GAG ME WITH A RAZOR: Why I Hate Tim Burton's SWEENEY TODD — Page 6

luvcaroline has replied:

"Oliver, you said 'It didn't need a director like Tim Burton, whose overpoweringly weird, grotesque personal vision has dominated most of the films he's made, and I consider it very unfortunate that he was given the assignment.'"

"This property sat on the shelf waiting to be filmed for 26 years. Apparently no one wanted it. I applaud Burton for finally getting this masterpiece to the masses, no matter what faults there were with his final result (although I think that the faults were few)."

I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to this argument. That apparently no one in Hollywood saw the potential of a film version of Sondheim's masterpiece except Burton (20 years ago), Mendes (who bowed out), and finally Burton again is a shocking indictment of that particular "hole in the world like a great black pit." But my sympathy doesn't improve the quality of the movie.

"Here's the best outcome that I can think of for this film, using my experience as an example. I am a huge broadway fan, but have always avoided Sondheim, thinking he's a bit too stuffy for his own good. When I saw Sweeney in the theater, it was my first exposure to any Sondheim piece in full. I absolutely loved it and immediately bought tickets for Sweeney Todd on tour (which I also adored). I then immediately bought the OBC for Sweeney Todd (1981 version) and I now think it may be the greatest CD that I own. The DVD of that production is now on order. Yep, I am now a bonafide Sondheim fanatic and I can't wait to see something else by him (like maybe SITPWG in NYC). I'm sure there are many new Sondheim fans as a result of this film."

I got really confused reading this account, because you said seeing SWEENEY in the "theater" was your "first exposure to any Sondheim piece in full." I would suggest to you that if the first thing you saw was Burton's SWEENEY in a movie theater, then the touring version of SWEENEY TODD was your first exposure to a Sondheim piece (more or less) in full. And I guess I can agree with you to the extent that if Burton's SWEENEY, much as I dislike it, acts as a sort of commercial that inspires people to seek out and appreciate better and more complete versions of the work, that's a good thing. If I thought that would be the only effect of Burton's SWEENEY, I probably wouldn't have started this thread.

But since you identify yourself as a new Sondheim fan whose "conversion" came via your exposure to the film and you have now explored several different versions (including, I'm hoping, by now, the DVD of the Broadway touring company), I'd like to ask you this question: do you see any qualitative difference between the movie and the other versions?

nobodyhome has replied:

"I don't particularly like the hair style thing in Sweeney myself, but the truth is that the script of the show is filled with implausibilities. The film does add several more implausibilities, and I think they're a problem. It seems to me that among the least of those is Sweeney's hair."

"Seriously, if we're supposed to believe that both the Judge and the Beadle don't wonder whether this barber in the same place that Benjamin Barker used to live might not be Benjamin Barker—can he have changed THAT much?—then the hair style of little importance."

I've always thought a partial explanation must be that Barker and what they did to him was so unimportant to both the Judge and the Beadle that after fifteen years they've forgotten most of the details. Still, that's a very salient point, nobodyhome, and I have to admit that when you look at it that way, Depp's hairstyle is probably completely ... but, no, I think not. THE HAIR MUST DIE!!!

[As a result of my discussion with "nobodyhome" about Len Cariou's interpretation of Sweeney in the original Broadway production and on the Original Broadway Cast Album (which started in public posts here and continued in private e-mails), I have decided that the way I referred to him in my original post both misleadingly represented my own opinions about him (which are mostly positive) and, at least by implication, unfairly suggested that his performance was no different than those of other actors who have played the role, for whose performances I have much less admiration. Since my opinions about Cariou's Sweeney are not directly relevant to the point I was making anyway, I have now deleted the two brief references to Cariou in my original post, both here and on my personal website.]

Oliver,
You are right, my original post is not that clear. I meant that my first exposure to Sweeney Todd in any form or fashion was the Burton film version. I absolutely loved it and got tickets to the touring production (Judy Kaye) immediately. Absolutely loved it. I have watched the DVD of the touring Broadway production and i LOVE it (who can't?) Of course no one compares to Lansbury, but her performance would have had to be significantly "toned down" for the movie. My only complaint about the DVD was George Hearn. I thought his performance was almost cartoonish. I would take Depp's Sweeney over his any day (granted there is a significant drop in vocal abilities).

Updated On: 2/4/08 at 08:25 PM

becca, excellent post. I thought that Depp played Sweeney exactly as he should have. It was a part that I feel he was meant to play. This was truly one of the most memorable performances in a movie musical. Depp was much more enjoyable than either of the other 2 Sweeney's I have seen (Hearn on DVD and Hess on stage).