Anyone catch Six by Sondheim on HBO? — Page 7

I think what's fascinating about the documentary is we have three performances done as originally intended. And then we get three short films based on specific songs written by Sondheim. I've already made the case for why I was moved by all the moving pieces that went into Haynes' piece. The Send in the Clowns was really intriguing as well...and I've needed to sit with it for a while to come up with what I thought about it. I think it was really moving to have a husband and wife perform this song in a way that was disjointed and not particularly lyrical. Their conversation didn't gel...they were talking past each other. I also needed to think about the fades to black. My guess is that it was a commentary on the fact that, though the scene seems to end (the fades) it never actually does. Every time the lights come back, the same conversation is taking place. It's a cinematic take on the idea of sending in the clown. Let's get to the next scene and have some relief. But there is no relief from the emotion in the song.

Opening Doors is far more straightforward and, as such, relied on the moving camera to propel the song...I just didn't feel it was all that successful. However, I enjoyed the casting, and think the four leads cast could be highly effective in a revival.

as both a pulp & sondheim fan, i would also like to defend cocker's performance. i think it's relevant to note that, while comparing his output to sondheim's is apples and oranges, cocker is also a brilliant lyricist in his own right. at their best, his lyrics resonate on a similar level as sondheim's: wry, bittersweet, insightful, and able to evoke complex ideas and emotions with a few well-placed words. so while he's certainly an offbeat choice, i don't think it was inappropriate, though i can see why people who are unfamiliar with his work would find his delivery off-putting.

Updated On: 12/19/13 at 11:51 AM

And saying “agree to disagree” is fine, but you asked for a good defense of the number. If, upon hear a good defense, you move straight to “agree to disagree,” then why ask for the defense in the first place?

As a matter of fact, mysteriousgrowl, I was simply being polite and trying to save us all the time of an argument that seems to be going nowhere.

For the defenses I've seen here have been in favor of non-traditional interpretations. And in fact I'm all for that. I still haven't read an argument for this particular interpretation of "I'm Still Here"; even RobbieJ's defense of it is highly qualified.

"Well, you have to know Cocker" may explain it, but doesn't do me any good. (Thanks, Eric, for the correction on his age.)

When Julie Wilson talks her way through an evening of Sondheim and Coward, it is brilliant; but I know her, know she is 80+ and know what she sounded like when she was 40. But I would argue that voice or no voice, she still treats material with greater respect than Cocker.

I still have no idea why the Cocker choice was made. (Joey sums up my response exactly.) But if others sincerely believe they were moved/provoked/challenged in a Brechtian way, etc., then more power to them.

On the other hand, I do understand and even agree with RobbieJ's interpretation of the other numbers. Not that I'll be hiring Lapine to direct any movies...

Updated On: 12/19/13 at 03:46 PM

I no longer understand what this conversation is about.

Are you looking for a defense of the vocal performance by Cocker? I won't offer one...but not because it was terrible. It simply wasn't the event of the piece. The reactions to the performance were the event. This wasn't even a music video. It was a short film ruminating on themes of I'm Still Here. I've already explained my interpretation of what Haynes' was going for and why I found it effective.

Also, the more I thought about why it wasn't Ladies Who Lunch, the clearer the answer became: it was too obvious. That song is already a commentary on a certain class of women. It would have felt to confrontational to use that song. I'm Still Here is less 'in you face' for what I believe Haynes was going for, which actually allowed all of the women to have a range of emotions while digesting what Cocker was doing.

Oh, grrrrrl! This segment has gotten people heated!

For the record, I fully understand the range of reactions...I'm just trying to explain mine. The only thing posted here that's disgruntled me in this thread was this sentence by Gav:

'But if others sincerely believe they were moved/provoked/challenged in a Brechtian way, etc., then more power to them.'

Why would anything I've written be considered anything but sincere? It's a strange turn of phrase that makes me think I'm being patted on the head and sent to my room with a glass of lukewarm water.

Updated On: 12/19/13 at 04:41 PM

Well...let me take this time to tell you that I in no way intended my remarks to annoy or bother anyone. Truly. Even my remark about 'new interpretations' wasn't meant as any kind of general thing like, 'You GUYS! Why aren't you open to new interpretations???'

It's actually a very personal thing I'm dealing with as I reassess my own work. Whenever I encounter work that exists (as opposed to original works that have yet to be produced), I battle with myself over whether I should try to simply honor the work as written or try to put a new spin on it. I'm starting to realize that some of my work suffers from trying to add something that doesn't really belong. So, I felt that this particular segment spoke to me personally on quite a few levels. It just hit me at the right time for me to want to sit with it and think about it.

^ I loved that reprise of Honey Bun. I know others who felt it was too heavy-handed, but I simply disagreed.

I think the thing I'm coming to is that simply being present and open and willing to allow my life and my experiences also be present in my work is what makes it 'different,' if you will. The older I get, the more I think, 'Just do it and let you be you.' It's a hurdle that is still surprisingly hard to clear. I find these kinds of choices are more readily found in my cabaret work. When I'm doing a full theater piece, I generally just burrow into the script and work from there. But, in the cabaret world, in which there are hundreds of interpretations of the same songs, I find myself pushing to do something new. It can be such a trap.

I think the thing I'm coming to is that simply being present and open and willing to allow my life and my experiences also be present in my work is what makes it 'different,' if you will.

To quote the master himself:

"Stop worrying if your vision is new. Let other's make that decision they usually do."

And ...

"Anything you do, let it come from you, then it will be new."

Two of my favorite lines in that show, and words to live by as an artist. You will bring something new to the plate just because you're you. As long as you trust yourself. That trust is so difficult to come by. I think when artists don't trust themselves and their individuality, they look for ways to embellish or ways to imitate or ways to overwhelm. Eventually it turns into smoke and mirrors or facades. Truth is lost.

I think you should honor your material and honor it your way. Easier said than done! And so easy to sum up, yet so difficult to accomplish.

---

I can't get through that show without sobbing. It's the best work yet about the creation of art, in my opinion.

And I think, when all is said and done, it's my favorite Sondheim show. If you asked me a decade ago, I would have said Sweeney Todd.

And speaking of "new," when I first heard Sunday (the show) when the recording was released, I didn't care for the music. I liked the song Sunday, I liked the story, and I loved the lyrics ... but the music was such a departure for Sondheim, and to my unfamiliar ears, it was mostly atonal and discordant.

I have grown to love the music ... every blessed note.

And who's to say? I may look at this video from Six By Sondheim a decade from now and praise its brilliance. I don't ever lock myself into one all-time opinion of anything. I change as a person, through the years, and so do my perceptions of art.

---

Gaveston said: "I still have no idea why the Cocker choice was made. (Joey sums up my response exactly.) But if others sincerely believe they were moved/provoked/challenged in a Brechtian way, etc., then more power to them.

On the other hand, I do understand and even agree with RobbieJ's interpretation of the other numbers. Not that I'll be hiring Lapine to direct any movies... "

I didn't love the performance, but I found it interesting (just to add my by-this-point not needed 2cents.) I'm a minor Pulp/Cocker fan (I was obsessed with the This is Hardcore song and video when it was out and frankly have lost track of him ever since.) But it may have helped that I knew Cocker's style, and didn't expect something all that different.

However, Todd Haynes probably deserves some of the credit/blame for Cocker's performance, and not just for the way it was shot (I wouldn't be surprised if the choice of performer in the first place wasn't his idea.) I'm, mostly, a huge Haynes fan, but his performer choices for I'm Not There, his film inspired by Bob Dylan left me mystified (granted, I am not much of a Dylan fan.) This didn't seem all that different.

As for Lapine directing a film. I dunno, I never saw, nor do I plan on seeing his Hollywood comedy, Life with Mikey, but I thought his breezy Chopin biopic, Impromptu, is a lot of fun, and quite romantic.

Eric, maybe I'll check out IMPROMPTU. It's true that I didn't know Cocker and wasn't in the mood to be charitable. In fact, I only heard him the second time I saw the doc because my husband was watching it with me. When I watched it alone, I fast-forwarded through the song.

'Now as for your deconstruction, I'm not entirely sure I understand how you came to your conclusions.'

Frankly, it took a while. :)

The big thing I was left with at the end was 'WHY?' So, I sat with it for a few days and rewatched it and tried to figure out what Haynes was going for. I came to the conclusion that, because the emotional arc of the piece was the reactions of the women, then that was the event, rather than the song and performance itself. And after I came to that, I realized what was really being done was a mirror was being held in my own face. I, too, have gotten up in clubs in NYC and performed women's songs...even the song in question. And the ironic, mocking tone of Cocker's performance really stung when I had to stop and ask myself, 'Do I do that? Do I mock women instead of celebrate them? Is it inherently mocking when a man decides to do a diva song like that?' I like to think not, but perhaps I'm wrong. And when a woman watches me do I'm Still Here or Lot's Wife or Ladies Who Lunch or Fifty Percent, do they think I'm taking aim at the experience of women in our society? Or do they think I'm simply someone trying to exercise his range by investing myself in another experience.

A number of years ago, I played a role that was coded 'gay.' He wasn't clearly gay, but it was hinted at in the (older) script and so I went for it. The character was meant to be a little unhinged, so I thought I could get away with being a little outrageous and a little unstable. Then, a review was printed which compared my performance of a queer character to 'watching a black man tap dance and eat watermelon.' Oooof. I didn't necessarily agree, but I had to deal with the fact that a performance of mine made someone feel that way. I had to examine my work and see if I was taking the easy way out, and if I should demand more of myself. The very next role I played was a transgender hooker dying of AIDS, which could have been absolutely absurd. But I used what I learned to ask more of myself, and everything changed: my process, my respect for the words on the page and the way in which I treated myself as an actor. I learned a lot from that one very terrible review. But seeing that I'm Still Here segment brought up those memories and forced me to deal with them in a way that I haven't in over a decade.

Again...this is so bizarrely personal that I understand why no one would take away from it what I did. But that's what leads me to think it was successful on some level.