Comparing three different Sweeney Todds article

[chinkie azn jai]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 2:53pm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/stage/chi-0420_sweeney_p5apr20,0,2624012.story

In today's Chicago Tribune, there's an article comparing the original Broadway production, the Tim Burton movie, and the 2005 Broadway revival. There's no new information in it, but it's interesting nonetheless, especially hearing Judy Kaye's views on them.

Edited: for spelling

Updated On: 4/20/08 at 02:53 PM

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 3:48pm

Great read, thanks.

I'm confused about this statement, though:

I don't think you need to see blood for the story to work. Doyle's version doesn't literally use any liquid, but he bathes the set in red light.

The use of "literally" is confusing (and people tend to misuse that expression).
I didn't see, nor plan to see, the show on tour, so does he mean that they're no longer using the buckets of blood in the show, or does he mean that the liquid in the show isn't "literal", ie, it's not literal blood, but rather, symbolic? I hope it's the latter, because I can't imagine that production without the infamous buckets.

Either way, it's a poor way to phrase it. Doyle's version DOES literally use liquid. Just not in a literal way.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 3:50pm

Well said. I also hope they didn't cut the buckets. Hopefully the article is just poorly worded.

[TWSFan4Ever]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 3:51pm

I saw the tour in Pittsburgh and they do use the buckets of blood.