|
|
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)
|
|
4,961 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 Deleted 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 Deleted 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. |
|
2,850 posts
|
Company
Jul 20, 2017 14:53:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by couldileaveyou on Jul 20, 2017 14:53:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 15:11:17 GMT
Now that Heisenberg's all ready to go, I don't imagine this is as "up in the air" as it may have seemed anymore. I'm presuming Elliott & Harper are keeping the Wyndham's for the year or so, and now it's just a matter of patiently waiting.  |
|
1,087 posts
|
Company
Jul 20, 2017 21:29:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by alicechallice on Jul 20, 2017 21:29:49 GMT
Now that Heisenberg's all ready to go, I don't imagine this is as "up in the air" as it may have seemed anymore. I'm presuming Elliott & Harper are keeping the Wyndham's for the year or so, and now it's just a matter of patiently waiting. You'd hope so but Baz did mention Long Day's Journey Into Night from Bristol Old Vic was looking to go in there in Jan/Feb |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 22:27:27 GMT
And the second show from Elliott & Harper is at West Yorkshire Playhouse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 15:48:32 GMT
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Sept 8, 2017 16:58:52 GMT
I think the gender bending approach could work, after all women are still pressured to marry, pop children, in fact do that AND have a career. But I think the ending could be counterproductive and problematic if at the end Bobby still thinks she's only complete by shaking up with a dude.
The gay version works too, and I believe it was workshopped at NYU with Sondheim in attendance but he shut it down. That totally works too with gay communities becoming more and more heteronormative, and I think gay male Bobby wanting to shack up with a dude after sleeping around with so many flings in the past is slightly less problematic.
|
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 21, 2017 21:32:14 GMT
|
|
4,177 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Sept 21, 2017 21:35:28 GMT
Are we talking the version that we all know, the gender swapping one or the gay version?
Personally, I prefer the the version that we all know.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Sept 21, 2017 21:44:13 GMT
^ I don't see how this should could work commercially outside of an Encores!-type setting where a company (ha!) would revive a short run for a short period with no commercial ambitions.
The topics, aesthetic and characters are simply not relatable in its current format. This especially true since there already has been talk of a gender swap or a gay version - I think more people would be into that than the original, at least on a mass-scale.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Sept 21, 2017 21:56:22 GMT
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Sept 21, 2017 22:02:26 GMT
SCREAMING!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
