Margo on Sweeney Todd -- First Preview

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 6:29pm

Saw the first preview of the new SWEENEY TODD revival last night. The following isn't a formal review, but just some of the initial impressions I had. I see the show again after it's frozen, a few days before opening and may write a real review then.

Easily the most notable and remarkable aspect of this production is the multi-talented cast. I must say it was stunning to witness an ensemble which was capable of acting AND singing AND playing one of the most challenging scores ever created for the musical theatre (special kudos to Sarah Travis' orchestrations), and be able to do so with such utter proficiency and accomplishment. It's hard to take your eyes off of Patti Lupone (who's Mrs. Lovett has deepened appreciably since the concert version), Michael Cerveris (a strong voiced and dynamic Sweeney), Manoel Feliciano (a sweet-voiced Tobias), Donna Lynne Champlin (a virtuouso in every department) and the rest as they pull off this tour de force (I have some slight reservations with a couple of the acting performances, but I'll chalk that up to this being a first preview -- there's room for growth) . The cast is brilliant at managing their all their duties .......................and that's part of the problem with this striking, fascinating, yet somewhat misconceived production.

The whole "concept" in many ways detracts from an ideal presentation of the show. The cast is doing so many different things all of the time that it is a distraction from the actual telling of the story . I spent so much time going "Wow, Patti can really play a tuba" and "I can't believe Donna can shift from accordian to flute so quickly" and "How the heck can Feliciano sing 'Not While I'm Around' and play a violin solo at the same time?" that I was never really engrossed in the actual story. I was never for a moment transported to 19th century London -- I was constantly reminded I was watching actor/musicians on stage, as if I were watching another concert version.

Everything about this production is constantly upstaging itself with your focus being pulled in a half a dozen directions at once. Director John Doyle's staging repeatedly tries to do too many things at once, winding up with moments of just sheer visual clutter from time to time. His transitions frequently lack clarity and several key plot points (as well as several jokes) are missed or obscured (I'm sure this production will be confusing at times to those who don't know the show already), often due to the limitations that go with having actors lugging instruments around and having to play and act at the same time.

Also, his presentational style here -- where rather than have characters address each other directly when in conversation with one another, they direct their lines out to the audience -- is interesting stylistically, to a point, but occasionally undermines the narrative intent of scenes. I really don't think it was worth Doyle sacrificing clarity for style in most cases here, since there's nothing underpinning the stylistic choices -- too often, it's clear that the only reason Doyle has staged a moment a certain way is because it looks interesting -- no other reason. That's fine -- as long as, in so doing, you're not subverting or obscuring the text (and speaking of text, I noticed a few cuts her and there, notably in the Pirelli scene, in "God that's Good!" and various other scenes).

Bottom line, the nagging question I had throughout was -- Why? Why have all the actors playing instruments? As fun as it is to watch the performers, it too often detracts from the overall experience this masterpiece is capable of giving an audience.

The show opens with Toby in a straight jacket and gag in an asylum and the next two hours is what's going on in the imagination of this inmate, which gives the Doyle a lot of leeway to sort of justify his concept -- a sort of "Get Out of Jail Free" card against much of the criticism people might lodge against it, since, one would assume, "anything goes" in the head of a crazy person. Fine. But, why use this concept for SWEENEY TODD, in particular? What does having the performers do everything really ADD to the show?

In the last CABARET revival, much of the action was set in a nightclub and many of the characters were performers, so it made sense to have the band on stage and involved in the action. In the current revival of CHICAGO, Walter Bobbie and Ann Reinking removed any vestiges of naturalism that were in the original Fosse staging and set all the action on a stage, which heightened the vaudevillian aspects of the book and score and added resonance to the fact that most of the characters want to be in showbiz and/or be famous.

But in SWEENEY? Is there some reason that these (mostly) poor, damaged, desperate Victorian era denizens of the London slums are all classically-trained musicians? Does having the cast carrying and playing their instruments throughout, somehow enhance one's understanding of the plot or the score? Does this staging make some comment or statement -- subtle or otherwise -- on the meaning of the show (as did Hal Prince's original "factory" concept evoked how the industrial revolution served to dehumanize individuals, driving some insane)? Or is it -- as I suspect -- just a really neat gimmick?

I take it this whole actor/musician thing is Doyle's big trademark. He's apparently planning a production of COMPANY staged the same way, with the actor/musicians on stage (mmmmmmm ...... perhaps, that makes slightly more sense -- I would imagine some of Bobby's rich, well-educated, Manhattan urbanite friends might have taken a few music lessons in the past; certainly more likely for Joanne to be carrying around a tuba than for Mrs. Lovett or any of the 19th century inhabitants of Fleet Street). I just find it to be more of a stunt than any sort of clever or original directorial conceit. It really doesn't organically emanate from any aspect of the story or score and frankly, Doyle could use it with as much success to stage any show in the musical theatre canon. Doyle could start his own rep company presenting all of the great musicals (most shows have a character or two who is a bit unhinged, after all). He could have 10 actor-musicians (using much of the same set sans coffin, perhaps) enacting shows in the guise of the insane ramblings of a mental patient -- every show opens with one character in a straight jacket and then goes on from there. The marquee: "Now playing: SWEENEY TODD -- Next week: GYPSY -- Coming soon: IN MY LIFE" (which might totally make sense in this format -- have the show open with Joe Brooks in the straight jacket).

And look, I don't mean to be overly negative nor do I intend to dissuade anyone from seeing this show. While there are some basic flaws, there are also several strong and impressive moments here as befits such a well-cast production of a theatrical landmark. When the show can get out of its own way and let the performers simply shine, the production is absolutely thrilling. There are several splendid, goosebump-inducing moments where the show truly soars.

Make no mistake, this is a production very much worth seeing for its classic score and this sensationally gifted cast. I just happen to find the "concept," while certainly an intriguing and an entertaining "one-off," not to be ideal or definitive since it doesn't always serve the story well, tends to undermine focus and clarity and really adds nothing to (and, in fact, detracts from) the understanding and enjoyment of the material. Doyle's reconception is more flash and gimmickry than substance and while it's often entertaining, it's not always in the best interest of the piece.

Nevertheless, I would still say see it anyway. The score is a masterpiece and under no circumstances miss the most virtuosic ensemble of performers in town who sing and play it absolute confidence and aplomb. This is a unique re-thinking of a very important work and should be seen, regardless of any issues in the presentation. Ultimately, despite the drawbacks, this SWEENEY is still quite a memorable experience that any fan of theatre should make a point of taking in.



http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/

Updated On: 10/4/05 at 06:29 PM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 6:35pm

Amazing review as usual

I can't wait to see this show.

[shira467]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 6:35pm

For an informal review, that's rather remarkable.

It's a must see for me!

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 6:47pm

My initial "gut" instincts about the conceptualizing have been realized in your thoughts on this production. Still it sounds fascinating, even if "ya gotta have a gimmick."

Thanks, Margo!

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 7:04pm

The only thing I'd argue is that the show clearly doesn't take place in the 19th Century if we refer to the costumes.

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 7:17pm

When is it frozen?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 7:31pm

Usually a week before opening, just prior to when the critics come.

[Barihunk]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 7:46pm

Margo

I've been waiting all day for your comments... your insights are most appreciated and now, a show I was generally going to disregard, I might just give a second chance. Looking forward to your second visit... maybe you'll be able to see beyond "Hey, Patti sure plays a mean tuba" and see if this "concept" has any more validity. Thanks for being a sound voice of reason on this board.

[RagtimeRay]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 7:57pm

I nominate Margo to succeed Ben Brantley at the NY Times! Having seen the London production, your comments about the "concept" as carried over to NYC truly resonate.

Ray

[Liz_Bennet]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 8:22pm

Margo: You say "I was never for a moment transported to 19th century London -- I was constantly reminded I was watching actor/musicians on stage..."

Do you think that this production is intended to be a very Brechtian reinterpretation? The show has bits of that influence stirring around already, particularly in the opening and closing numbers. The conscious separation of actor and character seems very important here, and it's really the only way I can explain the artistic purposes of this production as I've read about them other that "gee whiz that would be cool."

Whether all of this is a good idea or not is entirely a different question. I'll see what I think when I see the production in a week and a half.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 8:51pm

It seems like Margo knows it is Brechtian...the ultimate question is:

WHY STAGE A NARRATIVE IN A BRECHTIAN STYLE: WHAT DOES IT TEACH US THAT A TRADITIONAL NARRATIVE CAN'T ACCOMPLISH?

Someone please offer some possibilites, cause I'm out of ideas.

[Pinguin]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 8:54pm

Great review Margo...I've been having the same doubts about the effectiveness of the storytelling with the actors playing the instruments, though I have no doubt that it's cool.

I'm very interested to see the show.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 9:22pm

The show & concept does nothing for me . Soory to say but that is it

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:14pm

Great thoughts Margo. Obviously a lot of what you say is true, but some theatre, in my opinion is just meant to be experienced. I agree that this is a hard production in some ways to fully appreciate for those of us so familiar with the material, though I think you just kind of have to put everything you think you know about the story aside and just accept this version of the story on its own terms. I, for example, don't think it's John Doyle's intention at all for this to be set in 19th century Victorian England, just as I don't think its Walter Bobbie's intention for his modern Capezio-thong-leotard-clad dancers to literally be dancing in a 1920s vaudeville.

I actually saw the show again tonight (2nd Preview) and will be seeing it again tomorrow night (hey I got comps from two different sources, how could I refuse?). Each new viewing reveals new and fascinating things. I'll be curious to hear your thoughts upon a second viewing.

Tonight, I did take as my guest someone completely unfamiliar with SWEENEY. She managed to understand the story fine.


Updated On: 10/5/05 at 11:14 PM

[C is for Company]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:16pm

Was there change made in material or anything done differently. Im PRAYING it stays the same, I adored it with all my heart and yes as you can tell I found it to be so engrossing

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:19pm

No, there was nothing different in the staging.

Alexander Geminani did some different things with his character, Patti had another slight flub (in God Thats' Good) but seeing it from very close up is indeed a very different experience. The ensemble is doing some truly remarkable work. Just caught different details this time. Example: LuPone actually plays tuba more times then I initially realized.

Audience response was terrific, though the house was a little less full then last night.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:21pm

Im glad and hoping Gemignani improves, I was a little underwhelmed by both his and the beggar womans performances. I was overwhelmed by Donna and Manoels however, and as for the rest of the cast, everyone did such an unbelievable job

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:30pm

Ugh. I have tickets for early November, but Margo's review pretty much sums up the myriad reasons why this production hasn't intrigued me. And having read her detailed analysis of the concept, as executed, I will add what I dread: seeing a company of fine singing actors have to add yet another skill to an evening that would otherwise tax them if left to do what they do best. This has never been an easy show to put across -- why make gifted performers' task that much more challenging? I just don't get what we gain (at their expense?), and I especially appreciate Margo's potent question about what it possibly could add to the themes. One thinks, not much.

This material isn't about "show business," or performing; it's about class struggle, social injustice, desperation. Having it performed as a "fantasia" (in the Kushner sense) from Toby's asylum nightmare doesn't seem pertinent, since Toby isn't really our rooting value -- or point of access -- in the story, is he? Making it Toby's, frankly feels arbitrary. Aribitrary to feed a concept smells like bad -- bogus -- art, alas.

But with so many gifted folk giving new meaning to "triple threat," who can stay away?

[C is for Company]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:32pm

Id advise you to just wait to check it out and then relay your concerns afterwards. Im not guaranteeing that you will love it, but I cant imagine people leaving and thinking it sucked or wasnt good. It is just something you need to see and enjoy

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:34pm

I just got back from tonight's second preview.

I must say I loved the production, especially the performances by the cast but also the concept.
For me, the staging allowed for an even greater conection to the story because of its simplicity.
Each characters lines and motions meant so much, including the instruments they played and how they played them. It was less distracting, to me, than an attempt to portray the story "realistically" with full sets and props.

I appreciate Margo's review though, as always, and do agree that there are times when the concept seems to overwhelm the emotion of the show, I just don't agree that it is general distraction.

The cast was so spectacular I was awed. Again they all seemed to make the instruments apart of themselves, and I never wondered why they played them, to me the instruments were like the razors, extensions of the arms of the characters.

All that said though; Another great review, even if it wasn't one Margo.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:36pm

And having ranted...

How is the "Kiss Me" quartet? Still my favorite moment in a Sondheim show, when the vocies soar at the end. "...ah sir! Ah miss!..." etc. It's an equisite set piece (anyone every notice: ripped off by Bill Conti to form the DYNASTY theme! 'Da da, da-da-da-DA..")

[fiatlux]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:36pm

Using Actor/musicians in Sweeney is not a "concept" - it is a perfectly valid means of presentation, which John Doyle is famous for, but a number of other directors in the UK have utilized to various degrees. (There is now at least one UK drama college that has a course in this specialism) It might take a bit of getting used but my advice would be to relax and stop letting it get in the way.

I like the smaller productions of Sweeney - they take you back to the roots of the story, the original play and Stephen Sondheim's original vision for this piece. Doyle's production has startling clarity of vision and most of all allows the audience to relish the lyrics and concentrate on the plot, something that Prince's overblown version did not always allow you to do.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:37pm

"This material isn't about "show business," or performing; it's about class struggle, social injustice, desperation. "

Yes, but it's also about obsession, insanity, and unrequited love. SWEENEY is great writing. There is a lot going on under the surface. This production focuses on other angles of the script, but is no less valid an interpretation, in my opinion.

For the record, however, Sondheim has said that Hal Prince was the one that saw the show as being about class struggle, and thus made that the focus of the original production. That is not how Sondheim sees the piece.


Kiss Me is one of the more interesting stagings in the show -- Lauren Molina, in particular does some interesting things with her character -- her Joanna is a little more neurotic then most.


Updated On: 10/4/05 at 11:37 PM

[C is for Company]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:42pm

In regards to the quartet, I too was hoping for the big climatic end to the nimber with both ends coming together for a great moment. Although I didnt find it as much as you do listening to the obc, partly cause i really wasnt too thrilled about Gemignani's beadle and didnt find his voice too impressive in the role. Johanna and Anthony's part carried fine, but jsut really like many other moments in the show, it takes on a new form. It is a litte more downscaled, placing emphasis on new things that may have gone by in other productions. Still doesnt degrade any quality of the show cause watching it, you will still love it

[Glebb]

Posted: 10/4/05 at 11:44pm

Thank you all for this thread.