re: In comes COMPANY....- Page 12

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 2:08am

I'm glad to hear that! You were skeptical if I remember correctly, right?

The show was frozen yesterday. Went back tonight. The changes I picked up on were very minor blocking alterations, and a few changes in line readings. I'm too exhausted to give a run-down, but I will say that as I've watched the show evolve, I find that Doyle continues to outdo himself in molding this show to its final form; each change better than the last, each making so much more sense than the previous in this incredibly beautiful, hyper-symbolic world he's created. Everything is tightening, and you can tell things are really falling into a niche of comfort on stage. It comes closer and closer to approaching perfection each time. At the risk of major redundancy, it is one of, if not the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. I am so madly in love.

ETA -- great to have Heather Laws back, too. :)

Updated On: 11/19/06 at 02:08 AM

[samcd3]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 5:38am

Just saw Company for the first time this week. Victorian College of the Arts MT students in Melb Australia. Did a great job and have really got me hooked on the show.

Tell me about this new one, who is in it. how is it updated? Tell me all about it. Are they doing a cast recording?

[Joshua488]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 6:00am

I saw Company on Saturday evening.

Absolutely incredible. I adored every moment of it. A brilliant piece of theatre.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 11:07am

sam, check out their website -- www.companyonbroadway.com

[Luscious]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 11:13am

I saw the show last night, as well. Raul Esparza's performance is Tony worthy, and his rendition of BEING ALIVE is worth the price of admission alone. Absolutely thrilling! Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the entire production. I had problems with it. Perhaps they're just my own, but I felt that, for the most part, the show was emotionally flat. I really didn't care for the staging at all. Maybe I'm just not a fan of the actors playing all the instruments gimmick. I don't know. I didn't see the revival of SWEENEY, so I can't compare. There just seemed to be so many missed opportunities. I especially disliked the staging of YOU CAN DRIVE A PERSON CRAZY. It lost all of its emotional punch. Essentially what you're seeing is a concert version of the show; a Broadway trend that I'm less than thrilled with. (I'm probably one of the few people that didn't care for the revival of CHICAGO.) I really don't have anything negative to say about anyone in the cast. They're all extremely talented performers. A few stood out for me more than others. I especially liked Barbara Walsh's take on Joanne and Heather Laws' Amy. I guess it was just the staging and execution that I had a problem with. I found that it lacked cohesiveness and focus, and failed to connect with me on an emotional level. This was the second production of COMPANY I've seen; the first being the Roundabout's 1995 revival. I preferred that production over this one. My partner, who was seeing the show for the first time, was also less than impressed. But again, Raul Esparza is perfection! It's worth seeing for his performance alone. I hope he wins the Tony! I just wish his talents were being showcased in a more satisfying production.

That said, the audience seemed to be split. The woman sitting next to my partner was weeping during Esparza's finale. So, she obviously connected emotionally with it. The comments that I overheard during intermission and after the show ranged from "brilliant" to "beautifully performed; impeccable timing" to "that wasn't Company! Sondheim must be getting senile to have approved such a production". In addition, the oddest thing happened. I was sitting in the fourth row, center orchestra (great seats!) and after intermission, the entire third row (with the exception of the first two seats on the left and right aisle) didn't return for the second act. Don't know what that was all about. Anyway... I can't highly recommend it, but I wouldn't discourage anyone who's interested from seeing it either. See it and decide for yourself. At the very least, you'll be seeing a Tony-caliber star turn by Raul Esparza.

Updated On: 11/19/06 at 11:13 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 11:26am

I'll look past that you called it a gimmick because I'm really interested by the comparison to Chicago, of which I'm not a huge fan, either. I like the material itself, but the production sort of left me cold. A friend of mine was making a joke when she said this to me, but I think she's not wrong -- I think I've been sucked into the idea of needing my theater to be full of choices that serve some sort of purpose. I'm sure many cases could be made for the purpose behind stripping down and minimalizing Chicago, but I don't see one that really helps the story -- and that's how a lot of people are responding to Company, I guess.

I also wanted to add that I'm liking Barbara Walsh more and more over time.

The people around me were funny. What I have to say about some them, namely a painfully precocious "actor," isn't very nice, so I probably shouldn't post it, in case they frequent the board. :) But anyway, while I found the overall audience reaction to be the best I've seen for the show to date, individually, people were very divided. The divide I heard was mostly not about the production, but about Raul, oddly enough.

Updated On: 11/19/06 at 11:26 AM

[Luscious]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 12:37pm

Emcee... maybe "gimmick" isn't the right word. What I should have said is that maybe I'm just not a fan of the "choice" or "creative decision" to have the actors playing all of the instruments. It's just that Broadway is seeing more and more concert-like productions of shows (ironically, at higher and higher ticket prices), and now to have the actors playing all the instruments... I mean, what's next; have the actors serve as stage hands and ushers? (Although, admittedly, I wouldn't mind having Raul show me to my seat. ) I'm just not convinced that these choices don't have more to do with economics than they do with creative vision. They leave me feeling cheated. Not to mention that there's nothing like the sound of a full orchestra. As a result, I feel that the material often suffers and many of the songs/performances lose their full impact.

Updated On: 11/19/06 at 12:37 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 12:53pm

It's fine, you don't have to appease me, I was mostly kidding. Gimmick is just such a negative term, but if that's how you felt, then ok. I actually heard someone else use the concert comparison, but not for the production as a whole -- I think the person felt that every time Raul sang, it came seemed like he was just singing in a concert.

As far as finances, it's just not an economic choice anymore -- it was back when Doyle did Sweeney in the UK, so upon seeing that it worked, it turned into something that *was* employed for artistic reasons for Company. I don't expect that to change your mind or convince you not to think the material suffered or anything, but it's worth mentioning.

Updated On: 11/19/06 at 12:53 PM

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 1:57pm

I'm just not convinced that these choices don't have more to do with economics than they do with creative vision. They leave me feeling cheated. Not to mention that there's nothing like the sound of a full orchestra. As a result, I feel that the material often suffers and many of the songs/performances lose their full impact.

Emcee already addressed this, but I'd like to add something. I can certainly understand that personal taste has a lot to do with how one reacts to the theatrical conceit (not gimmick) of having actors who double as musicians. I agree with you when you say that there's nothing like the sound of a full orchestra. But scaling down the orchestrations doesn't necessarily mean the score suffers for it. I found, certainly with Sweeney Todd, but Company as well, certain nuances in the score that I hadn't noticed before. There's a more intimate, immediate feel to the music.

See, having a scaled down production of Company (or any show) in which the actors double as musicians doesn't mean that it's the only way the show should be played. I for one LIKE that you can take a source material, mess around with it, and come up with a completely new interpretation - I LIKE that this Company is darker, more intimate, imperfect in many ways. I LIKE that there's no full orchestra, because in this production, the characters would be lost with a full orchestration. There's a more immediate, intimate atmosphere created by the music, which is, I think, truly vital to Doyle's vision of the story. And, yes, thematically, it's, I truly believe, a brilliant device to have the instrumentations illustrate Bobby's isolation.

I sense, especially from the older theatregoers, a fear that this scaling down of musical theatre will become the norm. I don't think that's the case at ALL - in fact, it's the rare piece on Broadway that relies on intimacy as opposed to spectacle. There will be other revivals of Company, Sweeney Todd, etc, with full orchestrations. But isn't it refreshing to know that there's more than one way to stage a classic musical? That imagination and intimacy can still exist on the Broadway stage? Just because I so love the orchestrations on Doyle's Sweeney Todd (and am slowly but steadily falling for Company, too) doesn't mean I have less appreciation for the original. It's been said before, but bears repeating: when the source material is really good (as is Shakespeare, or Sondheim - not an altogether unfair comparison), you can have many different interpretations, some radical, others more traditional, none necessarily better than the other. And that, to me, is the beauty of theatre.

[Luscious]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 2:20pm

Well stated, BroadwayChica. And to each his own as to what one prefers. I just long to be "blown away" by a Broadway musical the way I remember being in the past. And I want my partner who, for the most part, I'm introducing to musical theatre, to be blown away by it, as well. Unfortunately, these scaled down productions don't do it for either one of us. My partner was actually getting drowsy during the second act and only perked up when Raul sat down at the piano and launched into BEING ALIVE.

Updated On: 11/19/06 at 02:20 PM

[mikem]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 3:38pm

Emcee, are they definitely getting both Equity minimum and 802 minimum? For Sweeney, I thought someone said they were just getting the higher of the two but not both.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 3:41pm

They're advertising on the radio that the CD is available from Nonesuch. Has it even been recorded?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 3:44pm

mikem, I don't know what the case was for Sweeney, and ignore what was said about Company; I had a miscommunication. Apologies!

I don't think it has yet, Yankeefan, but it will be as soon as there's time. The show JUST froze the day before yesterday. I can't imagine turnaround will be that long once they go into the studio.

Updated On: 11/19/06 at 03:44 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 10:36pm

I had posted a while ago that Raul was scheduled to be doing a BC/EFA benefit tomorrow night, and had assumed he'd be out of the show because of it (as an FYI for people set on seeing him), but it seems he's not on the most recent list for the benefit... so he will be there tomorrow.

Updated On: 11/19/06 at 10:36 PM

[gumbo2]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 11:16pm

I was actually wondering about this...I didn't see anyone listed as an understudy for Raul. What happens if he can't perform a show? Did I just not see his understudy listed in the program?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 11:17pm

Fred Rose (David) is listed as the standby for Robert in the Playbill sitting on my desk....

Updated On: 11/19/06 at 11:17 PM

[gumbo2]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 11:20pm

Yeah I just checked the program. Strange, I guess I somehow didn't see it before.

Posted: 11/20/06 at 8:08pm

I saw the 11/18 night show of Company. For the record, I feel completely underqualified to even post my thoughts, but considering I typed them up for my own sake, I figured I'd post them here as well.

We were moved from the back row of the rear mezz to the front of the rear mezz, which was actually a surprisingly great place from which to view the show. The lighting was really spectacular from that angle. All in all, I really liked it, although I do have a few fairly major nitpicks with the show as a whole. I'm not sure if those nitpicks are exclusive to this production or an inherent flaw to the show itself. I did not have a problem understanding why these married couples wanted to "hang out" with Bobby, for the lack of a better term, but I completely understand the criticisms of those who say that they don't understand why Bobby has his epiphany of sorts at the end of the show. I didn't feel as if the situations of the characters showed that the good truly outweighs the bad in marriage - that's not to even say that the good does outweigh the bad in marriage, but if Bobby is going to suddenly become overwhelmed with the urge to have a wife or a serious significant other in his life, it needs to be shown on stage. Raul Esparza clarified after the show at the stagedoor that Bobby doesn't want what he sees in the other couples, he wants something else entirely - which I suspected could be a possible interpretation, but if quite a few audience members are having the same issue with the show, simply clarifying what they're trying to get across with the show isn't enough. My other main problem with the show was I simply don't understand why the performers were playing their instruments on stage. I get that it's Doyle's trademark, but... why? I suppose I didn't question it so much with Sweeney Todd either because it was the first time I was seeing the concept in action and/or because it was more seamlessly integrated with the show, but either way, I can put my questioning aside in order to enjoy the show and the concept in spite of the fact that there is no apparent reason for it other than it looks neat. While the actors-as-musicans concept might create a more intimate atmosphere, I think that atmosphere is countered by a detachment that one feels from feeling slightly distracted by the performers carrying their instruments around the stage.

The standouts of the cast, to me, were Raul Esparza, Barbara Walsh, Angel Desai, and to a lesser extent, Heather Laws. This is going to be complete blasphemy, but I felt as if Walsh and Desai stole the show away from Raul until "Being Alive" - which perhaps is the point. Walsh has obviously had a lot of critics, but I was absolutely blown away by her performance of "The Ladies Who Lunch." My only minor complaint was that I felt she seemed quite a bit more drunk right before the song and lost that immediately when she started to sing, but I'm not sure if that can be avoided. It's quite possible that part of the reason why I enjoyed her performance so much is that I'm a complete Company newbie, so I didn't find myself comparing her to Stritch. Esparza's "Being Alive" was obviously every bit as amazing as everyone has said, although I found that I was hit so hard by "The Ladies Who Lunch" that I'm not sure I reveled in Raul's performance to the extent that I could have.

Desai was just a ball full of energy on the stage. I felt as if she was one of the few performers who really drew you in rather than presented themselves with an air of coldness. I loved her rendition of "Another Hundred People" - how could you not be into the song when someone that energetic sings it? As for Esparza - what is there to be said that hasn't been said? He was brilliant - and yes, left me completely cold, but I truly do think that is a very valid interpretation of Bobby's character. I had no problem accepting that as an acting choice on his part, especially given that he is such a brilliant actor.

I feel as if I nitpicked more than I wanted to, but that seems so natural considering it's so much easier to narrow down one's complaints rather than to list every positive aspect of the show. For what it's worth, the complaints I mentioned above are the only real complaints I have with the show, and I was still able to enjoy the show in spite of them. The good by far outweighs the bad, and I'd definitely recommend to see this production at least once. Love it or hate it, one thing this production certainly is not is boring.
Updated On: 11/20/06 at 08:08 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/20/06 at 8:55pm

I hesitate to think it's so much an issue of saying that the audience shouldn't need to get clarification from the actor about what's going on in order to figure things out. They shouldn't if it's good theater, but that's not the issue here -- because I don't see the necessity for getting clarification being prominent at all. When I brought up the subject to Raul, it wasn't a matter of wanting to know what the intent was, because to me, it's pretty clear that what's coming across is some element of Bobby searching for something different. The way we see the couples is a reflection of how these past events are in his head, and quite possibly not the way they really are. What I was really questioning was whether it was something that just naturally came across, or if it was really in his head as THE motivation behind Bobby's epiphany -- whether it was just inherent in the spirit of the production and Doyle's interpretation, or if it was set out to be that way. In order not to tangle anything up, because you never know who's reading, I don't want to hedge into possibly misinterpreting him, but from his explanation, I got that the epiphany comes from several of different places -- wanting to get away from all of the things he sees in his friends that have KEPT him from getting married all of these years not being at the bottom of that list. I think the fact that people are having issues with it isn't his fault or Doyle's fault, but some block on the audience end. The idea isn't particularly unclear.

And as for WHY the actors play their instruments, I don't get in anybody's case why it's less obvious here than it was in Sweeney, but I repeat myself again, so whatever. I just don't get how you can say all it does is look neat, but it is all a matter of opinion.

I know you liked it and I'm glad that you did, so I'm not attacking you for not liking it and I don't want you to think I am. I'm not mad at you for what you think. I just wanted to point out that I think you misinterpreted some stuff I know we talked about after the show.

Updated On: 11/20/06 at 08:55 PM

Posted: 11/20/06 at 9:04pm

It's not a matter of me not "getting" something - if quite a few people feel a certain way about a show, there probably is some validity to the opinion. Personally, I feel that to make the show fully complete, they either need to show that Bobby wants something different than what he sees or present the couples in a more positive manner, so he wants what he sees. It's great that you feel it's pretty clear, but I'm obviously far from the only one who found this to be a flaw in the production. I enjoyed the show as a whole, but yes, I took issue with this. I thought it was unclear. You didn't. Can't we just leave it at that? Why argue over something that you (and others) happened to understand, but I (and others) didn't?

And yes, I felt it was unclear as to why the actors were playing their own instruments. Again, perhaps you feel the reason is crystal clear. I don't, and again, I'm not the only one who has felt this way. As I said, perhaps I didn't question the concept so much with Sweeney because it was the first time I saw the concept in action, but after seeing it a second time, I began to wonder about it a bit more, along with the fact that the concept seemed to stand out a bit more in Company.

ETA: I just saw your edits. I still feel that the show is flawed in the respect that one (or some, I should say) is left feeling confused as to what he truly wants at the end of the show. I get that you feel it's clear. Trust me, I get that. I simply didn't feel it was, at least after viewing it for the first time, and I think I should be allowed to express that feeling without you saying that I misinterpreted the show or a comment or whatever the case may be. Updated On: 11/20/06 at 09:04 PM

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 11/20/06 at 9:10pm

Part of why I love the actor-musicians so much here is that it's a musical by definition. It's Company, and there's no way to get rid of the songs, and nor should we because they are brilliant. What better way to heighten the tension between Bobby and his ever-present friends then to have them serve not only as the other players, but also as the accopinament? It heightens their presence in his mind. The sounds become distinct and associated with certain friends, and you can hear THEM in the accompinament now, not just the music itself.

Posted: 11/20/06 at 9:18pm

That's definitely a very valid point. I felt as if the tension already existed between Bobby and his friends to the extent where it really didn't need to be heightened by the actors playing their own instruments (and really, I don't know how much it truly did heighten the tension in my own mind), and it was blatantly obvious that Bobby was an outsider. I can't say it's something that stood out to me during the show, but it's an interesting explanation. I noticed that the others were playing instruments while Bobby wasn't - obviously - but I personally didn't feel that it accomplished anything that wasn't already apparent. However, as I said, I was left confused as to why they were playing their own instruments, not vehemently opposed to the concept itself, and I'll definitely keep that in mind. Updated On: 11/20/06 at 09:18 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/20/06 at 9:26pm

Well, I don't know. I think I can be faulted for trying to make excuses for the show in trying to figure out what's intended and what's not, but... I don't think it's *supposed* to be clear-cut. That's not real. I think it's so emotionally driven because he's very torn, which he wouldn't be if there weren't some combination of "well, I want what they have" AND "this sucks, I want something better." I think there's a big exploration of depth in not going full-out one way or the other. It's obviously not good if it's confusing, but I think a lot would be lost if it were too clear. Bobby's confused, and he's doing something that he knows is scary -- but he's doing it anyway. Raul also said something about Doyle's attempts to make these characters more real. That fits. That's all I'm saying about it; it's not a contest of understandings.

And again, in order to make it look less like I'm making this a battle of wits in who "gets" what, I think it's the point that the concept doesn't "blend in" the way it did in Sweeney; it's all about the really heavy symbolism of the group sensibility. I think in general I've just been expressing frustration that the point is... backfiring, almost, for a lot of people. Does that make sense?

Aspiringactress' post is interesting, because it made me think -- what if you went halfway, or sorts, and just did a minimalist, very symbolic production of the show? I don't know if it would work; I think all of the things you "get" from this almost NEED the extremely heavy-handed symbolism that comes from the instrumentation. I don't know that the minimalism could stand alone -- the things that are apparent may very well be so *because* of them.

I'm not trying to drill into you that *I* get that it's clear. Anybody can figure that out; I'm trying to say why, because you're confused. I did not say that you misinterpreted the show, but my own comments being misinterpreted is a legitimate concern that I'm allowed to express and correct.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 11/20/06 at 9:35pm

I think that because Bobby's character is so ambivalent in the sense that you were describing about what he wants, it helps to have the very symbolic constant in the orchestra and chorus of friends. I think that Bobby's ambivalence, combined with what we know to be the precision associated with the music snaps the entire show into focus.

Sorry, I've been writing an essay on Middle English, and it seems I can no longer speak coherently in Modern English.

Posted: 11/20/06 at 10:02pm

Well, I don't know. I think I can be faulted for trying to make excuses for the show in trying to figure out what's intended and what's not, but... I don't think it's *supposed* to be clear-cut.

And... I do. Not necessarily clear-cut, but more so than it currently is. I don't know what to tell you other than that. It's an aspect of the production with which I did not agree, while you obviously do. What more is there to say?

it's all about the really heavy symbolism of the group sensibility.

Again, I get that, but I felt as if it wasn't really necessary. I'm not disagreeing with the concept and I didn't even necessarily dislike it by any means, I just didn't understand the need for it. I was questioning the concept, not necessarily criticizing it.

I realize that you're trying to inform me as to why you find it clear and I don't, but... I get why you find it clear, and I still don't find show show itself clear in a couple of areas if I don't attach your explanations to them.
Updated On: 11/20/06 at 10:02 PM