Groban & Ashford in SWEENEY TODD On Broadway - Reviews & News Thread- Page 34

[binau]

Posted: 3/15/23 at 6:15am

From what I can see, I would describe the production as paying homage to the original (orchestra and artwork and costume references) but I think love letter might be too strong? 

[OhHiii]

Posted: 3/15/23 at 7:14am

weaselprince71 said: "g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "Piggy-backing on what I said, let's be clear on what this revival is, as its press has been making it out to be: a love letter to the 1979 original. If you're coming expecting anything else, you're in the wrong theater."

I haven't been yet; I'm looking forward to seeing the show twice next month. But while its nostalgia may extend to preserving the original keys for the story's dullest character (in both senses, both deliberate) -- still, nothing I've seen or heard so far suggests that this revival approaches the original staging or designs quite so reverentially. Which is fine; I've been heartened by the upswing in enthusiasm here from folks who've seen it most recently and noted improvements from the earliest previews; and I'm very much hoping I'll love Kail's production on its own terms. But I'm not sure that just using the original full orchestration -- and finally giving the piece another NYC production that is not,in broad terms, experimentally (or pragmatically) miniaturized -- automatically makes it a "love letter" to the original (which isn't to say that both those choices aren't overdue and well worth celebrating). Kail & co. do seem to think of it that way, which sounds hopeful, but all I've seen to support such an intention in visual terms so far is a bridge and a crane; it remains to be seen whether their homage, however sincere, succeeds as more than a handful of isolated gestures.

My fear has been that their revival might end up as a nervously-calculated attempt to appeal to both fans of the original (large theater, full ensemble & orchestra, a few token "industrial-era" scenic elements) and of the Burton movie (sexy leads, black-brick surround, godawful poster art) -- while tiptoeing gingerly around Hal Prince's unapologetically Brechtian political framework, which has fallen from favor ever since SJS began blessing ever-smaller productions on the basis of his original pre-Prince impulse (chamber-sized revenge thriller, claustrophobic pub-theatre scares). However pure those intentions may have been, it's always seemed to me that Prince's epic scale and political animus ultimately found their way into the writing at a deep enough level that it's probably unwise to ignore them entirely; the Doyle and Tooting Arts versions were interesting and productive experiments, but they could never be definitive, because, in focusing exclusively on individual psychology at the expense of social context, these "teeny Todd"s left a significant chunk of the workunexplored.

Pace Sondheim Himself, Sweeney isn't a droll little fright-fest about a psychotically enraged serial killer and his besotted, amoral landlady. More than that, it's an apocalyptic, resolutely unsexy vision of humanity (or at least, of humanity under capitalism), so deeply pessimistic that its pitch-black "humor" should elicit more shivering revulsion than actual laughter. (The show, alarmingly, has never felt more timely).

All of which is my roundabout way of saying, I hope this production is indeed a love letter to Prince's1979original as well as Sondheim/Wheeler's. It's clearly not a carbon copy -- which, again, is fine. (I was just a few years too young to have seen it on B'way, but have spent countless hours over the ensuing decades obsessing over the original designs and going through the tour video with a fine-toothed comb -- and even a handful of photos from the new production are enough to establish that this ain't that). But I hope it somehow manages to reconstitute, for 21st-century audiences, something of the original shock and awe,the expansive theatricalworld-building and sheeroverwhelm, that have gone pointedly missing from previous revivals (NYCO notwithstanding) of this show."

If you’re a purist, just say that. Given this inferred screed, I’d wager you won’t like this production. A hunch, if you will. Who knew “god awful poster art” was a harbinger of a bad show…bc every Broadway production of Into The Woods would like to have a word.

Updated On: 3/15/23 at 07:14 AM

[JasonC3]

Posted: 3/15/23 at 7:28am

I guess one person's "inferred screed" is another person's thoughtful consideration ... which was my takeaway when reading the post you quote.

[BJR]

Posted: 3/15/23 at 7:31am

So much whistle talk still! Is it truly that big of a deal? And I forget, is it in the score?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/15/23 at 7:32am

OhHiii said: "weaselprince71 said: "g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "Piggy-backing on what I said, let's be clear on what this revival is, as its press has been making it out to be: a love letter to the 1979 original. If you're coming expecting anything else, you're in the wrong theater."

I haven't been yet; I'm looking forward to seeing the show twice next month. But while its nostalgia may extend to preserving the original keys for the story's dullest character (in both senses, both deliberate) -- still, nothing I've seen or heard so far suggests that this revival approaches the original staging or designs quite so reverentially. Which is fine; I've been heartened by the upswing in enthusiasm here from folks who've seen it most recently and noted improvements from the earliest previews; and I'm very much hoping I'll love Kail's production on its own terms. But I'm not sure that just using the original full orchestration -- and finally giving the piece another NYC production that is not,in broad terms, experimentally (or pragmatically) miniaturized -- automatically makes it a "love letter" to the original (which isn't to say that both those choices aren't overdue and well worth celebrating). Kail & co. do seem to think of it that way, which sounds hopeful, but all I've seen to support such an intention in visual terms so far is a bridge and a crane; it remains to be seen whether their homage, however sincere, succeeds as more than a handful of isolated gestures.

My fear has been that their revival might end up as a nervously-calculated attempt to appeal to both fans of the original (large theater, full ensemble & orchestra, a few token "industrial-era" scenic elements) and of the Burton movie (sexy leads, black-brick surround, godawful poster art) -- while tiptoeing gingerly around Hal Prince's unapologetically Brechtian political framework, which has fallen from favor ever since SJS began blessing ever-smaller productions on the basis of his original pre-Prince impulse (chamber-sized revenge thriller, claustrophobic pub-theatre scares). However pure those intentions may have been, it's always seemed to me that Prince's epic scale and political animus ultimately found their way into the writing at a deep enough level that it's probably unwise to ignore them entirely; the Doyle and Tooting Arts versions were interesting and productive experiments, but they could never be definitive, because, in focusing exclusively on individual psychology at the expense of social context, these "teeny Todd"s left a significant chunk of the workunexplored.

Pace Sondheim Himself, Sweeney isn't a droll little fright-fest about a psychotically enraged serial killer and his besotted, amoral landlady. More than that, it's an apocalyptic, resolutely unsexy vision of humanity (or at least, of humanity under capitalism), so deeply pessimistic that its pitch-black "humor" should elicit more shivering revulsion than actual laughter. (The show, alarmingly, has never felt more timely).

All of which is my roundabout way of saying, I hope this production is indeed a love letter to Prince's1979original as well as Sondheim/Wheeler's. It's clearly not a carbon copy -- which, again, is fine. (I was just a few years too young to have seen it on B'way, but have spent countless hours over the ensuing decades obsessing over the original designs and going through the tour video with a fine-toothed comb -- and even a handful of photos from the new production are enough to establish that this ain't that). But I hope it somehow manages to reconstitute, for 21st-century audiences, something of the original shock and awe,the expansive theatricalworld-building and sheeroverwhelm, that have gone pointedly missing from previous revivals (NYCO notwithstanding) of this show."

If you’re a purist, just say that. Given this inferred screed, I’d wager you won’t like this production. A hunch, if you will. Who knew “god awful poster art” was a harbinger of a bad show…bc every Broadway production of Into The Woods would like to have a word."

To be fair, the poster is suppose to entice someone to want to get tickets. So it very much does matter. (I happen to like the design for this one actually, just wish it reflected the actual production better in terms of blood and horror) 

[guitarperson]

Posted: 3/15/23 at 5:32pm

I saw the show last night

Having seen every production of Sweeney that's been presented in NYC in my lifetime (NY City Opera, Doyle Revival, Philharmonic Concert, Barrow St), I have to say unfortunately that this was my least favorite.  I have a lot to say but the short of it is that everything sort of fell flat.  The stakes aren't high--there's no urgency or menace to Groban's portrayal.  I love hearing the full orchestration but found Lacamoire's musical direction to be very safe and lifeless--both the John Doyle and Barrow St productions had more musical impact and stronger dynamics, despite the pared down orchestrations.  Some tempos/feels were just flat out wrong, and were especially detrimental to "A Little Priest" and act 2 "Johanna."  The whistle is sorely missed, and the most dramatic moments of this melodrama felt sadly uneventful.  The staging, especially in act I, did little to move the story forward and the choreography was borderline laughable.  The storytelling/exposition in act I, which was handled so beautifully in the original Hal Prince production, really suffers in this one.  

Annaleigh Ashford was fantastic and hilarious--I wish she had a better production to work with.  Gaten was out last night and Feliz Torrez-Ponce went on for him--I have to imagine that he didn't expect to go on so early in the run, and he did a very nice job.  Nicholas Christopher as Pirelli was another highlight.  I was also pleasantly surprised by Jordan Fisher--I had low expectations given what I read on this thread but he must have greatly improved since the first few previews.  

I hope this production continues to improve over the remaining two weeks of previews but I just don't see what it adds to the Sweeney productions we already have, and don't think I'll be returning.  

[rkinla&ny]

Posted: 3/15/23 at 6:52pm

Count me in the "not horrible, but far from great" camp for this lackluster "Sweeney Todd" revival.  Josh Groban is miscast and proves the considerable limits of his acting abilities, Annaleigh Ashford starts out great but by the end seems to be mugging too much, and Jordan Fisher is not up to the demands of singing "Johanna," one of Sondheim's most beautiful tunes.  The choreography does not fit the show, and at times made the staging look like a Disney musical, and a bad one at that.   I also cannot help but plead for the removal of the cheap mechanical bird that flaps its wings as Fisher begins to sing "Johanna," which is beyond absurd and distracting.  The sound design is also lacking as the orchestra sounded way too quiet from my Row K orchestra seat.  The set design is just okay, but is overly clunky in Act 2.  I did not think Thomas Kail was the right director for this show, and what I saw on stage confirmed that fact.

On the positive side,  Gaten Matarazzo and Ruthie Ann Miles provide worthy dimensions to their roles, and Jamie Jackson and John Rapson are quite good as the Judge and Beadle (which they also proved to be in prior, better productions of this show).

In the end, I see no reason to see this show if you have seen prior professional productions of "Sweeney Todd," and this production in no way justifies the outrageously high prices being charged for tickets.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/15/23 at 7:05pm

guitarperson said: "I saw the show last night

Having seen every production of Sweeney that's been presented in NYC in my lifetime (NY City Opera, Doyle Revival, Philharmonic Concert, Barrow St), I have to say unfortunately that this was my least favorite. I have a lot to say but the short of it is that everything sort of fell flat. The stakes aren't high--there's no urgency or menace to Groban's portrayal. I love hearing the full orchestration but found Lacamoire's musical direction to be very safe and lifeless--both the John Doyle and Barrow St productions had more musical impact and stronger dynamics, despite the pared down orchestrations. Some tempos/feels were just flat out wrong, and were especially detrimental to "A Little Priest" and act 2 "Johanna." The whistle is sorely missed, and the most dramatic moments of this melodrama felt sadly uneventful. The staging, especially in act I, did little to move the story forward and the choreography was borderline laughable. The storytelling/exposition in act I, which was handled so beautifully in the original Hal Prince production, really suffers in this one.

Annaleigh Ashford was fantastic and hilarious--I wish she had a better production to work with. Gaten was out last night and Feliz Torrez-Ponce went on for him--I have to imagine that he didn't expect to go on so early in the run, and he did a very nice job. Nicholas Christopher as Pirelli was another highlight. I was also pleasantly surprised by Jordan Fisher--I had low expectations given what I read on this thread but he must have greatly improved since the first few previews.

I hope this production continues to improve over the remaining two weeks of previews but I just don't see what it adds to the Sweeney productions we already have, and don't think I'll be returning."

While I don’t agree with your overall assessment, yes, the tempo of act 2 “Johanna” is indeed too fast. It is similar to the OBCR tempo which was likely sped up for time. The song has more “longing” in the tempo heard in the movie, Philharmonic, Doyle’s etc which I assume is the tempo as written. 

[guitarperson]

Posted: 3/15/23 at 7:53pm

ljay889 said: 

While I don’t agree with your overall assessment, yes, the tempo of act 2 “Johanna” is indeed too fast. It is similar to the OBCR tempo which was likely sped up for time. The song has more “longing” in the tempo heard in the movie, Philharmonic, Doyle’s etc which I assume is the tempo as written."

 

Yes, and "A Little Priest" too slow.  It's missing the bounce and "groove" that drive the song forward (and drive the audience triumphantly into intermission.).   I have no doubt Lacamoire is a great musician, but I wonder if they would have been better served hiring a musical director with more orchestral experience.  

 

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 3/16/23 at 8:38am

I needed to sleep on my thoughts, having seen it last night, and I think they’re coherent enough now. I’m going to get my gripes out first since they’re significant, but I want to emphasize they weren’t the dealbreakers I thought they’d be.

Jordan Fisher‘s performance as Anthony is abysmal. Let’s just get that out of the way. He’s bad. The accent work, the acting, the facial expressions, it’s all rough. He dropped multiple lines all night, came in too early on a couple songs, and was just generally lost at sea up there. His “Johanna” was his strongest moment, but we’re talking lowwwww bar here.

I found Josh Groban’s active choice to NOT be just a monster ended up making his book scenes as Sweeney a bit one-note. This is supposed to be a man driven mad by his need for revenge, not a man perturbed about his need for revenge. I never truly got the sense he’d snapped.

That being said… WOW, this production is great fun. It nails such a wonderfully spooky tone right from the start - thanks largely in part to Natasha Katz’s shadowy lighting; Mimi Lien’s imposing, evocative set; and Steven Hoggett’s creepy, uncomfortable choreography - that it leans into at every possible moment. The ensemble in general is the highlight of the production for me. There’s a great sense of a collective of people coming together to enact this story, and you can tell everyone is enjoying themselves. One of the highlights for me was “The Letter,” which I’ve always found kind of an odd musical moment but here finds a perfect cohesion with the rest of the ensemble work and is one of the more thrilling moments.

Individually, Annaleigh Ashford is the biggest standout of the evening. Yes, she could speak a little more clearly, or project more. But we’ve never seen Lovett played like this, and she’s absolutely genius. Goofy, sexy, h*rny, frighteningly opportunistic, but also a genuine amount of heart and maternal care that makes her death actually feel like the heaviest tragedy of the night. Gaten Matarazzo, Ruthie Ann Miles, and Maria Bilbao are also very very good. I could see all three of them nominated for Tonys. Gaten, especially, makes quite the impression with “Not While I’m Around,” a song I’ve always wanted to connect with more and was surprisingly moved by last night.

Now, Josh Groban and the orchestra are going to go hand in hand here, because that man’s voice is every bit the instrument as any of the 26 pieces in the orchestra. He sings Sweeney beautifully, and the orchestra is right there to soar with him. If it all feels a little safe and lacking the “danger” of past productions, what is most felt here is a reverence for Sondheim’s craft. There is a deep love Groban clearly has for this score, and Alex Lacamoire as well, and it all sounds utterly gorgeous. I’ve never been more aware of what a gorgeous song “My Friends” is, or even been able to discern the tempo before, and they’ve made it all crystal clear.

And I didn’t miss the whistle one bit.

Updated On: 3/16/23 at 08:38 AM

[JasonC3]

Posted: 3/16/23 at 9:10am

The ensemble really does soar in this production and I concur that the evocative lighting and choreographed movement help make that happen in some thrilling ways.

[Dylan Smith4]

Posted: 3/16/23 at 9:12am

ColorTheHours048 said: "Jordan Fisher‘s performance as Anthony is abysmal. Let’s just get that out of the way. He’s bad. The accent work, the acting, the facial expressions, it’s all rough. He dropped multiple lines all night, came in too early on a couple songs, and was just generally lost at sea up there. His “Johanna” was his strongest moment, but we’re talking lowwwww bar here."

I totally agree! He was miscast for sure. I mentioned that this show is an opera and Fisher is no opera singer. I felt that he was struggling to sing these songs completely. I'm not saying Fisher is a bad actor or singer, it's just that Anthony is not the right role for him. 

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/16/23 at 9:51am

I’m actually glad Groban doesn’t play a monster from start to finish, I felt his acting intensified as the plot progressed, and it worked for me. 

By all accounts, Cariou was inherently scary and brooding in the role, but wasn’t the screaming, over the top, at times corny character Hearn portrays on the filmed staged version. 

Groban may still be finding his balance, but he’s made it clear he’s not going to play a monster from the start of the show. I think his performance is going to keep growing. I saw major improvements within two weeks. 

Updated On: 3/16/23 at 09:51 AM

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 3/16/23 at 9:58am

"I mentioned that this show is an opera"

Not it's not.

"and Fisher is no opera singer."

Victor Garber, Matt Doyle, Adrian Lester, Benjamin Magnuson, Davis Gaines, Jay Armstrong Johnson, Jim Walton, and Hugh Panaro are also, not opera singers.

[MVintheheartland]

Posted: 3/16/23 at 1:29pm

I saw the show at the Sunday matinee on 3/12. I found it absolutely thrilling. However, to be transparent, I am a “Sweeney Virgin”. Although I have seen quite a few Sondheim shows (some regional, some Broadway) I never got around to seeing Sweeney as I was busy getting married and having babies in 1979. I’m also not a musician or a singer.

However, I was just thrilled and moved by the production. Maybe not having anything to compare it with is a benefit. Groban’s development into a monster made more sense  to me, although we already know the reason he became monstrous. 

I found the first act to be riveting, not boring (hard not to be riveted in those small seats), and was blown away by the whole production. Anneleigh's interpretation of "By the Sea" was hilarious but revealed her more prurient interest in Sweeney. I did notice a little problem in the second act with the barber chair, but not having seen the who before, wasn’t quite sure of what was happening.

I have nothing erudite to say about the actors, they were all wonderful.

I didn’t miss the whistle. To folks who still cling to the 1979 production, come on! As annoying as the folks commenting on every production of “Follies” as not as good as the original. Anyway, as a non-musician or vocalist, I loved the show and will go back, dammit. Now have to get another plane ticket.

[gleek4114]

Posted: 3/16/23 at 1:38pm

Forgive me if this has been addressed in this thread (which is way too long to skim), but what is the vantage point like for this show in orch right? I was specifically looking at row F seat 10. Just wanna be sure there are no major obstructions before I drop such a big chunk of change on the show. Thanks!

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/16/23 at 1:48pm

I was in orchestra E6 and it was a fantastic seat. 

[Musical Master]

Posted: 3/16/23 at 2:45pm

MVintheheartland said: "I didn’t miss the whistle. To folks who still cling to the 1979 production, come on! As annoying as the folks commenting on every production of “Follies” as not as good as the original. Anyway, as a non-musician or vocalist, I loved the show and will go back, dammit. Now have to get another plane ticket."

I think the whistle is something that's used very effectively if done right and not spammed to no end like some productions do. Personally, I think an organ slam would get it's point across the same way. I do agree that some are clinging to the original 1979 production far too closely, as if evidence of its existence is hard to find like the 1971 production of Follies which is downright silly (have they forgotten the 1982 filmed video LOL).

I'm very excited to see this in June, and hopefully Camelot as well.

[david merrick]

Posted: 3/16/23 at 3:06pm

Right on the money about Cariou!!!  Brilliant performance......and when he snapped, it was terrifying.

Hearn was over the top from the beginning IMHO.

[inception]

Posted: 3/17/23 at 8:07am

guitarperson said: "
Having seen every production of Sweeney that's been presented in NYC in my lifetime (NY City Opera, Doyle Revival, Philharmonic Concert, Barrow St), I have to say unfortunately that this was my least favorite. I have a lot to say but the short of it is that everything sort of fell flat.

I don't know that this fell flat.  But I didn't see Groban as I went last night.

The production doesn't really do anything new.  A dark set with a bridge across the top of the stage is as original as florals for spring.  This is a serviceable production, that will be a good introduction for those who have never seen the show before.  The last Broadway production was 18 years ago.  Many in the audience last night weren't even born yet.  I'd hazard a guess that twenty percent were under 30 years old.

For others, the only point of this is to see star performers. Those I saw last night gave star performances.   

Ashford was excellent, & after seeing Parade & Camelot (I don't see Kimberly Akimbo until Saturday) I'd say has the Tony wrapped up.

I thought Fisher was fine.  Perhaps he felt under less pressure last night knowing that all eyes would be on Nicholas Christopher's first performance. 

Matarazzo was very good.  I can see why he chose this show over Parade, as it gives him more to do - both vocally and acting wise.  He's likely to get a supporting nomination, but that must go to Donica in Camelot.

Christopher was good.  The last person I saw perform the role of Sweeney was Greer Grimsley - now that was a black hearted, brooding, bitter Sweeney.  In comparison Christopher was a sweet heart, and I could understand why Mrs. Lovett would throw herself at him.  Other times it felt like the relationship was all one sided, while here I had no doubt that he's been plowing her field - not without a certain amount of contempt no doubt.

I was in the mid- mezzanine & thought the sound was good.  But, an elderly fellow in the row ahead of me came back from Intermission & told his whole group that he had gone down to the soundboard to tell them that the soloists all needed more volume.  Sorry to be the one to break the news Grandpa, but I think the time has come that you need hearing aids.

I liked the staging of "God, That's Good!" that opened the second act.  But, I'm afraid that as the show goes on, "A Little Priest" may lead to similar antics people complained about in Music Man, with attemps by the actors to make each other break character.

I enjoy this for what it was.  I'd go see Parade or Camelot again, but I feel no need to see this again even when Groban is back.

 

Updated On: 3/17/23 at 08:07 AM

[OhHiii]

Posted: 3/17/23 at 8:52am

A Little Priest is a hard song to land. It goes on for a pretty long clip and, in the case of this production, when the actors’ intention through the song is just to get laughs, it all falls a bit flat. 

[Balcony2]

Posted: 3/18/23 at 12:39pm

BJR said: "So much whistle talk still! Is it truly that big of a deal? And I forget, is it in the score?"

Yes. I’m looking at my copy of the published complete vocal score. The factory whistle is in fact indicated in every place that we’ve grown used to hearing it. 

[SisterGeorge]

Posted: 3/18/23 at 1:16pm

OhHiii said: "A Little Priest is a hard song to land. It goes on for a pretty long clip and, in the case of this production, when the actors’ intention through the song is just to get laughs, it all falls a bit flat."

I thought  it fell way more than just a bit flat. Maybe over-familiarity with the lyrics has dulled its sparkle for me? Kinda like "Bosom Buddies" which once upon a time I found hilarious but has now become just something to get through. But even as I write this I suspect it's the performers and the musical direction that are the problem here.

[binau]

Posted: 3/18/23 at 1:42pm

The stage door last night was sooo busy despite Groban being out. Are they all there for the actor playing Toby? The producers have hit the jack pot finding someone who can play the part well and appeal to a demographic that probably doesn’t overlap with Groban‘s. 

[forgetregret]

Posted: 3/18/23 at 6:09pm

I feel very lucky to have seen Nicholas Christopher’s Sweeney this afternoon. He has a fantastic voice and his interpretation and his chemistry with Annaleigh completely worked for me. The audience was so supportive, with massive applause after Epiphany in particular. I thought Annaleigh’s shtick was a perfect fit for the role, and Gaten was another standout. 

I was in the mezz and did feel like the mics needed to be turned up during some of the book scenes. If I were unfamiliar with the show, it might have been an issue, but I was fine.