Sunday in the Park...George - ACT II — Page 4

None at all.

I think this is the reason I love "art" so much. I'm fascinated by what we, as an audience, bring to it ourselves when the curtain goes up.

I already know it's not the same experience for everyone. I still enjoy trying to understand the opinions that differ from mine.

It's only when the respect disappears from posters and it turns into condescending or combative remarks that the whole exchange goes out the window.

But I don't expect others to see things the way I do. I've learned from what you've said even if I don't agree with it (that sounds so much harsher than it's meant).

It's a chance to change views and try another angle. That's worth a lot.

---

I saw 'Sunday in the Park with George' on Broadway in 1985. It was toward the end of the Broadway run -- Maryann Plunkett was Dot and Robert Westerberg was George -- I think. Here I am trying to show off my mad memory skills. : )

I'm in the 'Act One is fantastic / Act Two is not as fantastic' category.

No problem, Nettik. I didn't think you meant to condescend, but I didn't want to leave anyone with the impression that I'm some sort of high-school dropout who can't grasp post-impressionism.

The original was a little underwhelming, I have to admit. I think that picture looms so large in our minds, we expect a canvas of epic scale. But of course the technique Seurat employed was very labor intensive. The original is 7x10', not tiny but it isn't the "Raft of the Medusa" (16x23').

Do you know that scientists have disproven almost all of Seurat's color theories? For one thing, for dots to blend visually into a consistent color, they would have to all be the same size. Seurat's hand painting made such precision impossible.

Moreover, if the dots were "combining" visually, then all viewers would have to see the picture from the same distance. Yet the picture looks much the same from anywhere in the large gallery where it hangs.

Finally, dots of different color on a color wheel tend to look grey when the wheel is spinning, calling into question Seurat's belief that our eyes combine blue and red dots to make a purple dress.

The best guess of visual scientists is that it is the human MIND which combines the dots to make a purple dress, green grass, etc. and so forth. Not the human eye.

(Forgive me, I'm recalling this from research I did 30 years ago. But the conclusion was correct, at least back then.)

None of this takes anything away from Seurat's genius, IMO, nor does it detract from the show. I mention it here just because I found it interesting.

Updated On: 9/4/12 at 10:43 PM

PJ, I think Sondheim is our most important writer in the art form about which I care most, so, yes, even if I don't like a specific work, I think anything he does is worth discussing and discussing at length.

I don't know why you felt it necessary to quote my post out of context. I was clearly responding to a poster who said his formal study of Art History helped him to enjoy SUNDAY. I merely pointed out that I have the same educational background and yet had the opposite reaction. In context, I think that was a fair point to make.

You know I admire Sondheim almost beyond reason (including much of the score to SUNDAY). Hell, I'm one of the loudest defenders here of PASSION!

I've been nothing but civil to the majority here (including you) who likes SUNDAY better than I. And most posters have been equally civil to me.

What is your problem with me all of a sudden? It certainly seems personal, but for the life of me, I can't imagine why. In fact, I kind of thought we were friends (in the internet sense; I'm not stalking you). That's not to say you should agree with me, not at all.

But taking my post out of its context and then accusing me of being repetitious is not playing fair.

Updated On: 9/5/12 at 11:34 PM

Lapine and Sondheim are both very, very smart and quite cerebral. Despite my objections to a specific work, I think it is safe to say there is much "going on" in all of their works.

In reading everyone's posts I am beginning to believe I am missing something important in the second act. I am going to need to watch it more carefully.

I don't think everyone will connect to it the way I have. And as I said before, I think the whole act is about connecting to art ... or perhaps more clearly, connecting our lives and feelings through art. That is the legacy that art leaves behind.

At the beginning of Act II, George doesn't really believe his grandmother is the daughter of Seurat instead of Louis. He's even somewhat dismissive of Marie in general until she dies. Until it's too late to understand and appreciate her for who she is.

It's only when he makes the trip to Paris and sees Dot's reading book with the words written in it that he truly begins to connect to them. He starts to see the island through his great-grandfather's eyes when Dot appears in his imagination and mistakes him for Seurat.

That's when I start to cry like a baby and don't stop until the end of the show.

When I was a child I had books that belonged to a grandfather I never met. He died before i was born. But his name was written in pencil when he was a child in the front pages. I remember staring at his lettering at the age of five and "connecting" with him, one kid to another. I also found several drawings that he made when he was a teenager.

My father was a painter, and when I was growing up, I would stare at his canvases and picture myself walking around inside his "world." I was trying to connect to my dad on a different level, not through spoken words or family trees or photographs. This was a creative level. A chance to glimpse inside his life as he saw it, not as he lived it.

---

I really like the story and the message, but the structure of the show is what loses me. After Putting It Together, I really have to struggle to stay awake. The pacing of the book and the score really slow to crawl right through to the end. It's a show I've always enjoyed in theory, but not as much in performance other than the benefit of the DVD with the original cast and design. I loved the score when I first discovered it, but rarely desire to hear more than three or four songs any more.

---

"Fact is, no one gave a good God damn about it."

I actually didn't know this fact. Thanks, After Eight!

I sincerely hope that nothing I said gave the impression that I hate the piece or do not greatly appreciate it because I really do love it. I have just personally been challenged by it and started this thread becau I wanted to discuss it and learn from others who see things differently. Thank you to everyone because I really am appreciating it more now.

---

I think that the second act brings the themes of the first act together well, but I agree with whoever said that Sondheim misses Prince's editorial eye here. Act I is certainly tighter, but Act II for me is raw and real, and says a lot about the art. I think it's one of Sondheim's most personal works, which makes it feel accessible to me.

I think you might find out that you don't actually dislike it at all.

---

I think you might find out that you don't actually dislike it at all.

You're probably right, PJ. I'm not the same person at 58 that I was at 30.

But then I'll have to come here and confess "I sort of enjoyed it". And what will we all talk about? ROAD SHOW is like shooting fish in a barrel to me.

Is there any chance they've replaced Mandy Patinkin on the DVD by now? I recognize his considerable skill, but I'm not really a fan. (I know, I know. Yet another heresy!)

***

Thanks for the advice, After Eight, but after so many years, Mr. GavestonPS has learned to be pretty tolerant. (FWIW, he saw the workshop and Broadway opening night with me.)

Updated On: 9/5/12 at 09:10 PM

Yes, make your mind like a freezer and keep it closed, for God's sake.

Hey, look. I found this photo of After Eight.



STOP MOVING!

---