Margo on Sweeney Todd -- First Preview — Page 3

"i do question, fundamentally and theoretically, whether a production must have a concept that is organic to the setting of the story. furthermore, why must a production even be most concerned with always servicing story, specifically the ability to transport on audience to the setting of a story?"

* * *

"as a director, though, sometimes for a production I find it interesting to merely taking an audience on a journey, through something that may be linear or literal, but possibly merely a collection of images, moods, experiences that can move a receptive audience. again, i do also understand that such theatre is not ideal for broadway audiences and is best seen in other parts of manhattan, or brooklyn."

* * *

Excellent points, SFboy. No, a reinterpretation of a work need not always be concerned solely with servicing a story or being true to some traditional notion of how a given work "SHOULD" be staged in order to be effective. I think immediately of the brilliant deconstructions of canonical works that Elizabeth Le Compte has created for the Wooster Group over the years that do precisely what you describe in terms of creating a mood or feel or set of images to get to the core of a piece. She has taken plays by Chekhov (Three Sisters) and O'Neill (The Hairy Ape, The Emperor Jones, Long Day's Journey Into Night) and rather than faithfully presenting and staging the text, in her reconceptions, the text is secondary to the themes of the work.

In her Long Days, for example, the baleful sound of a persistent foghorn becomes a fifth character in the lamentable Tyrone family drama and her conceit that the characters long ago stopped listening to each other's oft-repeated reminiscences and complaints is dramatized through use of sound effects of sped up, unintelligible dialogue -- her version of the 4 hour tragedy ran about 80 minutes as I recall and resonated as powerfully with O'Neill's themes of loss and regret as the last traditional Broadway staging did.

I can think of many other examples of productions I've seen (usually, so-called avant garde or "downtown") where directors have managed to boil a text down to its elemental roots and get to the core of an author's intent. They've tossed out traditional notions of staging and character and story and arrived at something new and powerful. These can be mesmerizing, revelatory experiences.

However, it doesn't strike me that Doyle had that much on his mind. He had a single conceit -- "Let's have the actors also be the orchestra" and then went from there. It's an interesting and entertaining stunt, but little more. It's not innovative or particularly coherent for that matter. It's just different, and that's fine, I suppose, but for me directors should have an overriding guideline similar to the doctors -- "First, do no harm." And Doyle's "vision," as it is, manages to somehow make SWEENEY TODD a less interesting and provocative and effective work that it normally is.

I'm not tied to the Prince production -- far from it. While I love it, I saw it 20+ years ago, have it on video and don't need to see it on stage again. I was greatly looking forward to a new, intelligent, exciting "take" on the material -- and Doyle's isn't it. I didn't go into the theatre last night looking to be critical -- just the opposite (friends can confirm this -- I was hoping to RAVE for this).

And I've seen and loved other work from Watermill -- Edward Hall's A Midsummer Night's Dream at BAM, as well as his Rose Rage (a reconception of Shakespeare's Henry VI plays that played at the Duke -- and also had blood pouring into buckets and other stylized violence) BOTH made my top ten list last year.

But, this production, as entertaining as it is at times, was a disappointment to me. I've seen many many gimmicks before over the years and while this one is certainly an interesting one, in the end, it's unfortunately pretty shallow. This masterpiece deserves better.

---

Updated On: 10/5/05 at 01:31 AM

"However, it doesn't strike me that Doyle had that much on his mind. He had a single conceit -- "Let's have the actors also be the orchestra" and then went from there. It's an interesting and entertaining stunt, but little more. It's not innovative or particularly coherent for that matter. It's just different, and that's fine, I suppose, but for me directors should have an overriding guideline similar to the doctors -- "First, do no harm." And Doyle's "vision," as it is, manages to somehow make SWEENEY TODD a less interesting and provocative and effective work that it normally is."

You really need to disabuse yourself of the fact that this is a conceit - this is a particular genre of presentation, which you are obviously unaware. You need to look beyond that to the heart of the piece which, at least for me, shone through with great clarity.

Margo, I don't mean to come off as snotty or anything...but just because you don't see a real reason for having the cast double as the orchestra, that clearly doesn't mean that he doesn't have one. There's a difference between him blindly doing something, and you just not seeing it.

---

Thank you, SFBoy.

And if I'm totally off base here and anyone would care to explain -- in detail, please, not just some general statement -- the many advantages, intents and purposes behind having the cast double as the orchestra, I'm certainly all ears.

---

Fascinating discussion. I learn more about theatre from this forum than in any college course.

Excellent point SF -- and for me, the intstruments do indeed enhance the character relationships. Johanna and Anthony both play the cello. He plays during her "Green Finch" and before the song is finished she takes up where he leaves off for his "Johanna." During the "Joanna" reprise they literally make love through their unison playing. This suddenly made these two usually stiff characters come alive to me, and their usually not very convincing love story compelling.

Joanna, ever the instrument of the Judge's obsession plays his anguished version of "Johanna" on the cello and plays the haunting tin flute solo during "Pretty Women."

Lovett's flashy silver tuba becomes a symbol for her flaunted sexuality, etc. etc.

I felt like the instruments do become an extension of character, and that the show is orchestrated so that the instrumentation becomes almost thematic -- physically doing to the score what say Prokofiev does with musical theme in PETER AND THE WOLF.

I think you can only say the story is diminished by this production if you have seen other productions. As I said, I took a friend to see the show last night who doesn't know SWEENEY at all. She was overwhelmed by it. She certainly understood the story and was moved by it. Does it matter that she didn't really get that Anthony is a sailor, or that Pirelli was written to be a man? Is that really what this play is about?

Updated On: 10/5/05 at 09:31 AM

I think the purpose of having the performers double as the orchestra allows them to connect more with the score. I sat very close to the stage, and Patti LuPone was very concentrated in the music, and I think as a result of the performers being so embedded, it can only improve their characters. They will achieve an understanding that they may not have otherwise gained. While its purpose was probably more for a gimmick as opposed to an artistic reasoning, the end result is the same: the actors are more involved with the musical component of not only their but of their fellow actors' characters, giving them an insight they might not otherwise have had. My only complaint, as I have stated earlier, is that the staging is bad for those off to the side, because the performers block center stage so it can get obscured. But at the same time I agree with Margo. I really think the only people who might be able to appreciate this version to the fullest extent are those who are familiar with the original. It would be arogant to stage something only those who are familiar with the material understand, because you lock out the rest of your potential audience. But time will tell. It definitely was enjoyable, but other than the talented cast it really, to me at least, didn't seem like a Broadway production. It seemed more like a production I would see at Steppenwolf or The Goodman.

"I really think the only people who might be able to appreciate this version to the fullest extent are those who are familiar with the original. It would be arogant to stage something only those who are familiar with the material understand, because you lock out the rest of your potential audience."

I'd disagree I went with two Italian friends, who found it very understandable. In London, you could also rely on the local audience understanding the plot.

Matt -- I think its worth noting again that all the Watermill Productions utilize actor/musicians. This production happens to be on Broadway because Sondheim loved it, indeed that is the only reason we are getting a SWEENEY revival now at all.

But the concept was no more conceived as a gimmick for Broadway then the Deaf West production of BIG RIVER (utilizing Deaf and Speaking actors in conjunction to tell the story). This is simply the way these two theatre companies do productions. Neither was dreamed up specifically to be a Broadway vanity production. But both proved to be unique interpretations of the script.

Well, my doubts about the cast notwithstanding, I'm loving this production just for inducing the best discussion thread we've had in ages.

Margo: A simple question; is it, in your opinion, worth $100?

WickedRocks,

Absolutely. I don't hate this production -- heck, I gave it four out of five stars on my blog. The score and cast are certainly worth $100, (though note that there are several discount offers out there and it's on TKTS as well, so there's no need at the moment to pay full price). And hey, since Doyle's staging has prompted such a provocative discussion, it's worth seeing the show for that as well to decide for yourself whether you think the use of actor/musicians is a distraction or whether you found that it enhanced your enjoyment of the material.

Bottom line, whether you ultimately like the concept or not, this cast MUST be seen -- they're extraordinary.

---