I've only recently read that TOBY in the PLAY is not a boy as young as he is in the movie. So, how old is he? How does the character differ? I've seen the movie a dozen times now, and I'm seeing the play in September. Let me know any other differences you can think of. I'm not expecting an exact replica (by any means), but I'm curious in how the play and movie differ in your opinion. Someone has told me that the play has a more comedic tone. True?
George:
Rubbing alcohol for you, Martha?
Martha: Never mix, never worry!
The libretto describes Toby as a simple-minded adolescent. Nothing more specific than that, I believe. I don't know if Christopher Bond ever specified how old Toby should be, but that's what Sondheim/Wheeler's is.
yes, Chason. There is a lot more humor in the stage version than there is in the movie. That is why many people did not like the movie (Because all of the humor was taken out), but still liked it.
To say the movie had "all the humor taken out" is overdoing it. A lot of Helena's lines and "A Little Priest" got huge laughs from my suburban small town audience. And really, with "By the Sea", how can you say all the humor was taken out? That scene was hilarious.
"Your lyrics lack subtlety! You can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!"
I thought the Johanna reprise where Sweeney is killing everybody was hilarious. i mean he's singing this gorgeous, and lyrically beautiful song while slitting men's throats. good times.
"I'm a bagel on a plate full of onion rolls!"-Funny Girl
Alot of people in the movie theatre when I saw it laughed at Pierelli.
He's a faker, and you've been taken in by his con. And in doing so, you are enabling him. He is doing more damage to aspergers than papa's words ever could. -Chane/Liverpool on me having asperger syndrome.
I think the most specific thing I've ever seen referring to Toby's age in either the Bond or Sondheim version, is that it must be played by someone who can pass as a "young man". It was never intended for him to be a child or teenager specifically (not that it wouldn't work either way). I've always taken it that he's a mentally challenged young adult. That's definitely how Ken Jennings played it.
I always believed him to be a mentally challenged man anywhere from 14-early 20's, I had reservations about him being portrayed as just a child in the movie but it worked, and I loved the "leave the bottle" line, possibly my favorite from the film.
You're reminding me of people you hear at the movies asking questions every ten seconds, "Who is that? Why is that guy walking down the street? Who's that lady coming up to him? Uh-oh, why did that car go by? Why is it so dark in this theater?" - FindingNamo on strummergirl
"If artists were machines, then I'm just a different kind of machine...I'd probably be a toaster. Actually, I'd be a toaster oven because they're more versatile. And I like making grilled cheese" -Regina Spektor
"That's, like, twelve shows! ...Or seven." -Crazy SA Fangirl
"They say that just being relaxed is the most important thing [in acting]. I take that to another level, I think kinda like yawning and...like being partially asleep onstage is also good, but whatever." - Sherie Rene Scott
for the revival he came off a bit older, but the revival also had the musical being performed in an insane asylum by the patients... so who knows ______________________________________________________________ OMG!! REALLY???? PLEASE - can anyone tell me about THAT version? Did the entire story take place in an insane assylum???? So, did it all turn out that the "crazyness" of the story was just "imaginary"?? ALL CHARACTERS were insane??? Oh, WOW! How creepy. How recently was that revival?
George:
Rubbing alcohol for you, Martha?
Martha: Never mix, never worry!
It played the O'Neill on West 49th the autumn of 2005. There's a tour happening now, actualy. The revival in question was VERY minimalistic, but it amounted to brilliance. The End.
I saw the film several times in the theatre and it always gets huge laughs. This is an important part of the material that Sondheim has always been very specific about. The film is about as serious as it in the theatre. I actually think the Doyle revival has less laughs with the whole Toby's loony-bin concept.
NO! It was supposed to be Toby telling his story, of what (from his point of view) actually happened.
The events were real (slightly biased, but real), they were just a re-telling.
David walked into the valley
With a stone clutched in his hand
He was only a boy
But he knew someone must take a stand
There will always be a valley
Always mountains one must scale
There will always be perilous waters
Which someone must sail
-Into the Fire
Scarlet Pimpernel
In the extras on the DVD, Burton says that he wanted to create a modern version of the old horror films. In that respect, I can appreciate the film, but I think it perverts the piece. One of the things that I like about the original stage version is that it was more colorful in design and seemed a maniac cartoon. This made the "horror" aspects easier to accept. Lansbury with the make up and costume was certainly more in the comic mode.
(For those who say that the DVD of the stage was exagerated, they forger that it was taped during actual performances in a theater so the actions were enlarged for the theater audience, not made subtle for a film.)
It really bothers me that Toby is a child in the film as it makes using him as Lovett and Todd do a form of child abuse. I know children were treated horribly in those days, but we really don't need to see a child as a throat slashing murderer. While still really disturbing, it is easier to accept a mentally challenged Toby imitating what he has seen.
I can't wait to see the play - then I can make my own decision. I cannot STOP listening to the music from the movie - I love it so much. I love little Toby in the movie. I think he's one of the most special things about the film - to me.