So I gave Sunday in the Park another try...- Page 3

[buffyactsing]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 10:29pm

I also agree with Margo. The specificity and detail of the score is breathtaking. The ideas punctuated by the music. Sondheim does that a lot of course, but here it's even stronger. The little motifs and all are just wonderful.

I admit the first time I watched it I was bored to tears and thought it was pretentious. I gave it another go because one of my favorite performers loved it so I thought I must be missing something. So I watched again. It was a little better but still kinda "eh". The more I watched, the more I understood, the more I appreciated how even the minor characters had something to say about art and life. It's now probably my favorite musical.Though I'm still a freak because I do like the 2nd act better:)

I had the same experience with Passion and it's also now one of my favs.

And I find Sunday and Passion some of his warmest shows. Sunday, in it's own way is terribly warm, even if George isn't. It's a great emotional struggle, George with his Art, George with Dot, Dot with George. The frusteration of George and his inability to communicate with words is painfully delicious.

Good for you for giving it another shot!

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 11:26pm

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 see where you're coming from here. I also hate how in My Fair Lady all of the cockney people are portrayed as stupid and poorly spoken just to highlight the contrast to Eliza's eventual transition and newfound ability to find a better position in life. It's really offensive to me. And what's up with Eliza being transformed by a MAN into attaining a mind and means of her own? What the hell was Shaw getting at with that? Sexist white male pig. And what the hell? Is it like there were no asian or lesbians in England during that time?

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.

You're kind of shooting yourself in the foot here... you just admitted that your fundamental criticism of this show is wrong, since Dot offers George support he never insists on because she loves him, and eventually stops because she realizes that she must be herself and live for herself and her child. As someone else pointed out, I don't see how much more empowering the show could possibly be without being a political tract.

There's a lyric Marie gives George. "A little less thinking, a little more feeling". She just wants him to be happy. They're family. Listen to the words he says, not the ones you want to hear.

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.

Only George. It's a fantasy, and they're trying to make points. And as I told you in another discussion we had about this, James Lapine wrote the book so take up some of your criticisms with him.

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

Is this what the show is about? Why do you think this needs to be what the show is about?

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.

Call me up to date on my Sondheim but he was either ignored or hated by the public, aside from his cult following. The reviews were rarely kind and it was 30 years before people really started saying "Hey, these are good songs". Aside from the Brits.

I wish you would stop speaking for all feminists. Like every ism feminism exists in varied shades and colors and people follow it in different ways. It does good and it does bad. Everyone views the world through their own prism. I personally feel you view yours through a very narrow one and you have only ever expressed opinions that back this conclusion.

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.)

Feminists, and doctors, and politicians, and artists, and musicians, and film makers, and civil rights activists... sometimes it takes 20 years.

The only way that Sondheim has had it easy is that he had the 'family ties' so to speak... but he used his advantage to go further than really anyone else has in the genre.

I admire that there is something you really want to see, and you wish this musical was it apparently... maybe you should write it yourself, you have a lot to say about this.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 11:27pm

Oh and as if that wasn't long enough... I don't remember who said it but Sondheim has admitted he smokes pot in interviews and stuff, and he writes about it sometimes (or his bookwriters do). I don't know if he was smoking it when he wrote Sunday in the Park but he very well could have been.

[Wild Roses]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 11:55pm

My god, what the **** is your problem, Roinjoey? You accuse me of being narrow-minded, but you certainly seem to be incapable of being open-minded yourself. All the other people in this topic have been quite civil and understanding about my viewpoint and don't find it neccessary for me to ascribe to their views about George, whereas you always feel the need to be superior and make insulting comments about my point of view.

Really, there is no need for you to be so smug and condescending. Besides, if you must insist on acting like you are a wise teacher preaching to me, your ignorant student, you should take a few lessons from MargoChanning first. Despite knowing practically everything there is know about Broadway, she treats veterans and newbies on this board with style and class while always engaging everybody with her tons of knowledge and insight. Wish I could say the same about you, Roinjoey.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 4:14am

I suppose I see the same amount of condescension from you, if not more. I think really other people are simply ignoring it. Some of them. I actually already admitted in another post that I was probably being needlessly mean. Perhaps what you were saying just rubbed me the wrong way.

I just think you're coming into this with an agenda. Instead of yelling at me for being condescending why don't you actually reply to my refutations what you have to say? Then we might actually get somewhere with this.

After all, you even admitted that Dot isn't the character you make her out to be (that she exists in the play outside of the man), and maybe Sondheim isn't the misogynist you seem to desperately want him to be. I guess I am just trying to figure out what you MEAN, in the context of the play itself.

Also I don't think Margo ever even really addressed your feminism issues... just talked about what he liked about the score... and the play itself... instead of putting unrelated things on it.

If you're going to make grand pronouncements, somebody is probably going to get irritated and debate you.

[Wild Roses]

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

Precisely why I like Margo. Because he doesn't assume that I make everything into an agenda (nice to see you come out and admit that you think I have an agenda though) and doesn't fall apart when he sees the term feminism. As I have said before, it is only my second time listening to the score. My assumptions aren't going to change overnight regarding SitPwG. Besides, if I have such an agenda regarding Sondheim, why then do I love Passion, Sweeney Todd, and Company? (Note that I have never been one of the people who thinks Passion is pretentious. Depressing maybe, but not pretentious.)

And, goodness, learn how to take a joke regarding Sondheim being high when he wrote that dog song. (Hey, I also think R and H were high when they wrote Flower Drum Song...for that matter, my entire Asian-American lit class, especially my teacher, thinks they were on crack when they wrote that musical and we still hugely enjoy FDS despite thinking they were on crack when they made it...and I think they were probably on drugs when they wrote the Clam Bake song from Carousel...but that doesn't mean I appreciate R and H's work any less. It just means I find some of it unappealing. I am quite secure in myself and have never found it neccessary to love every single thing an actor or musician or composer or director or writer makes. And, I am quite sure that all those people who I love are quite grateful that I don't feel the need to worship every single thing that they do.)

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 5:02pm

Now I am about to heavily praise Sunday but I have to just comment on something first...

Ljay, you've made a statement that, as someone who did take a very long time to get into Sondheim, I can say, at least for me, contributes to me wanting to become a fan less. It's very frustrating to constantly read about Sondheim shows that well, if there are any problems with it, it's the book writer's fault...or anyone but Sondheim's. Even if that may be true (I have no idea), if your intention is to try to get more people to appreciate Sondheim, I think it has the opposite effect. I was so sick of hearing about Sondheim's perfection for the longest time, and statements like saying that any faults of his shows lie with others. If your intention is to get others to appreciate Sondheim, even if the statement is true, it might be best to obstain from stating things like that. Just how I feel, maybe no one else does, in which case...well, nevermind I guess.

Now, back to Sunday. Passion may be the exception since ohh, I still haven't gotten into it, but that aside, I think Sunday is perhaps the hardest Sondheim show to get into/to appreciate, etc. I tried to watch that damn DVD 3 times and fell asleep each time--the longest I made it through was 30 minutes. Not until I took a Sondheim class and had to watch and analyze it for class did I begin to really like it (and actualy stay awake for that matter). And before I go any further, I do think it should be considered a flaw in the work if it is difficult for a typical, non-extremely-intelligent-theatre/musician-person to appreciate it on the first viewing. I'm not saying it should be changed or anything, but...I think it's important to be very hesitant to assign the title of perfection to any show.

Now, there's 2 things that I constantly thought about that really increased my enjoyment of the show: 1, considering art not simply as the drawing/painting version, but all art forms, particularly theatre. And I realized all the statments made about art and creating art, could apply to all artists in fields I had more interest in, and of course, parallels to Sondheim himself.

The other thing was analyzing the score. I can completely see where people are coming from who say the score overshadows the characters, because I do think the score is easily the best part of the show--just genius! The way the score is as pointilistic as the painting, how the two shadow each other--the first time all the parts of the score come together is "Sunday"--as the painting integrates its dots to become complete, the score integrates its fragments to become "complete." It is also the first song in the whole show free of dissonance--and the note that ends the dissonance is appropriately the one played as the word "harmony" is spoken. This happens once more in the show during Move On, where the fragmented Dot/George songs come together--the score parallelling the fact that they do belong together.

But I don't really like the show because it is just intelligent--I do feel it evokes emotions and that the characters are interesting. (I kind of agree with what some of you are saying about Sunday in terms of Pacific Overtures--was able to see the genius of the show/score, but really just...didn't have an interest...but that's another story). Again, I think considering all art forms helped me to be moved in certain aspects by the show, but there were quite a few moments that I was moved, or lyrics that stayed with me:

"But most of all I love your painting"--the thing that makes George impossible is what Dot loves about him so much. Already the set up of an unworkable relationship.

"He would never draw us, we are only people he looks down upon"--class distinctions don't exist for the artist.

"And there are Louis's and George's, Well Louis's and George"--again, what she loves most about George is why they can't be togehter.

Also a great song comparing popular artists with more...artistic ones? (can't help but find Sondheim parallels especially in this song)

Finishing the Hat is an absolutely gorgeous, touching song. It's the first song that really examines George's feelings/noticings of Dot--he knew she'd leave him, but thought if anyone could understand...the first time you hear evidence of his feelings for her, and the fact that he's been so cold about it up till now, really makes it all the more touching.

"Look I made a hat, where there never was a hat." Such a simple way of expressing the amazing thing the artist does, and why he does it.

We do not belong together--another great song. The whole show, Dot's gone over how there's no one like George, but though she loves him, she is able to take this step to say No one is me. And Dot's criticism of George sets up a great aspect of the opening--how he doesn't care for her, but then when she becomes the front and center focus of his painting, it demonstrates how deeply he does care for her.

"While I revise the world/you make it beautiful"--again, profound some-up of the artist, what he does, and what he strives to do.

The use of "forever" in the song Sunday--what George creates of them will last forever, far beyond their own lives. And no one can deny it's a beautiful song.

The clever double entrende in "Putting it Together"--putting together the work of art vs. putting the money together to finance the art--how the work of the artist has changed, which he also pokes fun at the part technology now plays in the mess-up of Chromolume #7.

The emotion when they finally sing "We've always belonged together." And then again, one more summation of the artist: "Anything you do, let it come from you, then it will be new, give us more to see..."

And I can't explain why, but I bawled like a bitch when the entire scene came back for act 2 George. so I certainly see the point of act 2. Just the idea of, I guess, look at how it goes from the scene to the scene of the painting, the lastingness of the picture, and the way he is connecting to his family, and...just the melody and the scene...quite moving.

So yeah, I agree the score overshadows everything...I just don't mind it. For me, there's more to this show than just the brilliance.

And on a last note, the dogs are supposed to represent class distinctions in the park. Whether or not Sondheim was high when he wrote that...well...who knows?

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 8:14pm

^ Wicked,

Sondheim has said himself, people give him too much credit for the shows he writes music for. He also believes the book writer doesn't get enough credit. Sunday to me was obviously Lapine's baby. It was his idea, his creation, and Sondheim wrote music for characters that were already being developed by Lapine. I see now wrong in saying that people who keep complaining about the story should take their issues up with Lapine. Lapine constructed the story and characters, so a lot of it lies on his part. Because to me people are mostly finding problems with the book, and portrayal of the characters and their attitudes - and a lot of that is Lapine's area.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 4:26am

LJAY--You're absolutely right. The only show Sondheim ever said "I have to write this!" to is Sweeney Todd. I do think there was a very strong collaboration for Sunday though.

WildRoses--I'm not assuming. I think you are projecting arguments unto the show. You have to recognize that you are making arguments that don't have much with what the authors intended. I probably have an agenda with the show too. Agenda=opinion, hence the definition. I also don't fall apart when I see the term Feminism. I debate it. I haven't seen you do much of that yet, beside undermine your own points. I think there's an interesting point to be made there but if anything, the show supports feminist agenda (since ultimately Dot does leave George to possess her own sexuality, needs, and identity). She's arguably a progressive for the time period the show is set in.

Yes, I agree. The great feminist musical does need to be written. There's something interesting there. This particular show isn't about that. What about Hello, Dolly? That whole show is about a supposed feminist who's only goal is to marry a man. Criticize that.

Also, I don't know what other Sondheim shows you like. I don't live inside your head :P

As for the Sondheim and pot joke... I'm pretty sure I made that joke first, and someone else yelled at me for making it :P If not, I meant it to be fun... oops! Love the 420.

Flower Drum Song just sucks. Now THAT is a racist show. Watashi wa nihongo wo hanse****e... racist da yo. I hate that show. Mostly because it really IS racist. The King and I is racist, and the racism kind of bothers me. Genuine and hurtful instances of racism and sexism kind of bother me (Flower Drum Song, 'Happy Talk', etc...). I don't think Rodgers and Hammerstein did drugs much (they were pretty old school) but Carousel is masterful.

You are right though. I'm kind of a Sondheim worshipper. Can't help it. I just really like his stuff :P I am still waiting for you to reply to what I had to say about Sunday in reply to you though.

But come on. Sondheim is the guy who wrote a whole show about the Japanese with Japanese music. I've seen a production of Pacific Overtures in Nihongo. He wrote a show about the French using French grammar rules (Sunday in the Park). I don't know of a musical theater writer much more sensitive than Sondheim.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 4:44am

wickedrentq: I tried to read your damn post 3 times and fell asleep each time -- the farthest I made it through was 30 sentences.

[Parsley]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 8:02am

I am not a huge fan of this piece and although it is certainly "clever" in many ways, I find the majority of it monotonous and self-indulgent.

However, the Act 1 close "Sunday", seen live, is one of the most ravishing pieces of music on stage I have ever seen. Most of Act 2 I can leave but once it picks up (from Move On until the end) it is both beautiful and stunning, and these highlights of the show go some way towards making up from the dullness in between.

[Bruce Memblagh!]

Posted: 3/4/07 at 1:13pm

A gorgeous musical on the whole but I agree with many of the problems that have been discussed on here regarding it. It does drag somewhat and some of it does smack of pretension but the pros far outweigh the cons in my opinion.