Boring Sondheim Shows?- Page 6

[LostLeander]

Posted: 6/24/06 at 2:12am

As a theatre artist, I like to hold theatre to a higher responsibility. More the most part, I don't like to just be entertained, I like to go away thinking about what has just happened.

I like when a show has something to say. I like to have to dig for comprehension, and discuss the show. There's not much to discuss about shows like Wicked, except how they made that green girl fly. That doesn't mean that there's not a place for that kind of musical, or that it's not great that it brings people to the theatre, or that's it's also not great theatre.

But with Sondheim shows, there's always something to discuss. His shows always deal with humans in conflict with each other, and life as a whole, and they NEVER solve themselves at the end of the show. There are themes, and leitmotifs, and hidden melodies that become full fledged songs, etc. There's always so much more going on than what's onstage.

But FIRST and foremost I'm always entertained. As someone said before, at his prime, and most of his shows are a perfect marriage between subtance and style, and you can't tell which is more important. But there are some shows of his that I can totally understand people not liking. And if you don't like the shows that I think are his best, I just have a little less understanding.

Updated On: 6/24/06 at 02:12 AM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/24/06 at 11:42am

I'm sorry; I wanted to like Sunday in the Park with George. I really did. But it just didn't hook me at all. Now, Passion absolutely bored me of what I heard until I heard the Finale, and then I was hooked. But Sunday never had a moment like that for me...

I used to dislike Assassins, but it's growing on me now. Maybe Sunday will someday, too.

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 6/24/06 at 1:03pm

I'm responding to this after six pages of comments have been posted, so forgive me if I'm reiterating someone else's comments.

For KJisgroovy, Walter Kerr didn't like musicals that weren't AABA, basically. He loved snazzy show tunes. Shows like "Gypsy" and "Hello, Dolly!"

Some of the shows he didn't like were "West Side Story", "Most Happy Fella", "Evita"

And yes, Sondheim's lyrics for "Do I Hear A Waltz" (which I would choose as the show of his that I find the most boring) are not his best and seem rather pedestrian. But, given the animosity that went of during the creation of that show, no one did his best work.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/24/06 at 1:21pm

DO I HEAR A WALTZ - In some songs Rodgers dominates (Mainly the ballads and the title song) while in others Sondheim takes the lead (What Do We Do? WE Fly! and the original version of We're Gonna Be All right.) But at no point do the words and music go together the way Sondheim lyrics and Jule Styne's tunes do in GYPSY.


SUNDAY is a special show. Anyone who cares about the creative artistic process will find it very moving. Others will find it boring and baffling.

Sondheim shows have baffled some audiences for years. Ethan Mordden, writing about COMPANY commented that when they got to that key scene in Act Two at the end of Side by Side and Robert did his half of the tap routine to silence: He had no partner to complete him. Theatre fans went wild at the brilliance of the moment. Others were baffled by it and they had a feeling that even if they did understand it, they wouldn't like it. Not only that the cheering of the theatre fans irritated them: It was like some fantastic party they could not get into. This marked the start of the split between the theatre fans and the mass audience. The latter flocks to see PHANTOM and WICKED and SPAMALOT; the former support shows like LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA, RAGTIME and GRAND HOTEL as well as the Sondheim shows.

I suspect the same people that find Sondheim's shows boring also find PIAZZA a chore to sit through.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 6/24/06 at 1:27pm

This marked the start of the split between the theatre fans and the mass audience. The latter flocks to see PHANTOM and WICKED and SPAMALOT; the former support shows like LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA, RAGTIME and GRAND HOTEL as well as the Sondheim shows.

I suspect the same people that find Sondheim's shows boring also find PIAZZA a chore to sit through.

I, as well as many others, think PIAZZA is amazing and unlike theatre snobs (yes, I said it) I like ALL types of musicals. I don't put myself in a category where I think I am smarter/dumber than others and limit myself to liking certain types of musicals. And how dare any one of you (including myself) to think just because a person does not/does like certain musicals that he/she is smart/dumb.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 6/24/06 at 1:44pm

This marked the start of the split between the theatre fans and the mass audience. The latter flocks to see PHANTOM and WICKED and SPAMALOT; the former support shows like LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA, RAGTIME and GRAND HOTEL as well as the Sondheim shows.

For me, personally, the above statement is a crock. People just aren't that black and white. I thought COMPANY (I saw the original cast), was a less than mediocre show, about a bunch of people (one, in particular) that I couldn't care less about; singing songs that I really never wanted to hear again. But, that's also how I felt about PHANTOM and WICKED. PIAZZA, is a story I like (always did, from the time I saw the original film back in the 60's), with a score I despise. RAGTIME, in every regard, is a masterpiece to me, and I adored GRAND HOTEL. So, you see, you can't just draw a line in the sand and put people on one side or the other.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/24/06 at 2:28pm

And how dare any one of you (including myself) to think just because a person does not/does like certain musicals that he/she is smart/dumb.

Hold on there, I never said anything about smart vs. dumb. The point is not how smart one is but whether one can relate a show and not only the writing but also the production style. It also has to do with a "mass audience" made up largely of tourists and business travelers. These people are often looking for light, fun entertainment and would probably opt for JERSEY BOYS over SWEENEY TODD. Nothing wrong with that.

Some people think I am missing something for not liking PHANTOM, but honestly that show just doesn’t speak to me. It doesn’t even whisper.

I don’t see it as a clear-cut line in the sand at all. More like a fork in the road and yes, many people do defy logic and travel down both paths. In many ways I do. I enjoy a good old-fashioned light-hearted musical comedy. I love THE PRODUCERS, and DROWSY CHAPERONE. I loved 42ND STREET when I saw it in 1980. The following year I had a choice: Go see 42nd again or go back for a second look (in previews) of the new Sondheim musical MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG. I chose MERRILY. First of all to hear the score again - it was that good, and the cast album would not be out for a few months - and to see the changes.

John Boy did not like COMPANY because he didn't like the characters and he didn't like the score.

Q for JB...had you heard any of it before seeing the show?

I first heard the recording of COMPANY and loved it. More with each subsequent listen. I got the script from the library and read it. It was not until several years later when I finally saw a production on stage, so I knew exactly what to expect and what the show was about. If I had been in New York in 1970 and seen Ethel Merman in HELLO DOLLY! and Ann Miller in MAME and then the next night walked into COMPANY, my reaction may very well have been the same as John Boy's.

GRAND HOTEL was a show I saw without benefit of knowing the score (because of the long delay in getting a cast album done) but I liked it a lot even though the night I saw it the cast was not giving their all. I saw it again a few months later and that confirmed for me that it was as brilliant a piece as I had suspected.

On balance, I saw both PHANTOM and WICKED having heard the scores in advance yet nothing I saw on stage really added anything to my experience.

It is strange how some shows can provoke such a passionate response. To date most of the Sondheim shows have worked for me. I saw MERRILY, WOODS and BOUNCE cold without knowing any of the scores, and all three are scores I happily listen to repeatedly. SUNDAY, SWEENEY, PACFIC OVERTURES and PASSION were shows I saw after hearing the cast albums but seeing the shows only enriched future listens.

The music of RAGTIME was very powerful, though nothing will match my memory of the opening night here in Toronto. That was a time when the entire cast and audience were all on the same emotional journey and at the end a huge roar went up from the crowd, the likes of which I have seldom heard live in a theatre. Oh yes, one other: the closing performance o SWEENEY TODD at the Kenedy Centre in 2002 when Brian Stokes Mitchell came out for his bow. Wow!

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 6/24/06 at 6:15pm

No, you can't be so black and white. People will like what they like. I'm not a huge fan of Grand Hotel, and I think Ragtime is a good show but not a masterpiece. I would resist the urge to say things like "Company is a less than mediocre show". Even if it doesn't entertain or move you, it's clearly not a mediocre show.

Of course Sondheim can be boring. "Ladies and their Sensitivities", anyone? Anyone can be boring. Whatever. It doesn't mean the work has less merit.

In fact, sometimes you need the boring (i.e. weaker) parts to make the exciting (i.e. stronger) parts seem even better. I'm not saying he's purposefully being boring, but just making that observation.

For me, boring is a derivative musical. I don't need everything to be amazing and clever (though I don't mind it). Just have flashes of originality. Be something that's worth my time.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 6/24/06 at 9:57pm

frontrow, I apologize for my little outburt earlier. I have just had some experiences in the past with some people on this board about this very subject.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 6/24/06 at 11:27pm

Will someone explain one thing about COMPANY, other than the score, that isn't mediocre? I saw the documentary film on the recording of the album, on PBS, prior to seeing the show. I watched it, because I had a ticket to see the show. Almost immediately after seeing that film, as I recall. At any rate, Dean Jones was still in it. I've heard that album, many times since. Mainly because it was one of the few that was done in quadrophonic sound (a sound system in the 70s.) It sounded wonderful (certainly better than the stereo version), but the songs did nothing for me. However, compared to something like SWEENY TODD, they're superb!

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 2:11am

JohnBoy2, I have no idea what you are asking about.

[LostLeander]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 2:13am

"but the songs did nothing for me. However, compared to something like SWEENY TODD, they're superb!"

If you think SweenEy Todd is horrible, then I don't think anyone can sell you on Sondheim. You obviously just aren't a huge fan of is, as those are definately in his top 5 (or 10, depending)best shows.

Ah well.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 3:55am

I know I'm late in this discussion, but I wanted to say DG made some excellent points a couple pages ago, but something irked me that wasn't addressed.

It seems to be agreed upon that the musicals that make you think most is Sondheim shows. Just like you can't say what show people are going to emotionally connect you, you can't say what shows are going to make people think.

Anyone interested in philosophy can take any form of entertainment and come up with all these thoughts and questions--I even read one philosophical essay on Muppet Babies.

It even holds with philosophy aside, though. Everyone has been bringing up Wicked as a show that doesn't make you think, which is really unfair. So I'll use Wicked as an example--it and almost anything can make me think.

The most interesting aspect of Wicked I think is the person who actually accomplishes something and makes changes--Glinda. Yet she was the weaker of the two heroines--she couldn't go against the Wizard and all the love of the people that Elphaba could. But this decision of weakness leads to her success at the end--by siding with the Wizard and staying loved by the people, she was able to overcome him and implement changes in Oz, with all the people loving her. Elphaba seemed to make the hard choice to fight the Wizard--yet with the exception of a few animals, she barely accomplished anything and eventually disappears out of society. The idea that conforming can lead to greater strength than fighting is fascinating, and more so in this story because it was unintentional--Glinda didn't conform to gain power, she did out of human weakness. It honestly really makes me think.

I could go even further--Nessa is related to Elphaba and doesn't even necessarily support her, yet she is still sacrificed to get to her.

And the idea about people being manipulated into thinking she's wicked is obvious, but how often can events get manipulated? Like what happened with the lion? Do we change our perception and perhaps facts of events to match our beliefs? And do we truly believe the distorted facts?

My point is...you can't...generalize how someone is going to react to a show...emotionally, what someone is going to think, etc. That's why there's variety. Why do we have to...try to generalize things into everyone or most or people should or shouldn't feel a certain way. You can argue technicalities of a show, sure. But when you try to argue the way audiences react...it's just silly. You can't generally say there's nothing to discuss after a show, because someone may have lots to discuss. You have nothing to discuss, and that's fine.

And while I'm in this whole post thing, I'm gonna post something I've always been scared to, and hope I don't regret: Why do people get so frustrated when there are constant posts about Idina being great, or thoughts on the Rent film, or even too many Piazza reviews...and everyone complains people are just saying the same things...but Sondheim discussions are immune to this frustration? I think I have read the phrase "Sondheim's worst is better than most others' best" as many times as I see someone asking for student rush information. No one complains that people say the same things about Sondheim over and over like they do everything else.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 9:28am

Wow, wickedrentq. That was great!

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 1:58pm

Will someone explain one thing about COMPANY, other than the score, that isn't mediocre?

1. THE CONCEPT - Although Hal Prince had experimented a bit with the idea of an over-arcing concept with CABARET, COMPANY was the first concept musical. It did not have a linear plot: its elements were all seen in cross-section so it was a totally new and different style of theatre. Probably the biggest innovation since OKLAHOMA! 27 years earlier.

2. The use of the songs as commentaries on the action. Of course this was not new..Brecht had done in the 1920s, and the Cabaret songs in CABARET functioned in a similar fashion, but in COMPANY we understand the characters more through the songs placed outside of the action.

3. The use of songs to reveal what the characters really think and feel. Traditional musical structure has two people meeting and falling in love ("If I Loved You" and the entire bench scene in CAROUSEL is considered the finest development in words and music of this idea.) In COMPANY, nobody falls in love. Robert has sex (quite a lot it seems) but at the climax of his scene with April she cries out "I love you." Of course she isn't really in love, just in the throes of passion but Robert can't bring himself to lie back to here and hesitates (to a rather harsh guitar sting.)

4. The use of pastiche: The best example of which is the Andrews Sisters styled "You could drive a person crazy."

5. "Being Alive" - one the most beautiful and heartbreaking 11:00 numbers ever.

6. The dialogue. The characters are all wearing masks and in the birthday party scene they play "attitudes" to hide their emotions. SO their banter is superficial and more than a little bitchy. Only when the characters sing ("Sorry Grateful", "Someone is waiting", "Getting Married Today") do we learn what they really think and feel.

7. The "sound" of COMPANY was very contemporary for 1970. But unlike HAIR which dated very quickly, COMPANY still sounds of its era without being anachronistic.

8. Though the show was very much a product of its time, the themes of loneliness and isolation in the big city are still relevant. While most musicals portray love and sex in the context of a happily ever after fairy-tale, COMPANY is a more realistic look at our ambivalent feelings. We are all sorry-grateful at different times. And as much as many of us view the idea of falling in love and living happily ever after, the truth is there is no happily and no ever after. It's all one day at a time and the little things (good and bad) that you do together is indeed what makes a perfect relationship. (The idea that perfect is not always happy or ideal is in itself worthy of an entire play.)

9. Barcelona. The post-coital duet for Robert and April has a lovely, haunting melody infused with an over-arcing sadness. They made a connection had some very hot and passionate sex and now...there is nowhere else for their relationship to go. This is an idea never previously explored in a musical. Or since, as far as I know. And given the nature of contemporary relationships, it seems more and more relevant.

10. Flawed, unlikable characters. Yes some of them are downright obnoxious. (You almost want to belt Sarah the way she keeps correcting minor details in her husband's stories. And Joanne is someone you would be trying to avoid at any party.) Even as archetypes, they are realistic. In fact outside of Madame Rose in GYPSY (***she is either called "Mamma" or "Madame Rose" or "Rose." Nowhere is she ever called "Mamma Rose." Look at the script.***) these are probably the most unlikable yet fascinating characters ever to inhabit a musical.

11. The out-takes. "Multitudes of Amys" may very well be the most beautiful song Stephen Sondheim has ever written. "Marry Me a Little" and "Happily Ever After" may not have worked in the show but they are both brilliant little one-act plays and have found homes in cabaret shows and Sondheim recitals.


I have to add that every time I see a production of COMPANY, I marvel at how brilliant the score and the book are and how well they function together.

[Christoph]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 3:09pm

You make some very good points wickedrentq. There seems to be certain thought processes going on among theater snobs/Sondheim fans that rationalizes a few theories that are inherently wrong.

First, that if anyone does not universally adore Sondheim, then it must be because you are intellectually stunted and require someone to "explain" the deep meanings to you. That is folly. Truly great stage work should be able to cross the lines and find fans in all camps without requiring a refresher course on "big messages."

Second, it is perfectly OK to bash Andrew Lloyd Webber (a writer I have just as many mixed feelings about as Sondheim), but by contrast Sondheim should be completely off limits for any criticism whatsoever. This is also a crock, as I cannot think of ANY Broadway writer, personality, etc., that has never had a misstep in their career. It is completely a matter of taste and if Sondheim is what floats your boat, then enjoy his work but stop denigrating those who prefer others to him. It is not a crime to feel he is overrated, just as it is not a crime to say you don't understand the feelings generated by ALW fans.

Third, it must be intellectually stimulating first and foremost and only entertaining on an emotional or visual level as an afterthought. This is where I thoroughly disagree. It is the "in" thing with theater snobs to go out of their way to disdain any musicals that can be classified as "fun" or "light." I cannot tell you how many theater snobs I hear start off a critique as "It was fun, but I couldn't recommend it." Or "It was very entertaining as fluff, but you really should see '18 Tons of Misery' if you want a really rewarding night out." Please! Heavy and deep meanings do not often translate into an emotionally uplifting night out. The world is a pretty harsh place and I do not want every theater experience to be a litany of woe just because some people think it makes them deep to watch it. Oklahoma, Show Boat, South Pacific, Kiss Me Kate, The Music Man, Annie Get Your Gun, et al., are all considered classics. On some level they may make some (but not all) people think on the themes contained within them, but they are not considered "deep" pieces. They placed entertainment first and if someone took something extra away with them, then that was wonderful. They are still classics nonetheless that hold up today.

When I see a musical, I want to be transported. I want to be galvanized and uplifted. I want to be swept away by the enthusiasm of the performers. I want to see exuberant dancing and hear music that stays in my head when I leave. And don't misunderstand. These same feelings can be generated by darker-themed shows, like Cabaret or Sweeney Todd. However, many theater snobs will have you believe that these are frivolous reasons to go and see a show and, unless you can walk out offering a theorem on the secret of life, then the whole evening has been wasted. I don't know about anyone else, but I will be happy to continue wasting my time at some of the "fluff" shows listed above, which place the value of entertainment first and foremost.
Updated On: 6/27/06 at 03:09 PM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 3:48pm

I definitely agree Christoph, but like I said, every show, no matter how "fluff"y one wants to call it, can stimulate a lot of thinking and analysis.

I'll be honest--I used to be anti-fluff, and I thought better theatre made you think, but I've totally changed my tune. There has been quite a few musicals lately--Tarzan, Wedding Singer, when people have asked me if I would recommend it...and I've answered it's not the best musical I've seen, it has its flaws, but I think it's really fun and enjoyed it.

I feel like I have something to add, but I'm not finding the right words--I've deleted a couple of sentences...maybe when I get back tonight it will come to me.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 8:23pm

Cristoph, you made some really excellent posts and very well written . . . I applaud you. What all this really is about, and like I have stated many times during this thread, is to say that every composer has his/her flaws. No composer is perfect, although many people would like to think so. What I don't like is the way people bash others for liking something "fluff" or whatnot, but at the same time say, "we need to get people in theatre seats." First bring them in, and then give them something to think about. Also, I hate the whole "rock musicals and unoriginal theatre is killing Broadway." Well, the music of the golden era of musicals were the "rock music" of the day. During the jazz age, there was jazz music in Broadway shows. When Ragtime was popular, Ragtime was in Broadway shows. Today, Rock/Pop music is popular so of course it will be in Broadway shows. Also, NO composer is 100% original. Somewhere down the line, they have ripped off someone else's idea. And the shows during the Golden Age of Broadway are pretty much all taken from books, plays, or a biography of a real person's life. Now, if you are going to damn unoriginal shows of today, then you need to damn Oklahoma!, Guys and Dolls, Show Boat, My Fair Lady, Mame, etc.

[icantbelive]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 9:27pm

Passion was soooooooooooo boring. Thankfully I rented the DVD from the library. I was very glad that I didnt pay close to $100 to see that show. It was a good show but very boring. The music and acting were boring. It wasn't anything dark like Sweeney and there wasnt anything to grab your attention like intresting plots in wierd places

[icantbelive]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 9:27pm

Passion was soooooooooooo boring. Thankfully I rented the DVD from the library. I was very glad that I didnt pay close to $100 to see that show. It was a good show but very boring. The music and acting were boring. It wasn't anything dark like Sweeney and there wasnt anything to grab your attention like intresting plots in wierd places

[buffyactsing]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 10:04pm

Wow, I can't fathom how anyone who truly watches Passion could find Donna Murphy's performance "boring".

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 11:14pm

I can sort of understand why you feel PASSION is boring. Yu are not alone. It has a very narrow range. There are no break out moments of flash and pizzazz. There are no spectacular scenic effects. In fact it is essentially an intimate story (a chamber opera) involving three people. There are no set songs in the score, it was written as one long rhapsody interrupted by dialogue. In many ways it is more operatic than SWEENEY.

But there are rumblings under the surface.

The show toys with your emotions... you spend nearly 2/3 of it rooting for Giorgio to get the hell away from this sick creature now! Then by the end when he surrenders to Fosca (that is IF you have stayed with it to this point) it is a shattering moment that will leave some in tears. (Others are bored to tears by it.)

Its funny - PASSION always moves me to tears. Yet PHANTOM OF THE OPERA always left me cold and somewhat bored. I have asked PHANTOM phans what it is about the show they see that I obviously don't. They tell me they identify with the Phantom's loneliness and isolation and find his story moving.

I guess it really is a matter of taste and your own personal baggage.

In a way they are really the same story - an ugly person falls in love and becomes obsessed with the object of their desire with tragic results.

I just realizd - they are the same story!

Updated On: 6/25/06 at 11:14 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 11:17pm

PASSION is truly one of the few musicals that can bring me to tears.

Sondheim shows just know how to hit that emotional spot with me. Sweeney gets me. The second act of Sunday REALLY strikes that emotional chord with me. The messages of his shows just really hit me.

And I thought I was the only one who liked Act 2 of Sunday better than Act 1! I'm glad to see I'm not alone.

[freeadmission]

Posted: 6/25/06 at 11:27pm

Dear God! Christoph, will you marry me?!

[Adam Chris]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 12:37am

I think The Frogs is a pretentious bore.