It's very odd that in Part Six, after 7+ hours of characters lipsynching to old songs, the judge and the barrister suddenly admit to each other that they've been whistling in the previous musical number. In all the other cases, the characters don't express any awareness of what they're doing.
Anyone have any thoughts on that?
Just cut them up like regular chickens.
There is a sort of progression through the episodes. At first, the action stops while people sing; the song is an explanation of the action or an ironic comment on it. Later, the change into song often advances the plot. So showing an awareness of the whole thing would be another progression.
sharei read something symbolic into the whistling bit where the judge gained approval and understanding for his tune while the accused didnt have the oppurtunity to be involved, it was out of his hands and was helping to seal his fate.
listen dear, they are playing our tune.
The prosecutor, before the song started, said that Arthur was "whistling in the dark" -- that is, trying vainly to keep up a lie and keep himself out of danger.
My interpretation of the judge commenting on his own whistling in the song sequence is that 'in real life' (that is without the song sequence), the judge whistled something as a kind of reinforcement of what the prosecutor was saying (and that was then portrayed in the song sequence).
That's the only way I could make it make sense for me ... I agree it was kind of jarring to have that happen.
.