On Apr 17, 3:06=A0pm, Eagle <eaglenewsgr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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. =A0I don=92t
s=
ee
> what=92s so =93VERY smart=94 about it. =A0In a well-plotted work, every
sc=
ene,
> every line, every action -- and in an integrated musical, every dance
> and song -- furthers the plot and/or reveals character. =A0Such writing
> requires great talent and intelligence and a sense of how to tightly
> integrate the various elements. =A0When it=92s well done, it=92s all the
> more impressive, because there=92s no room for the arbitrary. =A0In
> COMPANY, however, it=92s easy to imagine changing scenes entirely, or
> changing characters, songs, dialogue, etc., or cutting them out. =A0Even
> though these changed elements might prove to be more interesting in
> themselves, they still wouldn=92t affect the overall arbitrary
> structure. =A0One scene or character does not depend on another, so
> within certain bounds, anything goes. =A0It=92s much easier to be
> arbitrary than to be exacting.
We disagree. I see the argument with himself progressing, and clearly
the first act has to end with Amy changing her mind and deciding she
wants to be married.
>
> I listened to the Sondheim interview again (you can view it on YouTube
> athttp://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. =A0He 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 =A0He says =93the disorientation I think was
unsettling=
> for the audience.=94 =A0Well, sure, but I take it that he=92s implying
tha=
t
> this is a negative reflection on the audience and not on the authors.
> I disagree. =A0I 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.
I don't see this as a demolition derby between CABARET and COMPANY,
especially since what is distinctive about the structure of both
apparently originated with Hal Prince. It seems to me that CABARET
was a nicessary step on the way to COMPANY, as COMPANY has been a
necessary step on the way to other shows.
>
> 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.
=A0Not=
> in musical theatre.=94
>
> What audiences might he be referring to? =A0When 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? =A0Huh? =A0And
> audiences didn=92t accept the non-happy ending of COMPANY, yet it was a
> hit? =A0Huh?
I think he's referring really to the rise of greater ambiguity in
American films. Not that there wasn't some before in the work of such
(er) American directors as Hitchcock, Lubitsch and Wilder. But, just
as popular music went through a transition from the fifties through
the late Sixties (as did comedy, via such phenomena as Lenny Bruce,
Nichols and May, BEYOND THE FRINGE and Richard Prioy), so did new
subject matter and new attitudes towards old subject matter enter so-
called mainstream entertainment. Certainly once upon a time you could
pretty much depend that if you went to a musical you would see G-rated
entertainment, something appropriate to bring kids to. (The adult
stuff was coded so that the kids wouldn't understand it, like the
implied *** in SOUTH PACIFIC.) This began to change seriously with
GYPSY, WEST SIDE STORY, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF and CABARET (all but one
shows Hal Prince helped create). COMPANY is part of that progression.
>
> Sondheim continues: =93And they still have trouble accepting it even
> today. =A0They 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. =A0What 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? =A0Not exactly feel-good
> endings. =A0Or what about THE THREEPENNY OPERA, which even mocks happy
> endings at its end? =A0And anyway, what=92s so *wrong* with wanting a
> story, a moral and/or a happy ending?
THE STUDENT PRINCE is glorious shmaltz that doesn't remotely exist in
the real world. THREEPENNY OPERA is the grandfather of the new strain
of musicals, flaunting its cynicism. By the by, it played where it
could attract an audience in those days -- off-Broadway.
> 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
I think the ending is a little arbitrary, but I accept it and am moved
by it anyway. It seems to me to be less a resolution than the
statement of a hope.
> 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
state=
d
> values, the audience shouldn=92t be asking =96 will or will not Bobby
see
> the light about himself? =A0It=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
> (or an epiphany as you put it) -- so I don=92t really understand what
> he=92s getting at.
Ah well. It brings me to tears pretty much every time. And I'm a
pretty hard touch.
>
> I=92ve heard Sondheim talk about =93ambivalence=94 or =93ambiguity=94
befo=
re.
> In this interview he says about =93ambivalence=94 that =93it=92s the
stuff=
of
> drama.=94 =A0I disagree. =A0The =93stuff=94 of drama is *conflict* --
> ambivalence is only one form of conflict, usually referring to an
> inner conflict.
Nah, to quote Del Close, drama is based on agreement. People fight
over something because they agree that what they fight over is of
value. Otherwise plays would be people just whacking away at each
other for a couple of hours, and that would be pretty numbing.
To see what drama is really about (plug approaching), go to Amazon and
put in an order for THE VALUE OF NAMES AND OTHER PLAYS, which is just
about to be published by Northwestern University Press. I just got an
advance copy and am very pleased indeed.
Jeff
|
