Groban & Ashford in SWEENEY TODD On Broadway - Reviews & News Thread- Page 38

[musikman]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 4:55pm

ljay889 said: "I sat in the front of the rear mezz and row E of the orchestra and I had a much better experience with the orchestra from the orchestra. The music sounded loud enough, crisp, and rich from the front orchestra.
As another person mentioned, you can’t expect the sound of a pop musical or even something like “Some Like It Hot.”"

Nor am I expecting - or wanting - a pop sound.  Listen to any bootleg recording of the original, the pro shots of the original, literally any recording.   It’s a WALL of sound.  When I saw it at City Opera almost twenty years ago, a theatre notorious for its awful acoustics, there was a WALL of sound.  When I saw it at Avery fisher 8-9 years ago, there was a WALL of sound.  The movie version (terrible and messy as it is, OY!) has gargantuan-ly massive sounds from the orchestra that hit you in the face.  None of those were amplified like a pop concert.  This music has to rattle you in your bones, not sound like distant accompaniment or just merely be somewhat audible. If you told me there were 26 musicians in that pit without knowing, I would have never believed you.

I’m glad that rows A through E of the orchestra have a decent experience, must be nice lol.  That still doesn’t cover for the utter lack of propulsion and urgency in the music, or the funeral-like tempos.  The lack of Terror from the orchestra went hand in hand with the general lack of terror on stage.  

 

[binau]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 5:21pm

I guess I believe people when they suggest it's too quiet (especially if they are sitting in Mezz) and that they haven't seen this elsewhere but the reason I'm slightly skeptical of SOME people is that in my opinion a Broadway-sized orchestra live can be substantially smaller than you might hear at symphonic concerts or opera houses, and never sounds as loud as what we might hear on recordings where we turn the volume up and have it in our ears. So I don't know if it's easy to compare to things like the Sweeney film or NYPhil concert. 

I also suspect that to compensate for ever-reducing orchestra sizes that shows sometimes do compensate by overamplifying, which again creates this issue of mismanaged expectations.

[musikman]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 6:07pm

binau said: "I guess I believe people when they suggest it's too quiet (especially if they are sitting in Mezz) and that they haven't seen this elsewhere but the reason I'm slightly skeptical of SOME people is that in my opinion a Broadway-sized orchestra live can be substantially smaller than you might hear at symphonic concerts or opera houses, and never sounds as loud as what we might hear on recordings where we turn the volume up and have it in our ears. So I don't know if it's easy to compare to things like the Sweeney film or NYPhil concert.

I also suspect that to compensate for ever-reducing orchestra sizes that shows sometimes do compensate by overamplifying, which again creates this issue of mismanaged expectations."

 

I would agree with you if the original was scored for 40-50 and this only had 26, but the original was scored for 26.   Listening to the bootleg videos and audios (from 1979!!) showed what a massive sound that ensemble produced, and not in overly amplified, pop concert way 
 

It appears as if they were going for a naturalistically acoustic sound.  That’s fine. *But* if you’re going to do that, do not stick the orchestra in a mostly enclosed pit where the sound is going to be super muffled and sound distant.  You have to at least give some amplification in that instance.

Curiously, the opening organ prelude was super piped in through the speakers (maybe to distract from the lack of whistle ? Or the only way it would be heard?), and as soon as the strings came in for the opening, it immediately switched to all acoustic, and immediately noticed the sound issues during the ballad   

 

[getatme]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 11:03pm

TotallyEffed said: "Ashford is giving an incredibly canned performance. Every single second on stage is a bit for her to act like a clown. We've seen her do it a dozen times in New York and it's really wearing thin. There's not sincerity, no subtly. And she sings it like a valley girl lazily singing along to the radio. I wanted fuller richness, vulnerability, deviousness. It's feels so contemporary and is just begging the audience for laughs every dang second. Her accent is absolutely abysmal. And at times impossible to understand. I'm sorry but I just don't care for a mugging, cloying performance like that. It's the same thing every time. The audience laps it up (as will the critics, I'm sure), so what do I know?"

I really couldn't agree more with a lot of your review, especially this take on Ashford's performance. At first preview, I found she was more restrained than I've known her to be for much of the first act, but by "A Little Priest" had all but thrown out an effort to characterize Lovett and just decided to deliver a bunch of canned bits and gags for the sake of getting laughs. The accent is truly unforgivable, so much of the brilliance of the material is lost in her mush mouth.

I went back over the weekend to see Nicholas Christopher (excellent actor, sits a bit low in his voice, but he was genuinely terrifying at times in ways that Josh Groban just isn't), and found her performance to be even more exhausting. I managed to purchase an excellent seat in the front of the orchestra and still struggled to understand what Annaleigh was saying, and even more what she was doing. To my eye, there is no through line in her performance. There is no groundedness or humanity. There is just someone trying to squeeze as many laughs out of the audience as possible. And it's just draining to watch.

But like you said, the audience was lapping it up and I'm sure critics will too. I had high hopes for her in this show because I thought she was just beautiful in Sunday in the Park, but this felt like a return to the Kinky Boots style comedy and I did not enjoy it.

It's an uneven production, but at least this past weekend it felt more cohesive than it did at first preview. Still some choices I don't particularly care for, and I'm still not convinced Tommy Kail was the right director here. But still, it's a thrill to hear this music performed (mostly) very well with a full orchestra.

 

[ANewBrainn]

Posted: 3/23/23 at 12:38am

I think I saw Jesse Green at the show tonight so I'm thinking it's frozen.  Everyone was in.  Did not really love anyone in the cast.  I'd say the cast at the Barrrow Street production was much better, especially Carolee Carmello as Mrs. Lovett.  Groban was very unconvincing.  His voice sounded "nice" singing the songs but that's not what your need from a Sweeney.  I didn't really believe a word out of his mouth or buy him as menacing for a second.  Annaleigh Ashford was funny enough and her voice sounded sweet but lacked the power of an Angela or Patti or Carolee.  Also Ashford and Groban both read far too young to be playing these roles.  I did not believe Sweeney was returning after a long time away he sort of seemed aged to the level he should be before he was sent away.

 

That being said I really enjoyed hearing the score with a full orchestra and ensemble.  The company numbers were excellent.  I'd be curious to go back to see Groban's stand by if I could get a cheap ticket.  He was really the stand out cast member as Pirelli and the only one who rang "excellent" to me and not just "fine."  This production really focused on names as opposed to people who could act the roles on an acceptable level.  I wish they found a better balance of people who could bring audiences in an act the roles especially in the role of Sweeney.  Also I thought Turpin was one of the better members of the cast but it was weird that it was the same guy from Barrow St except now with hair.

[bear88]

Posted: 3/23/23 at 4:17am

binau said: "I won't be seeing this until next month, but I'm getting the impression that Sweeney isn't the shoo-in to win best revival at the Tonys."

I think there is no chance it will win best revival but I think that's ok - I just hope the critics are kind enough to emphasise the positive elements of the production. At the end of the day, professional Sondheim is still professional Sondheim and Sweeney Todd in particular is near the top of the tree. I think the production deserves a place on Broadway even if it doesn't win any awards! (I wonder if Groban has a shot).

I hadn't been thinking about the Tonys or the impact of the upcoming reviews but my personal guess is that the revival will get mixed notices, with a few raves and a few outright pans. I certainly don't think it is a shoo-in for Best Revival (I've only seen Sweeney Todd, not the others - though I will be seeing Into the Woods on tour in June) though I have no idea what's the favorite. There are two Sondheim revivals, one that already got raves but is closed, the well-reviewed Parade and Camelot. As others have noted, it's a pretty stacked category - and people who want to vote for a Sondheim show have two choices.

If it doesn't win Best Revival, the question is what does that mean for Sweeney Todd's commercial prospects. Optimists might hope it's relatively critic-proof, unless it's regarded as a disaster. But I can't see it being anything close to The Music Man, a much-loved musical with a bigger star in Hugh Jackman than Sweeney Todd has in Josh Groban. The Tonys basically ignored The Music Man despite its huge box office success, and the people kept coming and paying the big bucks anyway. There is no reason to believe a Sondheim revival - not even this show - can survive bad reviews, which if nothing else would dampen enthusiasm among casual theatergoers, especially with some big popular entertainment shows opening this summer. Last week, when I was there as a tourist, Sweeney Todd felt like the show to see, an event with a real buzz in the theater. But does it fall off a cliff that plagues many high-profile revivals after a few months? Does it even matter whether it wins Best Revival? Can a big-budget Sondheim revival make money? Shoot, by September, it will be competing with another Sondheim revival, Merrily We Roll Along, as well as his final show. Things will start getting cluttered, and the revival will have to succeed as a commerical venture on its merits as mass entertainment when even the original couldn't make investors' money back.

I've argued before that Sweeney Todd;s success won't depend on purists, but it can't be regarded as a subpar show either. Dynamic pricing works both ways.

Updated On: 3/23/23 at 04:17 AM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/23/23 at 8:25am

I think ff we've learned anything from the past, it's that the Best Revival of a Musical Tony Award winner doesn't necessarily see the same uptick in sales as the Best New Musical Tony Award winner does. Look at Company last season.

[BdwyFan]

Posted: 3/23/23 at 8:32am

My hunch is Parade will win Best Musical Revival given that’s it’s a spectacular production which has been very well received critically, not to mention its relevance, importance and timeliness.  

[hak5]

Posted: 3/23/23 at 11:43am

have they announced a cast recording yet?

[twbrqr]

Posted: 3/24/23 at 9:59am

What is the current running time?

[musikman]

Posted: 3/24/23 at 10:04am

twbrqr said: "What is the current running time?"

We were out of the theatre by 11 earlier this week.  The show is clocking in at least 15 minutes longer than it should. 

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 3/24/23 at 11:14am

I’ve heard that the intermission is a little longer than usual. Why is that? 

[Pashacar]

Posted: 3/24/23 at 11:34am

GiantsInTheSky2 said: "I’ve heard that the intermission is a little longer than usual. Why is that?"

Felt normal to me on Tuesday. Which is to say, closer to the standard 20 than the advertised 15.

I also got out at 10:59.

[BenjaminNicholas2]

Posted: 3/24/23 at 2:02pm

getatme said: "TotallyEffed said: "Ashford is giving an incredibly canned performance. Every single second on stage is a bit for her to act like a clown. We've seen her do it a dozen times in New York and it's really wearing thin. There's not sincerity, no subtly. And she sings it like a valley girl lazily singing along to the radio. I wanted fuller richness, vulnerability, deviousness. It's feels so contemporary and is just begging the audience for laughs every dang second. Her accent is absolutely abysmal. And at times impossible to understand. I'm sorry but I just don't care for a mugging, cloying performance like that. It's the same thing every time. The audience laps it up (as will the critics, I'm sure), so what do I know?"

I really couldn't agree more with a lot of your review, especially this take on Ashford's performance. At first preview, I found she was more restrained than I've known her to be for much of the first act, but by "A Little Priest" had all but thrown out an effort to characterize Lovett and just decided to deliver a bunch of canned bits and gags for the sake of getting laughs. The accent is truly unforgivable, so much of the brilliance of the material is lost in her mush mouth.

I went back over the weekend to see Nicholas Christopher (excellent actor, sits a bit low in his voice, but he was genuinely terrifying at times in ways that Josh Groban just isn't), and found her performance to be even more exhausting. I managed to purchase an excellent seat in the front of the orchestra and still struggled to understand what Annaleigh was saying, and even more what she was doing. To my eye, there is no through line in her performance. There is no groundedness or humanity. There is just someone trying to squeeze as many laughs out of the audience as possible. And it's just draining to watch.

But like you said, the audience was lapping it up and I'm sure critics will too. I had high hopes for her in this show because I thought she was just beautiful in Sunday in the Park, but this felt like a return to the Kinky Boots style comedy and I did not enjoy it.

It's an uneven production, but at least this past weekend it felt more cohesive than it did at first preview. Still some choices I don't particularly care for, and I'm still not convinced Tommy Kail was the right director here. But still, it's a thrill to hear this music performed (mostly) very well with a full orchestra.

"

 

I also agree with all of this.

Her Lovett is all physical bits and nothing else.  The diction and accent are AWFUL.  She spends so much of the show mugging that when the ending twist is revealed, it's not shocking and she can't switch to 'serious' quickly enough to make it all work.

His Sweeney is 'nicely' sung, but that's not what the role requires.  Watch what Michael Cerveris did in the 2004 revival...  He was magnificent, scary, introspective, haunted, sad.  It was magical watching him.

Audiences don't really seem to care.  His fan club was there, screaming wildly at odd moments and laughing at things that weren't comedy points.  The new Broadway normal.

 

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 3/24/23 at 2:36pm

Those new photos look totally milquetoast and amateur. Only Gaten really seems “in it” for real.

[OneNJen]

Posted: 3/24/23 at 3:41pm

When I saw on on March 5, the line to the ladies reached from the basement to the front right orchestra.  It was crazy, I wonder if the long bathroom lines have anything to do with it.

Re: I’ve heard that the intermission is a little longer than usual. Why is that?

Updated On: 3/24/23 at 03:41 PM

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 3/24/23 at 3:44pm

BdwyFan said: "My hunch is Parade will win Best Musical Revival given that’s it’s a spectacular production which has been very well received critically, not to mention its relevance, importance and timeliness. "

I wouldn’t rule out Into the Woods for revival. The production will remain on voters minds with the exceptional reviews it’s getting on tour.  Parade is going to be a much harder sell unless one or both of its leads commit to a tour (unlikely with Pratt). Also, the big NYT review was mostly a love letter to Diamond. 

[bear88]

Posted: 3/25/23 at 4:10am

When my wife asked me what my reaction was to the Sweeney Todd revival was after we saw it last week, my very first reaction was a single word: "mixed." I've been mulling over why that was, and while I liked the revival more than many of you, I agree with a lot of your points because they bothered me too.

1 - Annaleigh Ashford, who I had never seen in anything before, gets off to a fantastic start. Her entrance is more memorable than Sweeney Todd's in a show known for its striking Todd entrances. But the very things that worked for much of the first act yield diminishing returns as the show progresses. She seems less devious and practical than clownish and over the top. And there's the problem I had from the outset: I often couldn't understand her. I care less about whether she does a proper Cockney accent, because people doing good Cockney accents are often hard for me to understand anyway. But for all the complaints about the orchestra's volume, or lack thereof, she was sometimes hard to hear - and the accent issues didn't help. Not always, and not enough to really matter, given my familiarity with the lyrics. But that seems like a big strike against her performance, especially in a Stephen Sondheim show in which language is so very important. Her Homer Simpson antics during "A Little Priest" took me out of the song briefly. And when she's reacting to others more in the second act after "By the Sea," it doesn't quite work as well as it should. I liked many things about Ashford's performance, and she interjected fun into the proceedings and made the role her own. I just had mixed feelings about it, especially in retrospect. It's odd to say that, with time to reflect, she is both the most brilliant, daring thing about the revival and one of its biggest flaws.

2 - Josh Groban. I have seen him before, in Great Comet, and was both pleased and not surprised that Sondheim was a fan of that musical. He may improve over time, but on the night I saw him (March 15), Groban didn't achieve for me what he has said in interviews he set out to do: portray a wronged man becoming a monster. At the same time, Groban is terrific as a singer, and I can still hear his haunting rendition of "My Friends" in my head. Portraying Sweeney Todd is as much an acting challenge as a singing one, but it was great to hear him working with the orchestra. I hope he improves at the rest of it.

3 - The remainder of the main cast. The standouts, for me, were Gaten Matazarro as Tobias, Nicholas Christopher as Pirelli, Ruthie Ann Miles as the Beggar Woman, and John Rapson as Beadle Bamford. Jamie Jackson is fine as Judge Turpin. I didn't have the problem so many others had with Jordan Fisher, but he struggled at times. Maria Bilbao has a lovely voice as Johanna.

4, Set design, costumes, lighting, costumes, orchestra, et cetera. The set is functional but not as imaginative as the original. Everything is too sleek, even the new barber's chair. The costuming for Mrs. Lovett was odd. She doesn't look as down and out as she should at the start, nor does her dress improve much with her fortunes. Everyone except for the Beggar Woman looks too good. There's no grime, no soot, no texture. The lighting was effective. I was sitting in Row O of the orchestra and no problem hearing the music. There may have been something missing, but I'm not good enough at music to place it, and my expectations for the orchestra may have been unrealistic. There were a couple of songs on which the tempo seemed either too fast or too slow (wasn't sure why, or if my mind was playing tricks). The ensemble was effective, adding the right level of unsettling creepiness.

5. Direction. It was a traditional revival. Outside of Ashford's performance, no one did anything terribly surprising. Thomas Kail's vision for this show was a cautious one, and that may work for the musical as a commercial venture. But it did lack a sense of danger, of horror, of a feeling you were experiencing something genuinely disturbing that comments on the human condition even via a melodrama. Others who have seen many incarnations of Sweeney Todd may have felt like they'd seen it all before, only better. But I haven't seen this musical with a full orchestra and a collection of top Broadway talent. Even with my qualms, I liked the revival and am very glad I got a chance to see it. I just didn't love it as much as I had hoped.

Updated On: 3/25/23 at 04:10 AM

[JasonC3]

Posted: 3/25/23 at 8:07am

An ATC poster named Sergius always shares balanced thoughts on productions and he just posted his take on Sweeney.  This excerpt resonated with me:

"As for the lead performances, Groban is arguably too slight and Ashford too broad. Groban sings very well, but it takes too long for him to acquire some authority and depth. He seems to have too few ideas about the character where Ashford has too many. She’s a wellspring of comic invention, a good deal of which is surprising and delightful. There’s just too much of it. Presumably, this was the Mrs. Lovett Kail wanted or he would have reined her in a bit. As a result, this SWEENEY TODD inclines resolutely toward comedy and elides to a significant extent its rage and sorrow."

Full comment: https://www.talkinbroadway.com/allthatchat_new/d.php?id=2566786

[OhHiii]

Posted: 3/25/23 at 8:28am

The complaints about Annaleigh’s dialogue getting lost is a total product of her being in television for the past few years since SITP. And in her comedic bits, it’s like she’s making up for Josh’s more introspective take on Sweeney. Which I don’t mind as much as others, but when Annaleigh is spinning herself in circles on the floor for laughs, the result is uncomfortably off balance. 

Im seeing it again this weekend and hope that some of my gripes have been smoothed out. But this production feels like they’re just *doing* Sweeney Todd. It doesn’t have a point of view. It’s a fine production of an masterpiece show. 

And sorry, not a single person on that stage is believably poor. They look like upper middle class suburbanites putting on the show. The characters that inhabit this story are desperate, willing to stop at nothing to survive. I didn’t believe that for a second of any of them frankly. Including Ruthie’s beggar woman. She looked like she had a long night at a wedding in the 80s. 

All in all I feel like this wasn’t produced/directed with detailed attention to the script. There are weird choices that distract from some of the most disturbing pieces. Ladies and Their Sensitivities comes to mind. The power/disturbing aspect of that song is that two old men are pontificating about taking advantage of young girls. Yet we have ensemble women bathed in technicolor pink and blue crossing and posing like they’re being shot for a fashion mag. It just screams they don’t trust the text. Same with the horrid choreography in the opening and closing number. It gives the dance sequence in M3GAN. And not in a disturbing way. 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/25/23 at 9:24am

I’m sad to say that this one was a bit of a letdown for me. I had been looking forward to seeing this since it was announced. What we have here is a great cast and creative team (on paper, at least) that just didn’t completely understand the assignment at hand.

The show is an over the top comedic farce-like production during the show’s first act. I think a lot of that can be attributed to Ashford’s performance that is so over the top and insane it’s just plain tiring. EVERYTHING she does on that stage is played for a laugh. And 99% of the time, she got those laughs, so maybe it’s just me. Groban is a terrific singer, obviously, but a “Demon Barber” he is not. It is interesting to see a more human take to Sweeney, but it wasn’t totally effective. There is undeniable sexual tension and chemistry between Ashford and Groban that was interesting to see. However, during the first act I felt like I was at The Music Man with Hugh and Sutton again where the two of them were just trying to outdo the other in comedic shenanigans.

The second act is remarkably stronger than the first. The comedy is dialed down a great deal and I finally felt like I was at the show I had hoped to walk into all along. From not “Not While I’m Around” through the ending, the show’s pacing and tone was on point. Gatten Matarazzo is a phenomenal Tobias. Ruthie Ann Miles’s Beggar Woman was heartbreaking and flawless. The less said about Jordan Fisher’s Anthony, the better - just totally embarrassing.

Steven Hoggett’s choreography and movement work was extremely unnecessary. Sweeney Todd is not a dance show, and why it was treated like one at some points is beyond me. Also, the physical comedy demonstrated, mainly by Ashford, was distracting and out of place. Mimi Lien’s set is simple, but highly effective and full of some great surprises. I LOVED Natasha Katz’s lighting. The lighting was my favorite part about the production, to be honest.

Now, onto the biggest disappointment… the sound design! I echo what many other have said when I say that the show is just NOT loud enough. It’s a sin to have a huge orchestra like this when you can’t even hear them. I was sitting center orchestra and I would say 85% of the time the orchestra was too quiet. The microphone levels that others have mentioned wasn’t a huge issue for me, but I will say that everything needs to be much louder.

I didn’t HATE this by any means, and I know my review probably reads as extremely harsh. I think I was just expecting a lot more and was let down with how this production interpreted the material. There are some very beautiful and successful moments, but at the end of the night, I was not 100% taken with this show.

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 3/25/23 at 10:48am

Two questions. One, do you (general) think Groban’s performance would work in a more intimate setting, like Teeney Todd or Burrow Street productions?

Second, and I know nothing about sound design so it’s a genuine question….how are there consistently shows with really obvious sound issues? I just don’t get it. First week or so of previews, sure. It just seems crazy to me that there are sound engineers in the building, often in the back of house even, how are they not hearing this? How do they not know that the sound isn’t ‘there’ yet? I’m forgetting the other recent production that had less than desirable sound, but it was like that all through previews and after opening too. I’m probably way in over my head in regards to technology, but are the systems not adequate? 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/25/23 at 11:19am

I know Matilda at the Shubert suffered from sound problems from the first preview all the way through its closing performance years later. I saw that show many times over its run, and the sound was never great.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 3/25/23 at 11:46am

GiantsInTheSky2 said: "Two questions. One, do you (general) think Groban’s performance would work in a more intimate setting, like Teeney Todd or Burrow Street productions?"

My gut tells me yes as I think the degree to which he is menacing or threatening would be more easily seen and maybe felt? 

I don't hold him to the standard of Michael Cerveris, whose natural physicality and look gave him an edge up in the menacing department that was then amplified by his costumes (full-length black leather jacket makes almost anyone look badass) and vocal performance.  Groban just doesn't really have any of those going for him as strongly.

 

[bear88]

Posted: 3/25/23 at 12:02pm

GiantsInTheSky2 said: "Two questions. One, do you (general) think Groban’s performance would work in a more intimate setting, like Teeney Todd or Burrow Street productions?

Second, and I know nothing about sound design so it’s a genuine question….how are there consistently shows with really obvious sound issues? I just don’t get it. First week or so of previews, sure. It just seems crazy to me that there are sound engineers in the building, often in the back of house even, how are they not hearing this? How do they not know that the sound isn’t ‘there’ yet? I’m forgetting the other recent production that had less than desirable sound, but it was like that all through previews and after opening too. I’m probably way in over my head in regards to technology, but are the systems not adequate?"

To the first question, not yet - or at least when I saw the show last week. In fact, one of Josh Groban’s main strengths as Sweeney is his ability is to fill the theater with clear but powerful vocals together with the orchestra. The problem is on the acting side, although he may improve as the months pass. I saw him later in his Great Comet run and thought he was very effective - including at conveying fury.

I watched that old YouTube video of the original 1979 production the other day, and was struck by several things. Len Cariou is brilliant as Sweeney, and several characters I had trouble understanding at the Lunt-Fontanne were crystal clear even though they were singing in a more operatic style on an ancient recording. 

I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on sound issues. The Hamilton folks are involved, and that show had terrific sound design - even on tour. And not everyone had the same trouble being understood. I had no problems with Groban, Christopher or Matarazzo, for example.