#1
Posted: 7/13/06 at 7:57pm
Who makes a better Mrs. Lovett and why?
Better Lovett: Lansbury or LuPone?
#2
Posted: 7/13/06 at 7:59pm
I think there both very different and are both so amazing at the role. I can't choose between them.
#3
Posted: 7/13/06 at 8:03pm
Like Just John said the are both very different but Lanbury was waaaaaaaay better!!!!!!! I LOVE HER!!!!
"I'm tellin' you, the only times I really feel the presence of God are when I'm having sex and during a great Broadway musical." - Nathan Lane - Jeffrey
#4
Posted: 7/13/06 at 8:04pm
There is no way of comparing the two. It's impossible. Each approach to the role is equally effective, equally brilliant, and equally - across the board - fantastic.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#5
Posted: 7/13/06 at 8:05pm
The interpretations are dramatically different and I would have to say that I LOVE Patti but the role wouldn't be worth recreating if it weren't for Angela's original, spectacular performance.
Anyone know if Angela has been to see Patti in the role?
Anyone know if Angela has been to see Patti in the role?
#6
Posted: 7/13/06 at 8:09pm
yes Angela has seen the show. Broadway.com had pics of her and the cast backstage
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
"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
#7
Posted: 7/13/06 at 8:22pm
I know I'm in the minority there, but Patti's Mrs. Lovett did nothing for me. Actually, I have major problems with the "Sweeney" revival overall, but I found LuPone's performance particularly unfunny and dull. I know that's how she was directed, but she is so much better on the NY Philarmonic concert CD. I don't know why John Doyle wanted his Mrs. Lovett to be played straight, when it's supposed to be a larger-than life comedic role. Then again, I don't understand most things about the production.
#8
Posted: 7/13/06 at 8:40pm
If she played it larger than life, and VERY comedic. It would completely bring down the show. No one can steal the show, and thank God Patti and Doyle realized she can't do her big belting diva performance for this production.
#9
Posted: 7/13/06 at 8:58pm
True, if she were to do it Angela Lansbury-style (that is, the way the role was written to be), it wouldn't have worked with the rest of the show. But...well, perhaps this isn't the right thread for this, but I have to get this out: why do the show this way anyhow? Perhaps in fringe theater, where the production originated, it could be an amusing night for Sondheim fans (if the tickets were--appropriately--cheap). But as a Broadway production? As the revival that I have been waiting for for ten years?
Why have the actors play their own instruments? Why eliminate the chorus? Why have almost no set, no blocking, and props and costumes that have little to do with the show? Why cast a tenor in the title role so we have to watch him force his voice for the entire performance trying to hit the low notes? Why cast Anthony and Johanna with actors who don't sing well enough? Why have Pirelli played by a woman? In short, how do these choices make the play any better than it already was?
Sorry for the rant, but I only just recently (finally) saw the show, so I didn't have my chance earlier this season to voice my opinion. And since this is my favorite musical, I had to do so :)
Why have the actors play their own instruments? Why eliminate the chorus? Why have almost no set, no blocking, and props and costumes that have little to do with the show? Why cast a tenor in the title role so we have to watch him force his voice for the entire performance trying to hit the low notes? Why cast Anthony and Johanna with actors who don't sing well enough? Why have Pirelli played by a woman? In short, how do these choices make the play any better than it already was?
Sorry for the rant, but I only just recently (finally) saw the show, so I didn't have my chance earlier this season to voice my opinion. And since this is my favorite musical, I had to do so :)
Updated On: 7/13/06 at 08:58 PM
#10
Posted: 7/13/06 at 8:59pm
Apples and Oranges.
"You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view - until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."
To Kill A Mockingbird
To Kill A Mockingbird
#11
Posted: 7/13/06 at 9:01pm
I really don't think Cerveris is a tenor at all. He's more of a bari-tenor if anything. But that's a whole other discussion. I still consider him a baritone.
#12
Posted: 7/13/06 at 9:03pm
Well, whatever he is, the part was clearly too low for him. I think Michael Cerveris is great, but he was sorely miscast. Why I'm the only person who seems to think that is beyond me...
#13
Posted: 7/13/06 at 9:04pm
People find good and bad in everything different. Me? Patti all the way. But the interpretation is totally different, for the revival in particular, so it's really a pointless argument.
::Sarah::
"Mrs. Lovett, how I did without you all these years I'll never know!"
Avatar photo (c) Paul Kolnik.
"Mrs. Lovett, how I did without you all these years I'll never know!"
Avatar photo (c) Paul Kolnik.
#14
Posted: 7/13/06 at 9:14pm
As stated above, apples and oranges, although I do enjoy Patti's INTERPRETATION of the role better.
#15
Posted: 7/13/06 at 9:35pm
instead of "who is better", it may be more interesting to ask people to simply compare & contrast.
#16
Posted: 7/13/06 at 9:37pm
Baritone:
Why not do it differently? I don't understand why a new interpretation of Sweeney (or any other show) should be relegated to soley a Fringe piece. It was good, it was popular and they decided to bring it to a wider/American audience. I'm missing the problem.
Broadway would be a boring place if all the revivals were the same production. But, whatever.
I don't have a direct quote but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Sondheim liked/approved of the new production of Sweeney. So why say that the role was written one way/can only be played one way/can only mean one thing. < sappy > Isn't that the point of art? That it is subjective? < / sappy >. I think there is a huge difference between saying "The role was written this way..." and "I agree with this portrayal..."
(Did that make any sense?)
Why not do it differently? I don't understand why a new interpretation of Sweeney (or any other show) should be relegated to soley a Fringe piece. It was good, it was popular and they decided to bring it to a wider/American audience. I'm missing the problem.
Broadway would be a boring place if all the revivals were the same production. But, whatever.
I don't have a direct quote but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Sondheim liked/approved of the new production of Sweeney. So why say that the role was written one way/can only be played one way/can only mean one thing. < sappy > Isn't that the point of art? That it is subjective? < / sappy >. I think there is a huge difference between saying "The role was written this way..." and "I agree with this portrayal..."
(Did that make any sense?)
#17
Posted: 7/13/06 at 9:44pm
I hear what you're saying. And I know that Sondheim likes the production, although that baffles me. What I meant was that the role was written specifically for Angela Lansbury, and was *originally* intended to be done kind of "music hall" style, like she did it.
I'm all about finding new ways to do an old show. That's what makes revivals exciting. However, any changes made to the traditional "mold" of a classic show must be done in a way that somehow improves upon or at least illuminates certain aspects/themes of the material. I did not feel that the production did this.
However, once again, I am aware that I am of a minority opinion.
I'm all about finding new ways to do an old show. That's what makes revivals exciting. However, any changes made to the traditional "mold" of a classic show must be done in a way that somehow improves upon or at least illuminates certain aspects/themes of the material. I did not feel that the production did this.
However, once again, I am aware that I am of a minority opinion.
#18
Posted: 7/13/06 at 9:58pm
As you can see from my username, I'm a hugh fan of Sondheim. But I feel that the current revival is soooo overrated! I saw the Broadway original, the "tiny Todd" revival in the 90s, and a production at PaperMill with Judy Kaye and George Hern. I'm open to new visions, but I felt like I was watching a glorified concert version. I would never reccommend this revival to someone who had never seen the show before. It should have been a six-month limited run at best.
#20
Posted: 7/13/06 at 10:26pm
They both play the role completely different, and I don't think you can really compare them in that way.
"Not everyone can come and go by bubble"
#22
Posted: 7/13/06 at 11:04pm
I'm on the "apples/oranges" bandwagon. Both deliver fantastic performances of the same material, in what is more or lass a comletely different show. Angela did a fabulous job of originating the role as a more comedic character, while Patti completely reinvented Lovett as a darker, almost more sophisticated woman.
"Wherever you go... I'll be right there. When you get your own private kick in the ass, just remember: it's a present from me to you."
Rose's dying words to Louise
#23
Posted: 7/13/06 at 11:05pm
I'm sorry but I think anyone will say this revival is LEAGUES AND LEAGUES better than the 89 Tiny Todd.
All the music came from two lousy synthesized keyboards. And people complain that the new one only has 10 musicians.
All the music came from two lousy synthesized keyboards. And people complain that the new one only has 10 musicians.
#24
Posted: 7/13/06 at 11:09pm
For me it's absolutely no contest -- Lansbury. She somehow managed to be both broad and subtle at the same time, conveying a surface veneer that was seemingly kooky, scatterbrained and lovable, yet at the same time systematically revealed (sometimes with only a look or gesture or in a deft throwaway line reading) the character's cold, coal-black heart and her true venal, manipulative, calculating lethal nature -- that woman would cut your throat while patting your head and singing you a lullaby if it got her what she wanted. She also managed to show great tenderness and vulnerability in her relationship with Todd. Lansbury's Lovett had layers of depth that Lupone never even attempts. Lupone's performance is cunning and funny and blousy and brassy and thus crowd-pleasing, but it's all mostly surface (she's obviously a hedonistic opportunist from the second she steps on the stage and never changes); whereas it takes you a while to really figure out what Lansbury is up to and what she's capable of.
Lupone's performance is a fine star turn that's fun to watch. Lansbury's was sheer genius -- one of the greatest in the history of the musical theatre.
Lupone's performance is a fine star turn that's fun to watch. Lansbury's was sheer genius -- one of the greatest in the history of the musical theatre.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
Updated On: 7/13/06 at 11:09 PM
#25
Posted: 7/13/06 at 11:16pm
As far as "better" is concerned, I agree with there being no comparison. Lansbury is classic, Lupone is much darker and more sinister...on a personal level, I like Patti's approach, but both are equally brilliant.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95