466 posts
|
Post by Deal J on Nov 28, 2016 22:26:01 GMT
I've listened to multiple recordings this weekend and I'm fascinated to know what will stay and how it's going to be adapted I may read the script tonight #theatrenerd Have I got a girl will it remain, perhaps sung to the audience - Symbolising the male dominated world Bobbie lives in According to the DM article that HG posted, it will turn into 'Have I Got A Guy For You'! Girl! To be in your slingbacks, what I wouldn't give!
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Nov 28, 2016 22:40:23 GMT
A terrible confession about Company. I was once dating a gent in new Zealand, and one night I met him after he had had a lesson in his 'Singing Sondheim' course, and that night they had learnt Being Alive. I looked forward to a healthy discussion about the complexities of the song. What had the teacher said about it, how had she interpreted this masterpiece, I asked hopefully. Nothing, and he had learnt the notes without once questioning what the song was about, singing it as a lyrical, bland love song. I'm afraid that was the end of any potential romance. Terrible and shallow I know, but not to question or ponder the meaning of the song, well, there we go. a what a lousy teacher to teach no sense of character or performance. Any one else got any suitably shameful confessions.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Nov 29, 2016 0:41:28 GMT
I'd probably pay to hear Rosalie Craig sing pages from the phone book so I'm just happy she's going to be back on stage before long! Such a lovely voice. I remember hearing her sing Love Is Like An Aubergine years ago (no, really) and she even made that sound grand.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Nov 29, 2016 9:22:58 GMT
Sondheim has throughout his career resisted strongly folk meddling with his work. So I don't understand him granting permission for this honestly. It will completely change the dynamic of the piece to the point it is completely different. He either was persuaded or more likely thought "oh I just cant be bothered any more - whatever!"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 10:02:43 GMT
They wanted to do a gay version with Daniel Evans and Alan Cumming as Joanne but this sounds more exciting! Things I didn't know I needed until now.
I'm intrigued by this, I trust Elliot's directing and judgement enough to shelve any reservations until I actually see it. Though I'd be in favour of a less heteronormative mixing it up too (and perhaps a twist on the ending too)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 10:26:39 GMT
Also, as someone who only today has been ranting about married friends shunning us single ones I think themes of the show whether male or female remain relevant. Either that or I just have arsehole married friends...
|
|
3,737 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Nov 29, 2016 19:04:27 GMT
What about You Could Drive a Person Crazy? Will it be three guys?
Or Barcelona?
Company was the first professional musical I ever saw in 1987 The school took up to see it at the Sydney Opera House as a break from out Higher School Certificate (HSC). This is your equivalent go the GCSCs.
Simon Burke was Bobby.
No too sure how I feel about this production. I can't seem to get past the 90'sDonmar Warehouse production with Adrian Lester, Sheila Gish and Sophie Thompson.
|
|
364 posts
|
Post by dazzerlump on Nov 29, 2016 19:07:54 GMT
its going to need a fair few rewrites, unless Bobbie is bisexual and just wants someone to love of any gender, which I imagine is the way they will go with this
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 8:43:19 GMT
This article in The Atlantic was interesting I thought. www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/11/company-sondheim-sexual-politics/508895/I keep thinking about this production, and for me, as a woman who will be about Bobby's age when it comes to the stage, I think it's bang on. It's not so much about stigma of *not* being married it's about not being bothered about being married. Bobby's ambivalence as much of his lack of marriage is what bothers his friends most, and transpose that to a woman and BANG HOW VERY DARE YOU WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU WOMAN. The reaction to a woman who really wants to get married versus one who isn't bothered are very different, and Bobby being perfectly happy as he/she is for me makes this a really interesting flip in terms of how society reacts now in 2016. Because while it's ok for a woman not to have someone it's not ok not to want someone.
|
|
617 posts
|
Company
Feb 13, 2017 7:36:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by loureviews on Feb 13, 2017 7:36:38 GMT
It's gone a bit quiet on this one. Is it going to happen or not?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2017 8:34:31 GMT
It's gone a bit quiet on this one. Is it going to happen or not? Isn't it slated for either late this year or next year some time? after Marianne Elliot leaves the NT? and (I might be wrong) wasn't this down as the second production from her new company?
|
|
4,588 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Feb 13, 2017 12:31:07 GMT
SJS is working on this but also his new show. 3 rd workshop for new piece is due in spring and then hopefully opening autumn / winter at the Public Theatre
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 13, 2017 14:14:04 GMT
This article in The Atlantic was interesting I thought. www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/11/company-sondheim-sexual-politics/508895/I keep thinking about this production, and for me, as a woman who will be about Bobby's age when it comes to the stage, I think it's bang on. It's not so much about stigma of *not* being married it's about not being bothered about being married. Bobby's ambivalence as much of his lack of marriage is what bothers his friends most, and transpose that to a woman and BANG HOW VERY DARE YOU WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU WOMAN. The reaction to a woman who really wants to get married versus one who isn't bothered are very different, and Bobby being perfectly happy as he/she is for me makes this a really interesting flip in terms of how society reacts now in 2016. Because while it's ok for a woman not to have someone it's not ok not to want someone.
Is marriage an issue at all any more? Company presupposes a world in which a committed relationship = marriage and not simply moving in with someone. Obviously, that's not the world we live in. So any attempt to have it reflect contemporary life will flounder on the marriage thing, however it's genderized. It's not a problem when the show is played as written because we accept the social parameters of the period. But when we try to update it or make it more relevant, all the issues arising from the solemnification of a relationship through marriage suddenly have to be dealt with.
Where, in this case, is the conflict? Why doesn't Bobby or, rather, Bobbi just shack up with some guy? The biological clock thing doesn't require marriage. Nothing does. So why, now, give yourself the task of making a big deal of something which is not the big deal it once was?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2017 14:31:45 GMT
ooh mallardo drag up something I wrote months ago and expect me to remember it! haha I think there IS still pressure to marry, particularly on girls. Even ones I know who live with long term partners get pressure to 'make it official' or asked why they don't want 'their special day'. It's obviously not in the same manner as it was in the 70s, but it's there. Also depending on background/community/class/religion delete or increase these pressures as appropriate. And I think it translates even without the actual 'marriage' bit- simply the pressure to 'find yourself a man' which IS still levied at women. I think I said up thread it's more actually Bobby/Bobbi's indifference that would drive married women/men mad-people who have the coupling drive just cannot fathom someone like Bobby (or me haha) who just are indifferent about being a part of a couple (married or no).
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 13, 2017 14:39:12 GMT
I agree with what you say, Emi - and I agreed with your comments in November. I understand the pressure to couple. But my point is that Company is specifically about marriage. Perhaps that will change in the rewrite to just "finding a man"? If it's to work and be as contemporary as they're suggesting I think it will need to.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2017 14:48:08 GMT
I agree with what you say, Emi - and I agreed with your comments in November. I understand the pressure to couple. But my point is that Company is specifically about marriage. Perhaps that will change in the rewrite to just "finding a man"? If it's to work and be as contemporary as they're suggesting I think it will need to. Ah I see...and yes I agree no reason they can't just change it to that, if Sondheim is agreeing to gender changing/updating no reason there can't be a few tweaks to content as well to 'update' that reference.
I still don't think that there's a total absence of pressure to marry- if for different reasons today (mainly seeming to be making friends spend ridiculous amounts of money on your hen/stag/wedding weekend- because it's never a day any more...anyway that's a different musical)
|
|
4,588 posts
|
Company
Feb 13, 2017 15:13:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by Someone in a tree on Feb 13, 2017 15:13:29 GMT
Great debate going
To me, you need to remove the word Marriage from the script (or mostly remove it) and replace it with Relationships - lots of folk are scared of settling down. Then would Company be upto date?! ... Or that or therabouts ...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2017 15:19:30 GMT
Yup I do agree that would make it feel much more contemporary. Not that there's anything wrong with staging it as a nostalgia piece either, but I also like the idea of updating it. Because the people still feel real, if a bit out of sync at times.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Feb 13, 2017 15:23:26 GMT
I hope there are lots of Mallardonistas who boycott it because they deny its contemporaneity. Then the rest of us will find it much easier to get better tickets.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 13, 2017 15:24:37 GMT
Great debate going To me, you need to remove the word Marriage from the script (or mostly remove it) and replace it with Relationships - lots of folk are scared of settling down. Then would Company be upto date?! ... Or that or therabouts ...
Then what would you do about all the married couples wanting Bobby/Bobbi to be just like them? A marriage is more of a commitment than a relationship. Bobby/Bobbi's separation from the others, his/her outsider status, is not as complete if they're all just "in relationships" and, I think, the show would suffer. Obviously, I'm raising an issue I don't have an answer to.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2017 15:24:54 GMT
I hope there are lots of Mallardonistas who boycott it because they deny its contemporaneity. Then the rest of us will find it much easier to get better tickets. I'm mainly enjoying the term Mallardonistas...and envisioning a flurry of feather boas for some reason.
Also now I have 'Bobby, Bobby Boooobbbbby' stuck on a loop in my head argh!
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 13, 2017 15:25:56 GMT
I hope there are lots of Mallardonistas who boycott it because they deny its contemporaneity. Then the rest of us will find it much easier to get better tickets. Boycott it? I wouldn't miss it. I wouldn't raise these issues if I didn't find them fascinating.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Kenneth_C on Feb 13, 2017 20:00:59 GMT
Very interesting to read the debate. FWIW, I'm with mallardo on this one.
Even without the gender-swapping, I find the whole idea of a "contemporary" Company to be extremely problematic. I saw a local L.A. production a couple years ago which was well-sung and -acted, but which transported the action to the present day (Bobby played Xbox, used a cellphone, etc.). It just didn't work. And it wasn't only due to the "marriage" issue.
Company comes from a time when you got busy signals, when people had answering services -- staffed by real people! -- to take and deliver messages. It was a time when smoking marijuana was still slightly scandalous, and zombies were cold, dead things and not flesh-chomping corpses. A time of "Scrabble on Sundays", the Kama Sutra, Sazarac Slings, and Vodka Stingers. (Thank goodness Boeing still makes jets or they'd really be in trouble.)
These cultural references woven into the piece -- but the problem goes both ways. How do you have a "contemporary" show about modern relationships without reference to cellphones, texting, social media? Nowadays, your friends wouldn't sing "Have I Got a Girl for You"; they'd just make sure you had the appropriate apps on your iPhone.
And they meet through Tinder and the Facebook friends Who they never know. Will you pick me up, or do I Uber there, Or shall we let it go? Did you get my voicemail 'cause I looked in vain? Can we check on Google Tuesday if it's gonna rain? Look, I'll text you in the morning or my Twitter will explain. And another thousand people just got off of the train...
I think there's still a lot of value to be found in Company but would much rather see a production that embraces its era rather than try to deny it.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Feb 13, 2017 22:12:13 GMT
Is it significant that Kenneth_C and mallardo are both of that era themselves? Maybe younger people will embrace a reimagined Company which makes the essential issues contemporary, and have less interest in exact replication of the original answering machines, etc., etc.?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 22:42:11 GMT
Fab news, Drew is amazing!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Apr 21, 2017 8:22:10 GMT
Very interesting to read the debate. FWIW, I'm with mallardo on this one. Even without the gender-swapping, I find the whole idea of a "contemporary" Company to be extremely problematic. I saw a local L.A. production a couple years ago which was well-sung and -acted, but which transported the action to the present day (Bobby played Xbox, used a cellphone, etc.). It just didn't work. And it wasn't only due to the "marriage" issue. Company comes from a time when you got busy signals, when people had answering services -- staffed by real people! -- to take and deliver messages. It was a time when smoking marijuana was still slightly scandalous, and zombies were cold, dead things and not flesh-chomping corpses. A time of "Scrabble on Sundays", the Kama Sutra, Sazarac Slings, and Vodka Stingers. (Thank goodness Boeing still makes jets or they'd really be in trouble.) These cultural references woven into the piece -- but the problem goes both ways. How do you have a "contemporary" show about modern relationships without reference to cellphones, texting, social media? Nowadays, your friends wouldn't sing "Have I Got a Girl for You"; they'd just make sure you had the appropriate apps on your iPhone. And they meet through Tinder and the Facebook friends Who they never know. Will you pick me up, or do I Uber there, Or shall we let it go? Did you get my voicemail 'cause I looked in vain? Can we check on Google Tuesday if it's gonna rain? Look, I'll text you in the morning or my Twitter will explain. And another thousand people just got off of the train...I think there's still a lot of value to be found in Company but would much rather see a production that embraces its era rather than try to deny it. I saw the Donmar production, the Radio 2 version at Hackney Empire and have a soundtrack. The music seems to be more disco/rocky (if such a hybrid exists) than some of his other scores. Defiintely less ‘showtuney’. So if it’s not to become just a period piece then it too will have to be ‘reimagined’. It’s amongst my favourite shows so I hope they can pull it off.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Apr 21, 2017 8:47:17 GMT
It still works as a period piece. I'm young and I don't even make phone calls. Also most of my friends aren't married nor are we rushing to, some prefer to be single and have lots of dates and one night stands.
I didn't understand half the references in Ladies who Lunch. Also alcoholism isn't cool any more, most of the kind of class portrayed in Company are probably on party drugs and cocaine.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 12:03:16 GMT
It's going to the Gielgud, I gather.
|
|
67 posts
|
Post by orchestrator on Apr 22, 2017 21:45:10 GMT
It still works as a period piece. I'm young and I don't even make phone calls. Also most of my friends aren't married nor are we rushing to, some prefer to be single and have lots of dates and one night stands. I didn't understand half the references in Ladies who Lunch. Also alcoholism isn't cool any more, most of the kind of class portrayed in Company are probably on party drugs and cocaine. I seem to remember Adrian Lester’s Robert snorting the white stuff in the Donmar production 20 years ago. My feeling is that unless you’re going to change the lyrics (my service will explain, vodka stinger, Mahjong, Sazerac Slings), change the attitudes to gays, and rewrite the opening “phone tone” guitar riff you’re better off setting it in 1970 than any other time.
|
|
2,805 posts
|
Company
Jul 20, 2017 14:53:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by couldileaveyou on Jul 20, 2017 14:53:19 GMT
|
|