Sunday in the Park With George — Page 2

I feel theatre is more forgiving for these artistic conceits. Film is so naturalistic that such historical "departures" would throw the audience off a bit. In theatre -- with the painted scenery and the proscendium arch and the singing actors -- you already know you're watching a performance, and a recreation of a type of reality that demands a greater suspension of disbelief anyway.

---

True, but the significance of Dot being white is apparent only in the painting.

I certainly don't think that Caroline from CAROLINE OR CHANGE could be played by anyone other than a black woman, or that Kim from MISS SAIGON could be played by anyone other than a young Asian woman. But in those cases, the race of the character is important. In SUNDAY IN THE PARK, though, the fact that Dot is white is a non-issue.

---

I love this show and have seen it live a few times. It always is wonderful.

But I have to say that my favorite is A Little Night Music.

Funny, she didn't look Bluish......

Sorry, but notice most folks that love the show are because they saw it on DVD or have the recording. The show did not run long it its original production on Broadway and the revival did not have a terribly long run either.

With the millions of Sondheim fans in the world, there must be a reason.

Perhaps that reason is clear. As previously stated, his works are best appreciated on DVD or CD and are mostly inaccessible and terribly boring upon first viewing in the theater. That is why his shows do not run.

NO ONE loves Sondheim more than I do. However, one is always at great risk when going to see a Sondheim show LIVE in a theater for the FIRST TIME without first being familiar with the score.

Seeing a show for the first time on DVD is very different then seeing a Sondheim show for the first time in the live theater.

If not, what is the reason that EVERY Sondheim show with, I believe, the exceptions of those on which he only wrote the lyrics, has been a FINANCIAL FAILURE in their original Broadway productions and EQUALLY FINANCIALLY FAILED when they were revived?

I believe FORUM may not have lost money in its original Broadway run, but I am not sure. The only Sondheim LIVE theatrical financial successes I am aware of are his revue shows, SIDE BY SIDE BY SONDHEIM and PUTTING IT TOGETHER.

That is one of the reasons why those of us who love Sondheim passionately also find him so frustrating. Clearly, the primary theater going public does not care for his work or for some secret reason refuse to buy tickets and attend?--if not some of his shows would run longer and not lose money, right?

I believe he has not done himself favors with his book writing and director collaborators. Sondheim is perhaps the greatest theater composer who ever lived. Can't he find book writers and directors who will make his shows come to life in a fashion that will make people want to buy tickets and see them LIVE in a theater and be thrilled! and spread great word of mouth and therefore ensure a longrun and box office profit?

Oh Stephen, Stephen, You know how I love you, but you do frustrate me so.

---

i never had the chance to see the original on Broadway or any production EXCEPT the DVD... does that make my love for it any less than those who saw the original production? also, i was unaware there was a revival except for the one-night-only concert at the St. James Theater in 1994...

Updated On: 2/8/05 at 03:28 PM

I find the honesty refreshing for the folks admitting that they fell in love with SITPWG via the dvd or video. I too looooooove this show after repeated dvd viewings and listening to the cd.

I AM GLAD you folks got to love the show via the dvd...The unfortunate reality is that most people did not care for SITPWG in the theater.

SIMPLY put, this show, like most other Sondheim shows, play much better and are much more beloved when seen on television or learned from the recording.

Again, this is why every Sondheim show except for his "revue" shows and collaborative efforts have been financial failures.

It is wonderful we have the magnificent opportunity to familiarize ourselves with and fall in love with works of theater via the magic of video and dvd!

Trust me, I was there in the theater 3 weeks after the show opened. A HUGE amount of the audience left during intermisson. It was terribly boring in the theater.

Somehow, the magic of the direction for the recorded videotape brought this show to a more accessible enjoyable level. THANK the stars! I watch this video usually once a month or so and looooooooooooooove it to pieces.

But I always remember the irony of how dreadfully boring this show was in the theater.

---

Okay, a few points-
The original productions of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, Company, and A Little Night Music all turned a profit, I believe, and the original production of Sweeney Todd did so on tour.

Considering that La Cage Aux Folles, which originated the same year, only got its first Broadway revival this season, we shouldn't be so terribly surprised that Sunday in the Park With George hasn't gotten one yet.

As for the casting Audra McDonald thing- I just think her voice is all wrong for the role. But in a semi-staged concert version of the show, who the heck cares what ethinicity the actors are? There are fat ladies playing dying tuberculosis victims in opera all the time.

Finally, considering the fact that Sunday's musical style is difficult to access even by Sondheim's standards, the non-traditional plot, and the demands of the set design, I really don't see a fully staged production coming to Broadway anytime soon unless Roundabout does it. And they're doing the micro-Todd first. Not that I mind. :)

WISHIHADATONY, if they re-staged Assassins and Merrily We Roll Along, they'll most certainly try doing Sunday eventually. Producers are after a profit, yes, but keep in mind that something like 80% of Broadway productions lose money. Producers are ready for that, and plenty of them are doing it for art and the love of theater. The prestige of staging a Sondheim show should draw plenty of interest.