Anyone catch Six by Sondheim on HBO?- Page 6

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 12/17/13 at 11:51am

I'm with you, growl.

I'm not sure I would say I 'liked' it as much as it pulled me in and left me feeling unsettled...in a good way. I'm around Sondheim songs A LOT these days. When I'm asked to perform them, I try to find something new to add to the conversation. I generally fail...but even in failing, I learn a lot. Cocker's I'M STILL HERE wouldn't have worked at all for me if it wasn't for Haynes' directorial choices. Though, if I were being honest, I think the specific choices he made would have worked even better with LADIES WHO LUNCH.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/17/13 at 1:36pm

I loved Cocker's performance. It was one of my favorite parts of the show.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/17/13 at 1:42pm

I think it must be a generational divide. We young people liked what Robbie called the "unsettling" aspects of the presentation, while much more traditional older people prefer only unsettling Sondheim songs to be unsettling.

[indytallguy]

Posted: 12/17/13 at 1:42pm

It's not the way I might have chosen to present I'm Still Here, but when evaluated on its own merits, I found Haynes' work quite compelling, particularly the vivid imagery of the women in the audience ... as others have noted.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 12/17/13 at 2:32pm

I'm not sure it's entirely a generational thing. I think it's also how we interact with Sondheim's music. As I've said, I have been very fortunate to be engaging with the master's work often (including this coming Sunday at 54 Below...Sondheim Unplugged...I'll be singing something from Pacific Overtures as well as Assassins...come!), and as a result, I enjoy being jolted out of my preconceptions of this very familiar music. Were I to simply see Cocker perform the song in that fashion in a club, I might be mildly intrigued and mightily annoyed. But as just one part of the short film Haynes made? It was absolutely arresting. I think it lives in the part of the line that finishes 'Then you're camp.' In fact, the performance was camp...ironic and a little mocking. It's how we as gay men (sometimes) view our divas. Forcing us to engage with the women's reactions to this performer and his take on the triumphant diva song really made me deal with the way I objectify some female performers. I thought it was a rather brilliant commentary on how diva worship lives somewhere between empowerment and misogynistic objectification.

At least...that's what I've taken away from it after thinking about it for a week now.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/17/13 at 2:47pm

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/17/13 at 2:56pm

He sang I'm Still Here? It sounded like Ladies Who Lunch from the bathroom.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 12/17/13 at 2:57pm

He did! I was wondering why you brought up Ladies Who Lunch lyrics earlier! I just assumed it was time for Shady Pines.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/17/13 at 3:00pm

My head was in the toilet. It was heard to hear.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 5:18am

@artscallion, themysteriousgrowl, SonofRobbieJ - thank you all for the insightful comments! You pretty much nailed it, I think.

@FindingNamo - you *might* be right about it being a generational thing, but I don't think that's entirely fair. I'm in my late 20s, yet I tend to be a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to Sondheim or any of the great. But that performance and Haynes' direction were the highlight of the documentary for me. If this was intended to be a recording of definitive renditions or of the great standard-bearers of these iconic works, then, sure it might be a bit disappointing. I think if you approach it simply as a new way to interpret the song you might enjoy it more. Or maybe it's just not for you...

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 7:35am

Gosh, Robbie, I wish I could come hear you Sunday night!

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 10:47am

Oh, growl! There'll always be a 'next time.' I hope. :)

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 11:29am

I will be there, cheering you on.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 11:37am

And I rehearsed just for YOU last night, PJ. Any idea of the panic that ensues when you sing the phrase 'n*gger-lover' five times at the top of your lungs in an apartment on W. 149th Street. I kept feeling like I needed to scream, 'BUT IT'S ART! IT'S JUST ART!'

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 11:52am

Gosh darn it! I wish I could go, just to hear SonofRobbieJ's sweet dulcet tones...and of course to see my pal Joey.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 12:20pm

If I DON'T get up in the middle of your song and walk to the men's room, you will know I like you better than I like Travis Cockerpoo.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 12:35pm

Any idea of the panic that ensues when you sing the phrase 'n*gger-lover' five times at the top of your lungs in an apartment on W. 149th Street.

Especially in the middle of The Miller's Son. I mean, even theatre people are going to question that.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 12:45pm

HA!!! I've been trying to rhyme that with 'fandango' and I think I'm getting closer.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 12:57pm

It's a rip in the bustle and a rustle in the hay
And I'll pitch the tent fantastic

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 4:24pm

I don't think the objections to Cocker have anything to do with generational sensibilities. For one thing, Namo exhibits considerable expertise on the late 70s/early 80s, so I doubt he is a generation younger than I.

For another, I have no problem with non-traditional interpretations of Sondheim "standards". (I'm putting "standards" in quotes because his songs are standards to theater fanatics, not to the general public.)

I just didn't like or see the purpose of THIS particular interpretation by Cocker. And, thus far, nobody here has made a case for it.

[darquegk]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 4:27pm

I disagree, I think that RobbieJ gave a very solid defense of this interpretation.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 4:29pm

I agree, Gav, in disagreeing with the theory that generational sensibilities are the divider here.

But I disagree that no one here has made a case for it. artscallion and Robbie – particularly Robbie – make a very elegant case for it.

Nobody here has made a successful case against it, though, aside from going, “Ew, yuck!”

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 4:43pm

Far be it from me to ignore RobbieJ; he is one of our most articulate posters!

But even HE admits he liked the video better than the vocal interpretation of the song; he even goes so far as to say the whole thing would have made more sense with "Ladies Who Lunch" (a sentiment with which I whole-heartedly agree).

Again, I'm all for a new interpretation--in theory. But giving a young man a late-middle-aged woman's song to sing--and then letting him talk his way through it--accomplished nothing that made any sense to me, dramatically or musically.

For those of you who liked it, fair enough. I'll agree to disagree.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 4:49pm

Maybe that's why I confused which song Jasper Cocker had misinterpreted: because I was intuiting Robbie's feeling that his approach would have been more appropriate with "Ladies Who Lunch."

Sometimes I think and feel things RobbieJ will think and feel, even before he has thought and felt them. It's like he's inside my head. Whispering to me. And when he tells me to do something, I am compelled to do it.

Even if I know it's very, very bad.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 4:52pm

But that’s the discussion at hand – the set piece in the film, including not just the song, but the film, editing, scenery, context, etc.  No one’s attempted – or been tempted – to offer a defense of the song as a hypothetical standalone number on an album because that’s not what was in the film.

And saying “agree to disagree” is fine, but you asked for a good defense of the number.  If, upon hear a good defense, you move straight to “agree to disagree,” then why ask for the defense in the first place?