642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Feb 5, 2019 6:23:10 GMT
I might suggest that by the time you reach 35, have started to get some money behind you, hopefully property and a career that’s going into its most productive and lucrative years, going into a legally binding contract with someone “for the companionship” will be the very last thing on your mind. I might suggest that we all are different, as in career thingies, as in wishing a companion. And the amount of pressure about "darling your clock's ticking and you need to get married" for males and females (hello gender switch) P.S. felt a real looser reading all these "what you should have by 35" - on a musical theatre board, of all places... I thought I am safe here! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2019 9:23:35 GMT
I might suggest that by the time you reach 35, have started to get some money behind you, hopefully property and a career that’s going into its most productive and lucrative years, going into a legally binding contract with someone “for the companionship” will be the very last thing on your mind. I might suggest that we all are different, as in career thingies, as in wishing a companion. And the amount of pressure about "darling your clock's ticking and you need to get married" for males and females (hello gender switch) P.S. felt a real looser reading all these "what you should have by 35" - on a musical theatre board, of all places... I thought I am safe here! Well if someone else is saying it... I think it shows a very naive view of the world today, and someone who doesn't know many current 35 year olds to say that we should be financially and career-wise sorted. Oh and have 'lucrative' jobs. Sure some are. But the current crop of 35 year olds were heavily screwed by the 2008 financial crisis (article with some solid research on that here: link and also we're being even more screwed by Brexit. So tell that lucrative career stuff to those 35 year olds who have never been given a permanent contract, who are stuck in zero hours contracts, or are just being laid off right and left (or know their company is moving to South America in 2 years). As to the relationship stuff, I'll let the young 'uns have that, at 25 it seems a long way to 40, and that seems old. And some people do very much need a 'partner' in life, and as long as they aren't judging those of us who don't (want or have) then that's cool. But I was thinking this morning, while I warbled along to Marry Me A Little, I have a (business related) meeting this evening with someone who I know looks down on me because I'm single. To them, I'm this gross little troll like thing because I'm single and not constantly talking about a need to find a man...and isn't that sad, how women behave to each other. |
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Feb 5, 2019 9:27:45 GMT
I might suggest that by the time you reach 35, have started to get some money behind you, hopefully property and a career that’s going into its most productive and lucrative years, going into a legally binding contract with someone “for the companionship” will be the very last thing on your mind. I might suggest that we all are different, as in career thingies, as in wishing a companion. And the amount of pressure about "darling your clock's ticking and you need to get married" for males and females (hello gender switch) P.S. felt a real looser reading all these "what you should have by 35" - on a musical theatre board, of all places... I thought I am safe here! Yeah that was a very odd dig in a thread about a show which focuses on the societal pressures a woman faces to settle down and get married before she's too old. |
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Feb 5, 2019 9:37:25 GMT
I think it shows a very naive view of the world today, and someone who doesn't know many current 35 year olds to say that we should be financially and career-wise sorted. Oh and have 'lucrative' jobs. Sure some are. But the current crop of 35 year olds were heavily screwed by the 2008 financial crisis (article with some solid research on that here: link and also we're being even more screwed by Brexit. So tell that lucrative career stuff to those 35 year olds who have never been given a permanent contract, who are stuck in zero hours contracts, or are just being laid off right and left (or know their company is moving to South America in 2 years). As to the relationship stuff, I'll let the young 'uns have that, at 25 it seems a long way to 40, and that seems old. And some people do very much need a 'partner' in life, and as long as they aren't judging those of us who don't (want or have) then that's cool. But I was thinking this morning, while I warbled along to Marry Me A Little, I have a (business related) meeting this evening with someone who I know looks down on me because I'm single. To them, I'm this gross little troll like thing because I'm single and not constantly talking about a need to find a man...and isn't that sad, how women behave to each other. I've quoted the above comment from @emicardiff just to double like it! This is why the gender switch in Company works so well. It will become the definitive version of Company in the future I am certain. |
|
136 posts
|
Post by Lemansky on Feb 5, 2019 9:56:19 GMT
You would not have known it was missing if you hadn't seen the show before. It was odd it was missing - it was brilliantly staged, so I did miss it tonight. I doubt too if it is a blocking issue - Side by Side is similarly complicated with all the tables and chairs. I would have thought her understudy would have covered the track. Odd! Jennifer Saayeng did very well as Bobbie. She received huge applause for Being Alive and at the curtain call! Patti said well done to her at the bows. It is clearly difficult for an understudy in that they have to play the part as directed, and I felt she was holding back vocally during her numbers. I liked her, she seemed to have more personality than RC. Her astonishment at people appearing in her apartment during Barcelona was very funny! My only negative tonight was (the adorable) JB. His portrayal of Jamie has got very broad and manic since I saw the show in preview. It needs reining in a little I thought. His hysteria resulted in the lyrics getting swallowed and some of the dialogue was inaudible. Not the best execution of Not Getting Married tonight! I have to say though, the scene got HUGE laughs and he got massive exit applause. Richard Fleeshman gives the cutest performance - identical to the earlier viewing and his body is a thing of wonder. I did get very distracted - does he provide his own blue underwear or is it part of the costume department? Patti, however, was the star tonight - simply knocking it out of the park 8 shows a week! The 8 minutes or so of the Ladies Who Lunch sequence is a masterclass, but all her one liners throughout the show landed with huge laughs! It is such a classy, slick show. I was coming on to say the exactly the same thing, right down to JB's portrayal of Jamie being even more manic than I remember, which I didn't think was possible until I saw it.
I wouldn't have missed Tick Tock if I hadn't known it was missing. I did think it made the second half seem a bit lopsided without it, but only by a tiny bit timewise.
I'm very glad that I got to see it again, it's just wonderful.
|
|
|
|
Post by craig on Feb 5, 2019 10:13:28 GMT
Is Tick Tock being removed when Jennifer is on due to a wig issue? As I recall, all the Bobbies all wear red wigs? I'm sure at least one of the Bobbies on a normal night is black so I'm pretty sure it's nothing to do with Jennifer's race.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2019 10:19:25 GMT
Is the reason because Jennifer is one of the Bobbies in 'Tick Tock' on a normal night so if she's playing the real Bobbie they don't have enough to go around to stage it properly?
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Feb 5, 2019 12:35:17 GMT
Is the reason because Jennifer is one of the Bobbies in 'Tick Tock' on a normal night so if she's playing the real Bobbie they don't have enough to go around to stage it properly? Yes, this may be true - there were two other understudies on last night as well. Plus the wigs have got to be an issue. I assume they only have red wigs to replicate Rosalie and did not have black wigs to cover Jennifer. Wearing the red wigs would have made no sense last night - the audience would not have known what was going on! |
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Feb 5, 2019 12:58:41 GMT
Is Rosie back tonight, do we know, or is she still unwell?
|
|
781 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Feb 5, 2019 13:58:09 GMT
Is Tick Tock being removed when Jennifer is on due to a wig issue? As I recall, all the Bobbies all wear red wigs? I'm sure at least one of the Bobbies on a normal night is black so I'm pretty sure it's nothing to do with Jennifer's race This is exactly what I would've put it down to. Jennifer is in that sequence with the pushchair. If they don't have wigs they really ought to order 2, shame to lose such a good sequence due to something so small! They must already have one for the scene where Bobbie sees everyone in her apartment, end of Act 1 if I'm not mistaken? |
|
195 posts
|
Post by tal on Feb 5, 2019 14:04:47 GMT
Is Tick Tock being removed when Jennifer is on due to a wig issue? As I recall, all the Bobbies all wear red wigs? I'm sure at least one of the Bobbies on a normal night is black so I'm pretty sure it's nothing to do with Jennifer's race This is exactly what I would've put it down to. Jennifer is in that sequence with the pushchair. If they don't have wigs they really ought to order 2, shame to lose such a good sequence due to something so small! They must already have one for the scene where Bobbie sees everyone in her apartment, end of Act 1 if I'm not mistaken? Yesterday, there was no Bobbie inside the apartment at the end of Act 1. Real Bobbie pulls the set as she usually does but only to reveal her friends staring at an empty chair. |
|
781 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Feb 5, 2019 14:13:19 GMT
This is exactly what I would've put it down to. Jennifer is in that sequence with the pushchair. If they don't have wigs they really ought to order 2, shame to lose such a good sequence due to something so small! They must already have one for the scene where Bobbie sees everyone in her apartment, end of Act 1 if I'm not mistaken? Yesterday, there was no Bobbie inside the apartment at the end of Act 1. Real Bobbie pulls the set as she usually does but only to reveal her friends staring at an empty chair. Is it really that hard to plonk a black haired wig on someone? Could use the red jacket to cover up their arms, if it's skin colour they're worried about! |
|
195 posts
|
Post by tal on Feb 5, 2019 14:32:03 GMT
Yesterday, there was no Bobbie inside the apartment at the end of Act 1. Real Bobbie pulls the set as she usually does but only to reveal her friends staring at an empty chair. Is it really that hard to plonk a black haired wig on someone? Could use the red jacket to cover up their arms, if it's skin colour they're worried about! I was also very confused. To be honest, although I prefer the original staging I liked this scene this way as well. What I can't forgive, though, is completely removing Tik Tok. I love that scene, and I can't find a good reason for them to have cut it. The fact that the first understudy of the lead is on should not be something so extreme that a whole sequence (and a very memorable one, in my opinion) has to be cut off. Also, the scene where PJ asks Bobbie "how many blacks" she knows got a lot of laughs. Oh, and Jennifer was wearing a wrist watch, which was a bit distracting as it was often reflecting the light projected on stage. I am pretty sure Rosalie did not wear a watch the other times I saw the show. Does anybody know if she has been wearing one lately? |
|
|
|
Post by craig on Feb 5, 2019 16:01:13 GMT
Can I just say that I was devastated that the "GINGER MONSTER!" insult was omitted from the Cast Recording of You Could Drive A Person Crazy? It was my first belly laugh of many the first time I saw the production.
|
|
19,797 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 5, 2019 18:49:43 GMT
I might suggest that by the time you reach 35, have started to get some money behind you, hopefully property and a career that’s going into its most productive and lucrative years, going into a legally binding contract with someone “for the companionship” will be the very last thing on your mind. I might suggest that we all are different, as in career thingies, as in wishing a companion. And the amount of pressure about "darling your clock's ticking and you need to get married" for males and females (hello gender switch) I wasn’t imposing any career thingies on anyone. Don’t you think many people aspire to be in the position that I’ve described when they’re in their mid thirties? Well if someone else is saying it... I think it shows a very naive view of the world today, and someone who doesn't know many current 35 year olds to say that we should be financially and career-wise sorted. Oh and have 'lucrative' jobs. Sure some are. But the current crop of 35 year olds were heavily screwed by the 2008 financial crisis (article with some solid research on that here: link and also we're being even more screwed by Brexit. So tell that lucrative career stuff to those 35 year olds who have never been given a permanent contract, who are stuck in zero hours contracts, or are just being laid off right and left (or know their company is moving to South America in 2 years). I think its very naive of you to think that your view of people in their mid thirties is representative. I know lots of single people in that age bracket who are are doing well in their careers, are sorted, becoming financially secure and all the rest. And yes lots of partnered people aspire to that too. Either way, I didn’t suggest it happens for everyone who wants it, and indeed not everyone wants to follow that route. But dismissing an entire generation of people who are being successful? I don’t think so. Yeah that was a very odd dig in a thread about a show which focuses on the societal pressures a woman faces to settle down and get married before she's too old. You can be 100% sure that I was not making a “dig” at anyone. The point of my post, was that someone in their 20’s (of any sex) contemplating coupling up at 35 with someone for companionship is probably going to feel very different 15 years down the line. |
|
639 posts
|
Post by andrew on Feb 5, 2019 19:44:14 GMT
So a huge West End production that has enough money to hire Marianne Elliot and Patti LuPone prefers to cut a whole song instead of hiring an extra swing and buying a few brunette wigs? Really doesn't make sense to me...
|
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Feb 5, 2019 20:50:08 GMT
I might suggest that we all are different, as in career thingies, as in wishing a companion. And the amount of pressure about "darling your clock's ticking and you need to get married" for males and females (hello gender switch) I wasn’t imposing any career thingies on anyone. Don’t you think many people aspire to be in the position that I’ve described when they’re in their mid thirties? Well if someone else is saying it... I think it shows a very naive view of the world today, and someone who doesn't know many current 35 year olds to say that we should be financially and career-wise sorted. Oh and have 'lucrative' jobs. Sure some are. But the current crop of 35 year olds were heavily screwed by the 2008 financial crisis (article with some solid research on that here: link and also we're being even more screwed by Brexit. So tell that lucrative career stuff to those 35 year olds who have never been given a permanent contract, who are stuck in zero hours contracts, or are just being laid off right and left (or know their company is moving to South America in 2 years). I think its very naive of you to think that your view of people in their mid thirties is representative. I know lots of single people in that age bracket who are are doing well in their careers, are sorted, becoming financially secure and all the rest. And yes lots of partnered people aspire to that too. Either way, I didn’t suggest it happens for everyone who wants it, and indeed not everyone wants to follow that route. But dismissing an entire generation of people who are being successful? I don’t think so. Yeah that was a very odd dig in a thread about a show which focuses on the societal pressures a woman faces to settle down and get married before she's too old. You can be 100% sure that I was not making a “dig” at anyone. The point of my post, was that someone in their 20’s (of any sex) contemplating coupling up at 35 with someone for companionship is probably going to feel very different 15 years down the line. Sorry when I first read your comment it read like a dig like you were looking down on people that didn't have their lives completely together by age 35 but I've reread it and I realise that isn't what you meant. And I actually do agree with your sentiments. I thought 35 felt a little early to be expecting yourself to be married at, especially so much so that you'd make a pact with a friend to get married if you weren't by that point. My uncle wasn't married until well into his forties so even a limit of 40 feels a little restrictive on yourself but at the same time I don't want to judge anyone for making such a decision especially if they feel their lives would be improved with the companionship. So again apologies for misinterpreting your post I hope I didn't cause any offence. |
|
19,797 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 5, 2019 21:06:49 GMT
Not at all. And thank you.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Feb 5, 2019 22:02:20 GMT
I think this is the remarkable thing about the show Company - especially with the gender switch that is raises all these issues that are simply not talked about.
I am happily single and have been most of my life and there was (and still is) huge social pressure to be with someone ("want SOMETHING") not necessarily married but have " a partner". Advertising is still full of model happy family units and heaven help us Valentines Day is round the corner with M&S flogging their hideous Valentine meals for 2!! Pressure is everywhere to conform. If you are in a settled relationship you probably don't notice!
What I love about the show is the cynical nature expressed about relationships. Happily divorced, married 3 or 4 times etc!!
|
|
145 posts
|
Post by mjh on Feb 5, 2019 23:24:50 GMT
So tonight was interesting...
Rosalie on as Bobbi but clearly sounding a bit shaky...
One slightly extended interval later the company manager announces that Jennifer will be taking over for act 2.
Did really well considering the circumstances.
And no Tick Tock.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Feb 5, 2019 23:41:23 GMT
Long running shows are like machines, and unlike the computerised lighting and sets humans are not machines. However, the theatre is full with an audience that is expecting a top class show for their money and so the show must go on.....
It must be difficult at times to ensure this with cast illness etc. and all eventualities have to be thought through and addressed! Mel is presumably out on Friday with her Eurovision commitment in Salford - so it appears it is understudy central this week at Company!
Two Bobbies for the price of one though - you can't complain!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Feb 6, 2019 7:17:25 GMT
I think this is the remarkable thing about the show Company - especially with the gender switch that is raises all these issues that are simply not talked about. I am happily single and have been most of my life and there was (and still is) huge social pressure to be with someone ("want SOMETHING") not necessarily married but have " a partner". Advertising is still full of model happy family units and heaven help us Valentines Day is round the corner with M&S flogging their hideous Valentine meals for 2!! Pressure is everywhere to conform. If you are in a settled relationship you probably don't notice! What I love about the show is the cynical nature expressed about relationships. Happily divorced, married 3 or 4 times etc!! Yes and yet it also leaves begging...so whats the attraction? So why do people still want....Company? It's not just societal pressure. Mrs Snow and I are currently planning a party to celebrate 30 years of happy marriage, yet this is still the Sondheim show that speaks most strongly and interestingly to me. Clearly it has something you and I can relate to. Odd that he says when he wrote it he'd never been in a (long) relationship and he researched it by inviting his friend Mary Rogers over for the evening! If I had to predict which Sondheim show would last in the public eye, this has to be the one. (PS The new arrangements are a big help in showing it can be moved out of the 70's. I don't know if its been said before but for my 3rd visit we sat in the middle of the circle. For the first time you could (relatively) clearly see the band and I really noticed how fine the band sounded.) |
|
|
|
Company
Feb 6, 2019 10:31:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by apubleed on Feb 6, 2019 10:31:19 GMT
Where can we find out if Craig is off tonight?
|
|
1,260 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Feb 6, 2019 10:37:24 GMT
Where can we find out if Craig is off tonight? Keep an eye on the West End Understudies Twitter feed. |
|
4,993 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Feb 6, 2019 13:35:12 GMT
Chit chat with Dame Pattie  |
|
