So I gave Sunday in the Park another try...

[Wild Roses]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:05pm

I hasn't posted in a long while, just enjoying being a lurker. However, I wanted to post on it, even it is ridiculous and small and unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

Anyway, despite my inital thoughts of Sunday being pretentious and boring and stereotypical, for whatever reason, I couldn't get that show out of my head. So, I decided, to get out the cd and listen to it. (I had previously just watched the dvd.)

I found my self enjoying it. Not ohmygodthisistheworld'sgreatestmusical!!!! enjoying it, but I found lots to be impressed with. Now, I still find it pretentious and stereotypical, but I can't say that I found it boring. (Besides, as a feminist I am used to enduring white male artists believing their view of the world is universal, so I can forgive the show for being stereotypical in that regard.)

Now, it is only my second immersion in this material, so you'll have to forgive me if you don't like that in some degree I am still clinging to my some of my earlier impressions. I am just writing to say that I was shocked by how much I liked it on the the second listen. (Usually when I dislike something, I am not inclined to change my mind on another listen/viewing.) Of course, nothing will induce me to like that song where George is impersonating the dog. (I am still convinced Sondheim was high when he wrote that song.)

Now, you all Sondheimites can say "I told you so!" or whatever it is you want to say about my mostly change of opinion regarding the show. But I thought you would enjoying knowing that I decide to be open minded and give it another go and you were right for the most part.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:16pm

Agreed about the George as the dogs thing. I can't stand listening to it. Watching the DVD is a different thing because I can see George performing it, but still...

While I may be one of Sondheim's biggest proponents, I just don't really like the musical. (Although there are some really incredible songs in it.) If Sondheim was going to win the Pulitzer for a musical, I don't get why it had to be this one. Call me ignorant, but I don't think this is his greatest musical by far nor do I think it's that good. That doesn't mean I believe that it's bad, but it's so hard for me to connect with it on a visceral level. But, of course, that could be one of the points. It just seems so cold and disjointed.

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:19pm

"Of course, nothing will induce me to like that song where George is impersonating the dog. "

Granted I haven't listened to Sunday in a while but what? I have no recollection of this!

[Wild Roses]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:24pm

It is that song where he sits by the dog and starts singing about what the dog must be feeling. He even does the barking thing. Maybe impersonating is the wrong word, but he is certainly trying to identify with the dog on some level.

[Danielm]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:28pm

I like the dogs.

Glad you gave it another chance. I will admit that the show is not everyone's cup of tea but I find it a very moving piece.

I also think that within the milieu that it's set in it is rather feminist in its portrayal of Dot. She cannot just be George's temporary muse, she has to be a person. She's limited by her lack of education or employable skills. But I also think that the whole "artist's muse" thing is still a very strong draw for certain types of women (and men).

But the message of the show--making choices and living with them, of working through the rough patches remains a very positive one for me.

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:32pm

Maybe the show's appeal lies in what frame of mind a person is in and what you are going through at the time. For me, I watched it thinking I wouldn't like it and was bawling like a baby at the end. The themes are so relatable and personal for me.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:36pm

I completely agree with you on that, GYPSY.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:47pm

Sondheim probably WAS high when he wrote that song...

Gypsy, that was exactly my experience. I was like "What the hell is this" at first and by the end I was a convert. I just think it's a very personal, touching show.

Wild Roses, I'm glad you've condescended to find things to appreciate Sunday in the Park With George, even though it has the gall to present a world view different from yours. I'm not exactly sure what there is in Sunday in the Park with George that offends or why it offends you so much. The charm and power of the musical is in its specificity of thought and place juxtaposed with the wild creativity at work. Maybe someone else can write the great feminism musical if Steve isn't gonna do it (aren't they working on that? Vanities or something? Am I crazy?). I just think you should take a few minutes to think about who let's a very narrow minded point of view inform the way they look at the world instead of complaining about those white male artists all the time.

And yes, we know you're a feminist. We know.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:49pm

I'm glad that someone else finds the show pretentious. Maybe I have to see it, but from the recording alone, I can't bring myself to like it. Yet I love Passion, which is also seen as pretentious and boring. Hrm.

[lildogs]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:49pm

I've probably listened to SUNDAY hundreds of times and I really never thought of it as stereotypical of anything.

As far as George thinking his view is universal, why isn't it? Does he talk of emotions and ideas that are exclusive to white males? Any work of art is limited by the limitations and perspectives of its creator, right? Emily Dickinson is a great poet BECAUSE of her point of view--she wouldn't be special if she had been a social butterfly, married with children. But her lack of life experience doesn't diminish the power of her work.

The dogs? I see why you don't like them, but I kinda do...

I cry every time I hear this score. I can see why you would find it cold and disjointed--it SOUNDS disjointed. And it is, to a degree, cold. It's about an abstract idea and it's hard to humanize aesthetics.

It's also a criticism of Sondheim himself. The critics who sing of "No Life," might well be speaking of Sondheim and SUNDAY itself. If you ask me, THAT'S why it won the Pulitzer. I think the committe was wowed by a work that deconstructs itself.

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:50pm

"Gypsy, that was exactly my experience. I was like "What the hell is this" at first and by the end I was a convert. "

Thats so hysterical! When I first recieved the Sondheim Box Set, I put the DVD in and when Bernadette started singing I was like "Oh my god, what the hell am I watching"? My jaw was wide open! Towards the middle of the first act, my opinion changed and I thought "okay, I'm getting into this" and by the end, basically crying uncontrollably....Children and Art did it in for me.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 3:59pm

It sounds disjointed because he was trying to reflect pointillism in his music. Yeah maybe it is a little pretentious--but kind of fun too. Really the whole score is like... all variation on the same two or three themes.

I also felt the same way about Passion. I was confused by it the first time I heard it but I liked two or three of the songs so I kept listening and now I'm obsessed. I was younger then...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 4:03pm

I actually happen to think that it IS Sondheim's finest score -- so rich and deceptively complex and dense both melodically and harmonically, yet so spare and simple and subtle in its instrumentation and in his use of a few basic motives that convey a gamut of emotions. Pair that with perhaps the most personal and heartfelt lyrics of his career (no one has ever had so many profound and perceptive observations to make about the artist's process and the psychic toll that it extracts on artists and the people who surround them than he does here) and I think that it is far and away Sondheim's greatest accomplishment.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 4:27pm

Margo, I completely agree.

Wild Roses---I'm glad you're re-evaluating this piece (or any work of art, for that matter).

I do that myself, and find that so much of my opinion of an artistic work is based on who I am (emotionally, spiritually, sexually, historically and with regards to life experience) at that moment in time when I'm exposed to it.

The reaction to art, and our opinion of it, is merely a personal perception. But since we grow and change (hopefully) as people, why wouldn't and shouldn't our reactions to artwork change as well?

Good for you. Enjoy the journey, and enjoy revisiting other works of art as well. You may be surprised at what you find.

But what better place to start than with a theatrical work that celebrates and explores the creation and perception of art?

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 4:32pm

First of all, let me state for the record that I do NOT dislike Sondheim. Several of his shows (A Little Night Music, Sweeney Todd, Company) I count among my favorites of all time, and his lyric work is consistently wonderful. Now...

I've tried this show on for size so many times over the years I've lost count -- both visually with the dvd and as a listening experience with the recording. Sadly, my conclusion has never changed:

"Sunday" is easily one of the most gorgeous songs ever written, by ANY composer. But the show itself is representative of everything I don't like about Sondheim: it's terribly cold and off-putting, and painfully self-congratulatory. I've always felt like it exists as an ego-piece for the composer -- as in, "Gee, look what I can do!" -- rather than a piece of meaningful entertainment for an audience. As someone I knew once said, "Stephen Sondheim j*cked off onto a piece of manuscript, and called it 'Sunday In the Park With George.'"

I realize that the irony of this is that, for most major Sondheim fans, this show is the pinnacle of his artistic endeavors. But even most of the gushing I've always heard from friends comes with odd qualifiers like, "Yeah, I know it's cold," or, "Yeah, I know the 2nd act is wierd," or, "Yeah, so much of it is about Bernadette's performance, BUT...." And by the same token, they'd usually have very vague, appropriately-pretentious opinions of why they actually DO like it: "It's just gorgeous, that's all," or, "It's so stunning, I can't even believe it," or most of the time they just throw up their hands and shake their heads judgmentally at me...as though none of my taste in or knowledge of theatre means anything anymore since they found out I don't like this particular show.

At least here, in this thread, I'm reading some of the more concrete, eloquently-written experiences with, and opinions of, the show I've ever heard. Keep 'em coming...you've almost got me convinced to give it ANOTHER shot!

[Shawk]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 4:44pm

As someone with a degree in studio art, I find it difficult in the extreme to make it through act II of SitPwG. I rather enjoy the first act, especially "Finishing the Hat," which expresses something that I think most people who are artistic have felt. The second act, however, just reminds me of too many hours reluctantly spent with pretentious people, talking about how important art is and the artists' place in the world and what an artists' message should be, or his/her relationship to the art and the viewer, etc., etc.

It just kind of reminds me of "The Dangling Conversation."

Yes, we speak of things that matter,
With words that must be said,
"Can analysis be worthwhile?"
"Is the theater really dead?"

Posted: 3/2/07 at 4:45pm

Wow I'd never dream there were so many Sunday Haters! I agree with Margo, I think it is a spectacular score. I remember when I first heard it I thought it was the most personal score I'd ever heard. I'd never heard a Sondheim song that seemed to speak for him the way this score did. Maybe it was that he was coming off such a personal disaster ("Merrily"), but it really did seemed to speak directly to his life and work.

And I do think it really helps to see it as opposed to listen to it. There is something so powerful about that Act I finale as the the picture, the story and the score all come together.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 4:48pm

Best12Bars, your reaction was a lot more mature than mine. Thanks for that :P

I'm not sure which I think is the more beautiful (Sunday or Passion) but to me they do represent the pinnacle of Sondheim's work. Whereas before it seems to me he's more showing off what he can do, which I don't think is a bad thing, in these two shows Sondheim shows such control and reason as a composer, as a lyricist, as a dramatist, as a thinker, that I'm astounded. Isn't it amazing how many different voices and styles this guy can express himself in, and yet always retain his pov? I don't find Sunday off putting or cold at all. I think it puts on a straight face but has so much inner life, so much emotion brimming underneath the apparent cold veneer. I think the second act is great and absolutely necessary. If you hear the new cast recording you can see that the show does not live or die on Bernadette's shoulders.

You can find things wrong with anything. But sometimes focusing on what's right is so much more rewarding.

And well everything else that B12Bars and Margo said. It's a great show.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 4:51pm

As someone I knew once said, "Stephen Sondheim j*cked off onto a piece of manuscript, and called it 'Sunday In the Park With George.'"

That is so wrong.

With Sunday in the Park with George, I feel like I'm standing outside this really intriguing looking store and looking in the window, trying to see in, but I am not tall enough. But everyone else who passes by is taller and sees right in the window and says, "My, what beautiful wares that store has!"

I don't know if that makes sense, but, in essence, I just don't "get" it. While I adore, "It's Hot Up Here," I don't like anything after that in second act until "Move On." I felt like, when seeing the DVD, at least, Marie was much too cutesy in the speech that she and George were giving toward the beginning. I also couldn't get into George, as he was being so passionate, because he was also being so self-righteous and egotistical. (This all is coming from a person who thinks Passion in one of Sondheim's best, for what that's worth.)

Now, none of this is to say that I'm giving up on the musical. I still listen to it at times, trying to wriggle into it. While I have thus far failed, I will be persistent. I would love to see the new production that's transferring over here. I think maybe even seeing it in person would help. The odds of my getting to see it are slim at this point, though. We'll see.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 4:52pm

I've probably listened to SUNDAY hundreds of times and I really never thought of it as stereotypical of anything.

- Same here! How could anyone find the show stereotypical.

The score is so beautiful and complex.

I'm starting to believe Follies is Sondheim's best score, for many reasons. BUT Sunday is definitely up there. It's an incredible show. The score compiles so many different emotions and layers, and it's brilliant.

[Wild Roses]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 4:57pm

Now, while I can appreciate the scores for its own merits, I am still miles away from being able to view that dvd again. Or ever. But the do think the score is beautiful (except the dog song). I'll come around to the dvd eventually I'm sure though.

Okay, since people have been inquiring as to what I still dislike about the show, here it is.

* I don't like that it portrays all partrons of art, in both time periods as to being opposed to new and interesting things. I also don't like how same patrons are portrayed as being ignorant and stupid. If everybody was as backwards as Sondheim as Lapine portray them to be, that dear little artist in act 1 wouldn't be having his show in an established and respected museum. He would be having it on a street corner.
* I don't like how women are there in both acts to support GREAT MALE IMPORTANT ARTIST. That said, I am glad that was qualified by having Dot become independent of George. And, that they emphasized her finding her own way as person.
* I don't like how it portrays the artist as being semi or completely isolated with the world because he is so obsessed with his art. If one went by Sunday alone, one would think Seurat had no friends. To the contrary, he did. (I have an article about him and his friends from an art exhibit a few back.)
* Are Sondheim and Lapine aware that women and minority artists do exist? And, am I to believe all white male artists are cold, egotistical brutes based on Sunday? (Hey, I got two different examples of the male artist, and both didn't leave a positive impression.)

I do like dogs, but that song... Glad to know I am not the only one who thinks Sondheim was high when he wrote it.

But. I can forgive those flaws because the score was georgeous. The ballads in particular I have developed a fondness for. I am still quite surprised that I have enjoyed the score this much just on the second listen.

Roinjoey, I shall ignore the comments you made about narrow-mindedness in your first post. If you were as up to date on your feminism as you were on Sondheim, you would realize that in general, feminists are way more openminded than most of the general public is. (Feminists, not Sondheim, have to deal with having their work censored, going out of print, lampooned, etc. Feminists are usually the ones pushing groundbreaking ideas that only gain acceptance 20 years late in politics, art, etc, and of course they don't get the credit for having the idea. Sondheim has had it ridiculously easy.)

Okay, back to discussion.

However, how is the London revival recording? What are the similiarities and differences to the OCR?

[lildogs]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 5:01pm

I think many of the detractors are getting too caught up with the artistic process aspect of the show. But to me, that part of the show is really minor--the heart of the show is about the fear of living and the cost of being human.

George DOES hide behind his work--both Georges. Seurat searches for a new form; ignoring the form of Dot for something he feels is permanent. He wants to leave something important behind to give his life the meaning it clearly lacks.

There's very little difference between George and the harried businessman who neglects his family.

Like Pippin, he wants to be extraordinary and fears he isn't.

George's blank page isn't limited to canvas. His whole life is one.

It's a character that Sondheim frequents--Bobby in COMPANY, Desiree in MUSIC, Apple in WHISTLE....Steve likes protagonists that are feel paralyzed by their inability "be alive."

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 5:03pm

I don't get why people can't bring themselves to watch the DVD?

It's f*#king brilliant! Mandy and Bernadette are absolutely amazing. And the book scenes are very heartbreaking.

Granted it took me a couple viewings to fully enjoy it. But my God, why are people so scared to watch the DVD! It's amazing.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 5:13pm

I don't like the show. I find it tedious and dull. I know I'm in the minority and I'm fine with that.

Are Sondheim and Lapine aware that women and minority artists do exist?

Absolutely. And they chose to thumb their noses at them all by not imagining the role of Georges Seurat as a black woman.

Updated On: 3/2/07 at 05:13 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 5:14pm

"I think many of the detractors are getting too caught up with the artistic process aspect of the show. But to me, that part of the show is really minor--the heart of the show is about the fear of living and the cost of being human."

lildogs---You're so right, and perhaps I do this show a disservice by dwelling on its brilliant handling of "artistic approach."

The heart of the show is a human one. But things like the fear of living and the cost of being human have been explored very well in movies, plays, etc. I think it's because nowhere else have I seen "artistic approach" dealt with in such a profoundly truthful way. It's not "the star of the show," but it is what makes "Sunday" unique for me. It nails it, like no other work has before or since, IMO. That's what floors me about it.

To say that's where this story begins and ends, however, would be untrue and unfortunate. I think people are given that impression. "Well, why would I want to watch it or try to relate to it, if I'm not an artist?" Such a shame!