[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
Hm. OK. I actually disagree with this, though. I can’t see any reason that she needs to be dried up or screechy. Ultimately all we know about Mrs. Lovett is that she knew Benjamin Barker from before Barker was transported, and that she was attracted to him at the time. Barker was transported as a newlywed with an infant child, which means he himself would have been, probably, in his early twenties. He’s gone for twenty years. If Mrs. Lovett is his contemporary - or even a bit younger (I sort of imagine her as a teenage girl eyeing the handsome young barber) - there’s no reason that she needs to be anything more than around 40.
[/QUOTE]
Are you still talking about the character from the musical version though? I guess my vision of the character probably has been coloured by the performances I’ve seen (all fairly small productions), but I think it’s the lyrics of the song The Worst Pies In London that crystallises the character in my mind - to me, it just seems like a witchy, dried-up-old-crone thing to do, to be selling foul, inedible food to the public.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Are you still talking about the character from the musical version though?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Thing is, your interpretation/vision of the character is no better or worse than mine, I don’t think. It’s just that I’ve seen yours, in lots of productions, and I’m kind of excited to see something different (especially when it hews so closely to how I pictured the character when I read the script for the first time).
Fair enough.
I’m not familiar with the musical, but I’m tremendously excited to see this. The preview just looks gorgeous.
My husband, on the other hand, has loved and cherished the musical for decades and has been telling me about it for years. I showed him the preview recently and he just about leapt out of his seat with excitement. He thinks it looks perfect.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Re Red Flags- Depp as Willy Wonka raised red flags to the studio bosses
[/QUOTE]
As well it should’ve. Pedophile-esque Willy Wonka is not fun!
smll hijack detour - I never got that pedophile/Michael Jackson vibe from the Johnny Depp portrayal of Wonka. Seriously never crossed my mind til I saw referenced on these boards.
[QUOTE=well he’s back]
smll hijack detour - I never got that pedophile/Michael Jackson vibe from the Johnny Depp portrayal of Wonka. Seriously never crossed my mind til I saw referenced on these boards.
[/QUOTE]
I never got that either. Depp’s Wonka seemed to me more of a social misfit with more than a bit of contempt for anyone other than Oompa-Loompas.
Anyway, I thank you all for the info. I absolutely will see the movie.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
I consider Sweeney Todd to be the very best musical ever written, bar none. I have heard and seen the show in multiple incarnations and it never, ever gets old. I get chills just thinking about listening to the score. I would consider myself a major fan.
And yeah, this new adaptation worries me enormously.
Some aspects seem promising. Burton has said that he took his design cue from silent horror films of the teens and twenties; think London After Midnight, for example. Given the show’s Grand Guignol roots, that seems like an appropriate choice. However, it’s rather on-the-nose, and feels more like Burton reeling the material into his comfort zone than Burton stretching himself to meet the demands of the material.
Also, in the preview, it’s clear that Depp isn’t just inadequate to this particular score, he’s so raw he doesn’t know how to handle vocal interpretation at a basic level regardless of the show. Listen to the moment at 1:22 in the trailer, when he sings the line “I will have vengeance,” in which the first syllable of “vengeance” is a long, sustained note. Any halfway experienced singer knows that with something like this, the emotions are conveyed on the vowel; it should be “I will have ve-e-e-e-en-geance.” But Depp holds the note on the consonant, singing, “I will have vennnnnnnn-geance.” This isn’t just a technical criticism, pointing the finger at somebody who hasn’t had formal vocal training. This is a major shortcoming of Depp’s performance at an emotional and interpretive level. See, the whole point of this particular song (it’s called “Epiphany” and is the emotional climax of the first act) is that Sweeney has lost what he believes to be his best chance at revenge and is freaking out as a result. The orchestra goes fucking nuts during this song as Sweeney tears the lid off his up-to-now restrained rage and despair, and wails a vicious tantrum of grief and fury. The song is written balls-out, because Sweeney has been catapulted into a frenzy by his missed opportunity. But Depp, in this moment, swallows the note, crushing the energy when he should be lighting fireworks. I know, it’s totally unfair to be generating detailed criticism based on approximately two seconds of screen time in a preview. But I just can’t believe how remarkably off that moment is: it’s central to the character, and if they didn’t get that right, what else did they miss?
Oh, and Helena Bonham Carter is just spectacularly wrong for the role of Mrs. Lovett. This is miscasting on the level of “Kevin Costner as Robin Hood” wrong.
Plus, they cut 45 minutes of the score. Including the intro.
Now, I’m sure this movie will be fine. It’ll have Burton’s fingerprints all over it, and he’s an interesting filmmaker even when his movies suck: his bad movies are not bad for the same old reasons Hollywood movies are typically bad; he comes up with new and fascinating ways to be bad. That, I suppose, is worth something. And it may not be bad, either. It may be perfectly acceptable.
But here’s the thing: Sweeney Todd is way goddamn better than that. Anything less than a masterpiece will be a disappointment.
So yeah. You could say I’m a little concerned.
[/QUOTE]
Ditto me here, word for word. The absolute masterpiece of the entire history of the US musical stage is at risk, and I hope oh I hope the gamble pays off, but I’m stocking up on antidepressants just in case.
Anthony Stewart Head is in this too, but again, I’m not familiar with the play so I don’t know how big or important his role is. He is an amazing singer – definitely the standout in the Buffy musical episode – and he will be in another “horror musical” next year, Repo: The Genetic Opera!.
I’m on dial up and so can’t see the trailer.
Re Mrs Lovett
To me, she has to be old enough to have lost hope. She has to be plain enough to have lost hope. If she could sell her body for any kind of money, she would have done it long ago. If she were attractive, she would have some kind of power. She can’t have that. She has to be used up, resigned to a crappy life until Todd shows up and she dreams of trips to the sea.
I am also concerned, but for a somewhat different reason. I checked out both versions of the trailer on YouTube. The first had about 2 seconds of singing. The second - and one assumes that it is a newer, reworked version - has zero singing. This is a friggin’ musical! A masterpiece of a musical. And the studio’s marketing folks have no idea how to sell what it is. The trailers make it look like a straight forward gothic horror tale with a little creepy background music. Those of us who want to see the musical are going to have a hard time in the theater seeing the screen what with hordes of horror fans and Depp-gigglies streaming for the exits.
[QUOTE=Big Bad Voodoo Lou]
Anthony Stewart Head is in this too, but again, I’m not familiar with the play so I don’t know how big or important his role is.
[/QUOTE]
If IMDB’s information is correct, he’s in the chorus. The chorus is heavily featured in the stage version, but word is that a lot of their material has been excised from this film. Worst case, Head’s appearance will be little more than a glorified cameo.
ETA: Wiki says he dropped out due to personal reasons, but that his part would have been essentially what I supposed above.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
If IMDB’s information is correct, he’s in the chorus. The chorus is heavily featured in the stage version, but word is that a lot of their material has been excised from this film. Worst case, Head’s appearance will be little more than a glorified cameo.
ETA: Wiki says he dropped out due to personal reasons, but that his part would have been essentially what I supposed above.
[/QUOTE]
Damn, that’s disappointing.
[QUOTE=Pel2na]
I am also concerned, but for a somewhat different reason. I checked out both versions of the trailer on YouTube. The first had about 2 seconds of singing.
[/QUOTE]
This seems to be how studios prefer to market their musicals these days – the earliest trailers for Chicago and Phantom of the Opera both had music in the background, but no one was actually shown singing. I believe the idea is to hook people into the movie, then gradually reveal the awful truth: it’s a MUSICAL!!! No one wants to spook the horses, after all.
I’m with those who think Sweeney is the finest musical ever created, and I’m both excited and afraid to see this. I really don’t like Tim Burton; so much of what he does ends up gothic twee, a cutesy version of horror that is antithetical to Sweeney. And I’m not a huge fan of Johnny Depp, especially after learning that a) he refused to get vocal coaching for the role, and b) Sondheim agreed to cast him sight unseen … or rather, without hearing him sing a by-Jingoed note, according to the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly. It’s a crying shame to have a Sweeney Todd without a powerhouse baritone this role so deserves.
Mind you, I think he’ll act it well and could pull it off. I was actually quite impressed with the snippet of Epiphany in the trailer, thanks to Depp’s well-depicted rage and the AWESOME orchestration. Supposedly it’s a 75-piece orchestra in there! Other things I loved in the first and second trailers: Burton certainly got the grimy, miserable, dank London streets right; the sight of Turpin eyeing Johanna through a peephole; the gorgeous blues of Lovett’s fantasy By the Sea; and every last drop of the music we were able to hear. Plus I have to admit that I cackle out loud every time I hear HBC’s matter-of-fact “That’s all very well, but what’re we gonna do about 'im?” with the quick cut to the trunk and the sting of the violins ending of Ballad. It’s a cheap laugh but in a way it’s the essence of Mrs. Lovett and her unique combination of practical ghoulishness.
Speaking of Epiphany, Cervaise: funnily enough, as I recall, Cariou himself makes quite a meal out of the “nnnn” in “Veennnnnnnngeance” in the OBC recording. (Of course, that’s where the resemblence begins and ends – Cariou could also sing the fuck out of the rest of the score with his wonderful, husky, silvery voice.)
But you know what most bugs me? Apparently they’ve cut the Ballad, or at least, the vocal version. WHAT. THE. HELL? How on earth can a director omit the full chorus screaming out the terrifying, Dies Irae-esque “SWING YOUR RAZOR WIDE, SWEENEY!” and look at himself in the mirror? That’s a freakin’ travesty, that is. The orchestral version heard in the trailer is terrific, because the music is intrinsically kickass, but come ON.
On the other hand: Alan Rickman as Judge Turpin? Worth the price of the ticket right there. Oh. My. Yes.
Bump: I saw the movie this morning, with lissener.
In talking about it afterward, we found we were more or less in agreement, in having two completely different and almost totally non-overlapping reactions.
As a Tim Burton movie, it’s brilliant. Easily one of his best films.
As an adaptation of Sondheim’s musical, it’s terrible. A failure on virtually every level.
Basically, Burton has pulled out everything that makes Sondheim’s musical so great, leaving behind the Grand Guignol elements, which he then proceeds to direct the hell out of. From this point of view, the movie’s great. Essentially, it’s as described above, London After Midnight as a musical, and also in color so you can see the buckets and buckets of bright red blood. (And there is a metric assload of it.)
As a dark, dingy, deranged revenge story, with songs, it’s pretty much fantastic. Burton makes the material completely his own; to repeat the description from my speculation above, he grabs a hold of the show, and bodily drags it into his comfort zone. Good thing? Bad thing? You’ll have to decide that for yourself.
There are a couple of missteps: the musical number I mentioned above, Epiphany, is totally flat. Sweeney is supposed to be losing his shit in that song; he had Turpin under his knife, but then fate intervenes and the Judge escapes, so Sweeney flips. But the energy of this song as presented is totally inadequate. Depp’s Sweeney goes into a fantasy reverie, wandering the streets while muttering about vengeance, instead of howling and screaming, and it simply doesn’t work as a turning point for the character. He doesn’t seem at all like he’s had his whole world pulled out from under him; his anger is approximately at the level of somebody who didn’t get an expected promotion in the office.
This is probably symptomatic of Burton’s long-known difficulties with managing narrative. He’s a master of imagery and tone, and occasionally character, but when it comes to the architecture of a plot, the recognition of the specific structural points that drive the story forward, he’s frequently at sea. Clearly, he failed to grasp the narrative significance of this song, and didn’t understand its function as an emotional hinge point for the character, because he lets Depp coast through what should be a nuclear meltdown of anguish. The story’s energy flags badly here, and it takes a little while to recover; we don’t understand where Sweeney is coming from for the next couple of minutes.
But anyone who’s a fan of Burton knows that story has never been his strength, and will probably forgive him yet another lapse in that area. In terms of Burton’s directorial signatures, Sweeney Todd verges on a personal masterpiece.
But: as a version of Sondheim’s original musical?
It’s a disaster.
The entire show has been stripped and narrowed down to a dozen or so characters, and by this I mean the specific individual people with significant speaking and singing roles. The chorus is gone. Totally gone. Not just in the numbers where the chorus steps out to address the audience and punctuate the action (“attend the tale” etc) but in any of the scenes where groups of people are singing within the scene (such as the beginning of the second act, “want more pies”). Essentially, the setting, London and its people, have been relegated to picturesque background.
This is a fundamental misreading of Sondheim’s material. Inherent to the show is a contextualization of Sweeney’s story in the larger city; it is a tale of a corrupt society, and a stinging condemnation of all of us as we close our eyes to the foulness of their world (“isn’t that Sweeney there beside you?”). In this version, a song like “A Little Priest” is still amusing as a series of jokes about occupations, but it loses its resonance as a commentary on the people who make up the social machinery, and as a gleeful reversal of the predominant social order.
In other words, Burton has excised everything that makes the original show such a stunningly brilliant and majestic masterpiece. Sondheim (and his collaborators) took a filthy, squelchy little story, and used it as the launch pad for an epic exploration of moral failing on a citywide scale. And then Burton came along, apparently missed the point, and transformed it back into the filthy, squelchy little story it started as.
It is both awe-inspiring and horrifically disappointing.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
In talking about it afterward, we found we were more or less in agreement, in having two completely different and almost totally non-overlapping reactions.
[/QUOTE]
On re-read, this isn’t clear at all.
I don’t mean that he had a reaction, and I had a reaction. I mean that I had two separate internal reactions, and he had two separate internal reactions, and when we compared notes afterward, we found that his divided opinion was almost exactly the same as my divided opinion.
Adding a couple other things I should have said:
Depp is not bad, though he’s definitely not right for this material. He’s helped a lot by being surrounded with other non-musical people. Alan Rickman, for example, is a great Judge outside of the songs, but his singing voice is wobbly and hesitant. And Helena Bonham-Carter is simply awful, even worse than I expected her to be given my comments above. She has a couple of strong moments (in “By the Sea,” primarily), and Burton nicely underlines her arc with Toby, but most of the time you’re just embarrassed for her. In comparison to these actors, Depp comes off pretty well, actually, though lissener observed the casting strategy was probably deliberate.
(The best supporting actor is Timothy Spall as the Beadle. Marvelously seedy and reptilian; not at all the fop of the typical stage show. Very different choice, but it worked pretty well. Also, Sascha Baron-Cohen makes a great Pirelli, and the actor playing Toby is pretty good. The guy playing Antony, on the other hand, looks like a young and even funnier-looking Matt Lillard, though he sings the role pretty well.)
On the definite up side, the score has never, ever sounded this good. They’ve obviously doubled the orchestra from the typical Broadway scale, and the music is fucking PUMPED. I got serious tingles a couple of times at the sheer power of it. I’d consider buying the soundtrack except for, y’know, all the singing. 
Oh, and regarding Tony Head, it turns out he is in the movie after all. He shows up in a street scene, delivers one line to Sweeney, and then vanishes. Total screen time is about four seconds.
Man, I should really have previewed better:
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
a stinging condemnation of all of us as we close our eyes to the foulness of their world (“isn’t that Sweeney there beside you?”).
[/QUOTE]
As we close our eyes to the foulness of OUR world. Duh.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Bump: I saw the movie this morning, with lissener.
In talking about it afterward, we found we were more or less in agreement, in having two completely different and almost totally non-overlapping reactions.
As a Tim Burton movie, it’s brilliant. Easily one of his best films.
As an adaptation of Sondheim’s musical, it’s terrible. A failure on virtually every level.
…
It is both awe-inspiring and horrifically disappointing.
[/QUOTE]
I hope I don’t sound like I’m picking a fight here but you do realize your perspective on both the play and movie versions of “Sweeney Todd” comes from somebody who knows and seems to admire the play with almost religious devotion (and I apologize if I’m overstating things)? Any version that varies in some detail from the original stage version is probably going to seem deficient in your eyes. The vast majority of people who’ll be seeing this movie have likely never seen the play (or, if they have, may have only seen the version televised on PBS over 20 years ago). They’re going into this movie as a new experience with no memory of the characters being played by Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter being previously played years ago by Len Cariou/George Hearn and Angela Lansbury. Of course they may be the poorer for it but they’re going to be judging the movie on how it stands alone and not how it compares with the 1979 stage version. You did a thorough job in your review of the film version but I think I’d almost prefer one from someone whose opinion wasn’t so heavily colored by memories of the stage version.
[QUOTE=NDP]
I hope I don’t sound like I’m picking a fight here but you do realize your perspective on both the play and movie versions of “Sweeney Todd” comes from somebody who knows and seems to admire the play with almost religious devotion (and I apologize if I’m overstating things)? Any version that varies in some detail from the original stage version is probably going to seem deficient in your eyes. The vast majority of people who’ll be seeing this movie have likely never seen the play (or, if they have, may have only seen the version televised on PBS over 20 years ago). They’re going into this movie as a new experience with no memory of the characters being played by Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter being previously played years ago by Len Cariou/George Hearn and Angela Lansbury. Of course they may be the poorer for it but they’re going to be judging the movie on how it stands alone and not how it compares with the 1979 stage version. You did a thorough job in your review of the film version but I think I’d almost prefer one from someone whose opinion wasn’t so heavily colored by memories of the stage version.
[/QUOTE]
I think **Cervaise **did a pretty good job distinguishing between the movie we expected and the movie we saw; he said it might be Burton’s best film. It’s certainly one of his best; I’d rank it alongside Edward Scissorhands (which it seems at times, at least visually, to be a sequel to).
It’s one of those movies that, while you’re watching it–while I was watching it, at any rate–you can’t imagine possibly enjoying a movie more. I will probably watch it 12 times. (Although Milla Jovovich as Anthony is a bid disconcerting.)
My disappointments, besides the jettisoning of the entire subtext, the raison d’etre, as it were, of the play, were mostly mentioned by **Cervaise **above. HBC was the wrong choice. She eventually won me over, a little, but her worst number was her first, so she lost a lot of ground before she gained it back. And while I was watching “Epiphany,” it made me think of a scene in Far from Heaven. Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid were having a marriage-ending argument. On the commentary track, Todd Haynes said that as they did repeated takes of the scene, the actors’ emotions became more and more violent, until it finally reached the pitch Haynes was looking for. So watching Depp sleepwalk through Epiphany, I thought of that, and imagined Burton saying, “OK, Johnny. Good. Now let’s do it again, with madness this time, not just disappointment.” And then doing six or eight more takes until Depp reached the level of madness the scene requires. Burton didn’t do this; it’s a very first-take kind of performance. There’s anger, even rage, but there’s no madness.
[QUOTE=NDP]
Any version that varies in some detail from the original stage version is probably going to seem deficient in your eyes.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not a variation in detail. It’s a total change in foundation.
The creators of the stage musical, in a feat of artistic sorcery that becomes ever more jaw-dropping with each passing year, take an amusingly grotesque little penny dreadful and elevate it into one of the most brilliantly lacerating explorations of the modern world’s abandonment of the social compact ever seen in American art.
The movie version is a very, very good execution of the original penny dreadful, in musical form.
That said, you’re right that most audiences have not seen the show, or have at best a passing familiarity with it, and won’t have any awareness of what they’re missing. Most people, I think, will enjoy this version just fine, and will consider it a good time at the movies. And they won’t be wrong.
But they also won’t be seeing the defining masterpiece of the American musical theater. That’s my point.