Sondheim Flaws--a discussion — Page 3

Margo---this isn't really directed at you, since it wasn't so much your statement as a point you brought out that has been made by other "theatre professionals" as you say...

I strongly disagree with anyone that says SUNDAY IN THE PARK should have ended after Act I. ...And that the Act II (100 years later) premise doesn't work or isn't needed. To those people I say, "you missed the entire point of the show."

Act I is about artistic sacrifices, and their compromises and consequences in keeping the creative process pure. Act II is about the legacy of art itself and the connection it gives us all as human beings. THAT'S the ultimate point of the show. For those that ask, "why does George choose to live his life this way?" in Act I, I say pay attention next time to Act II, and you'll have your answer.

Act I is entirely in vain without Act II's journey and observations.

---

touchmeinthemorning --- LOL! Great analogy.

---

There are religions based around Dot and George?

---

Sondheim's flaws? He's an intellectual in a world made up of primarily non-intellectual people. Comparing his work to others on Broadway would be like comparing the New Yorker to US Weekly, it's like apples and oranges. So why is being intellectual a flaw? The answer is when has intelligence ever been popular? A lot of people want to go to the theatre to be entertained without thinking...they wanna see a few good looking girls dancing, a hige set, and catchy tunes, not something that they will have to actually pay attention to to understand. So is it an actual flaw to be intelligent and not want to "dumb down" the work?

Mind you, Judaism (as well as Christianity) are more complex than simply the text they are based on. In fact, to limit that text to simple Biblical literature is ignorant of the traditions that form themselves around these texts. The tradition becomes a text in and of itself. Many times, such a text is written down (i.e. the Midrash for Jewish folk and the "commentary" by Xian folk). Other times, it is historicized orally. Either way, this parallel stops with the Biblical comparison -- just short of the extension to the religion. Act I could never be enough -- it would need at least a Midrash to explain it. Act I and II would never be enough -- it would need commentary to explain it. So, my comparison is lame, but in the case of explaining to my Southern Baptist preacher's wife mother, it did the trick.

lol at the Islam comment. Perhaps Mr. Sondheim should take a look at Kismet for inspiration.

---

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 10:33 AM

Couple things...NYdirector, if you looked to my intention of this thread, it wasn't to rip Sondheim and to say other composers are better, it was simply for myself and perhaps others to get insight on a subject rarely discussed--his flaws. Not to say that they have to be immense or that important, but I still am curious to hear about them, it's not like we're denouncing intelligence or anything.

Fiesta, it is rare that I even have enough knowledge to argue against a flaw but at least from a musician's standpoint, to argue the music is too hard is ridiculous. Well, unless you're talking about child/high school theatre, in which case esp. for child theatre professional musicians are hired. Having played West Side Story, I can't imagine any score is more difficult and I feel honored to have played such a difficult score. Again never played a Sondheim score though I honestly would love to play Sweeney...come to think of it, sweeney is the only one I know well enough that i would think is a challenging score from an orchestrative standpoint(the only other one I know is ITW, so I'm not saying others aren't.) But I suppose a valid argument is it's very difficult for anyone but professionals to do his shows as many times the shows are massacred as others have said.

And well to add my own viewpoint, I'm not sure if you could call this a flaw, but I love and appreciate all kinds of theatre and it is rare that this occurs and I certainly hope you won't respond that I am not intelligent enough to understand it...but I have borrowed the Sunday... video from my local library 3 times. First time, I fell asleep after 10 minutes. Second time, I fell asleep after 15. Third time I really really tried to tell myself to stay up, give it a chance, maybe it'll start moving and I couldn't make it through half an hour before i was fast asleep. So to me the beginning appeared slow-moving, but considering I didn't watch much else, I suppose I couldn't say.

---

That makes sense, touchme.
I also still think it is an interesting analogy, worth more exploration.

There are many Christians out there for whom the BIBLE is the entire thing, as long as you leave out all the parts about Peace and Loving Your Neighbor.

---

Hmm, maybe that's why I fall asleep during SITPWG--I'm areligious!

---

Does that mean asexual people fall asleep during La Ronde?

Most of them don't agree with going to seminary, it is that pesly "voice of God" that pops into their heads and explains what it all means. Of course that voice is Jerry Falwell, aka Pit of Hell.

WRQ, I don't think it is a question of your intelligence when people say the music is too "intellectual" for people. What I would be saying is that you have to sit and concentrate and invest your intellegence in order to enjoy it. I don't enjoy SITPWG because I am "smarter," I enjoy it because I want to sit there and listen and watch with all my being, I don't want it to keep me occupied, I want to be forced to be occupied by it.

Although it has become evident that it is the case that your being areligious is the real problem.

---

It was me, Margo (best12bars) not MB---but that's all right.

...So I guess I'm telling Mr. Arthur Laurents he missed the entire point of that show. Hmmm...

Okay... So be it, then.

And touchmeinthemorning & smartpenguin78 -- Love the religious analogy. It makes me laugh and also THINK. I too hope others aren't offended by it, but there is actually a grain of truth to this analogy, which is why it's slightly funny. To encapsulate either religion in a nutshell by comparing them to the two acts of "Sunday" would be trite. Still, there's something (a bit) to this in the general scheme, if you think about it.

If you use my previous analogy of what the two acts are about and substitute religious fortitude for creativity, you'll see what I mean.

---

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 11:06 AM

I know this was back on the other page, but I stand by saying Green Finch and Linnet Bird is an unecessary song. What does the song ultimately tell us about Joannah's character? That she's caged and wants to get out. Great. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out considering the situation she's in. In addition to that, Joannah is portrayed throughout the rest of the show as kind of a ditz -- I don't think she'd be able to talk in the metaphors the song uses (this being a true example of a character singing beyond her academic means). Aside from that, I simply don't like the melody of the song. Sweeney is one of my favorite shows of all times (top five at any rate) but this song stands out to me so much as a clunker amidst some of the best music ever heard on Broadway.

---

I used to agree about Green Finch, but in the current revival I love that song. She does not become a ditz afterward either, she is coniving, always trying to orchestrate her escape. It has really turned me around on Joanna, and makes all of her songs seem necessary.

---