Margo on Sweeney Todd -- First Preview- Page 3

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 1:02am

Honestly? Not once did I ever see a cast member NOT motivating their actions? I could have sworn that every action was ad libbed in the performance for the simple reason that they all seem to be born out of the moment.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 1:31am

"i do question, fundamentally and theoretically, whether a production must have a concept that is organic to the setting of the story. furthermore, why must a production even be most concerned with always servicing story, specifically the ability to transport on audience to the setting of a story?"

* * *

"as a director, though, sometimes for a production I find it interesting to merely taking an audience on a journey, through something that may be linear or literal, but possibly merely a collection of images, moods, experiences that can move a receptive audience. again, i do also understand that such theatre is not ideal for broadway audiences and is best seen in other parts of manhattan, or brooklyn."

* * *

Excellent points, SFboy. No, a reinterpretation of a work need not always be concerned solely with servicing a story or being true to some traditional notion of how a given work "SHOULD" be staged in order to be effective. I think immediately of the brilliant deconstructions of canonical works that Elizabeth Le Compte has created for the Wooster Group over the years that do precisely what you describe in terms of creating a mood or feel or set of images to get to the core of a piece. She has taken plays by Chekhov (Three Sisters) and O'Neill (The Hairy Ape, The Emperor Jones, Long Day's Journey Into Night) and rather than faithfully presenting and staging the text, in her reconceptions, the text is secondary to the themes of the work.

In her Long Days, for example, the baleful sound of a persistent foghorn becomes a fifth character in the lamentable Tyrone family drama and her conceit that the characters long ago stopped listening to each other's oft-repeated reminiscences and complaints is dramatized through use of sound effects of sped up, unintelligible dialogue -- her version of the 4 hour tragedy ran about 80 minutes as I recall and resonated as powerfully with O'Neill's themes of loss and regret as the last traditional Broadway staging did.

I can think of many other examples of productions I've seen (usually, so-called avant garde or "downtown") where directors have managed to boil a text down to its elemental roots and get to the core of an author's intent. They've tossed out traditional notions of staging and character and story and arrived at something new and powerful. These can be mesmerizing, revelatory experiences.

However, it doesn't strike me that Doyle had that much on his mind. He had a single conceit -- "Let's have the actors also be the orchestra" and then went from there. It's an interesting and entertaining stunt, but little more. It's not innovative or particularly coherent for that matter. It's just different, and that's fine, I suppose, but for me directors should have an overriding guideline similar to the doctors -- "First, do no harm." And Doyle's "vision," as it is, manages to somehow make SWEENEY TODD a less interesting and provocative and effective work that it normally is.

I'm not tied to the Prince production -- far from it. While I love it, I saw it 20+ years ago, have it on video and don't need to see it on stage again. I was greatly looking forward to a new, intelligent, exciting "take" on the material -- and Doyle's isn't it. I didn't go into the theatre last night looking to be critical -- just the opposite (friends can confirm this -- I was hoping to RAVE for this).

And I've seen and loved other work from Watermill -- Edward Hall's A Midsummer Night's Dream at BAM, as well as his Rose Rage (a reconception of Shakespeare's Henry VI plays that played at the Duke -- and also had blood pouring into buckets and other stylized violence) BOTH made my top ten list last year.

But, this production, as entertaining as it is at times, was a disappointment to me. I've seen many many gimmicks before over the years and while this one is certainly an interesting one, in the end, it's unfortunately pretty shallow. This masterpiece deserves better.

Updated On: 10/5/05 at 01:31 AM

[sfboy20]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 1:37am

a wonderful answer, as i expected.

and i, too, am a huge fan of the wooster group.

i look forward to seeing this production and to take my own account, yet your comments were welcomely thorough.

thank you.

until next time...
take care

[fiatlux]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 1:51am

"However, it doesn't strike me that Doyle had that much on his mind. He had a single conceit -- "Let's have the actors also be the orchestra" and then went from there. It's an interesting and entertaining stunt, but little more. It's not innovative or particularly coherent for that matter. It's just different, and that's fine, I suppose, but for me directors should have an overriding guideline similar to the doctors -- "First, do no harm." And Doyle's "vision," as it is, manages to somehow make SWEENEY TODD a less interesting and provocative and effective work that it normally is."

You really need to disabuse yourself of the fact that this is a conceit - this is a particular genre of presentation, which you are obviously unaware. You need to look beyond that to the heart of the piece which, at least for me, shone through with great clarity.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 2:11am

What's the difference between a "conceit" and a "genre of presentation"?

I well know the "heart of the piece" and have seen it presented far more clearly in other productions.

And please don't try to lecture me about Brecht -- TRUST ME, I thoroughly know about Brechtian presentation. This ain't it.

Updated On: 10/5/05 at 02:11 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 2:18am

Margo, I don't mean to come off as snotty or anything...but just because you don't see a real reason for having the cast double as the orchestra, that clearly doesn't mean that he doesn't have one. There's a difference between him blindly doing something, and you just not seeing it.

[sfboy20]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 2:19am

the constant attributations to the staging as Brechtian simply because it was experimental was beginning to irritate me...

and if it was Brechtian, Margo, your alienation from the story would have brought you an even greater understanding of Doyle's ideas, as well as those of Sondheim. right? but, alas for you, it isn't Brechtian.

:o)
Updated On: 10/5/05 at 02:19 AM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 2:25am

Thank you, SFBoy.

And if I'm totally off base here and anyone would care to explain -- in detail, please, not just some general statement -- the many advantages, intents and purposes behind having the cast double as the orchestra, I'm certainly all ears.

[sfboy20]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 2:59am

this is only intended to be a half-answer to you, Margo.

from what i understand, Mr. Doyle stages works with actor's doing more duties than traditional productions as a way of analyzing, developing, strengthening the relationships of the characters in the play. compare this to using dance in a straight play to analyze relationships.

i do not believe that this was a conceit that began with sweeney and therefore was not designed to enhance specifically sweeney.

the question now is - and one you have answer for yourself so far - how effective it is in sweeney. for you, it appears that the conceit proved to be more distracting than insightful in the case of the text of sweeney.

just two cents.
Updated On: 10/5/05 at 02:59 AM

[steveshack]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 7:57am

Fascinating discussion. I learn more about theatre from this forum than in any college course.

[fiatlux]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 9:30am

"And please don't try to lecture me about Brecht -- TRUST ME, I thoroughly know about Brechtian presentation. This ain't it."

I'm not sure if talk of it being a Brechtian production is helpful or indeed if anyone can say that they know with any certainty whether it is or not, I've never heard John Doyle claim that it is; Sondheim who usually doesn't like Brecht felt that it was and that it had worked excellently in this production.

The Brechtian element is a question of what it is we consider Brechtian. Perhaps the most common understanding is that a given theatre piece will use techniques which alienate the audience; denying a certain suspension of disbelief; requiring a degree of effort on the audience's part. Most of the dialogue in Sweeney is performed straight out front; there is minimal eye contact between the actors, and instruments abounded. If any of these practical choices resulted in anything resembling an alienating effect, then it was, indeed, a Brechtian production. I don't feel that it did but certainly others got that - but then what Sondheim or anyone else for that matter, means by Brechtian is pretty much up for grabs.

"What's the difference between a "conceit" and a "genre of presentation"?"

It maybe for you to define what a conceit is. But a genre of presentation is the mechanics whereby you deliver the piece of art - canvas, stage, tv, dance, music theatre or actor/musicianship.

The conceit is the intellectual or artistic image that you hope to convey via the means of delivery.

Actor/musicianship allows actors to explore the whole gamut of the emotional and intelectual relationship between characters and the audience by using not just their bodies and voices - dance, acting, singing but extending that characterization through the use of another medium, namely a musical instrument. It is a not a dual activity actor acts....actor plays notes, it's combined artistic activity which heightens that piece of communication, however, as with going to any piece of theatre you need to accept this convention - just as you accept people bursting into song or dancing or even having an orchestra in a pit.

"I well know the "heart of the piece" and have seen it presented far more clearly in other productions."

That's well and good. I've seen quite a number in my years too and I not would seek to diminish your experience.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 9:31am

Excellent point SF -- and for me, the intstruments do indeed enhance the character relationships. Johanna and Anthony both play the cello. He plays during her "Green Finch" and before the song is finished she takes up where he leaves off for his "Johanna." During the "Joanna" reprise they literally make love through their unison playing. This suddenly made these two usually stiff characters come alive to me, and their usually not very convincing love story compelling.

Joanna, ever the instrument of the Judge's obsession plays his anguished version of "Johanna" on the cello and plays the haunting tin flute solo during "Pretty Women."

Lovett's flashy silver tuba becomes a symbol for her flaunted sexuality, etc. etc.

I felt like the instruments do become an extension of character, and that the show is orchestrated so that the instrumentation becomes almost thematic -- physically doing to the score what say Prokofiev does with musical theme in PETER AND THE WOLF.

I think you can only say the story is diminished by this production if you have seen other productions. As I said, I took a friend to see the show last night who doesn't know SWEENEY at all. She was overwhelmed by it. She certainly understood the story and was moved by it. Does it matter that she didn't really get that Anthony is a sailor, or that Pirelli was written to be a man? Is that really what this play is about?





Updated On: 10/5/05 at 09:31 AM

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 10:06am

I agree Michael Bennett, as someone who had never seen (live) a production of Sweeny, this did not in anyway detract from my experience. I really felt the characters were enhanced by playing the instruments.

My most vivid example was Joanna, on the DVD version I feel nothing for Joanna. (I was very moved by Hearn and Lansbury though.) In this production the added elements with her cello made the love story with Anthony much more touching, the two of them playing the haunting music so hauntingly and sensually gave that story a great deal of power, to me. In the same way her cello playing during Turpin's songs was chilling. As she pluched those strings frantically while he leered at her the added emotional destruction he puts her character through became viscerally evident. Moments like these happened with all the characters.

I'm not saying these things could not have been done with a different "conciet," but I do think most times, if this was the intent, this production succeeded.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 1:07pm

I think the purpose of having the performers double as the orchestra allows them to connect more with the score. I sat very close to the stage, and Patti LuPone was very concentrated in the music, and I think as a result of the performers being so embedded, it can only improve their characters. They will achieve an understanding that they may not have otherwise gained. While its purpose was probably more for a gimmick as opposed to an artistic reasoning, the end result is the same: the actors are more involved with the musical component of not only their but of their fellow actors' characters, giving them an insight they might not otherwise have had. My only complaint, as I have stated earlier, is that the staging is bad for those off to the side, because the performers block center stage so it can get obscured. But at the same time I agree with Margo. I really think the only people who might be able to appreciate this version to the fullest extent are those who are familiar with the original. It would be arogant to stage something only those who are familiar with the material understand, because you lock out the rest of your potential audience. But time will tell. It definitely was enjoyable, but other than the talented cast it really, to me at least, didn't seem like a Broadway production. It seemed more like a production I would see at Steppenwolf or The Goodman.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 1:13pm

FosseBoy --

What exactly is a Broadway production supposed to look like then? I agree that this is the last sort of production I would expect to see in a Broadway house, but I'm frankly thrilled that after so many years of hum drum revivals and uninspired stagings we are finally starting to get some more experimental things on the Great White Way.

[fiatlux]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 1:42pm

"I really think the only people who might be able to appreciate this version to the fullest extent are those who are familiar with the original. It would be arogant to stage something only those who are familiar with the material understand, because you lock out the rest of your potential audience."

I'd disagree I went with two Italian friends, who found it very understandable. In London, you could also rely on the local audience understanding the plot.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 1:43pm

Thanks Margo. Every question you posed about the concept of the show is exactly what I thought when I heard about this production. And as I feared, they simply aren't answered. I really wanted some justification for such a stylized concept of this show, but it seems there really is none other than the director's own vanity. For a show to be reconceptualized, there needs to be at least one aspect in the text, setting or theme that supports the creative vision, but I could not figure the angle of this production based on the description. I was hoping there would be some indication upon viewing the show, but I guess there's not. I'm sure it's interesting to watch, but I think I'd rather see a Sweeney that better serves the material rather than detracts from it. Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the story come first? If the focus is on the score, then it would make a fun concert. Maybe that was his intent.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 1:50pm

Matt -- I think its worth noting again that all the Watermill Productions utilize actor/musicians. This production happens to be on Broadway because Sondheim loved it, indeed that is the only reason we are getting a SWEENEY revival now at all.

But the concept was no more conceived as a gimmick for Broadway then the Deaf West production of BIG RIVER (utilizing Deaf and Speaking actors in conjunction to tell the story). This is simply the way these two theatre companies do productions. Neither was dreamed up specifically to be a Broadway vanity production. But both proved to be unique interpretations of the script.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 2:17pm

Well, I was going to stay away from this production because of Ms. Lupone. I have said before that I am not a big fan and did not like her at all in the concert version. After this discussion, I have decided to put it back on my list to see when I am in New York. Sweeney is one of my all time favorite shows. I hate the fact the she is in it. But I am very curious about the production itsef. I should be seeing it next month.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 2:32pm

Well, my doubts about the cast notwithstanding, I'm loving this production just for inducing the best discussion thread we've had in ages.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 2:37pm

Michael Bennett - "But the concept was no more conceived as a gimmick for Broadway then the Deaf West production of BIG RIVER (utilizing Deaf and Speaking actors in conjunction to tell the story)."

I was aware of the origins of this production, but it wasn't the actors' use of musical instruments that I was really referring to. The difference between Big River and Sweeney is, Deaf West was able to utilize deaf actors in a way that never detracted from the story. In using actor/musicians, the same could be accomplished as with the successful and brilliantly staged Return to the Forbidden Planet, where the actors' musicianship can be noted and admired (I was stunned at the versatility of the cast) all the while never intruding upon the focus of the story, campy as it was. But it seems that the concept of this Sweeney goes beyond simply utilizing actor/musicians, but also distances the audience from connecting to the story. Perhaps it is meant to be Brechtian in staging (I'm just throwing this out there), but I've never believed it was Sondheim's intent to isolate and disengage the audience from becoming emotionally invested in the show. But honestly, it's just supposition on my part as I have not seen the show, though I'm quite curious despite my reservations in the casting. I just can't seem to wrap my brain around this.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 2:38pm

Margo: A simple question; is it, in your opinion, worth $100?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 2:45pm

"What exactly is a Broadway production supposed to look like then? I agree that this is the last sort of production I would expect to see in a Broadway house, but I'm frankly thrilled that after so many years of hum drum revivals and uninspired stagings we are finally starting to get some more experimental things on the Great White Way."

That's the problem. Everything on Broadway has practically been motorized sets, bright colors, big ensembles, etc. that this production almost seems out of place. I'm not saying it doesn't belong on Broadway, merely that compared to almost every musical I've seen on Broadway, this one doesn't look like a Broadway show.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 2:58pm

WickedRocks,

Absolutely. I don't hate this production -- heck, I gave it four out of five stars on my blog. The score and cast are certainly worth $100, (though note that there are several discount offers out there and it's on TKTS as well, so there's no need at the moment to pay full price). And hey, since Doyle's staging has prompted such a provocative discussion, it's worth seeing the show for that as well to decide for yourself whether you think the use of actor/musicians is a distraction or whether you found that it enhanced your enjoyment of the material.

Bottom line, whether you ultimately like the concept or not, this cast MUST be seen -- they're extraordinary.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/5/05 at 3:03pm

I definitely think the audience is able to become emotionally invested in the story. Rarely have I seen a Broadway house so engrossed in the final moments of a musical.

That said, the instruments definitely put the focus on different aspects of the story then most traditional productions - but that's simply exploring other angles of the characters and the plot. Its not "creating" something that isn't there. That is the only time I feel reinterpretations aren't valid.