SITPWG Question....

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

SITPWG Question....

Posted: 8/31/06 at 8:58am

I just saw the London production of SITPWG, which was generaly fabulous.

I also saw the original production, which was terrific.

But I have a question.

(And let me say this: I'm not one of those people who hates the second act of this show. I LOVE the second act of this show.)

My problem with the first act is that stupid dog number. It simply doesn't play. Ruff! Ruff! Who cares???

My question, is it possible to cut that number without affecting the integrity of the show? I suspect it it entirely possible. What do you think?

Updated On: 8/31/06 at 08:58 AM

re: SITPWG Question....

Posted: 8/31/06 at 11:39am

Yes I destest that number and the reason is that George almost comes across as a fun loving out going happy chap.

I ask you would THAT person have allowed Dot to walk away from the relationship taking their baby ????

re: SITPWG Question....

Posted: 8/31/06 at 2:27pm

wow i totally read that differently! he was talking to that dog because he had some sort of bipolar thing going down. i saw it as a moment of mania inside his craft and that's why i love it so much. he's literally breaking down INSIDE his painting...

when says "i'm LIVING in my canvas" he really means it. that's why he lets Dot walk out like that. this is such a brilliant piece of work and i can't honestly see it with any of the songs missing

re: SITPWG Question....

Posted: 9/1/06 at 1:22am

"Yes I destest that number and the reason is that George almost comes across as a fun loving out going happy chap.

I ask you would THAT person have allowed Dot to walk away from the relationship taking their baby ????"

Interesting, Lee. Is the whole point of that number to make George look like an a#$%@hole? Because that point is made clear in the opening number. I just find that dog sequence excessive, and unnecessary. We don't get any new information from it. It shoud have been cut, IMO.

re: SITPWG Question....

Posted: 9/1/06 at 1:30am

I don't think he's an "a#$%@hole" as you put it, he's just focused. He really does love Dot, he just doesn't know anyway to show it except by putting her in his painting so when she leaves, he doesn't know what else he can do to make her stay. He doesn't mean to be a jerk, he's just focused on something that's constant, unlike people.

"Well, there has been much rumor and speculation... innuendo, outuendo..."

re: SITPWG Question....

Posted: 9/1/06 at 1:30am

"wow i totally read that differently! he was talking to that dog because he had some sort of bipolar thing going down. i saw it as a moment of mania inside his craft and that's why i love it so much. he's literally breaking down INSIDE his painting...

when says "i'm LIVING in my canvas" he really means it. that's why he lets Dot walk out like that. this is such a brilliant piece of work and i can't honestly see it with any of the songs missing"

Okay... but. George's real illumination happens during "Finishing the Hat." Do we really need that endless dog sequence to learn more about him? What do we really learn from that song? We learn that he sketches other things than humans. But we know that from the monkey. In the original production, it always felt like an exercise for Mandy Patinkin to show off. In the new London production, it feels like a boring hole in the middle of the first act, even with the amusing computer animations.

re: SITPWG Question....

Posted: 9/1/06 at 1:35am

"I don't think he's an "a#$%@hole" as you put it, he's just focused. He really does love Dot, he just doesn't know anyway to show it except by putting her in his painting so when she leaves, he doesn't know what else he can do to make her stay. He doesn't mean to be a jerk, he's just focused on something that's constant, unlike people."

Yes, of course. You're exactly right. But I'm not sure how that dog number illuminates this. "Finishing the Hat" says all of these things, and brilliantly.

re: SITPWG Question....

Posted: 9/1/06 at 3:17am

I think it could stand to be a little shorter, but not eliminated.

re: SITPWG Question....

Posted: 9/1/06 at 6:02am

I agree that it could do with some shortening, but I think it clarifies his deep connection to his work (something the later George lacks), and is then set against his (apparent) lack of connection to Dot.

#10

re: SITPWG Question....

Posted: 9/1/06 at 12:01pm

I don't dislike the song, but I hate the way Patinkin performed it. His big dog sounded like Disney's Goofy. I think the big dog should be meaner sounding, more gruff.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95