Yeah, that’s what that’s supposed to look like.
Exactly! I love Stokes Mitchell’s Sweeney because he’s just fucking frightening! He looks as if any moment he could just reach out and slash the throat of an unsuspecting audience member and think nothing of it. I didn’t get that same kind of unhinged madness from Depp (though I did love the film.) And I just love his voice. It’s perfect for the kind of dark intensity that Sweeney must have. I wish I could find a video clip of his version of “My Friends” because it was just beautiful with the right amount of malace seeping through.
I found myself wondering this as well from the previews.
Vantage Point?
Cloverfield?
Step Up 2? Presumably, this means there was a Step Up 1?
The only thing I didn’t like about the film was the way Mrs Lovett was played. She seemed to be much more of a victim rather than a partner to Sweeny. She seemed to be either getting manhandled or intimidated by Sweeny, or ignored by him. I thought that Depp could have been a little more manic in “Priest,” since it’s where the two of them seem to be having fun together, and when it’s reprised,
Bonham-Carter’s Mrs Lovett seems to be convinced that Sweeny is going to forgive her. Angela Lansbury kept babbling and trying to explain right up to the point where she was thrown into the oven, because her Mrs Lovett wasn’t such a sap as to believe that Sweeny would forgive her.
I always thought she was a much more interesting character than that, sort of a counterpart to Judge Turpin, except that the object of her affection was the husband, instead of the wife.
I suppose I’ll toss in my two cents on the Epiphany debate. While the going completely mad thing works on stage, it would have to be followed up in the movie by, well, going completely mad. Luring people in and slitting their throats is pretty kooky, but its not the level of madness I would expect after seeing movie!Sweeney losing it like a stage!Sweeney. I would expect to see the Sweeney in the movie to running through the streets of London, slashing throats, and laughing like a madman.
I think the undersinging of Epiphany worked for the movie. Sweeney is insane; he will kill the whole world, but he will do it in a controlled manner. The image of a madman walking though the streets of London, saying things that seem innocous in bits, but are very dangerous when you put the pieces together all while the Victorians walk around him, ignoring the man who is declaring his intention to kill them all is a lot more frightening (in a movie anyway) than a clearly barking mad barber shouting his lungs out. I’d avoid the latter and possibly call the cops. I might consider the former a bit overzealous, but passionate about his work, and take him up on his offer for a shave.
Again, the undersinging only works in the movie. Going over the top works a lot better on stage.
While watching the previews on Christmas day my son said “That’s because Step Up left so many unanswered questions.”
Four of us went to see it before going out for Chinese food. I knew nothing about the play other than a rough outline of the plot that could be surmised from the title alone. I was pleased with the movie, as were my wife and daughter. My sone thinks that just because Tim Burton has computers, doesn’t mean he has to use computers, and was put off by what he called excessive CGI effects. But three out of four isn’t bad, and he’s picky about his CGI.
I saw the original production with Angela Lansbury and Len Cariou in New York and was blown away. Somewhere amongst my LP antiques, I may still have the original cast recording.
I tumbled to the Lucie/Beggarwoman twist about halfway through the play. What a jolt that was.
I’ve been of two minds about going to see the movie, but from all that’s been said here, it sounds like it would be grand.
Wolfian, I like your analysis of Epiphany – have to see how it actually plays when I get to the movie, but what you say makes a lot of sense.
That’s what “A Little Priest” is for: Lovett uses the sheer perversity of her idea to pull Todd back from the brink of the abyss.
I saw Sweeney Todd today with no preparation ( haven’t seen any other productions, but have seen several Tim Burton movies) and I really enjoyed it. I was apprehensive about the blood and gore but I believe those scenes were well done. My only nitpick is that there weren’t enough scenes of Alan Rickman. I would have like to see a seduction scene with Barker’s wife and more menace in his scene with Barker’s daughter.
What exactly is the subtext that Tim Burton jettisoned? I’ve seen the musical on Broadway…but I’m not sure I know what you’re speaking of?
See the thread I linked in post 27.
WARNING: Likely unpopular, possibly heretical opinions follow
The original Broadway production of Sweeney Todd was directed by Hal Prince. Stephen Sondheim, who wrote 90% of the material, had written a show that he considered to be about obsession - like most of Sondheim’s work, it was personal, concerned with exploring the nuance of human emotion and behavior rather than sweeping societal themes.
But Prince didn’t feel this interpretation - he felt the material ought to be in the service of something more grandiose. He began the play with a big backdrop illustrating the Victorian class system, which a factory worker ripped down just before the show proper began. He punctuated deaths with a factory whistle. He directed the show as an examination of the (to oversimplify) evils of unchecked capitalism, of the corruption and degredation inherent in a winner-take-all, every-man-for-himself environment.
Many people prefer this interpretation. I don’t like it much, because I think it blunts the story that Sondheim really set out to tell. What Sweeney Todd is, really, is not so much an indictment of capitalism or a discussion of social structure - to consider these things is actually to narrow the scope of its message. Burton cut the “Ballad of Sweeney Todd,” but in the reprise of that song that ends the stage show, the characters sing:
“No one can help, no one can hide you -
Isn’t that Sweeney there beside you?”
And, later -
“To seek revenge may lead to hell,
But everyone does it, and seldom as well
As Sweeney
As Sweeney Todd…”
To me, the message here transcends class structure, rises beyond talk of the social compact. The message is simpler, balder than all that. The message is just this: scratch anybody deep enough - the gentle barber with his nice family, the respected public official, the clever message board poster - and he’ll cut your throat and feed your flesh to his neighbors. That Sweeney Todd is a part of everyone, and the culprit isn’t capitalism or abandoned social contracts or poverty or harsh conditions - it’s us, it’s people, and if we lived in a utopia of joy and plenty, that darkness would still be there, hugging the blade, waiting the years, hearing the music that nobody hears.
So I prefer a more intimate approach to the material. I respect that others like the whole social class thing, but those folks already have the original Broadway production and hundreds or thousands of copycat productions from the last thirty years. I’m kind of pleased that Tim Burton made a version for people who see the story differently.
As to the movie itself: I thought it was very good, bordering on truly great. Depp did a nice job. I did agree that “Epiphany” was one of the film’s biggest failures, trailing only “A Little Priest.” I thought the latter was delivered without a hint of the nasty, transgressive humor that makes it so sick and brilliant. Rickman and Spall did an excellent job, in spite of having about half their material excised. Cohen was brilliant in this role, particularly his demeanor in his barbershop confrontation with Todd. I hated Toby as a little boy, thought the casting blunted the impact of the role considerably.
I also thought the reduction in size of the Beggar Woman role, and especially the casting choice made for the role of Lucy, was a big mistake, as it ruined the surprise of the ending for the folks who didn’t already know it.
And I loved, loved, loved Helena Bonham Carter, but I kind of knew I was going to love her in the role going in, so I was biased and admit it.
Hooray, I can finally enter this thread without worrying about spoiling myself (I’m getting more leery of spoilers in my old age)!
Finally saw this yesterday…fantastic, absolutely fantastic. I’m so proud of Johnny, boy can sang! Yes I know it probably wasn’t Broadway quality, but it was oh so much better than I know a lot of people were predicting/fearing. I thought he did wonderful - perfect, maniac part for him, I hope he wins some awards for it. Helena Bonham Carter did leagues better than I expected her to (and was pretty damn adorable as well, but I’m weird like that). The movie itself was gorgeous, but that’s Burton for you. I really do feel that this is one of his masterpieces, and one that he’ll always be remembered for.
Above glowing praise is given from me without having ever seen the stage production. I still called the big twist at the end, but whaddaya gonna do.
Mr. Bunny, OTOH, loves the play, has for years…I remember him telling me about it when we were first dating. He found the movie a perfect adaptation, was just grinning like a lunatic in his seat the entire time - I thought he was going to stand up and clap at the end. Hell, I thought I was going to!
I just saw it this weekend. I’d seen the original Broadway production, but was determined to judge the film on its own merits.
I loved it! Depp’s portrayal of Sweeney was excellent, as good as I expected him to be. After reading EW’s recent article about the film, I’m glad that Burton ended up directing it. The story and atmosphere were tailor-made for his directing style.
Only a couple of things bothered me:
-
I don’t know if it was just a problem with the sound system in the theater I saw it in or a general sound-mixing glitch, so I’ll ask around: Did anyone else have trouble hearing some of the lyrics over the orchestra? Depp and Carter at times were drowned out by the orchestra when I saw it.
-
I thought Helena Bonham Carter was too young to play Mrs. Lovett. Depp is in his 40’s; Mrs. Lovett should have been older, especially since she was supposedly already an adult when the whole Benjamin Parker thing happened. EW’s article denied any nepotism, but I have to wonder about that.
-
The elimination of the “Ballad of Sweeney Todd”.
Still, a great movie and one that will find its way into my DVD collection.
I’d like to see Depp nominated for an OscarTM, but this year’s field may be too strong for that. Alan Rickman for Best Supporting would be nice, though.
I think this must have been a problem in your theater, I had no issue hearing the singing over the music (and I frequently have problems in this area, so they must have been very audible for me to make them out!).
As I said before, I’m biased in the sense that I loved this casting, but nonetheless:
What aspect of the script or score indicates that Mrs. Lovett was already an older adult when Benjamin Barker was transported? There is none, that I can see. Figure our boy Ben was 18 or so when he married the lovely Lucy; contraceptive techniques being what they were in London at the time, Johanna was probably born about a year after the wedding, and Ben transported while she was still in her infancy - so, when he was about 20 (give or take a year or so). He is away 15 years, which makes him about 35 when he returns and renews his acquaintance with Mrs. Lovett.
Mrs. Lovett’s age is pretty indeterminate. There’s no reason she couldn’t be the same age as Lucy, of course. She could even be *younger * than Lucy and Barker, by a year or two, with adolescent fantasies of marrying Benjamin that she hangs on to through fifteen years and renews when she meets him again. Or she could be a bit older. But even granting that she was 30 years old when Benjamin Barker is transported, she’d be just 45 when we meet her here. And Helena Bonham Carter is 41 years old.
Now, Laura Michelle Kelly was too young for her role. But why does Mrs. Lovett need to be in her sixties?
Except for the fact that he was already a barber in his own right, hiring Irish lads about the shop to sweep up. So he was no way 20 years old when he was transported.
I seem to recall that the script said the Mrs Lovett was older than Sweeny, but even if it wasn’t, it wass obvious in the play that she was older. Of course, as I posted above, the movie turned her into a victom, so they probably jettisoned that aspect of her character.
ETA: Even so, 41 years old for a wealthy professional actress in the 21st century is not 41 years old for a London proletarian in the 19th Century.
By “older”, I didn’t mean older than Todd, just older in general. Sorry if my meaning wasn’t clear. Mrs. Lovett certainly doesn’t need to be in her sixties (though Lansbury was when she played the role), but she should have been somewhat older than Carter played her. HBC may be 41, but her portrayal of the character appeared much younger. After all, she relates the Parker story as if she witnessed it from up close, telling me that she still had the pie shop back then. That’s just my take on it; YMMV.
I guess I just expected a bit more “hardness” from her character. Now that I look back, that could have made for a better, more fun and slightly less flat rendition of “A Little Priest”.
I didn’t see Mrs. Lovett as a victim at all. Crazy and very deluded, yes, but entirely self-deluded. It’s not like Sweeney lead her on! The only time he showed any interest in her at all was when she said she would help him in his scheme, and that was early on and not in any kind of romantic way. I do agree that the character seems older than Sweeney, but I liked Carter’s performance. In fact I liked her more than Depp.
As I said, I posted comments above, although they were largely spoilerboxed. I thought that Carter’s Lovett had too much of a flat affect, and was too passive, alhtough I’m comparing that to Lansbury’s performance, which had to be less subdued. I don’t blame her entirely for it, though. In “Priest” when they’re dancing, and Depp seems to be menacing her, and she pulls away a little, and he pulls her closer. This is one of the few instances of Mrs Lovett taking an active role in the murder/cannibalism thing. He seems to be either trying to ignore her or push her around through the whole movie.