Not seeing it for six weeks, but a question for those who have:
This characterization discrepancy noted among the posters, Todd underplayed to the point of bland naturalism and Lovett cooked into caricature: could this be an overcorrection, designed to honor what Sondheim always claimed: that Lovett (via Lansbury, impossible to fully untether) is a British music hall creation, a woman who adopts the 'theatrical' performative persona, and drives the action thus, vs a shell of a man? Much criticism of the film focused on the two actors playing the same realism, or its reverse, the Bonham-Carter Lovett oddly enough more grittily real than the flashy Depp Todd. Many found that it ruined the first act, prior to "Priest" (though arguably, Bonham-Carter's second half had sublime moments).
The two characters were always in different worlds with Lansbury and Cariou (I saw them 6 times) -- she was a wide-eyed pragmatist who used hoary comedy as a survival tool, Todd a bone-dry, humorless man (save "Priest," which is why the number was transformative in the plot.) This strange duality -- a contrast in dynamics -- is seemingly required to make the piece cohesive, and to create tension among actors. It wasn't really in the Doyle staging, since the production's conceit drove the stylization, everyone caught up in instrumentation and presentational antics. But is this a strategic return to the original's values, a kind of deconstruction? Perhaps that explains this as yet unsuccessful disconnect in the lead performances. Again, questions, not a provable thesis.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 3/22/23 at 08:36 AM