GAG ME WITH A RAZOR: Why I Hate Tim Burton's SWEENEY TODD- Page 2

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 6:29am

Thanks, husk_charmer, you're probably right.

"Quentin Crisp is a famous effeminate actor."

logan0215, I'm well aware of who Quentin Crisp was.

Still, I'm not wild about the way it was expressed. And I don't think I'm being too politically correct. I'd prefer something like "the late, notoriously flamboyant and effeminate gay revolutionary."

Though I'm not sure Crisp would have liked being described as a "revolutionary."

But I'm also not sure he wouldn't have liked it.

[artscallion]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 8:49am

I couldn't make it through your whole post. But based on what I did get through, all I have to say is...FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DON'T RENT A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC!

[Oliver Brownlow]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 8:55am

Not Barker, Todd. has replied:

" ... Sondheim has been very enthusiastic about the film, and seems VERY proud of it. Not to mention he was involved with casting and has often said how pleased he was with Depp and Carter."

You are correct, and he expresses this view in the interview linked from my personal website (posted, if I'm not mistaken, on Broadway World - Baltimore). This is precisely what horrifies me.

"AND, if it was a real studio product, it would be PG-13, so as to reach a wider audience."

This is a reasonable argument, and one which Sondheim himself also in essence made. But just because the movie was not distorted in every way possible by market considerations does not mean it was not distorted in any way by such considerations. True, the movie is as full of blood and gore as Andy Warhol's Dracula, and there seems to have been no effort to limit the blood-letting to secure a lower rating, or to create a false happy ending to the story, or to get a merchandising deal with a fast-food outlet (actually, I rather regret that -- I'd love to have a set of cute little dolls depicting the Sweeney Todd characters -- but what fast food outlet would want to associate itself with a movie about cannibalism?). To me it's pointless to argue about whether it's a studio product. A multi-million-dollar production released by a major studio is undeniably that in any case. But there was certainly an effort -- a desperate effort -- to reduce the running time of this movie at all costs -- even at the cost of eliminating important story elements, creating illogical jumps in the story, and leaving loose plot ends lying out in the open like severed limbs on the floor of Mrs. Lovett's bakehouse.

Maybe it's just a coincidence that many of the high-minded artistic decisions made by the Sweeney Todd movie's creative team also resulted in cost and time savings to the production. But maybe it isn't.

[nmartin]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 9:42am

Minor Point: I don't think anyone could classify Quentin Crisp as having been an actor.

Oliver: Sentimentally, I totally agree about Christopher Lee.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 9:51am

I would classify Crisp as an actor. He played characters in movies. He even played Lady Bracknell onstage.

Here's Vincent Canby in the New York Times on Crisp's performance as Queen Elizabeth in Orlando:

"The film's gender-bending scheme is elegantly realized in Mr. Crisp's performance as the virgin queen, a stiff, arthritic old lady who can still appreciate the look of a nicely turned, youthful calf while reaching for the thigh."

Did he even an extensive career as an actor? Was he an actor in the sense of Olivier or Alfred Lunt? No. But I think it's reasonable to call him an actor, even if that wasn't what he was best known for.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 9:58am

OK so what you wanted was basically a filmed version of the stage show ???? then go and buy it.

Every Musical to movie transition has to be changed it someway, what works on a stage does not always work on Film, Look at Hairspray, Dreamgirls, Rent, Phantom etc they all had to change things.

Its a very different medium and i think Tim Burton has taken this material and made it his own which is what people were hoping for

[bk]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 10:08am

It's always funny to me that the people who use this "it's a film" argument always do so in exactly the same wording in every post, as if they'd read Mr. Sondheim's interview and the PR postings done by people who were paid by the studio. I mean, the same language.

"Every Musical to movie transition has to be changed it someway, what works on a stage does not always work on Film, Look at Hairspray, Dreamgirls, Rent, Phantom etc they all had to change things."

Very bad examples - the changes in each of those films were, IMO, not necessary and not helpful to the material.

Yes, some things have to be changed and adjusted, West Side Story being a good example of where things were repositioned in the film in helpful ways. In The Music Man, My White Knight was replaced with, again IMO, a far better song, Being In Love. However, all that said, I was not really bothered by most of the cuts. There certainly was a way to make The Ballad work, at least in the opening, but NOT the way that Burton was trying to do (with ghosts - a terrible idea). The internal cuts in A Little Priest were necessary, because all the comedy in the song is gone, so to sit there and have MORE unfunny verses sung by people who do NOT know how to deliver comedy would have been horrible.

I only had a few caveats about the film, but the humor in the songs that have it were the most major, because no matter WHAT you think of Miss Carter, especially, the songs are written with humor and energy, and what she does with them makes them anti-songs - at least with Pies and Priest.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 10:11am

Of course the changes in them films were called for.

They don't just make Movie Musicals for a musical audience, a commercial audience has to be able to enjoy them to (hollywood makes these films to make money not for art).

Characters bursting out in to song is one thing, but people singing ever word in a film nowadays will have people running for the hills, hence why Dreamgirls and Rent dropped some singing bits.

Film audiences would rather follow a narrative which is been spoken rather than sung, thats why some choices are made to accommodate commercial audiences.

[BenKaye]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 10:14am

Fromage, "Diving Bell" is a book written by Jean-Dominique Bauby, the main character in the movie of the same name. The movie could be considered an adaptation of the autobiography, though it is really about how he wrote the book, and how he coped with his condition. Both the book and the movie are good.

[bk]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 10:38am

"Of course the changes in them films were called for.

They don't just make Movie Musicals for a musical audience, a commercial audience has to be able to enjoy them to (hollywood makes these films to make money not for art).

Characters bursting out in to song is one thing, but people singing ever word in a film nowadays will have people running for the hills, hence why Dreamgirls and Rent dropped some singing bits.

Film audiences would rather follow a narrative which is been spoken rather than sung, thats why some choices are made to accommodate commercial audiences."

Utter hogwash, and the reason the film business has been in the sorry state it is for many years. One of the things I LIKED about the film of Sweeney was that unlike Dreamgirls, it wasn't afraid to be a musical. I'm sorry, but I've said it before and I'll say it again - I've shown The Music Man to many kids and teens, and you know what, they don't run for the hills - they LOVE it. They get it. Because the film right from the get go says what its world is and that's that. Why do you suppose the teens of today can't accept a musical but can accept the most outrageously bad CGI stunt work - stuff that couldn't possibly happen anywhere EVER? Why? Why do they embrace Spiderman? I mean, if a film is good, done well, and doesn't try from frame one to apologize for being a musical, then I don't think audiences would have any problems. Sweeney is a specific case - it is not being embraced as well as it should be because the studio was very deceptive in its initial advertising and its marketing campaign was terrible - you can't sucker punch an audience.

Audiences will sit still for almost anything - once you try to pander to a demographic, you are done.

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 10:42am

Hate this.........................................

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 10:47am

OK big difference between Sweeney and Dreamgirls

Dreamgilrs is a film about 3 girls WHO SING, most of the songs in Dreamgirls are performed as singers performing to an audience.

Sweeney is a mad barber who cuts peoples throats whilst singing

A very different sell

[Eastwickian]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 10:56am

Why do you suppose the teens of today can't accept a musical but can accept the most outrageously bad CGI stunt work - stuff that couldn't possibly happen anywhere EVER? Why? Why do they embrace Spiderman? I mean, if a film is good, done well, and doesn't try from frame one to apologize for being a musical, then I don't think audiences would have any problems.

I agree with your theory, but in real life, they don't accept a musical - I have heard several people say that they were interested in seeing it until they found out what it was. And that feeling is based on seeing the old-style films (Sound of Music, South Pacific, West Side Story etc) where characters did just suddenly sing. It annoys me that people think like that, but . . . they do.

[Pippin]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 11:01am

I'm very sorry you hated the film , Oliver. And being the Sondheim afficianado that you portend to be, I'm sure you have the DVD of the Lansbury version, so why don't you just go pop that in for the rest of your life, and close off your mind to other interpretations of great works of art?

As for me, when the DVD of Burton's comes out, I will proudly display it right next to the Lansbury version.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 11:06am

"Minor Point: I don't think anyone could classify Quentin Crisp as having been an actor".

I was about to post the same thing. He was not an actor.

As for Sweeney Todd, I didn't like the film at all, for some of the same reasons posted.

[Oliver Brownlow]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 11:12am

nitsua has replied:

"I think with all of these protests, I disagree with #12 the most. Sure, [Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter] may be a couple, but she wouldn't be in this movie unless Sondheim okayed it. And he did."

You're right. And actually, I wasn't unhappy with the choice of Helena Bonham Carter until I saw her performance. I thought she might look good in the part, and I even thought I remembered seeing her sing a little, not unpleasantly, in one of her previous roles (though I've been told since that I'm mistaken about this). But would anyone care to express the opinion that Helena Bonham Carter would have been the first choice of any other director for this role?

"I loved this movie. I thought it was beyond brilliant ...."

On my most recent visit to New York, I had lunch with theatre critic Peter Filichia, who told me that his philosophy was that he would rather people disagree with him and enjoy the show than be convinced by his arguments and have their pleasure ruined. I think this is a wise philosophy, and as I tried to indicate in my initial post, I hope my remarks will not spoil anyone's pleasure in enjoying Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd. But I also hope they will give courage and solace to people who did not like it, and who have been afraid to express their opinion due to the overwhelmingly positive response to this movie. My message to them is, you're not crazy, and you're not alone.

" ... I didn't go in expecting to watch the Broadway show on film."

I didn't go in expecting to see the Broadway show on film, either. By the time I actually saw the film, in fact, I had extremely low expectations, and I would have been not satisfied, but placated by any production that preserved any reasonable semblance of the main virtues of the original script and score, no matter how desultory, and and no matter how indifferently performed. Originally, though, and in the 28 or so years during which I longed to see this movie made and spent hours imagining how wonderful it could be, I hoped to see a movie which preserved all or almost all of the virtues of the Broadway show, and I hoped to see a movie which improved upon the Broadway show in the very few places in which it was weak, and fully realized the implications and possibilities of the Broadway book and score in the thrilling, fluid visual vocabulary of film, with the greatly expanded resources of a multi-million-dollar film production as opposed to the relatively limited resources of a Broadway stage production. It's not just that I'm disappointed in this film compared to an ideal version in my head, or even compared to my lowest expectations for it -- although I am -- and it's not just that I feel it doesn't preserve all or most of the virtues that gave the show its reputation as a masterpiece -- although I do. It's that the film vandalizes the original work to a degree that I find deeply, deeply disturbing and deeply, deeply offensive -- it's like a knife stabbing me in the heart.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 1:42pm

It's that the film vandalizes the original work to a degree that I find deeply, deeply disturbing and deeply, deeply offensive -- it's like a knife stabbing me in the heart.

Oh, honey. Save the pearl-clutching for something that actually matters.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 1:53pm

I don't know about Peter Flichia but I would hate to have lunch with you.

Your opinions are so breathless, overdramatic and humorless that I think you would be a pompous, self-important bore over lunch.

Was #24 supposed to be funny? Or are you always like that?

[nmartin]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 2:01pm

"Oh, honey, save the pearl-clutching for something that actually matters."

Forget this thread. I just want permission from LizzieCurry to use that expression as often as I see fit. I LOVE it.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 2:11pm

I wouldn't consider Quentin Quisp an actor either. He was just Quentin Quisp, infamous for being...well...Quentin Quisp. I do miss seeing him over in that little diner in the East Village

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 2:27pm

Do you mean Peter Filichia from Theatermania?

I was not crazy about the movie, but I really couldn't find that much wrong with it!

And bloodless?

[thenextfiyero]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 2:38pm

Yea if you think I'm going to read that whole post you must be crazy. By the way the movie was astounding and nothing short of that.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 2:39pm

LOL! nmartin, use it proudly.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 2:46pm

I think I may have to use it also Llizzie...it made me laugh out loud at work. I know people in my office were wondering what was so funny.

[nealb1]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 3:23pm

I saw the NYC Opera production of SW with Elaine Paige in 2004. That was my first exposure to the show. I knew of only 2 songs from the show......."No One's Gonna Harm You" & "Pretty Women." Then I saw it again 2 years ago with Patti L on Broadway.

So, going into this movie, I knew what to expect - it's a Tim Burton film and he has a signature style. Johnny Depp isn't known for his singing voice. And, he did very well. Wouldn't really make a whole lot of sense to walk into this movie thinking that you are seeing the Broadway version of the musical.