Discussion: Sunday in the Park with George

Well, I've been eager to have an actual debate about this show (or any show for that matter). Giving that there's another thread that on the surface appears to be a discussion, but really just wants to bash, I thought we could "have-a-go" at discussion what we think does and doesn't work about Sunday in the Park with George.

So, all opinions are fair game, but really, try to articulate what you do and don't think works either in production or in the Lapine/Sondheim text, and we can respond accordingly (and respectfully).

Anyone want to start?

---

'Sunday in the Park with George' was my first Sondheim show. :3 A lot of people seem to adore the first act and reckon it could work very well as a standalone. I believe a lot of people feel the same way about 'Into the Woods'. But I come to you as a lover of the second act of 'Sunday in the Park with George'.

For one thing, I adore the song 'Putting It Together'. It's a pretty long song, it takes up a fair chunk of the act all by itself. I love the thing Sondheim does where he sets up little musical motifs, then when repeating the main tune, has the motifs pop up in the background. Do you know what I mean? Like in 'Merrily We Roll Along': there's the party, and everyone's chatting; the motifs are being set up. Then Charlie sings 'Good Thing Going', then Frank encourages him to sing it again, but because the crowd aren't paying attention anymore, they chuck in their little motifs at the ends of lines. I'm fairly sure that anyone can write a musical, but Sondheim writes complete pieces that work really well *within themselves*.

Also, you *could* just do the first act on its own, if you just want to tell a story. But it's the second act that brings meaning to the story, if you like. It's all very well knowing that George does art, and Dot wishes he weren't so intense, and whoops! Baby out of wedlock so Dot marries a baker and goes across the sea! And just telling a story is fine for, say, Schwartz. But while some storytellers tell a story jsut for the hck of it, other storytellers tell stories because they'd like you to think, they want their characters and audiences to learn something. Act two really does that ever so well for me.

And is there anything quite as breathtaking as that last moment?

"White.

A blank page or canvas.

His favourite.

So many possibilities..."

And then the little "sunday..." from the band. Just beautiful.

Aaaaanyhoo.

---

WEEZ - yes yes yes!!! that last moment... oh. amazing. ugh. yes.

Mildred - avoid "name calling" ? excuse me?

You're negating the purpose of this thread. To predict someone's response, before they have it, isn't a discussion, it's an attempt at a fight. And now I've ruined the point of this thread.

Moving on...

---

I don't feel I know the show well enough to be comfortable making many analytic comments about it, but my God, I just love it so much. I cried like a fool at the end of Act One, though on the whole, I actually prefer Act Two. What a beautiful show. I'm listening to it right now, as it happens!

---

Weez, the Chromolume was an actual machine that they dragged out onto the middle of the stage.

To be honest, I think it's severely flawed and overrated.

It's still a good musical, but I do not think it's a masterpiece. The last revival was strong and emphasized the good things about the show, but in reality, it does drag and get boring at points, and it's definitely not an audience-pleaser of a show.

And I also happen to be in the minority in liking the second act more than the first.

I don't think the plot of Act I is enough to sustain it into an Act II that carried on where Act II stopped. I admit, on first view, I was puzzled by Act II. I admit, it's probably not a one-time experience, and therefore, for that sole reason I think it's flawed.

But I now adore the seemingly unrelated half's that make a satisfying whole. Some of Sondheim's best music, especially the abundantly melodic "Move On". I find "Putting it Together" quite cleverly constructed (and on stage, worked even better in the revival without the original cardboard George concept). Above all, I love the surprise of going from a perfectly constructed Act I, to a more experimental Act II (the start of which, has Act I trapped in the painting).

It's refreshing that Sondheim and Lapine didn't stop with Act I and call it a day. Act II still feels experimental and daring today. Sure, Act I is long enough to be its own play, but the concepts introduced in the first half are expanded on so eloquently in the second.

If anything, the only huge problem I have with Act II is the fact that the modern George is related to Seurat. I find this to be slightly contrived in construct. I feels more forced that it should. Couldn't George be a fan of Seurat's, inspired to create his own unique art from his idol's original? Marie, though she has the beautiful "Children and Art", also feels forced. Though the ending, with Dot and George is quite satisfying (as is the reappearance of our beloved Act I character).

Ultimately, Act II, at least for me, holds up better as time goes on. With more experimental musical theatre (thanks partly to Sunday) happening since the early 80's, the concept feels less alienating than it originally did.

---

When I saw SITPWG last month, everyone in the audience gave the show a standing ovation. I think it could be considered audience-pleasing. :)

Both times I saw it, at least 30 people in the orchestra alone walked out during intermission.

And both times, I only heard mixed to negative things while I left.

And, I mean, I haven't been to a show in the last 15 years that didn't get a standing ovation. CRY-BABY, GOOD VIBRATIONS, THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN', (the list goes on) all got standing ovations and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as SITPWG. Saying that a show got a standing ovation nowadays is hardly saying much.

Calling it "not audience pleasing" was just me assessing the observations I've made from how other people responded to the piece. And TDH, you're certainly entitled to you opinion, as am I. Calling it a masterpiece is your opinion. It's not a fact. And you're entitled to it, just like I am entitled to mine in that I don't think it is one.

Updated On: 8/2/08 at 11:15 PM

SITPWG is absolutely one of the best shows I've seen. End of story. And I see most broadway shows.

---

I saw the OBC the first week the show opened. By the end of the first number, I knew I was experiencing something innovative and moving. There were several people at intermission who just didn't get it. It was, I think, ahead if its time in 1984. I did not see the revival, but from its success it sounds like the public has caught up with it.

Oops . . . saw the other thread before I saw this one. Still, let me throw in my 2 cents.

I agree in part with those who say the story is flawed. Altogether the show -- with its disparate first and second acts, and the strange things that happen in between with the characters in the painting and the characters in the story -- is somewhat, well, weird.

But if you chunk the piece, both in performance (on the stage) and in your mind (as an audience member), it seems to come together for most in such a way that the disjointed sections become a solid whole, which ultimately affects the heart and mind of any audience member who's given it a chance to resonate inside of them.

Walking out during intermission wouldn't allow you to do this.

SUNDAY gives you goose bumps; it's true. Its vocals and masterful images - whether created digitally or simply painted on a series of flying scrims - stay with you -- dare I say, forever?

I, too, first saw it when I was a child over 20 years ago. Seeing the latest incarnation at Studio 54 brought me back to that moment -- then rushed me forward, to the present. I savored every minute of it, then and now.

This show really is art.