Connection between Doyle's Sweeney and Prince's Sweeney

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 4:26pm

I was just watching a documentary on YouTube from The South Bank Show, an episode that featured the making of the original London production of 'Sweeney' in 1980, and in it, Prince talks in detail about his 'concept' for the original production. He explains that it became possible for him to direct the show when he had a lightbulb moment that the story could take place against the backdrop of the Industrial Age, and its introduction to the London workers and families. He says that the entire set is a large factory, and that the company are all factory workers and basically these workers never see daylight, and they tell the story of Todd and Lovett... Isn't this very similar to Doyle's concept with the whole mental hospital thing, and the fact that the company has to tell this story about Todd and Lovett every day. I know the revival was told through Tobias's eyes, but they're two very similar concepts in a way. Two very different productions overall, but the same type of 'idea' led to both productions. I don't know if all of this was pointed out before by someone else, and sorry if it was, but I just found it interesting

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:02pm

That episode of The South Bank Show was considered to be one of the reasons for the failure of Hal Prince's production in London, portraying both the show and some of the backstage issues in a negative manner.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:06pm

For the record, the concept of placing-the-show-in-the-asylum was taken from Peter Brooks' famous staging of MARAT/SADE in the 1960s. And Brooks' staging was itself inspired by the actual 18th century custom of allowing the middle-class to tour asylums and view the inmates for "entertainment". (Brooks may have also taken the idea from somewhere else; I'm not an expert on his work.)

But, yes, directors often find a single unifying idea provides a framework within which a work can be interpreted. Prince in particular has been rather forthright in discussing his concepts.

[PattiLover]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:17pm

"That episode of The South Bank Show was considered to be one of the reasons for the failure of Hal Prince's production in London, portraying both the show and some of the backstage issues in a negative manner."

Why? Because of his views of the Industrial Revolution in London? The themes are universal - and the Industrial Revolution bore a lot of casualties in America here, too. The Triangle Shirt fire, the Lattimer mines, child labor...it's not just a British thing.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:29pm

It seems, as others have pointed out, more to just show how many directors pick a unifying concept for their show, rather than any real connection. Prince particularly loved finding some sort of political framework--one reason he seems to not be particularly proud with A Little Night Music is that he never found one (at least judging from his bio), and so never found the "knives" under the whip cream he wanted--to paraphrase. Didn't he say to ALW when offered Cats something about if the show was about Queen Victoria, and ALW replied "No, it's just about cats"?

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:57pm

Very true. I wonder what he found with 'Company,' though... and 'Follies' Hmm.. I suppose that's why he loved doing 'Evita' - all about politics lol!

I think in terms of the negative manner of the show it refers to the backstage goings on with the Pirelli walking out on the company etc.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 6:10pm

Musicaldude, remember that FOLLIES was done during the Vietnam War, when it had become clear that our own delusions had lead us into a quagmire overseas.

At the time, the show was clearly about mass delusion as well as personal follies.

COMPANY was obviously about the politics of marriage. I didn't mean to imply that every Prince show had to have a subtext about international movements. I apologize if I gave that impression.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 7:39pm

Gaveston beat me to it--I don't think it always has to be politics in the sense of Evita or the Industrial revolution. Though I am trying to wonder what his basis for Phantom was (aside from really wanting a hit at that point). I know he did help come up, with Bjornson, on the idea of trying to do a modern interpretation of old fashioned theatre techniques, and says he wanted to do an anubashedly romantic (in the old sense of the word) work.

Re Follies, Gaveston got what I think was Prince's concept right IMHO--and of course Prince wasn't very interested in the piece until it began to morph into its final version--it seems like he agreed to do The Girls Upstairs mainly to appease Sondheim while he worked on Company.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/6/12 at 1:32am

"Prince particularly loved finding some sort of political framework--one reason he seems to not be particularly proud with A Little Night Music is that he never found one (at least judging from his bio), and so never found the "knives" under the whip cream he wanted--to paraphrase. "

Would that one could be able to accept that not everything requires a political framework, or that whipped cream doesn't, nor does it need to have knives under it.

A person who can't enjoy whipped cream as whipped cream is a person who is going to create pretentious, sour, miserable theatre.

Case in point.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/6/12 at 1:45am

Or they can create pretentious, sour, miserable theatre board postings.

Case in point.

[The Scorpion]

Posted: 7/6/12 at 5:11am

Gaveston beat me to it--I don't think it always has to be politics in the sense of Evita or the Industrial revolution. Though I am trying to wonder what his basis for Phantom was (aside from really wanting a hit at that point). I know he did help come up, with Bjornson, on the idea of trying to do a modern interpretation of old fashioned theatre techniques, and says he wanted to do an anubashedly romantic (in the old sense of the word) work.

I think he had 2 principal ideas for Phantom, from all the various interviews I've read. One was definitely theatricality, he said he wanted the audience to smell the greasepaint, fabric and incense; the other was repressed sexuality, which fed very much into Björnson's ingenious designs. He got the latter idea after watching a BBC documentary about disfigured people and said that the one thing that came across was that they all had very normal sexualities.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/6/12 at 6:38am

Except, Kad old chap, I love whipped cream.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 7/6/12 at 7:38am

And you're the sourest, most pretentious, and most miserable poster here.

Hoorah!

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/7/12 at 12:50am

The Scorpion--I remember that quote about the sexuality too, now that you mention it, and it makes a lot of sense. I admit as a 9 year old obsessed with Phantom, Bjornson's perfect designs kinda made me uncomfortable/freaked me out a bit and I think it was that element. Thanks for mentioning it!