Better Lovett: Lansbury or LuPone?- Page 2

[TheaterJunkie]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 11:16pm

I think Lansbury was right for the role then. I think Patti is right for it now.

[Villiy]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 11:26pm

I agree with safran. The point of a revival is not only to bring back classic, but to produce it in a fresh and innovative way. John Doyle is a very innovative director and him and Sarah Travis are brilliant. And I also understand that the new revival is not for everyone.
Updated On: 7/13/06 at 11:26 PM

[EugLoven]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 11:34pm

You're comparing apples with oranges, my friend.

[VonTussleGirl]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 12:02am

Lansbury will always be "my" Lovett.

BUT.

I thought LuPone brought so much to the character that Lansbury didn't, and vice versa. The two performances are so completely different that it's almost a different character. I do, however, agree with MargoChanning; Lansbury's Lovett was just brilliant.

[Christoph]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 9:45am

I think Lansbury is in a completely different class than LuPone's performance. She brilliantly presented a distinct creation and walked a fine balancing act between comical and menacing. There were many broad strokes, but I believe there was also a diverse array of subtle shadings to her work. She was not a stage hog so that her co-star was not overshadowed by her presence, but when required she could hold your attention in the part like few actresses then or now. Her performance was incredibly rounded as far as singing and acting, but she also seemed to be a ball of energy and oddly touching for such a ghoulish character.

By contrast, I felt LuPone was dull and lifeless in the role. She literally did nothing with it other than show up and sing the music. I love her voice, but I thought her performance was non-existent. It was almost like she thought she was grudgingly performing at a concert. I did not find her funny, menacing or interesting. I heard her spout the lines in a flat monotone, but it seemed as though the lights were on and no one was home. These lead roles were always meant to be showcases (no production of ST that I have ever seen was conceived as an ensemble piece like some people seem to reason for this revival), and whether it was a conscious decision on LuPone's part or John Doyle's part, they turned Mrs. Lovett into a glum and incredibly boring creation. Her "Worst Pies in London" and "By the Sea," which were highlights in all of the other productions that I have seen, were joyless and instantly forgettable. I have had numerous fans try to explain the artistic merit of her approach to me, but I still don't think it works for this show. One fan suggested that the reason why she was so lifeless was because it reflected Mrs. Lovett's black soul, but even that does not wash as the night I saw it she came briefly to life during the "Little Preist" number. Why change tactics for only one number? Was it only that number that appealed to Ms. LuPone? The Worst Pies in London and By the Sea are good numbers too. And solos. One would think they would engender more life than the "Little Priest" duet.

Of note, I have also had the opportunity to see Dorothy Loudon and Christine Baranski in this role. Both had markedly different approaches from Lansbury's and both were smashing - but Ms. LuPone's is literally the only example that I would call painfully dull.

[mathewbrock]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 9:56am

Lansbury. For all the reasons stated above.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 9:59am

I prefer Lyle.

[WhoCouldBeBlue]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 10:16am

I agree... apples and oranges

Lansbury was BRILLIANT in her interpretation of Lovett. She was comical, crazed, sang the HECK out of the score and her performance should go down in the books as one of the best ever!

Lupone was also BRILLIANT! Her interpretation of Lovett was a much darker and sinister version, but it worked beautifully for the concept of the show. She deserves kudos for bringing an entirely different Lovett to the stage, when it would have been so easy to just copy bits and pieces of Lansbury's character.

I think both of them did a fantastic job!!

[cfmiller]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 11:41am

Could some people who saw Dorothy Louden take over for Lansbury comment on her performance? I would especially be interested in her performance in comparision with what the Lupone and Lansbury brought to the role.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 11:47am

>I think Lansbury was right for the role then. I think Patti is right for it now.<

May I ask what this means? I think audiences in 2006 would have to consider themselves blessed to see anything like Lansbury's performance.

I enjoyed Lupone, but Lansbury had it all - including a back flip into the oven. I also have to disagree with those that find Lupone "more sinister". Lansbury was able to hit the extremes in both the outrageous comedy and calculating desperation of the role. Lupone could probably do the same if she was recreating the role in the model of the Hal Prince production, but what she has been allowed to do in the John Doyle production is much more narrow and limiting.

Updated On: 7/14/06 at 11:47 AM

[TheaterJunkie]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 12:45pm

^This performance of Sweeney Todd is much darker and less comical than the original, I think LuPone's way of approaching the character with less comedy fits with this production.
I loved Lansbury in this role, I thought she was wonderful.I think the original Mrs. Lovett needed to be comical.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 1:16pm

>This performance of Sweeney Todd is much darker and less comical than the original<

Less comical, yes, but I'd disagree that this production is "much darker". A matter of opinion, I guess, but I found the John Doyle production the least dark and the least scary Sweeney Todd I've ever seen.

[TheaterJunkie]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 1:24pm

I think the original Sweeney was creepy because of it's dark humor. I'm going to see the revival this month, I wonder if it will creep me out as much as the first one.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 4:59pm

Personally, I think it's wrong to judge an actor's performance based on a video. It's called live theatre for a reason.

[Christoph]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 6:33pm

orangeskittles: "Personally, I think it's wrong to judge an actor's performance based on a video. It's called live theatre for a reason."

Sorry to debate you, but I have read through this thread twice and I cannot find any instances where anyone thus far indicated that they were making the judgment based solely on the video, so I am uncertain why you have jumped to that conclusion.

Speaking for myself, I had the opportunity to see Lansbury perform the role twice - live. Please remember, not everyone on the board is in their twenties. Some of us relics were around when the original played and are able to base the comparisons on our personal experiences. I do also own the video of the Lansbury production that was televised many moons ago on public television. While that is a wonderful record of her work, even that does not do justice to what she accomplished live on-stage in front of an appreciative audience.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 6:45pm

I also saw Lansbury live and, more so than in the video (which obviously selectively edits her performance and doesn't always include her crucial reaction shots), she gave a multidimensional tour de force of a performance.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 6:48pm

I "jumped to that conclusion" because based on their other posts on BWW, I know that at least two of the posters on this thread weren't even born during Sweeney's original run. I was making a general statement about my opinion which I've expressed many times before, especially with all the "Sarah Brightman vs. Emmy Rossum" and "Daphne or Rosario" threads in recent months. Obviously I'm not the only one making assmuptions, so don't patronize me.

Updated On: 7/14/06 at 06:48 PM

Posted: 7/14/06 at 7:18pm

I admit, I have not seen Lansbury perform, and maybe cannot make a completely apt comparison, but I happen to adore Patti, and am COMPLETELY biased.

That being said, from what I've seen, I love Lansbury's portyayl. The contrast from her surface appearence: scatterbrained, oblivious, loveable and above all harmless. It's a much more delicious contrast when her true colors are revealed at the end.

[Jersey Girl2]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 8:09pm

LuPone. Lansbury was good but my idol is Patti. she is pretty friggin amazing

[blindchameleon]

Posted: 7/14/06 at 8:43pm

I saw the Sweeney revival, but have only seen Angela Lansbury's Mrs. Lovett on video. For me though, Lansbury's Mrs. Lovett was perfect because the character seems to call for that comedic style and sort of kookiness, as well as the sinister elements. I loved the revival though and I'm glad Patti took a different approach rather than staying within the same mold. It was great to see such different takes on the character.

Posted: 7/14/06 at 10:41pm

I listened to the April 27th performance tonight and it sounded like Lupone was phoning in her performance. And phoning it in like she was still playing Vera in the Encores! Pal Joey. My vote goes to Angela Lansbury.

[LuPonatic]

Posted: 7/15/06 at 12:57am

I personally do not like Angela Lansbury's singing voice at all. She screached it out, and Patti is singing and telling a good story in her voice. I also prefer Patti in the Revival to Patti in the New York Concert ca.2000. Don't get me wrong, I love Murder, She Wrote :O) and she sings "Beauty and the Beast" with some charm, even though it isn't the best singing. Her acting was good, just not a great voice. just my opinions, I guess...Oh, I also love her in Nanny McPhee, and I bet she would be fantastic in A Little Night Music.

[pandajen14]

Posted: 7/15/06 at 1:09am

You know, as much as I adore Patti and think she does a great job in the role, I've always loved Angela as Mrs. Lovett. Maybe it's just because I heard her first, but I like the fact that she doesn't have a conventional Broadway voice. I think it adds to her interpretation of the character. Her Mrs. Lovett was more comic, which was a great contrast to the dark nature of the show, and she seemed more realistic with the setting and time period (not that that really matters with the new adaptation of the show).

Also... yeah, the pigtails are adorable.

[Forester]

Posted: 7/15/06 at 4:20am

For me personally, Lansbury. Just love her comedic timing.

[AngusN]

Posted: 7/15/06 at 4:50am

For me it is Patti. I just love the whole new approach to the piece. I think Lansbury's performance is pantomimic. It is very much like a pantomime dame and it detracts from the dark, eerie nature of the musical.