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

[Oliver Brownlow]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 11:10pm

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?

[nitsua]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 11:55pm

I think this is stupidest post in the history of BWW.
Who cares what your longwinded and overblown reasons are?
Is this Myspace? Is this Facebook? Is this your personal blog? I don't think so.

[Oliver Brownlow]

Posted: 2/4/08 at 6:35pm

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 Brownlow]

Posted: 2/4/08 at 6:50pm

oxdreaminxo has replied:

"While I mostly disagree with Oliver's post, everyone is entitled to their own opinions :]"

"And this: '10. I hate this movie because Johnny Depp's hair looks [expletive deleted] ridiculous. He looks like the late notorious effeminate homosexual Quentin Crisp in drag as the Bride of Frankenstein, or possibly like the lead singer in a punk band. And how exactly does he maintain that hairstyle at sea?' made me laugh really hard. I happen to like the hair, but I do agree with your statement xD."

Peace be with you.

[luvcaroline]

Posted: 2/4/08 at 8:25pm

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

[bsherms]

Posted: 2/4/08 at 9:35pm

Oliver,

You seem to be very healthily planted in your opinion--good for you! However, as a fellow lover of Ed Wood (and a lover of certain parts of Sweeney Todd) I feel I have to, if not defend, at least illuminate Johnny Depp's performance. Hopefully said illumination may bring reason to the "emotional stiffness" (I think you called it) Johnny exudes in this film. As an actor myself, I love when subtetly is done right, and when you aren't beaten over the head with the "I'M ANGRY" "I'M SAD" "I'M HAPPY" acting often found when people play Sweeney (not only is he bipolar, apparently, but also incapable of speaking in lower-case). In this case, I found Johnny's performance both incredible and refreshing.

What I found most intriguing (and clever) was that the movie's tone and Sweeney's character were completely symbiotic. With Johnny's interpretation, Sweeney was so locked inside himself (due to the extreme emotional stress he's had to endure) that his only release was killing people. It was almost as if it was a struggle to even think, for him--anything he did, he was severely limited and trapped. The movie itself echoed this with its sepia tones and close-in shots. But when he killed people? Suddenly emotion blossoms onto his face and he is moving widely, fast, freely--the entirety of his sadness, of his suffering, of his anger, and of his frustration is let out in that one moment when he kills something. The movie imitates this with the bright red, almost cartoonish blood of his victims.

To me, the movie finally made sense to me why Sweeney Todd becomes a murderer. In the musical, which I've been in love with since I was seven, I never quite understood what drove Benjamin Barker to killing everything. In the movie, it makes perfect sense.

Of course, you're free to continue hating it. This is just one of the specific reasons you stated that I wanted to expand and state my opinion on. :)
~becca

[luvcaroline]

Posted: 2/4/08 at 10:13pm

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).

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 2/6/08 at 2:30am

"Er... minus that D6 (I think?) in the Ballad, Johanna's not that high of a role. In fact, for most sopranos, her "money notes" during Green Finch lie in the passagio range."

Yes, Johanna's highest note in the score (except when she's singing with the sopranos in choral music) is an A, in "Kiss Me." (I believe that both Sarah Rice and Betsy Joslyn sang an F instead of an A there. The score has an A, and at least some recent Johannas have sung the A. I don't know if this means that Sondheim changed his mind later or if there's some other explanation. Certainly, both Rice and Joslyn could sing the A.)

In "Green Finch," IIRC, the highest note is a G, unless it's sung in the optional higher key (as it is in the national tour video), in which case the highest note is an A.

I think it's probably a mistake to put it in the higher key for a long run. Betsy Joslyn sang "Green Finch" very well on Broadway in the original key. Clearly, a long run in the higher key was not easy for her.