|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 14:07:34 GMT
Meanwhile those who utterly must see a good looking white man sing Being Alive and only a good looking White Man. I suggest you trot to Aberdeen where you can see just that (and marvelous I'm sure it/he is) www.aberdeenperformingarts.com/events/companyWell hel- lo. One ticket to Aberdeen please. Two tickets back. Scotland?? What the what? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 14:08:39 GMT
Meanwhile those who utterly must see a good looking white man sing Being Alive and only a good looking White Man. I suggest you trot to Aberdeen where you can see just that (and marvelous I'm sure it/he is) www.aberdeenperformingarts.com/events/companyWell hel- lo. One ticket to Aberdeen please. Two tickets back. Scotland?? What the what? I mean if Scotland were closer I'd be round yours with the car and we could speed up there to kidnap, I mean view the lovely majestic musical performance. |
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 2, 2018 14:09:47 GMT
Because it's theatre and part of the artform to play around with form and content. Also it's 2018, and we can thankfully entertain the notion that women go through the same experience as men (if not more so) regarding relationships. Ah, emicardiff, I seriously disagree with both of those statements. Who says it's part of theatre to play around with form and content? "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" is my motto. As regards the second statement, if somebody wants to express those sentiments in a musical then I suggest they should write a new one and leave 'Company' alone! You don't have to go and see it. If it bothers you, just stick to the original cast recording. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 2, 2018 15:08:12 GMT
A lot of this debate comes down to whether you view the writer(s) as owning a piece of theatre or the director.
Any piece is almost inevitably a product of the time in which it was created. And so it inevitably reflects, at least in part, the attitudes and understandings of that time.
Some pieces can be reinterpreted without alterations to the original script and still work just fine. Others don't work without adaptation.
One example that springs to mind is a production of Pinter's Betrayal which gave the piece a contemporary setting. Sadly, the modern setting did not work out how to address the shifts in society's reaction to domestic violence over the past decades and thus the action felt out of context.
To my mind, it comes down to whether the adaptation respects the original script or whether the reinterpretation just uses the original as the basis for telling a different story or examining other issues.
Clearly Sondheim has given his blessing to this production. But that is not the case in every example we can cite.
Changing a musical can mean altering harmonies and pitches to suit the new casting choices. And whilst shifting by a semitone or two has been commonplace in musical history, wholesale rearranging is a more modern phenomenon.
There are cases where radical new productions can be said to have hijacked an existing piece and changed it beyond recognition just to use the title and the popularity associated with the original. That can make me uncomfortable.
I think there has to be a certain respect for the original otherwise it risks being a cynical exploitation of a script/score rather than something more artistically valid.
I don't believe that this Company falls into the cynical category but I do retain the right to be sceptical until it becomes clearer as to how this versions deals with the complicated web of relationships at the heart of the piece.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Feb 2, 2018 15:16:38 GMT
Honest truth? while I'm digging a hole. The one time I saw Patti live I really, really didn't get it. I found Gypsy with her incredibly dull.... Sometimes she's great, sometimes she's dreadful. On the Broadway cast album of Evita, she appears to be suffering from some kind of allergy to consonants. I saw her twice in Sunset Boulevard - once about three months into her run, and then later in the last couple of weeks of her contract after The Unpleasantness. She was much better the second time - there was a go-for-broke quality to her performance that hadn't been there earlier. I liked her in Master Class, although it's a shoddy, lazy excuse for a play, and she was very good indeed in Mamet's The Old Neighborhood on Broadway (I'm not much of a fan of LuPone and I actively dislike Mamet, but I didn't buy the tickets). Her singing, though, is often problematic - she doesn't interpret lyrics so much as steamroller them into submission, and her diction is appalling - and her pretentiously-titled memoir is so astonishingly self-regarding that it makes Kathleen Turner's seem blandly meek in comparison. And having said all that, on the Company DVD she is on her best behaviour, and she's quite good, so I have reasonably high hopes for her in this. I loathe her performance on her recording of Gypsy with a purple passion - all of it, but particularly the bit at the end of Rose's Turn where she chooses for some reason to make a noise like a malfunctioning Dyson instead of singing the final note. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 15:17:38 GMT
oxfordsimon I agree with you- it's 100% acceptable to be skeptical until you see the finished thing. And that's a valid response to anything estblished. I mean Sheep King Lear had the hallmarks of heresy and a disaster and yet... Meanwhile something can have the blessing of a creator/estate, seem like a really great idea and yet turn out to be ....Rent Remixed. I have no problem with people saying 'gee I'm not sure I want a new version of this thing I love and I won't see it' or 'Hmm I'm a bit sceptical but I'll reserve judgement until I see it' It's the pearl clutching 'BUT IT'S A WOMAN AND IT'S WRONG' that is annoying.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Feb 2, 2018 15:19:03 GMT
I also seriously disagree with the notion that we can't explore the different meanings of a piece when looked at from a different angle. Particularly when the man who wrote it is behind the idea? Sondheim himself clearly agrees that there is reason enough to 'express those sentiments' is that not good enough reason for you? One of the men who wrote it is behind the idea. George Furth was unavailable for comment. (I assume whoever now owns his copyright must have approved it, but it's anyone's guess whether he would have.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 15:19:08 GMT
Honest truth? while I'm digging a hole. The one time I saw Patti live I really, really didn't get it. I found Gypsy with her incredibly dull.... Sometimes she's great, sometimes she's dreadful. On the Broadway cast album of Evita, she appears to be suffering from some kind of allergy to consonants. I saw her twice in Sunset Boulevard - once about three months into her run, and then later in the last couple of weeks of her contract after The Unpleasantness. She was much better the second time - there was a go-for-broke quality to her performance that hadn't been there earlier. I liked her in Master Class, although it's a shoddy, lazy excuse for a play, and she was very good indeed in Mamet's The Old Neighborhood on Broadway (I'm not much of a fan of LuPone and I actively dislike Mamet, but I didn't buy the tickets). Her singing, though, is often problematic - she doesn't interpret lyrics so much as steamroller them into submission, and her diction is appalling - and her pretentiously-titled memoir is so astonishingly self-regarding that it makes Kathleen Turner's seem blandly meek in comparison. And having said all that, on the Company DVD she is on her best behaviour, and she's quite good, so I have reasonably high hopes for her in this. I loathe her performance on her recording of Gypsy with a purple passion - all of it, but particularly the bit at the end of Rose's Turn where she chooses for some reason to make a noise like a malfunctioning Dyson instead of singing the final note.hahahahaaha I've been searching for 10 years for an accurate description of that. Seriously I love Miss Patti the Diva. Unfortunately the one time I saw her live was a huge let down so I fail to see the hype. However I'll be seeing Company so come on Miss P bring the A game and prove me wrong! |
|
|
|
Company
Feb 2, 2018 15:20:15 GMT
sf likes this
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 15:20:15 GMT
I also seriously disagree with the notion that we can't explore the different meanings of a piece when looked at from a different angle. Particularly when the man who wrote it is behind the idea? Sondheim himself clearly agrees that there is reason enough to 'express those sentiments' is that not good enough reason for you? One of the men who wrote it is behind the idea. George Furth was unavailable for comment. (I assume whoever now owns his copyright must have approved it, but it's anyone's guess whether he would have.) Fair comment for accuracy. But I think you're forgetting the general consensus that Sondheim is God and cannot be questioned (unless of course that helps support a narrative of heresy) |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Feb 2, 2018 15:25:11 GMT
If you are a fan of theatre but don't like colour blind/gender blind casting than that is just vey hypercritical. In theatre we are taken on stories and use our imagination through out. If you can sit and watch a show about for example a flying green witch but don't want to see a Shakespeare character played by another gender than just don't go. Yes some shows can't have different casting where it is a story based on race like hairspray but where a story is able to be altereged , why not let it be. Well... this isn't quite "gender-blind casting" (and I basically agree with you). The material is apparently being somewhat rewritten to make a male character female. That's a little different from, for example, casting Maxine Peake as Hamlet or Kathryn Hunter as King Lear and not changing a word of the text. |
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Feb 2, 2018 15:25:56 GMT
Let's all just wait and see and we might all be pleasantly surprised. May I just remind the people who have come back at me, some of them rather rather strongly, about the points I put forward for debate, exactly what I said in my original post above and that applies to me as well! So I won't be staying at home with my original cast album. I also said I was looking forward to seeing a new production of the show and indeed I have bought a ticket and hope I will be rising, rising, RISING and not just for Patti. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 2, 2018 15:33:33 GMT
If you are a fan of theatre but don't like colour blind/gender blind casting than that is just vey hypercritical. In theatre we are taken on stories and use our imagination through out. If you can sit and watch a show about for example a flying green witch but don't want to see a Shakespeare character played by another gender than just don't go. Yes some shows can't have different casting where it is a story based on race like hairspray but where a story is able to be altereged , why not let it be. Well... this isn't quite "gender-blind casting" (and I basically agree with you). The material is apparently being somewhat rewritten to make a male character female. That's a little different from, for example, casting Maxine Peake as Hamlet or Kathryn Hunter as King Lear and not changing a word of the text. They did alter the text in the Peake Hamlet but only for Polonia. At the time, I found that decision rather perplexing as, for me, Peake was presenting as female and thus calling her Prince didn't sit right. It was only after that I was told that Peake's Hamlet was trans. Ok, I only saw the TV version so didn't have the benefit of the programme notes but I didn't find it clear from the production itself that that was their interpretation. I put that down to poor directing rather than anything else. But any new production has to be clear to an audience without recourse to notes from the director explaining everything. |
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Feb 2, 2018 15:55:51 GMT
I have bought a ticket and hope I will be rising, rising, RISING and not just for Patti. At my age I barely rise for anything! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 16:41:41 GMT
I'm also quite excited to see which other characters they may be gender switching. Will be interesting g to see how they do the three girlfriends , I think it will probably be 2 guys and 1 girl or vice versa. Would also find it quite funny if they changed Amy to be a man, maybe Brandon Uranowitz as saw online that was one of his dream roles.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Feb 2, 2018 19:41:38 GMT
In an interview with Rosalie Craig she was explicit in saying that all the women that Bobby dated are now men.
I'm really curious to find out who else was in that workshop they did and filmed that made Sondheim sign off on the concept and LuPone to agree to do it.
|
|
1,997 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by distantcousin on Feb 2, 2018 21:24:37 GMT
Mel Giedroyc to play Sarah Brilliant! |
|
1,997 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by distantcousin on Feb 2, 2018 21:25:54 GMT
This production appears to get more wacky by the second! Is she a singer? She was in that Sound of Music thing but I don’t remember if she sang at all. I’m all for wacky though, keep adding the crazy! Giedroyc doesn't need to be that much of a singer to play Sarah. She has a few solo lines here and there, but no song. I imagine she'll be very funny in the karate scene, and that's probably why they've cast her. She is a selling point for me! |
|
1,997 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by distantcousin on Feb 2, 2018 21:27:08 GMT
I am so so troubled by this, but you're right. I never trusted the general public. (I actually don't know who Mel is and have no opinion on this casting choice but it does seem to be pretty sound). Why would the general public know Patti? she's never done much tv or film, and if you aren't into musical theatre she is (I'm sorry to tell all of you) nobody to you... Likewise Sondheim musicals aren't as popular/populist as say ALW who had major crossover into the charts etc in the 70s 80s and 90s. Company was never a big hit for Sondheim- it's critically acclaimed but not commercially successful. So why would Joe public know? Joe public knows Mel, because she's been on TV since the 90s first as an actress/comedian later as part of Bake Off team. Absolutely. |
|
1,997 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by distantcousin on Feb 2, 2018 21:30:35 GMT
If theatre *isn't* for playing with form and content, why don't we all just stay at home and watch soap operas and kitchen-sink dramas? Or why should we bother reviving a show if it's already been done once unless we're going to do it exactly the same way, ideally with exactly the same cast or at least creatives? Why do Caryl Churchill or Katie Mitchell or Ivo Van Hove even bother? What a very very peculiar stance to take with regards to the most open-to-interpretation and least-dependent-on-realism story-telling art form we have! A peculiar stance, but an all too common one sadly. I find the term "if it ain't broke. don't fix it" to be so depressingly stifling. |
|
1,562 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Feb 2, 2018 21:47:32 GMT
Monkey - how is row F in the Stalls at the Geilgud? Id rather not pay premium if I don't have to...
thank you SO much
x
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Feb 2, 2018 22:49:50 GMT
Giedroyc doesn't need to be that much of a singer to play Sarah. She has a few solo lines here and there, but no song. I imagine she'll be very funny in the karate scene, and that's probably why they've cast her. She is a selling point for me! She'd be a selling point for me as well, if I hadn't already bought a ticket. |
|
617 posts
|
Company
Feb 3, 2018 13:42:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by loureviews on Feb 3, 2018 13:42:57 GMT
I have no problem with Bobbi now being female. I didn't with Malvolia either in the recent NT Twelfth Night.
Also have no problem with the Peake Hamlet, Hunter Cyrano, Jackson Lear etc etc, although that's something quite different, like the Rylance Olivia.
|
|
4,962 posts
|
Company
Feb 5, 2018 14:06:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by Someone in a tree on Feb 5, 2018 14:06:24 GMT
Having just come back from a modern day set Company which worked and I really enjoyed. I have to say I’m looking forward to a radical retelling of it.
Company can be long, the business with the voicemails and present exchange goes on a bit. I just hope the text is generally tightened.
A lot of 35 year olds aren’t married but a lot are in relationships. Can the text be changed to reflect that subtle difference?
Musically Tick Tock is dated but I love the number, I doubt it will be in the new version. I hope other updates will happen though “my service will explain ... generation X “
I see why the gay conversation came in but by today’s cosmopolitan standards it seems very dated and bordering on offensive. Bobby is not gay ... I doubt Bobbi will be either
What ever happens with this version I wonder if any of the rewrites will go into a new male version of Company, I hope so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 14:18:40 GMT
Re: the voice mails, there's no reason why they can't change it so we were 'hearing text messages' a way of staging it along with a few line tweaks and it could be as if we are hearing the message in Bobbi's head as she reads it or whatever.
|
|
4,962 posts
|
Company
Feb 5, 2018 14:45:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Someone in a tree on Feb 5, 2018 14:45:16 GMT
Re: the voice mails, there's no reason why they can't change it so we were 'hearing text messages' a way of staging it along with a few line tweaks and it could be as if we are hearing the message in Bobbi's head as she reads it or whatever. Absolutely. Person inundated is what needs to be presented |
|
