Company

[latefortheoverture]

Will give my full thoughts in the morning, but bloody hell this was amazing. The score is beautiful, the staging was the highlight- especially the crowded kitchen in not getting married!!! I had tears at that point!

Another thing to add is that I spoke to Sara Bareilles in the bar at the interval, we touched upon waitress; and then she said, pointing the women surrounding her, that she was with the whole creative team watching it tonight! Makes me wonder, could Rosalie be a fit for Jenna..... I could certainly see it.

Also saw Robbie Fairchild and got told to f*** off in other words by Anna Wintour and her sunglasses at the interval!

GIVE ME THE CAST RECORDING!

[72arodney]

Oct 25, 2018 16:35:12 GMT ali973 said:

Oct 25, 2018 9:45:03 GMT @ryan said:

As long as it's not one of those crappy live cast recordings. I hate those.

I agree with this. I like a good live cast recording, but the recent live recordings from London have been embarrassing and abhorrent. If you want to do live, do it like these fabulous Vienna cast recordings from the '90s and early 2000's like Elisabeth or Rebecca. Legally Blonde, Kinky Boots, Grinning Man, Everybody's Talking Jamie, while I'm happy they were recorded, I don't understand how they were allowed to go public sounding like this. 

The Bend It Like Beckham cast recording was done live and that was excellent.

[ali973]

You're right, it doesn't sound bad. I'm not against live recordings in principle, so long as they're good. The audience applause doesn't bother me either. But it's these blatant imperfections that some of the recent ones had are a bit too sloppy for me.

[Deleted]

Oct 26, 2018 10:38:48 GMT ali973 said:

You're right, it doesn't sound bad. I'm not against live recordings in principle, so long as they're good. The audience applause doesn't bother me either. But it's these blatant imperfections that some of the recent ones had are a bit too sloppy for me.

The Kinky Boots one was an absolute DISGRACE. How on earth can you have audience COUGHING make it through to a cast recording? Beggars belief. 

However the Miss Saigon, Les Mis tour and Sixpence ones were excellent (see what they've got in common ;-))

So basically don't think it makes much difference studio vs live. The difference is in the care, time and effort (and to an extent cash) in producing it.

Anyway, I am happy this is being recorded. Compared to Broadway we have a very poor record (pun intended) in cast recordings with so many shows disappearing never preserved for posterity. Which is a shame.

[Deleted]

I missed that last night! exciting stuff. Other than of course preserving Miss Patti in all her glory, it is worth preserving this landmark version of it for the history books after all.

[AddisonMizner]

This was an absolute REVELATION this afternoon! I am absolutely blown away and in awe of what I have witnessed.

The direction is GENIUS! I saw the Sheffield production a few years ago with a “normal” male Bobby, and enjoyed it a lot, but couldn’t believe what a great fit a female Bobbie was in this production. If you didn’t know any differently, the piece could have been written this way, and actually in my opinion works better than the “original”. It could have been gimmicky and cloying, but was none of these things in Marianne Elliott’s capable hands. I have seen her CURIOUS INCIDENT and WAR HORSE, but this is her best work by far. The piece really comes alive in such a way that it is like seeing a new show. The interactions between the couples and Bobbie take on a much deeper meaning, with the female partners being almost threatened by her at times. It also packs a bigger emotional punch. As a single male, who has never been in a relationship, and nearing his thirties, this show has always hit close to home. I can identify with the central character, seen as being somewhat odd for not being in a couple. Whilst I am not a woman, and my biological clock is not ticking, the things I identify with are still there, and are brought vividly and refreshingly to the fore in this production.

This is also perhaps the funniest version of COMPANY I have ever seen. It was HILARIOUS! This was probably helped by how snappy and energetic the line delivery was. COMPANY is a long show, but it did not feel it, with the time absolutely flying by. So entertaining!

I also loved the abstract nature of the production, and the symbolism peppered throughout - how Bobbie was often stuck in her little flat looking at the couples outside, physically reflecting what was happening in the story, how she would sometimes use a key to unlock doors, portraying characters lines that she was “opening doors that had remained locked for a longtime”. The constant of the number 35 in different guises as a touchstone throughout the production, was a master stroke. The ticking motif was a nice touch, and the dream sequence, where Bobbie sees what life could be like in a relationship adding further weight to an already stellar production.

The cast were uniformly excellent. I have to say I am a little bit in love with Rosalie Craig as Bobbie. I could have kept watching her and watching her. Jonathan Bailey was hilarious as Jamie. A real stand-out, and threatening to steal the show in “Not Getting Married Today”. I thought there was going to be a mid show standing ovation. It was also nice to finally see Patti LuPone in a show.

I needn’t say more. One of the best things I have seen this year, and am likely to see. This is why I love the theatre, and keep going back, and for me this is what all theatre should be. A COMPANY for the ages. JUST GO!

5 stars.

[Scswp]

Was there this afternoon too.
Loved it.
Thought it was so well directed and moved between comedy and poignancy very smoothly.
Great cast all-round and the audience received it very enthusiastically.

[andrew]

Oh em gee I was at the Sat Mat too! I'm just embarrassed I couldn't get myself to Company until yesterday, I feel like I've missed the main thrust of the Company chat. I'm pleased that I've now been within spitting distance of the Grand High Priestess Lupone, even if she did fluff one of her lines...

[Scswp]

Oct 28, 2018 8:49:25 GMT andrew said:

Oh em gee I was at the Sat Mat too! I'm just embarrassed I couldn't get myself to Company until yesterday, I feel like I've missed the main thrust of the Company chat. I'm pleased that I've now been within spitting distance of the Grand High Priestess Lupone, even if she did fluff one of her lines...

Which line did she fluff? What should she have said?

And where were you sitting? I was row c of dress circle? Were you the guy sitting next to me?

[jgblunners]

Oct 28, 2018 8:49:25 GMT andrew said:

I'm pleased that I've now been within spitting distance of the Grand High Priestess Lupone, even if she did fluff one of her lines...

All performers mess up every now and again, you didn't have to spit on her for it 😉

[dontdreamit]

We were in last night, and loved it. The view from the box was excellent and such a bargain for the price!

[freckles]

Popular day yesterday, I was at the matinee too!
I loved it. Went with trepidation, as I often struggle to enjoy Sondheim, but the production and the cast sounded interesting and I thought I should see it.
I was delighted at how funny it was, they really got an awful lot of humour out of everything - not the serious, reflective piece (with a couple of lighthearted intervals) that I was dreading at all!
Clever staging too, worked on both physical and metaphorical levels, and was a joy to look at.
Re-invented just enough, and improved, in my opinion.

[squidward]

Whoever is handling the publicity for this has done something very strange. A lead quote I saw on one of the posters said ‘The funniest musical I have ever seen’ ( I think it was a quote from The I review).

To my mind that’s extremely misleading. Yes, there is social satire in the show and the oft mentioned ‘Not Getting Married’ number, but I certainly wouldn’t describe it as a comedy.

I think anyone who hasn’t seen the show before and goes thinking they’re going to see something akin to ‘The Book of Mormon ( or even ‘The Man in the Iron Mask’) are going to be extremely disappointed/confused.

[alece10]

Isn't it advertised as a musical comedy?

[graham]

Sounds like the whole board was in yesterday afternoon! We were at the end of row F downstairs (lost anything that happened in the left hand part of the set! Think it was mostly toilet stuff!!)

[sf]

Oct 28, 2018 12:03:10 GMT alece10 said:

Isn't it advertised as a musical comedy?

Yes it is - and that's not new. The poster for the original Broadway production way back in 1970 advertised it as 'a musical comedy'.

[sf]

Oct 28, 2018 13:40:01 GMT @emicardiff said:

I would say the marketing as a comedy is pretty on board with both the original material and this direction. Indeed most people familar with it have commented on just how funny this version is. And after all the best comedies are in fact the ones that also rip your heart out at the same time.

This production certainly emphasises the comedy, and goes for laughs more than some previous revivals have done. It's always been a comedy, but it's sometimes been a much darker comedy than it is here. Jonathan Munby's revival in Sheffield a few years ago, for example - Daniel Evans's Robert was far more in crisis than Rosalie Craig's Bobbie, and it was very clear from what happened in the spaces between the scenes that he spent so much time with his friends because he was very uneasy indeed about being alone, that he used his friends as a distraction from having to confront his loneliness, and that he was probably on the edge of some kind of nervous breakdown. There were still laughs, it was still a comedy, but that production took on a very different tone than this one does.

There are some legitimate criticisms you can level at George Furth's book, but it says a lot for his writing that the material can support either interpretation.

[sf]

Oct 28, 2018 14:37:45 GMT @emicardiff said:

In fact as much as it's a hanging offence in some circles, that's what I dislike about the Doyle version- it eliminates much of the comedy and one could argue takes itself a bit too seriously. As in life it's the light that makes the dark dark and vice versa, so for me the more comic takes are more powerful.

For me too. I loathed the Doyle production on DVD with a purple passion, and particularly loathed Raul Esparza's blank, humourless performance in it.

[Deleted]

I'm back next weekend. It's just too good to not do so. 😂

[Deleted]

Oct 28, 2018 14:41:04 GMT sf said:

Oct 28, 2018 14:37:45 GMT @emicardiff said:

In fact as much as it's a hanging offence in some circles, that's what I dislike about the Doyle version- it eliminates much of the comedy and one could argue takes itself a bit too seriously. As in life it's the light that makes the dark dark and vice versa, so for me the more comic takes are more powerful.

For me too. I loathed the Doyle production on DVD with a purple passion, and particularly loathed Raul Esparza's blank, humourless performance in it.

Oh lordy you have NO idea how happy that makes me to hear. 

[princeton]

Me three....

I'm usually a Raul Esparza fan - but my lord was that entire production so humourless, earnest and hugely overwrought. Even the costumes, set (what there was) and lighting were dark. It played better in the theatre than the DVD but still the comedy was almost entirely missing - even Barcelona and Getting Married Today raised a smile rather than a belly laugh. I'm so glad I was in my 40s when I saw it - if I'd seen it a decade earlier - the future would have seemed very bleak.

The Sheffield production, which I loved - in fact probably my favourite of the 10 or so i've seen, was definitely darker than the current incarnation - but still lived up to its musical comedy billing.

Given that it was originally written as a series of brief one act comedies - I think the Marianne Elliott version (for surely that's how it must be known) really balances those laugh out loud moments with deep pathos and truth. And I love how some of the big emotional moments are actually underplayed and ambiguous. No such subtlety in the Doyle version.

[Deleted]

I was there last night. What an absolute treat.

Sat in the 4th row of the stalls so had the perfect view.

[Someone in a tree]

Oct 28, 2018 14:41:04 GMT sf said:

Oct 28, 2018 14:37:45 GMT @emicardiff said:

In fact as much as it's a hanging offence in some circles, that's what I dislike about the Doyle version- it eliminates much of the comedy and one could argue takes itself a bit too seriously. As in life it's the light that makes the dark dark and vice versa, so for me the more comic takes are more powerful.

For me too. I loathed the Doyle production on DVD with a purple passion, and particularly loathed Raul Esparza's blank, humourless performance in it.

It was great live, very funny and moving but it comes accross terribly on film

[squidward]

Oct 28, 2018 13:32:29 GMT sf said:

Oct 28, 2018 12:03:10 GMT alece10 said:

Isn't it advertised as a musical comedy?

Yes it is - and that's not new. The poster for the original Broadway production way back in 1970 advertised it as 'a musical comedy'.

[squidward]

Oct 29, 2018 1:44:12 GMT squidward said:

Oct 28, 2018 13:32:29 GMT sf said:

Yes it is - and that's not new. The poster for the original Broadway production way back in 1970 advertised it as 'a musical comedy'.