

But then you'd have to have Marta/Kathy/April played by men, as his potential boyfriend/husbands.

Which means then you'd have to rewrite some of their dialogue.

Which means then you'd have to rewrite some of "Barcelona."

Which means then you'd have to rewrite "Have I Got a Girl for You" as "Have I Got a Guy for You," which would make no sense whatsoever as sung by a chorus of straight guys.

And by the time you were finished rewriting all those scenes and songs into lesser versions of what they are now, you might as well have written your own musical.

Which is what you should have done in the first place.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 8:17am

The show is a period piece. Views on marriage, sex, love, age, and commitment have change drastically since 1969/1970.

Points that were shocking then aren't today. Points that weren't shocking at all then are today.

It would be an entirely different show.

[justoldbill]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 2:12pm

The parenthetical "Dream on, folks" is simply liner-note shorthand for "You can't see the terrific dance on the album- sorry folks". I wouldn't go too deep with it. Donna already had a reputation from PROMISES, PROMISES, so you didn't have had to have seen COMPANY to imagine the number by simply listening to the album (that was certainly true for me then- I had seen PROMISES).

[temms]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 2:38pm

Surprised nobody's posted this (unless I missed it...): here's Donna McKechnie doing a shortened "Tick Tock" at the '93 reunion concert. Can anyone verify how close this is to the original?

There's also an audience shot if you look in the related videos.
Tick-Tock '93

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 6:24pm

CurtainPullDown--thanks for more details about the '95 revival. I was a teen at the time, but (after Passions) it was the first major Sondheim production I followed in the press, etc. My perspective was that the disappointment came from people who were very excited about the first major revival on Broadway, the fact it was the 25th anniversary of such a major show, etc--so expectations were very high. I got the impression critics thought it played it too safe, as well (I also seem to remember some critic complaining about LaChanze grinning like a madwoman all through Another Hundred People--but she's great on disc, anyway.)

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 6:28pm

I posted it :P Temms--but always great to see.

Fan, as PJ said (and he'd know better than I would) the dance was meant to be pretty straightforward (if playful in parts.) Bennett's dance vocabulary is typical jazz dance of the era (albeit particularly brilliantly done, of course.)

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 7:31pm

The "gay" Bobby thing came mostly from people, who finding out Steve was gay assumed he was writing about himself (the book was by a hetero, Furth). I believe Bobby is straight, and the gay scene was added to appease the masses.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 7:53pm

Sondheim himself always bristles when people ask about how much he relates or sees himself in his characters (I mostly agree with his arguments as to why not--pointing out how he rarely chooses the material, etc, though I think he protests a little too much.) That said, I think the "gay" scene basically succeeds in its job. Although, it's interesting, it was written for that "updated" revised version (at least I assume it was never used before) and yet, off the top of my head, Furth uses language like to "ball" someone, that at least from my perspective is still pretty dated to the 70s.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 8:56pm

I think you're right, Eric. "To ball" was the verb of choice for my age group, but I haven't heard it since college in the early 70s.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 10:13pm

Eric, I saw the '95 revival (in fact I'm in the audience that was taped for the archives at the Library at Lincoln Center).

There were very mixed feelings. Yes, everyone was excited that it was the first major revival. But everyone also knew it was Roundabout doing it. Roundabout has this habit of bringing in talented actors and yet putting on crap shows. Also, excitement was running very high because the original cast had just done a concert version at Lincoln Center two years before to great success.

It was decided that the couples in the show would all be alike in social standing which I found a boring choice. (I loved the London revival that put them into different social classes).

Boyd Gaines, who looked good on paper, had vocal problems and missed performances, and you know how NY is when a star misses performances. His Bobby was a bit wooden, I think he was poorly directed and the keys to his songs were lowered losing the thrill in Being Alive.

I was anxious to see Debra Monk who I've always thought was a wonderful actress. But as Joanne, she didn't hit the right characterization. There was none of the Stritch stridency and Monk just came across as a pissed off Upper East Side woman. There was no bite to "Ladies Who Lunch."

Charlotte d'Amboise was a bit disappointing in Tick Tock. I sort of expected that since she's from a dance family background that it would be a bit more amazing. (I love those clips of McKechnie.)

I understand the LaChanze grinning comment because I remember during "You Could Drive A Person Crazy" all you could see were teeth. I had seen LaChanze in "Once On This Island" and I didn't remember the teeth so I'm wondering if the director told her to keep smiling.

The highlight of the show was Veanne Cox as Amy. Her "Not Getting Married" was a wonderful journey through madcap as only Veanne can deliver it. She was the standout in the show.

I also saw the revival in London with Adrian Lester as Bobby. I loved this production (except for the fact that they cut Tick Tock). It was interesting because the couples were of different social backgrounds and made for a more interesting interaction. Also, the thought that went into the characterizations was wonderful. There were small details in their performances that made them real people rather than characters in a musical. I felt that the London cast approached this as a serious work rather than the way Americans approach musicals which seems to be giving surface characterizations.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 10:24pm

I felt that the London cast approached this as a serious work rather than the way Americans approach musicals which seems to be giving surface characterizations.

I'm not contradicting your primary point, but I want to point out that what distinguished the original Broadway production was the hiring of actors rather than "musical comedy performers". The characterizations were anything but superficial.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 10:45pm

"The characterizations were anything but superficial."

Which is why I think the 95 revival fell flat.

This is what I mean by London's character development (and someone correct me if I've got the scene mixed up):

I believe it was in the Jenny & David scene. There were children's toys scattered around and Jenny was having to pick them up. As the two are interacting, David makes a sudden move and Jenny jumps back in fright. It was such a subtle action lasting about three seconds, but it left me wondering if there was domestic violence in their marriage. That moment was so rich with subtext. That's what I'm trying to illustrate about the Brits digging deeper into characterization.

Plus the London revival had an interracial couple which gave another layer to the show.

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 11:04pm

However, to be fair, in London, interracial couples are a fact of life in precisely the way they are NOT in American media. Even though the show is set in 1970s America (or "something near to the present day, in New York" in revisions), the impact of seeing a married interracial couple in London is very different than seeing it in New York, where such a thing is not yet commonplace in media.

Most relationships in Doctor Who, for instance, are interracial. And not only does no one make a big deal of it, no one even really mentions it.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 11:16pm

I wasn't challenging your point, Goth, just making a point about the original production.

darquek, since I don't have access to as much theater as those of you in large cities, I watch more TV. It's actually quite surprising how common interracial relationships have become and how little is made of them. PRIVATE PRACTICE wasn't a great show, but early on it split up its married black couple (Audra McDonald and Taye Diggs) and paired both individuals with white significant others. That's just one example; I can think of at least half-a-dozen others, from THE NEIGHBORS (sitcom) to TRUE BLOOD.

So we may be at a point where a present-day COMPANY could have interracial couples without comment. But not if the show remains set in the 1970s (where it probably should be).

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 11:24pm

"I wasn't challenging your point, Goth, just making a point about the original production."

Oh, I didn't take it as a challenge. I think your point about the original is valid. I was just saying I felt the 95 revival was sub-par. Within a year's time, I saw the crappy 95 revival and then was in London and saw their far superior production.

Concerning the interracial couple, in that time period, we had already seen an interracial kiss on Star Trek and we already knew the movie "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner". Being set in NYC, I think Bobby having an interracial couple as friends adds a wonderful layer of characterization. (Mad Men set several years earlier has shown an interracial couple). I think if Company were set in Montgomery Alabama, an interracial couple would be problematic, but being set in NYC, I don't think it's a big deal.

Updated On: 7/3/13 at 11:24 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 11:27pm

It does seem that British theatre accepted "colour blind" casting before Broadway (to make a HUGE generalization)--not that Company being cast with different races--particularly if it's set in the present like the 1995 revision--is really colour blind casting.

Gotham--thank you so much for that detailed description! Everything you say makes sense. I wonder if Charlotte's Tick-Tock was dull due to Rob Marshall? I love some of his work, particularly earlier on (Spider Woman, the Mendes Cabaret) but his work can also be fairly nondescript--which really stands out when you see him do a well known Bennett or Fosse routine. Also, I suppose, if it was under-rehearsed as mentioned previously.

I had forgot Veanne Cox--who on the recording actually sings the song completely as written, unlike many others, and seems perfect. I only really know her from her sitcom work--like a hysterical episode of Seinfeld and I think Frasier as well, which would seem to fit. (I suppose I know her from Smash too.) On TV, anyway, she actually reminds me of Beth Howland's sitcom work--which seems fitting.

I've seen the Sam Mendes production with Lester from the BBC televised production and I like it a lot. Certainly, for a more intimate/serious play version rather than a musical theatre version of the show, I preferred it to the Doyle production. I need to re-watch it--it's been over a decade--but I remember a local production ripped off his idea of What Would We Do Without You being done in Bobby's head as he gets more buzzed doing lines of cocaine alone.

Gaveston, thanks for confirming my thoughts about the use of the term "balling"

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/3/13 at 11:30pm

I certainly wouldn't mind an interracial couple in 1970s NYC, but I'd have to believe everyone was acutely aware they were of different races. Whether that would work would depend on which couple was mixed. (I certainly had no problem with casting Anika Noni Rose in the most recent concert version and no trouble believing that NPH's Robert would be open to dating a black woman.)

Of course, I'm not sure when that version was supposed to take place. I didn't think much about it, since COMPANY always seems "of the 70s" to me because that's when I first saw it.