I'M POSTING THIS AGAIN, BECAUSE FOR SOME REASON IT DIDN'T SHOW UP THE
FIRST TIME.
On Apr 17, 12:16 am, dgsweet <DGSw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Complicated and VERY smart structure which the new
> production highlighted beautifully.
It=92s a loose structure, and in my opinion, a little lazy. I don=92t see
what=92s so =93VERY smart=94 about it. In a well-plotted work, every
scene,=
every line, every action -- and in an integrated musical, every dance
and song -- furthers the plot and/or reveals character. Such writing
requires great talent and intelligence and a sense of how to tightly
integrate the various elements. When it=92s well done, it=92s all the
more impressive, because there=92s no room for the arbitrary. In
COMPANY, however, it=92s easy to imagine changing scenes entirely, or
changing characters, songs, dialogue, etc., or cutting them out. Even
though these changed elements might prove to be more interesting in
themselves, they still wouldn=92t affect the overall arbitrary
structure. One scene or character does not depend on another, so
within certain bounds, anything goes. It=92s much easier to be
arbitrary than to be exacting.
I listened to the Sondheim interview again (you can view it on YouTube
at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Debf5eD0cPgM),
and realize that he
didn=92t use the word =93sophisticated,=94 but still there is an air of
condescension to his remarks. He says one of the things that made
COMPANY =93controversial=94 was the =93notion of a series of snapshots in
a
man=92s life=94 and that it was =93taking place in a vaguely metaphysical
birthday party.=94 He says =93the disorientation I think was unsettling
for the audience.=94 Well, sure, but I take it that he=92s implying that
this is a negative reflection on the audience and not on the authors.
I disagree. I think the ending of CABARET is pretty unsettling too =96
creepy, actually -- and it also has an unusual structure, but it was a
bigger hit than COMPANY, in part, I suppose, because it was more plot-
oriented.
Sondheim says later: =93Movies had started to be accepted that did not
have happy endings, that did not even necessarily have endings, and
audiences we thought would start to accept that, and they didn=92t. Not
in musical theatre.=94
What audiences might he be referring to? When does he think movies
started showing non-happy endings, as if up until a certain point one
never saw anything less than a happy ending in a film? Huh? And
audiences didn=92t accept the non-happy ending of COMPANY, yet it was a
hit? Huh?
Sondheim continues: =93And they still have trouble accepting it even
today. They still want a story, they still want a moral, they still
want a happy ending.=94
Generally, I think audiences do expect a story and a moral of some
sort (or at least that it=92s trying to say something specific about the
human condition), but not necessarily that they expect a happy
ending. What about bittersweet endings like THE STUDENT PRINCE that
make you cry (if done well), any number of operas with people being
killed or dying of some terrible disease, or how about WEST SIDE
STORY, CABARET, or FIDDLER ON THE ROOF? Not exactly feel-good
endings. Or what about THE THREEPENNY OPERA, which even mocks happy
endings at its end? And anyway, what=92s so *wrong* with wanting a
story, a moral and/or a happy ending?
Sondheim continues: =93I think it=92s because people do want you to come
out and say something either positive or negative. They don=92t like
the idea that you=92re saying something positive *and* negative,
particularly about a subject as close to the bone as marriage or
personal commitment.=94
This comment just doesn=92t resonate with me, as a staple criticism one
frequently hears about certain works and/or characters is that they
are too =93black and white.=94
Sondheim again: =93We were saying something ambiguous, which is actually
there are no endings, it keeps going on, is what really COMPANY is
about.=94
If there actually is no intended =93ending=94 to COMPANY, then it
shouldn=92t matter if the show lasts five minutes or five hours, and
Bobby should have no revelation about =93being alive=94 at the =93end.=94
Plenty of dramatic works have a distinct plot with a distinct ending,
but the audience still comes out of the theatre debating what will
happen to the characters in the future once the curtain comes down.
=93Being Alive=94 answers a question that, according to Sondheim=92s
stated
values, the audience shouldn=92t be asking =96 will or will not Bobby see
the light about himself? It=92s the closest thing COMPANY has to a
plot, and if Bobby does see the light, then the show does have an
=93ending=94 =96 it culminates in Bobby having a revelation about himself
--=
so I don=92t really understand what he=92s getting at.
I=92ve heard Sondheim talk about =93ambivalence=94 or =93ambiguity=94
before=
..
In this interview he says about =93ambivalence=94 that =93it=92s the stuff
o=
f
drama.=94 I disagree. The =93stuff=94 of drama is *conflict* --
ambivalence is only one form of conflict, usually referring to an
inner conflict.
|
