The Stephen Sondheim Society

Who are these squares? Is there anybody left in New York who has not snorted coke? Don't forget that the production was transposed to the present day. The scene, including the song & dance routine was very enjoyable and, like the show as a whole, great credit to the Geoffrey Whitworth Theatre. The snorting still left me in full sympathy with Bobbie's dilemma.

Hi guys. Firstly, may I thank you for your appreciative comments about COMPANY at the GWT. I'm the director, and it's great to get feedback from an unbiased source! Right. OK then. The coke snorting. This is indeed a steal from the Donmar Warehouse revival in 1996.
I saw a television interview with Sam Mendes and Stephen Sondheim in which they discussed the ways in which they had revised the 1970s production. SS explained that Bobby's character had previously been a bit of a "cipher" - an excuse for the couples to act around - and that consequently his inner struggle with his fear of commitment wasn't as pointed. In revising the production for the 1990s, Bobby rarely leaves the stage and the vignettes and numbers featuring the couples and girlfriends are experienced as Bobby's flashbacks, re-lived memories, and - in the case of SIDE BY SIDE/WHAT WOULD WE DO - drug induced hallucination. I feel entirely comfortable with this interpretation. I think it enables us to experience Bobby's personal journey much more keenly. So, Bobby cannot "join in" with the couples with gay abandon because they are not actually there. They are in his head. Indeed the whole number is no longer a "show of affection" for which he should feel grateful. It is a jumbled, oppressive, litany of their obsession with him and the demands they place on him. As to whether Bobby, the man, would use recreational drugs, then I think the answer is why not?. He's the right age and income bracket. He's probably professional (lawyer, architect, financial trader?). Everyone knows that like it or not, the use of recreational drugs is not uncommon amongst this group in both New York and London. It's Saturday night, say, he's desperately lonely and he's bored and he gets bombed out of his skull. Not an unlikely scenario. I hate drugs as much as anyone and if anything, I think it should make us feel more sorry for him - not less. Anyway - I like the theatrical device and I stand by it!

Thanks again for taking the trouble to see the show, and comment on it. I shall let the cast know. Last one tonight.

Thanks, Julia, for your explanation and rationale behind the production of Company at Crayford. I remember hearing much of this after Sam Mendes Donmar production of 1996. I think it is important to note, however, that the character of Bobby is changed by the production changes. The idea of the action taking place in Bobby's imagination is interesting and works. The coke-snort is the big problem (and I'm trying to ignore the prejudice I bring against hard drug use). In the original text, Bobby is passive and an observer. His married friends carry the action. This is fundamentally what Company is all about. He isn't a cipher - a person of no value - (pace Sam Mendes and Stephen S. whose discussion you quote!) but an interested observer. (Hamlet, too, might be called a cipher because he is an inactive observer until his suspicions are confirmed by the Play Scene). Bobby's character is one of reversal and contradiction. Coke snorting is too positive an action for the original Bobby. The end is ambiguous because Being Alive might be the initial awareness of self knowledge. The text that I have is from 1996 and amalgamates the Roundabout and Donmar productions. It details the 'ghostly' characters as though they are in Bobby's head but makes no reference to coke snorting in What Would We Do/ Side by Side. In fact the directions refer to the original 1970 production ('Parade dance break. Top hat section'.)
Company is irrevocably set in the 1970's and stating 'Time. Now' in the programme doesn't bring it up to date. The Sarah/Harry scene with its karate and dieting, as the David/Jenny pot smoking are both firmly set in the 70's.
We are discussing characters in a play, Colin, and not what goes on in NYC.
It was still a great production Julia!

Thanks for all that info Julia - obviously it alters my view quite a lot and I guess I'm just not intellectual enough to have got it in the first place!
Anyway, a fine show and how about some more SS fairly soon?

How about Into The Woods Julia for next season? Nice explanation for the coke snorting but I still prefer Hal Prince's 1970 interpretation! But it was a really great show!

Hi Colin; square old PeterR here. Well, never having been to New York, or snorted coke, or having any sympathy with the modern drug culture it still left a nasty taste in the mouth, so to speak. But I agree, the production was really excellent and I would certainly rate it as one of the best amateur SS's I have seen - on a par with the Godalming Theatre Group's Follies last April.

Glad to pass on the pleasure, Peter. We enjoyed it so much on Sunday that we went again last night. It seemed even better! There were (very few) seats available. Obviously Julia Kemp is a talented director. Dont agree about Barcelona which is always a delight. The 3 girl friends were one of the highlights - You Could Drive a Person Crazy and Another 100 People were wonderful!
Incidentally, if there are such good amateur prods around, who needs compilations?
The coke snort came in with the Donmar prod possibly to make it more 2000 rather than the pot smoking (in earlier scenes) of 1973. A mistake, I think.