GovernorSlaton's Review of Sweeney Todd

GovernorSlaton is having computer problems and asked me to post his review of the show for him. He saw it tonight:


When I was purchasing my tickets for the new revival of Sweeney back in August, I made the decision to see it roughly halfway through previews. That way, I would still be seeing a work in progress, but most of the kinks would (hopefully) be worked out. I was mostly right. The Sweeney Todd playing on Broadway right now is a magnificent production that is also slightly unsatisfying. The cast truly is phenomenal in everything they do -- not only playing their instruments wonderfully, but also turning in great performances. The chemistry between the ten of them is palpable and a joy to watch (Even in the less joyful moments of the show).

I suppose I should start with Cerveris and LuPone, who are technically the stars, though this is truly a group effort. Cerveris, while not completely reinventing the character, manages to bring a few nice qualities to the role (His Sweeney is quieter and more Cariou then Hearn). No one can brood better than Cerveris. "Epiphany" is powerful, and he has some wonderful comic moments, especially in "A Little Priest" (Which is marvelous here, by the way -- seeing that song performed live in an appreciative audience is the only way to hear this song). I'm a fan of LuPone's Lovett from the concert version with Hearn, but she takes it even farther here and does a complete 180 from Lansbury. LuPone is seductive, greedy, lusty, and delightfully evil -- and isn't afraid to show it. She's also very funny, and has great timing. "Worst Pies in London" started off a bit slow, but picked up speed and had the audience in stitches by the end. Both performances are worthy of Tony nominations, though that's pretty far off right now. The rest of the cast is excellent, from Benjamin Magnuson, who's the best Anthony I've ever seen ("Johanna" is stunning), to Lauren Molina (who has a wonderful voice and is a great cellist), to Mark Jacoby (who's sinister but very human), to Felciano to Gemignani and all the rest (Donna Lynne Champlin is a hoot).

I'm still undecided about Doyle's direction. Obviously this was the reason it was deemed exciting and different, and is why it was brought to New York in the first place. There are a multitude of wonderful touches, including the insane asylum angle and the lack of time or setting, which I thought gelled together nicely. The idea to keep everyone on stage the entire time works brilliantly too -- many times a character's reaction to others talking about him/her explain more about that character, and some relationships are deepened and expanded upon (the rivalry between Lovett and the Beggar Woman was fantastically depicted). And yet there are some aspects of this new version that I couldn't go along with. It has been discussed a great deal, but I didn't see any reason for the actors to be playing instruments. It was a nice gimmick, and they all played like pros, but I didn't understand why it was necessary. I think it certainly could have worked without it, though it might have been less interesting. I also didn't see the meaning behind the actors saying their lines out to the audience. It was odd, and seemed strange especially when it came after a song or a scene where two actors were saying their lines to each other. It almost seemed at some times that there were too many different things going on at once (They're playing cello duets in an insane asylum that takes place in no particular time and they don't look at each other. Oh, what fun.). But as I stated before, the good outweighed the bad, and I found it a wonderful production that certainly should be seen by all who are even remotely interested. It prompts great and thoughtful discussion, and isn't that what all good theatre should do? 4 stars.

---

Updated On: 10/16/05 at 12:27 AM

Very nice review once again, Gov.
I still love the instruments, but the character's speaking to the audience I am still not sold on as well.

---

Haha, Gov. Oh, how I heart thee.


And great review, too!

---

I meant not speaking their lines to each other -- the breaking of the fourth wall was done well, I thought (notably in God That's Good). I just didn't feel that the juxtaposition of those two styles (speaking to each other sometimes, not at other times) complimented each other.

I agree Gov that the imposition of this presentational style upon the actors here doesn't always work. I've often seen it used before and when it's been successful it's been employed on a much more consistent and coherent basis than here..

---