Sunday in the Park...George - ACT II- Page 6

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 6:53pm

In the same year, PJ, my friends were mostly musical theater professionals in New York. You will opine that we all should have known better and perhaps you are right.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 6:57pm

P.S. I didn't say you have "dismissed Act II". I ASKED if you had by chance dismissed HALF of Act II? Why am I the only one who is held to every bloody word of every goddamn post?

Here are your exact words:

"My friend, didn't you just dismiss half of Act II?"

That definitely reads as a rhetorical question in context, Gav. At least to me (and probably to others), so I cleared up the point beyond any doubt.

I do accept your apology and "no harm, no foul." Worse things have been said and misinterpreted on the Interwebs.

Shall we just "Move On?"

Updated On: 9/7/12 at 06:57 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:03pm

I'm still wondering what Gaveston's Nazi like hate-on for Do I Hear A Waltz is about. Seriously?

:P

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:06pm

Yes, of course, we can move on, best12. You remain one of the posters I most respect and like here: nothing has changed that.

I should have let the typo about "dismiss Act II" v. "dismiss half" go. Of course, I knew what you meant; we had been discussing it for several posts.

I honestly don't know why that one--in my view, playful--question upset you so. If it seemed I was taking advantage of your good nature to set and spring a rhetorical trap, I don't blame you for resenting it. And I promise you that nothing of the sort occurred to me.

Since we all post off the cuff here, much as we speak, I get no pleasure from playing "gotcha". (Of course, I did not, in fact, "get" anybody. My point is neither was I trying.)

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:08pm

Here's my take on Gav.

He's a good egg, BUT ...

He has serious problems with these newfangled Interwebs. His irony, his "humor," isn't coming through at all.

AT ALL.

His posts read as accusatory and very, VERY black-and-white. If these are not his intentions, and I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt ... he needs to dial it down and learn to read his "text" more objectively.

(We can't see your tongue firmly planted in your cheek.)

It might solve a whole lotta headaches and grief and wasted posts and time spent on them all around.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:14pm

Here's the big shock, Gav ...

I do respect your posts. You have a lot of experience, and a wonderful "history" with Broadway and theatre in general. I really do love that.

And you bend over backwards to "correct" yourself when something has gone awry in your posts.

But the deal is that it happens SO OFTEN. You're way more "misinterpreted" than you or anyone else should be.

I'm sure it's exhausting from your end. And I don't want to scare you off from the boards. I'm interested in your opinions, and your stories, and your experience. I'm NOT, however, interested in you either misinterpreting or chastising my opinions when you aren't even close to the intended meaning.

That's the big turn-off.

EDIT: It's one thing to argue a point I made ... it's another entirely to argue a point I never even remotely made.

Updated On: 9/7/12 at 07:14 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:18pm

This is not my first day at the internet rodeo, best12, nor are you the first poster who has ever misunderstood my dry sense of humor.

But this may be the first time it has taken 8 or 10 posts to resolve a misunderstanding.

"It takes two..."

For my part, I am happy to explain and apologize when I am unclear.
Why are others so quick to go nuclear?

***

For the record, it's true that I use direct language in posting. I think it makes for more interesting discussions and since I am not easily wounded, I don't mind direct language in replies to me.

But as a matter of fact, the question that upset you was full of qualifications and used a contorted tense precisely to avoid such a situation. If that doesn't work, what is one to do? (He asked, seriously.)

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:25pm

EDIT: It's one thing to argue a point I made ... it's another entirely to argue a point I never even remotely made.

That is absolutely true. I swear I am being 100% honest when I say I am shocked that the facetious wording of that question was not clear.

But since it wasn't clear to you, why wasn't it enough to simply say, "No, that's not what I said."? Why did we go to Defcon-5 in the very next post?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:28pm

I'm still wondering what Gaveston's Nazi like hate-on for Do I Hear A Waltz is about. Seriously?

I'm sure you know Arthur Laurents' quote about the show, "The first NOTE was boring."

I feel the same way about the first WORD.

HOWEVER, I have never seen the show in production. I'm not even sure I've heard the entire recording. My opinion is based on the published libretto, which sits in my bookshelf.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:33pm

Your post registers as a Defcon-5, Gav. You should know that.

For my part, I am happy to explain and apologize when I am unclear.
Why are others so quick to go nuclear?

Because your posts are so volatile. They don't ask questions, they misinterpret in a very pointed way. You set off the "bomb" yourself.

Try a different wording next time, even if this isn't your "first time at the rodeo." It doesn't come across as naive at all.

But when you have to backpedal so often and explain yourself, it comes off as if you don't know how to post your sentiments clearly to begin with.

I'm not trying to be condescending. If you meant what I thought you meant, trust me, I wouldn't even bother.

But you go back and apologize so clearly and carefully, I wonder why you didn't start out on the right foot to begin with. Why are you only clear when you have to explain your posts, not when you first make them?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:34pm

"And Eric, I know what you mean about the "bleed." It kinda drove me nuts a bit, especially during the quiet parts of Act II. I could hear Bernadette 10 seconds before she said her line. Oy!"

Yes, I think I know the exact moment you speak of, LOL. I admit I'm really anal about things like that--for ages I thought it was just my old video copy which was taped from TV, but it's even moe clear on the DVD. Oh well.

Gaveston, I'm sure you know I was joking. THAT said....

There's at least half, maybe more, of a great score there. This isn't saying much, but surely Rodgers' best post Hammerstein--while I miss the orchestrations, I think the things done to the show to make it a smaller, revised production in Pasadena on the new recording make it work better. For ages I had the CD and wasn't even sure I had played it through once--then on the Sondheim forum people started re-appreciating it, and, by and large, I had to agree with them (even in Finishin the Hat, Sondheim seems a bit surprised at how strong much of the music is, though he also points out the numbers Rodgers seemed lost in).

It's funny, I don't think I've ever mis-read Gaveston's humour on here (though, to his credit, a few times he's PMed me to make sure that I know when he meant something as a joke--I think in every case, I already did). But I've been known to be mis-read on here as well, so, (due I think partly to the rambly and unclear way I often post).

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:38pm

Well, Eric, maybe you and Gav are just more clever than me and others here on the old boards.

And I'll bet your PMs from him had something to do with your smoothed feathers.

For those of us who are ruffled, we're still confused by his words.

I believe Gav means well in the end. I just wish his posts proved me right more often than not.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:45pm

The simple answer is that I think I AM clear in the first place. At another board where I have posted for 14 years, I rarely have a problem any more.

1. A lot of my apologies are for factual errors. I have said that I simply don't have time to go to the library every time I post; I make my best guess and figure someone will correct me, which someone usually does. So I apologize for the misinformation and thank the poster for the correction.

2. I think we have a number of posters who dish it out better than they can take it. I DO NOT THINK THIS OF YOU, BEST12BARS, SO I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THE POINT HERE. Let me repeat: I DO NOT THINK THIS OF YOU. But when faced with such posters, I've decided of late that being gracious rather than combative improves my own world, so I take the blame for lack of clarity and apologize.

3. In my mind, use of familiarities such as "my friend" and "dude" are signals that what follows is suspect and not to be taken literally. I now see you have a different interpretation and I will do my level best to avoid such errors in the future.

4. But when I fail, and sooner or later I will because in fact such remarks are signs of affection, I hope for your sake you will just ask for clarification and not assume I am deliberately disrespecting you or your posts. The latter is very, very unlikely.

Yours,
Gav

Updated On: 9/7/12 at 07:45 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:49pm

Well, Eric, maybe you and Gav are just more clever than me and others here on the old boards.

Nobody meant that, said that or thought any such thing, best12.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:54pm

I didn't mean to sound smug, it was just an observation, and not to mean that you shouldn't have taken the words as you did. And not to sound like my nose is even browner than it is, you're one of the more observant and 'clever' posters on here...

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:59pm

Okay, seriously. I can't deal with all the backpedaling.

I'm done. I tried to explain because I thought it was worth it.

Silly me.

Buh-bye!

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:01pm

I'm utterly lost. But Best and Gaveston are two posters who I make sure to always read, because I enjoy their opinions so much--this really does all seem like a misunderstanding (on both parts).

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:01pm

I agree with Eric and I'm genuinely taken aback today. best12, I thought my occasional "familiarities" were clearer to you than they are. That doesn't make the fault yours and we can just leave it that I will try to be more careful in the future.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:11pm

Okay, seriously. I can't deal with all the backpedaling.

I'm done. I tried to explain because I thought it was worth it.

Silly me....

WTF? I asked what still strikes me as an obviously affectionate and facetious question.

You, best12, had a nervous breakdown over it.

Because I like and respect you, I tried to understand the cause of your upset.

Now my attempts at civility have been bashed as "backpedaling."

So screw you. Take your meds and call me when you feel better. Because I do respect what you have to say. Usually.

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 11:46pm

Re, Do I Hear a Waltz?

"There's at least half, maybe more, of a great score there."

Yes, Rodgers's half.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 1:07am

Like Eric, I do usually understand what Gav is saying but I also understand where Best12bars is coming from.

I think it's a case of two people who are simply too careful around each other. It happens when they both truly like the other, and are more interested in helping the other understand what it is they're saying as opposed to just stating it and being done with it. That's when it gets convoluted and messy.

I actually think it's endearing. We need more of these "I love you, but I'm still right!" exchanges on here! Awwwww, how sweet. I'll book a room for y'all. My treat! XD

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 2:03am

I like My Oh My's take on things... I'll happily hang out with him in the backroom critiquing how poor the current orchestrations are.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 6:24pm

My Oh My, thank you for the lovely post. Yes, I recognize that it is in part a criticism of me and that's okay: I am certainly not above improvement.

I need to meditate on your assessment, because I'm still baffled by whatever happened yesterday.


Updated On: 9/8/12 at 06:24 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/22/12 at 8:39pm

Okay. On the advice of Pal Joey, henrikegerman, EricMontreal, best12bars and others, I did as promised and ordered the DVD of SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE. We watched it last night...

...and I'm sorry, guys. I just don't get it. I figured that after five-plus years of graduate school studying the history of art and aesthetics I might suddenly discover something I had missed before, but what?

Moping may be an action, technically, but it is not a dramatic one. And what else does Georges/George do in SUNDAY? DOT stirs herself a little, but she has basically chosen Louis the Baker by Scene 2! The librettist drums up a brief squabble about a painting Dot wants, but Lapine's heart obviously isn't in it. So the cast makes a painting and we proceed to intermission.

And while we're at it, what's so wrong with marrying a baker? Art may not be "easy", but try living without bread! I think there's a none-too-subtle snobbery in favor of art over less prosaic professions (the only fair comparison, apparently, is childbirth) that I find both snide and juvenile.

Georges want to paint; Georges paints. No action, no conflict.

On to Act 2 where we hear more complaints about the artist's lot. Excuse me, but in fact and by comparison art IS easy; coal mining is hard. best12bars is right that "Hot Up Here" is a one-joke song. (I'm paraphrasing and I apologize in advance if I misunderstood. My intention is to give best12bars credit for pointing out what I should have noticed on my own.)

Peters does a lovely job with "Children and Art".

And then "grandma dies"! Could anyone other than Sondheim and Lapine get away with such a cloying plot device? We'd all be howling if Frank Wildhorn or Andrew Lloyd Webber tried it!

Yes, there are several lovely songs: "Sundays", "Finishing the Hat", "Children and Art", and, of course, "Move On." But if Sondheim had not provided those songs--and if Frank Rich had not decided to canonize Sondheim in the mid-1980s--SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE would now be a long-forgotten piece of pseudo-avant garde indulgence. IMO, obviously.

Or as my husband said halfway through: "We should've watched PASSION." (He hates PASSION!)

Updated On: 9/22/12 at 08:39 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/23/12 at 2:44pm

*shakes head*