Did [REDACTED] steal from Sondheim's show Company?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 бер 2024
- ► Suggest a show of the week: / 97653640
►Subscribe: goo.gl/673d7i
►Patreon: / musicalmash
Company
Music & Lyrics by Stephen Sondheim
Book by George Furth
✽ ✽ BIG WALL OF LINKS ✽ ✽
🎧 Listen to the podcast! jimandtomic.com
🐉 Or the other one oncemorewithdragons.com/
(and subscribe to my podcastmate, Jimi: goo.gl/RfLGp2)
✽ ✽ SOCIAL STUFF ✽ ✽
Find Tommy (aka Mr. Mash) on social…stuff…
🐦 Twitter / musicalmash
If you're reading THIS comment below with whether or not you think Michael Bennett stole his idea from the rehearsal halls of Company? That's how I'll know you read this far. 😉
Oh, and would you click that like button? And maybe subscribe? Love you forever. - Розваги
your old video introduced me to Company! & I introduced it to everyone who would listen. & I got to see it for my 24th birthday (while wearing a birthday crown and giving Patti a much-deserved standing ovation). my actual deep love for 1 of my favorite musicals is because of you. now... will you & jimi PLEASE talk about it on the podcast! I've been begging for at least 5 years now!
Me too!! One of his videos on I Want Songs introduced me to Being Alive!
Are you entirely sure he's just not a writer talking about the character development having reached critical mass in that quote? I'm not discounting anything you're saying in the rest of the video. Let me put that up front. However, Furth wouldnt' be the first and certainly wouldnt' be the last writer to note there comes a time when you're writing a long-enough piece or you spend enough time with characters you've created and "they" start to write themselves. I've done it in things I've written. I've wanted certain clever (I thought) turns of phrase to land on the page and I've found characters sounding stilted or even bristling at having been forced to say such things they'd never say. I've had characters *react* to these weirdo things *I* had written instead of the characters having "written" and wondering where TF those things came from. It's a weird headspace, I tell ya. And the easiest way to describe that headspace to others is to anthropomorphize the separation of voices in the writing as I have done: "my writing the lines" vs the characters having done so.
This was exactly my interpretation, too. The characters were writing themselves, not the actors playing the characters. It’s a metaphor!
Yes - this is exactly what I thought. He sounds like the writer talking about the characters speaking for themselves. I’ve not read or heard anything about actors devising this or coming up with dialogue in rehearsals. This seems like a complete misreading of what he’s saying from someone who is not a writer.
I was going to write pretty much the same thing. To me what Furth was saying that the characters only worked when he “got out of the way” and allowed the characters to, in a sense, write themselves. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone ever suggest that the actors wrote some of their own lines.
I totally agree; as a fiction writer myself, what Furth said resonated with me immediately. And notice how he said "characters," not "actors."
Also, Sondheim was notoriously intolerant of people taking liberties with his words or (musical) notes - cf Jason Alexander's experience on Merrily We Roll Along... I suppose a composer/lyricist with that mindset could work with a book writer who is wide open to input from actors, but it seems rather unlikely.
Interesting... but I think out of the shows Bennett did with Sondheim, Follies played a MUCH greater role in what happened with A Chorus Line. Remember, for example, Bennett was continuously unhappy with the book and tried to convince the team to bring in Neil Simon to add jokes which... is what happened with A Chorus Line. Bennett also used Stephen Sondheim's original conception for Who's that Woman (a chorus line with a missing figure in the line) for a moment in ACL when Paul, after his accident, isn't in the line. AND in one part of the licensed script for A Chorus Line, the stage directions actually describe the dancers "as in Follies"--I don't have my copy right here so that may not be exact, but it's when during the rehearsals for "One" most of the cast mimes the choreography, kinda ghost like, in the background, the same way the chorus who had been performing Live, Love, Laugh with Ben, start to do during his breakdown that closes the Loveland sequence (and leads to the end of the show.) There's actually a rather brilliant video here on UA-cam pointing out ways that with ACL Bennett seemed to want to use some of his ideas his collaborators weren't keen on using in Follies (which I think you can find if you enter the title for both shows.) I don't see nearly the same similarities or inspiration in Company.
(Slightly meanly, at the time Sondheim and Hal Prince were kind of cynical about the hugely positive reaction towards A Chorus Line. By no means being completely negative but being a bit condescending towards the younger Bennett--Prince specifically claiming that Bennett was unable to successful work without using showbusiness as a metaphor in his work, which is a bit ironic seeing how often Prince also used the theatre as a metaphor).
Of course Bennett came up with the idea of recording dancers telling their own stories when he took over Seesaw out of town in 1973.
Two little tibits:1-In Ted Chapin's book, Everything Was Possible, he says that at a FOLLIES rehearsal, Bennett mentions to his dancers that one day he wants to do a piece about dancers. 2- In the COMPANY documentary, Mary Rodgers strongly hints that we shouldn't boo-hoo for Ms.Stritch during her Ladies session. Ms.Rodgers ( who was present) tells us that throughout the looong day, Ms.Stritch was partaking in liquid courage and by the time she had to...well you all saw the results.
But yeah, as has repeatedly been said, it absolutely was not a cast devised piece. Yes Joanne was modelled on Stritch--meaning they wrote her material only after they knew she'd have the role. Bennett agreed only if he could give a role to Donna McKechnie (who in the 1970 script barely has any dialogue--they gave Kathy more in 1996.) There is zero evidence of this, and Furth means that the characters came to life and he found them essentially writing themselves--writers often speak this way about the characters they write.
Yes, I came to make this point. When the characters *appear* to be speaking naturally, then the playwright has done their job well. That doesn't mean that the actors made up their dialogue. I can't imagine any of the creators in this project (Furth and Sondheim, primarily) allowing any real input from the actors. Inspiration, yes, cadences of speech, yes, but actual content? Unlikely.
@@ChrisTackettMusicI think Sondheim said the only time he incorporated actual dialogue or a lyric from an actor (as opposed to, as you said, letting an actor's performance influence the writing) was when Joanne Gleason commented about the Into the Woods scene where the Baker's Wife has a fling with the prince that it felt like "I'm in the wrong story."
(And honestly, not to be too mean about the assumptions made in this video, this isn't even really how A Chorus Line worked, though the book and lyrics *were* based on interviews with various Broadway dancers, they were shaped, intermingled, and the performers in the show who also had been interviewed often weren't playing characters telling any of their stories from the interviews.)
...and there were contentious arguments about who would claim authorship of the script of A Chorus Line because of the multiple contributing sources, the different dancers and performers who shared freely in the workshop and interview processes but didn't ultimately make any more money from it.
@@ChrisTackettMusicRight--you probably know the specifics more than I do but I think ultimately the original cast did get a small percentage after their complaint -- but certainly not everyone interviewed.
The moment Michael Bennet's name was mentioned, I knew EXACTLY where this was going! Brilliant!
The far fetched nature of the reading of this Furth quote, and the other proposed readings, I’ll leave to the others already doing so. (I’ll just add that I find it impossible that Elaine Stritch wouldn’t have let this spill this on countless occasions.)
I instead want to focus on the link between the construction of these works that doesn’t need unearthed truths, and why Bennet’s legacy is so different. Company is a Concept Musical based upon the attempted marriage, and later deep conversations between Sondheim and Mary Rodgers. Sondheim couldn’t untie his want for a safe domestic life, from his knowledge that he couldn’t be happy in a straight marriage. A Chorus Line came from the struggle to give a voice to the under appreciated Chorus Dancers of Broadway, and the nights of conversation with his struggling dancer friends.
The difference is two fold. First is the difference between the verbatim nature of A Chorus Line, and the structured approach to Company. But, secondarily, is the fact that Company is Sondheim’s story and A Chorus Line is Bennet’s presentation of others.
(Yes, although we shouldn't underestimate both Hal Prince and especially George Furth's contribution--Furth was also a single, and more or less closeted gay man and the original source plays--involving married couples in each scene with a third male friend, was his. It can be difficult because Furth preferred to never talk about his work, so we don't have much about his process in his own words whatsoever--the Merrily we Roll Along documentary, I believe, doesn't even MENTION him, although with that show, unlike Company, Prince and Sondheim brought him on after they had chosen their subject matter and approach. In fact the brief Furth video quote included here seems to be one of the few times he's said something about the show on the record.)
@@EricMontreal22 in the documentary I believe he’s only mentioned in passing, as little as being along the lines of “Sondheim and Prince brought in George Furth, their collaborator on Company!”
@@EricMontreal22 you are right to highlight that the backbone of the show, the immensely influential scattered structure, was based in the short One Acts
@@mctheplaywrightYou're right, I suppose that DOES count as a mention. I got to attend a Zoom talk with Ann Morrison and, she loves the documentary, but did mention she felt Furth, who was very present throughout rehearsals deserved more of an acknowledgement (she also spoke about how the drama with Ron Field--who was giving them choreography that was too complicated for a group of mostly untrained dancers--getting fired in previews after full out screaming matches with Hal Prince, was surprisingly never mentioned either... Apparently she felt like Field took her on as a confidante, often hiding out in her dressing room to complain about Hal asking for one thing and then not liking what he gave him...)
I just recently watched Muppets Most Wanted and it might have the best Chorusline gag I have ever seen. It kept going and I kept laughing and I feel it was made for and by the theater nerds.
This is fascinating! I had no idea about this theory, but it makes complete sense, especially since Michael Bennet was involved. Actually the fact that the dancers told their own stories is one of the many things I love about A Chorus Line.
The line between trends and almost outright plagarism is always interesting
I played Peter in a production of “Company” a few years ago (months before Sondheim passed) and was heartbroken to find that his big scene with Bobby (where he sort of propositions him) was missing. The currently licensable version is the script and keys of the 90s revival and that scene was added in the 2000s revival. That makes me wonder if the 2000s actor of Peter drove to add that scene given the spirit of the devised writing of the original show in the first place. I think the music director of my production even knew that guy! Goofy
This show’s little adjustments will always fascinate me
Just a bit of a correction--as I've spent way too much time going through the various versions of Company (one grumble I continually have is I think for the most part the 1970 book is the best, but all that is currently available for license is the 1996 revised script, which was meant to update the piece--which doesn't work and they only do a half assed job of updating it anyway. At the least I wish you still had the option to do the 1970 version. And make no mistake, the revisions are fairly extensive--from basic stuff like massively softening Joanne's character in the opening birthday scene, to just small line and stage direction changes on every page or two.)
Anyway that "gay" scene as people call it was meant to be in the 1995 Roundabout revival--the first Broadway revival (and at the time Company wasn't being performed nearly as often as it is now as it was seen as dated, so they were very concerned about how to revise it.) The story is that the scene was written back in 1970 but not used, which I used to find suspect, but it DOES use rather dated slang ("ball" for sex, for example) and I'm starting to come around. Anyway, in the end director Scott Ellis decided not to use it.
However Sam Mendes in his 1996 production for the Donmar (which can be found on UA-cam as it was televised on UK TV) *did* decide to use it, and by the following year an "amalgamation" of the 1995 and 1996 revisions was published and became the only version of Company available for license (there have been exceptions--the 2002 I believe Kennedy Centre Sondheim festival version with John Barrowman got special permission to use the 1970 book--)
I thought both the gay scene and Tick-Tock when you licensed the script were optional, but you say you didn't have the option? I've seen regional (pro) and community productions over the past 25 years 5 (!) times and three of them had the gay scene, two of them didn't (it is in the Neil Patrick Harris semi staged film version--and I can't remember if it's in the John Doyle version with Raul as I'm not much of a fan and haven't watched it in ages.) For the record it's one of the few revised elements I like
@@EricMontreal22"The Scene" is in the 2006 John Doyle version with Raul Esparza.
I have read a Lot about George Furth, including speaking with multiple people who knew him and how he worked. I generally agree with the others in the comment section about the take you mention specifically here.
I would like to mention, however, that Furth and Bennett had a very interesting relationship themselves. The title A Chorus Line is the ORIGINAL title of Furth's play "Twigs" that Michael Bennett directed. There aren't many stories from the production of Twigs, but Bennett and Furth generally spoke very highly of each other and in interviews with Bennett, I can definitely see that they had similar philosophies in regards to their work. Bennett also notably tried to get Furth to fix the book to Follies, which Furth responded to with a passive aggressive letter about how terrific Follies was, pretty silly.
Bennett and Furth had a brief falling out, prior to A Chorus Line, over a never produced musical with Marvin Hamlisch, because Bennett wanted the "conceived by" credit for it. Furth was not willing to give him that credit and Bennett in turn left the project after convincing Hamlisch to join him on what became A Chorus Line. (Bennett asked for Furth's permission to use the title and most sources seem to claim that they'd made up by then and Furth was absolutely all for it... Furth and Hamlisch didn't seem to make up nearly as well, as Hamlisch was an influence behind the character of Frank Shepard in Merrily)
The show that Furth had been working on was eventually mutated into 1977's Kander and Ebb musical, The Act, which was a total disaster for all involved. At one point, Michael Bennett was brought in to see if he could fix it, but he apparently showed up high off his ass (as he often was) and then spewed what everyone perceived to be nonsense, and then Gower Champion was brought in instead.
Bennett actually expressed interest in working with Furth again but that never happened :(
Oh, 70s theater, you never disappoint.
"You're thirty-five. Who wants to celebrate being that old?" - Joanne
I know this isn't exactly a discussion of Company itself, but I missed those old videos, so here's the thought I can't get out of my head about my favorite musical. It's amazing to me the way the choice of the ending song, from 'Multitude of Amys', to 'Happily Ever After', then finally to 'Being Alive', completely re-contextualizes the entirety of Company. 'Being Alive' is the capstone that really takes the entire show and makes it into more than just some silly vignettes about marriage in the US in the mid-20th century. It becomes a reflection on how we choose to live our lives and whether we choose to 'be alive' or just be a guest star in the lives of the people around us.
I still have my VHS copy of the Penebaker doc. Yeah...I'm old.😅
One other thing, and maybe useful before the conjecture, is that Furth wrote the plays first. They were one acts that were developed into a musical. Not getting the Bennett conjecture and doesn’t feel like a connection that makes any sense for what Bennett did, which was entirely original at the time (including inventing the workshop process, which I’d imagine you know). FYI - Elaine Stritch had never been married when she did Company. She got married later. She was involved with Gig Young for many years, but not at all Joanne. If anyone, it would be Mary Rodger’s, who had been married more than once and who Sondheim asked to tell him about being married, since he had never been. That’s where The Little Things You Do Together comes from.
People didn’t write it down because it didn’t happen, You might check out the documentary about the creation of A Chorus Line. Michael Bennet was also involved in Follies, and the line from that would make more sense. But he had been a dancer for many years and had been thinking about it. But the book of Company was written before the musical and the reason for it. It wasn’t improvised by the actors from their stories, which is the base of your conjecture. And happy birthday. :)
Well said! I will only add that apparently only two of Furth's play cycle (at one time called Threes) apparently remained more or less in Company. But I still firmly agree with you.
Once you turn 35, you will have entered into your _36th_ year on this planet, and you'll officially be in your late thirties. Doesn't that make you feel older, now?
I have very complex feelings about Company as an aromantic person
Say more!!
Oh, same! I like 'Company' a lot, but I see it as a tragedy. In my mind, Bobby is aro. 'Being Alive', therefore, is not some great revalation about how they actually want to have a romantic partner. It's them expressing how scared they are that their friends will all eventually couple up and leave them alone. It's a fear I know is silly (especially because most of my friends are queer/poly and don't conform to societal expectations of how relationships "should" be), but I'd be lying if I said it's not something I sometimes worry about while lying in bed at night. I'd be interested to hear what you think about it?
I'm ace myself, and Company is really not one of my favorite, or even well liked, Sondheim musicals. I love "Ladies Who Lunch", "Being Alive", "Not Getting Married", and the title song... but the story itself is kinda meh to me.
I will say though, in my 36 going on 37 years on this Earth, I have gotten a lot more wary of anyone who makes bold, definitive statements like "Thing bad because it's not an accurate depiction of my personal experience as ____, so the writer/creator must hate/be anti what I am" when it's pretty obvious that the creator is reflecting on their own lived experience, so of course they're not going to depict an "accurate portrayal" of someone else's lived experience, because that's just not what they're talking about.
But then this mindset has also come about from not just accepting every wink and nod to "imply" something about a character that isn't stated outright.
OoOo Birthday!!! I wish upon you the happiest day of birthing!
Oh?
Algorithm
And, this is new to you? You are so sweet, stage actors do this quite a lot, which is why actors get paid for this now.
Undeservingly condescending of you calling a well-read content creator ”sweet” as if he was a child. Different theatre is of course created in different ways and actor-devised storylines are very common in local and amateur theatre. When it comes to Broadway musicals, this way of working is very uncommon and the examples aren’t that many in relation to the total amount of works presented throughout history. If you’re doing a straight play in a major theatre you might have room to play around and improvise, but when there is as much money on the line as there is in a traditional musical producers seldom allow for this level of freedom.
This notion that lines in Company were devised by the cast is contrary to what you assumed actually quite new and has never really been conveyed about the show in any publishings (and might not withstand that much scrutiny as well), so your assertion is not only rudely formulated, but also plain incorrect.
@@ironsilverman641Right, and of course never happened with Company, this misconstrued quote from Furth notwithstanding.
first?
The gender swap wasn’t very good.
Agreed! It was forced and at parts made the story distracting
I think there are some parts that don’t work nearly as well but as a whole, I thought it was pretty solid. It helped to look at it as a companion piece with which to engage with the original show.
@@haydenwilder2221I agree. Some parts really didn't work (I still don't get why they didn't just have Joanne proposition Bobbie herself instead of offering up her husband...) but I think if you do feel the need to update Company (something they've been trying to do off and on ever since revising the licensed script way back in 1996) it makes a lot more since to make Bobbie a female. With the biological clock and societal pressure, in 2020 there's much more pressure on a 35 year old woman to be married, and in this case have a baby, than there is on a 35 year old man now. Being unmarried at 35 is no longer all that strange, and 35 is no longer even seen as the start of being middle aged, the way it was in 1970.
I guess your views have dropped solely because of your hugly contraversinal Mrs Lovett video. In that you were so one sided and so wrong. We used to watch your videos in drama class but after that video our drama teacher banned your channel 😂