Margo on Sweeney Todd -- First Preview — Page 4

Rarely have I seen a Broadway house so engrossed in the final moments of a musical.

Prepare yourself for an onslaught of "8 cell phones rang as they were searching for Tobias" stories.

Fosee76, that's an interesting point. How far does the definition of "Broadway show" stretch? Some people don't think Avenue Q qualifies, for example- not because of any deficit in quality, but because it's too small. I wonder if we'll hear any murmurings like that about this production once more people have seen it.


ETA- Sorry. Substitute "musical" for "show," because no one seemed to say 'Night, Mother wasn't Broadway material.

Updated On: 10/5/05 at 03:25 PM

Robbie, it's possible to enjoy this production without agreeing with Doyle's concept. While the production annoyed and frustrated me at times, the cast and score kept me consistently entertained, even as story points got obscured.

Ultimately, I chose to look at Doyle's work as one would view a bear riding a unicycle at the circus -- it's quite a trick, there's no reason behind it other than pure entertainment, and it's not meaningful in any way, but damn if it's not really entertaining and fun to watch.

---

I hate not being able to see this production soon, if ever..... WHY AM I LIVING IN AMSTERDAM??????

I thank you all for contributing to this thread. I feel thrown into an intelligent conversation about ART. and it's been a long time since I thought about a musical as a genuine work of ART. In Holland we just had the opening night of Beauty and the Beast. Sigh. No mention of the word ART. And don't get me started on the ART in Wicked.

SWEENEY seems like a daring production and it's great that a concept show like it gets the chance to open on Broadway. Let's be thankful to daring priducers who still give shows like this a chance. And DAMN I want to see it......

Actor/musicians - obviously with the help of a good orchestrator - can take the exploration of the subtext to a different level. For instance Johanna and Anthony in Sweeney often play their cellos at the same time, they are in synch with each other musically and also the instruments "talk" to each other - it's a very sexual experience, the physical act and movement of holding the cello is mirrored by the other. For me this production is one of the first, I've seen where the Anthony/Johanna realationship works.

Instead of Todd whistling in Pretty Women, Johanna plays the tune on the penny-whistle - it's ironic and disturbing almost as if Todd summons the memory of his daughter with the tune.

The juxtaposition of the characters with their various orchestrations for me is just another layer that is added to the experience.

In Company - my character was the only character not to have an instrument. Indeed, we used to joke that Robert was really wishing for a trumpet during the birtday party scenes. I found the lack of the instrument a frustration and block in my communication. Whilst the characters where orchestrated to complement each other or contrast when needed.

I just think it's such a natural extension to an actor's skills - it maybe a new idea but it's really no different than asking an actor to dance, sing or stand on his head if its necessary.

I saw Sweeney Todd tonight and generally agree with you but from a slightly different POV.

The way this production was originally conceived - for a small regional theatre with a shoestring budget - is brilliant. I love theatre made that way - using the resources you have available to tell a story - that is what it is all about. In that way, I truly admire the "concept." HOWEVER, this is Broadway, the center of commercial theatre and forcing a concept born out of a lack of money and resources onto this piece, on this stage, no longer has any real validity.

The next, most important thing about this production is that you should absolutely see it. This subtraction of elements does one remarkable thing. It allows us to hear and pay close attention to some of the most brilliant composition and lyrics in musical theater. Partly, also because of the subtraction, there are new moments created that are as stunning as moments in the original.

I don't generally have a problem with high concept, even if it is a stretch. I actually thrive on it as an artist myself and I think it is wholly necessary for art to flourish. Without new ideas, where would we be? Unfortunately, this concept hinders this piece in one major way - it doesn't allow for it to ever reach the dramatic or musical heights that it is capable of. It isn't physically possible for all 10 voices to be singing and all 10 instruments to be playing at the same time. Most of the reduced orchestrations are inspired, but this piece is so much about power dramatically and musically that it is sorely missed when it isn’t where it should be.

I too was under whelmed by several of the performances - when casting requires that everyone play an instrument brilliantly as well as act and sing and actually be the character that were written, it is inevitable that marks will be missed.

I respect this production immensely as an artist. I think it has what so little commercial theatre has anymore - balls! But if I were to offer words of criticism to the director, it would be these.

I am curious as to which performances left you cold

---

Oh thats disappointing, I remember liking that addition to what Im usually used to hearing. Sort of made me realize what shes doing and why all the other beggar women had dolls and that it was really her mimicing her old life with Johanna. I have no idea why such a cut would be made when it only adds clarity to a production that I feel at times lacks it.

---

and btw, where the hell are all these comps coming from :o

---

"The way this production was originally conceived - for a small regional theatre with a shoestring budget - is brilliant. I love theatre made that way - using the resources you have available to tell a story - that is what it is all about."

That explains why I felt that it was more in-tune with what one would see in a regional theatre! Not that it wasn't good, just different from what I'm used to seeing on Broadway.

I did not write the following. It is a review posted on All that Chat by "Scarborough" -- but I found it a really compelling take on this production and worthy of the great discussion going on in this thread
____________________________________
Nellie Lovett: The Lovestruck Baker of Fleet Street - my thoughts...


Posted by: Scarborough 10:31 pm EDT 10/07/05

(Try as I may to avoid them, there are spoilers afoot.)

As I was saying to my theater companion last night, "Wow, that was a ballsy, brilliant production of Sweeney Todd, save for the guy playing Sweeney Todd." He emanated less presence than the title character in Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier's REBECCA. Indeed, he was less than invisible. Not a wise approach to a character whose chilling tales have been frightening readers and theatergoers ever since the Fleet Street stories debuted in London's 19th century 'penny dreadfuls'.

Michael Cerveris' criminal miscasting is my sole inflexibility with John Doyle's otherwise extraordinary deconstruction of Stephen Sondheim and Hugh Wheeler's musical SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET. No matter how much you swath the exposition in atmospheric lighting and shrieking cries of horror; no matter how much you re-imagine the proceedings through the guise of a Bedlum asylum; no matter how deliberately you exhibit a poster outside the theater replete with shining razor blades covered in blood; no matter how much you tell someone to be scared, if you can't cast a certifiably believable murderer in the title role, why go through all that trouble? Don't tell me about it, prove it to me! To borrow a phrase from Eliza Doolittle: "Shoooow me now!" A pixie-ish, Dr. Evil just doesn't cut it. (I have enjoyed Cerveris in some of his past work, like THE WHO'S TOMMY and TITANIC.) Without a viable Sweeney, you're sunk. For the first time in memory, established tour de force moments like "Epiphany" and Todd's Act II 'realization' are disappointing and ineffective. No catharsis, no nothing.

But just when you thought we were through... there is life beyond the title character. Even at this early stage of the game (4th preview), every other performer has achieved a level of such intensity and commitment, you'd think we were months into the run. This would be a commendable achievement in any production on Broadway, but moreso when you take the demands of this multi-tasking, theatrical coup d'état into consideration. Every single performer in the 10-actor ensemble (Cerveris included) accompanies themselves on their own cellos, violins, accordions, tubas, and percussion throughout the show. They are not supplemented by any on-stage or off-stage pit. The sound begins and ends with the performers. And you know what? It never felt gimmicky to me.

In a "Launching the Tony Awards" interview back in the late 90s, Bebe Neuwirth summed up her joy as a musical-theater actress by commenting that there was nothing greater in the world than "saying I love you, singing I love you and dancing I love you." Well, Bebe, the bar has been raised. When Johanna and Anthony sing of their desire for each other, anything left unsaid, any emotions lurking beneath their impeccably truthful singing (I'll talk more about the performers in a bit) are carried out in the concurrent artistry of their cello accompaniment. What could be more longing than a tenor and soprano musically orgasming WITH cellos in hand? This is one of the many revolutionary (I said coup d'etat earlier, and I mean it) aspects of this production. They sing, dance, speak, and play "I love you".

Before I get to the woman you've all been waiting for, I'd like to reiterate my convictions regarding the inspired actor/musician concept. To refer to this choice as a pointless gimmick would be to give relevance to every helicopter, chandelier and flying car that has traversed the footlights of the great white way. As the Sondheim lyric goes from the show about that other monster, "Ya gotta have a gimmick if you want to get ahead", so I'd just as well prefer the kind that gives me goosebumps, rather than the kind that reeks of hydraulics. It would be one thing to say, okay, here's a company that plays its own instruments... it's another thing to witness a group of talented actors who also double as more-than-competent, and in some cases, virtuoso musicians. I'm sure that it has been done elsewhere, but the consistency of this particular treatment is spellbinding, and it never feels pulled or stretched to fit a concept without substance. It's not a bare-bones Brechtian approach with "look at me, I'm being deep". (Look, Sondheim himself loves this production, and we all know what he thinks of Brecht... not that a Steve seal of approval always means that happy days are here again). It's a production brimming with life (inasmuch as it can be... considering the subject matter), and despite its leading man, a barreling barrage of bountiful brandywine.

Set in an asylum not long after the events of the musical, this Sweeney is conceived as a retelling of the story as seen through the eyes of patient Tobias Ragg. The beginning of Acts 1 and 2 (not to mention the Act 2 finale) both elicit a clear reference to this, as he is the focal point. The events of his story are played out by fellow patients and doctors but I think it's pretty clear that the show is happening inside Toby's mind. So if some theatergoers question why an asylum would be supplied with instruments and sparkly attire (in the case of Mrs. Lovett's second act costume), all I can say is 1) look more closely, and 2) if it is a re-enactment, ask yourself why the King of Siam has been breaking into song on musical stages around the world for the past 50 years.

The set is what you'd come to expect in a 19th century London psych ward. Light creeping through the floorboards, shadows lurking in the corners, and the omnipresence of coffins - here, referencing the plight of Sweeney's victims, but also serving as the only escape for those in the asylum. It's the only key to freedom, however dire the Earthly consequences. The show begins and ends with death, and yet, many of the performances evoke such a sense of comedic buoyancy and gallows humor, you can't help but go with it. If you're someone who has dealt with tragedy (and who hasn't?), you'll understand the need for humor, and the people of Fleet Street required it to survive. This is one of the many ingredients that keeps this production from entering a preachy, sterile mentality. The more love, the more humor, the more resonant the biting moments of the characters' desparity. But does it become cartoonish and bloated like past characterizations? The answer can be summed up in two words: Patti LuPone.

As the characterization pertains to the Lonny Price concert stagings she's done over the past few years - from New York to San Francisco to Chicago - I am not a fan of Patti LuPone's Mrs. Lovett. The ghost of Angela Lansbury's Lovett loomed large, and Patti, try as she might, couldn't overcome that shadow. A mixture of half-cockney mannerisms, and wasted energy.

But. If you think you know Patti's Mrs. Lovett, think again. I wanted to wait two days before writing this review, just to let my mind defrost... and to be sure of the performance I'd witnessed. Maybe it's because she didn't want to upstage Cerveris (a simple task, since there's no fire to speak of), but Patti, with John Doyle's brilliant direction, has re-invented Mrs. Lovett... from TOP to BOTTOM. Lansbury, as much as I bow at her feet, was a cockney whirlwind of nervous asides, flustered bullishness and cartoonish ebullience. Patti's Nellie Lovett is the opposite. Ever since her revelatory performance in Passion, LuPone has been steadily accessing a part of herself that we don't normally associate with that big, brassy diva poised high above the crowds of Buenos Aires. In Sweeney Todd, Lovett is still a force to be reckoned with, morally corrupt as ever, but her intents are not as black & white as they have been in past productions. This Nellie is a deep romantic, lost in reverie for a man she has loved ever since he was wrongly imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit, nearly two decades before prior to the start of the show. I want to stray from plot spoilers in the end, but for the first time EVER, I understood the desperation behind Lovett's ultimate deception. Still the diabolical entrepreneurial, but only (and I stress this), ONLY because she believes that it is the only way to win Todd's heart. I'm not making apologies for her blood-soaked business boom, but LuPone deliberately accents every movement and every sincerity with Lovett's devotion to Todd. The murders are an afterthought to her, and even as she comically cleans her "utensils" during the most effective "By The Sea" I have ever seen/heard, the lyric "You could do the guest in" finally makes sense. Like a lover with an addiction, be it painkillers, alcohol or NASCAR racing (ehhh...), she understands his fallibility, and endorses it only out of passion. I think LuPone's characterization also showcases the despair of a woman trying her damndest to bring back the man she once watched from the sidelines. Before being wrongly convicted and sent to the 19th century equivalent of J.K. Rowling's Azkaban prison, Benjamin Barker (later Sweeney Todd) was a happily married man, with an infant daughter to boot. With his return, wife and daughter are gone, and he happens into Nellie Lovett's Pie Shop on a whim. Though the years have changed him, she still sees the unrequited love she never consummated... and now's the time to change that. Big numbers like "Worst Pies in London" have become more quietly conversational in this production, and the more Nellie begins to recognize Barker/Sweeney, the more her feistiness dies down, into a mode of awestruck adoration. The big tag of the song "Times is HARD!" has even been downplayed to an aside of sorts. She's got him, and she's going to love him, and maybe it's Cerveris' low-key approach to the role that makes her devotion believable to us, but I think it would have been more astonishing if she were really dealing with the characterization of a legitimate mad man. Only then, would her love seem more devastating, and at least to the audience... pathetic.


Fear not, though! Patti doesn't leave all of her divaness at the door. Decked out in fishnet stockings, a hugely-padded jumbo derriere, and a Judy Garland-meets-Kelly Osbourne wig, she works the stage like Bette Davis in a goth-brothel. I say this because I see a direct connection now between Davis' and LuPone's acting styles. They both create such walls of resistance and defiance that when their vulnerabilities become more pronounced, the effects are holy-**** heartbreaking. LuPone has also learned how to let herself become an ensemble player (most likely due to her work at the Ravinia Festival), and when she isn't "on", she listens like no other 'name' musical actress I know working today (outside of Judy Kaye). And in this piece, she's required to contribute to the musical accompaniment as part of the rhythm section (sans conductor, though different performers took turns giving cues every so often...). AND in a comedic stroke of a genius, Patti punctuates her moments of true brassiness with...just that.. a tuba! She doesn't simply lug it around for a few moments. No. She bends down, heaves the thing to her lips, blows, sets it down, sings, commiserates with the other actors, and then bends down, lifts and blows again. Blow, Gabriel, Blow! And heck, it isn't exactly one of those lighter instruments. Lipstick-smeared and surprisingly athletic, Patti is the perfect example of a hardworking pillar of turn-of-the-century determination. As George W. Bush would say, "it's hard work...hard work."

Other members of the company, like Broadway veteran and new amateur accordionist Donna Lynne Champlin (she carries it off like she's been playing for years... everyone does, save for a few squeaky notes from Toby's (Manoel Felciano) violin... but it might purposefully contribute the ornamentation of tangible insanity), and accomplished pianist/underused vocalist/actor Alexander Gemignani (John Hinckley in the recent Assassins, why doesn't he get more exposure in larger roles?), and Lauren Molina (cello/gorgeous soprano/best damn Johanna I've ever seen!) juggle accents, singing, staging.. with ease. Effortless. Heck, everyone does. Even Cerveris straps on a guitar for the most creepy, folk-meets-Streisand "Not While I'm Around". Everyone is working at 150 percent without anything seeming extraneous or forced. (Except for Cerveris... yeah yeah, I know... you're sick of me talking about him).

There are a few scattered errors in the direction and lighting (And Pirelli is a woman this time around... the aforementioned Ms. Champlin... it kinda doesn't work, but kinda does), but I'm sure that things will get ironed out as the run progresses. Remember, it was only the 4th preview.

So, this Sweeney. An acclaimed London-import that could be better served by a smaller theater off-Broadway, but whose producers had the guts to present it uptown at $100 a seat. Do I have a problem with the prices? Sure. Do I question their commitment in bringing a new vision to Broadway of a stalwart classic we all thought we knew? Hell, no! I applaud them. Besides, it is one of the only new Broadway productions in town to offer mezzanine seats for less than $40 a seat. In 2005, who knew? If it played at BAM for 7 performances, it'd be praised to high heaven, but Broadway? That's risk.

Patti, you done good girl, you done good. Your falsetto has never sounded better, and the lower register grows richer with each production that you do. And of course, no one beats that belt. You gave me goosebumps during the counterpoint to "My Friends", and made me laugh harder than I have in years during your consummate "Little Priest" and "By The Sea" numbers. Donna Lynne Champlin and Lauren Molina... wow. Even Anthony (Benjamin Magnuson) was enjoyable. He's not as conventionally handsome as past actors in the role, but I think it lends a stronger note of credibility, and less of a 'bimbo' sort of quality. (Not that Victor Garber could be a bimbo... but you know what I mean...I hope...) Diana DiMarzio's clarinet-playing Beggar Woman doesn't pack as much of a punch as she normally would, due to Cerveris' shortcomings. Without anything to play off of, there isn't much for her to do, but she is a legitimately frazzled guttersnipe.

I know I'm forgetting something (Oh! The reduced orchestrations surprisingly equal Tunick's original score. Apples and oranges, of course, but delicious fruit all around!). From soup to nuts, this Sweeney is the first musical I've wanted to return to since the Roundabout revival of Assassins. Cerveris or not, I'm going back for seconds, and I can't wait to see how things look once the preview period plays out and opening night rolls along. So, *** out of ****. Without Cerveris, it'd be ***1/2 all the way. Maybe, if Bryn Terfel's not busy, we could get a legitimate baritone. Until then, we've a tenor... Oh Len Cariou, you most be rolling over in your... bed.

P.S. - Tell Gerard Alessandrini to round up a few brightly-colored Playskool instruments ("My First Tuba"/"My First Drum"), because there's a helluva Reno Sweeney Todd parody all ready to go!
____________-

Link to the actual post:
http://www.talkinbroadway.com/allthatchat/d.php?id=180000

________________________________________-

Updated On: 10/8/05 at 09:15 AM

"Anyone who has any love for this musical will demand a refund at the box office after sitting through the first musical number."

"...many in the audience are first comers to Broadway and would give a standing ovation to someone passing gas on a NYC stage. However, those around me that were admirers of Sondheims did not stand up and neither will you."

I can't stand reviewers who write as though their taste is some sort of indisputable fact. If this guy didn't like the show, fine. That's his prerogative. But don't assume that those of us who did like it are a bunch of drooling, Cheetos-crunching rubes who only showed up because Mamma Mia was sold out and we thought the show was about Todd Bodine.

It shows a weakness of the writer that they can't form their thoughts about the show well enough that they just have to resort to trite put-downs that could really work in a review of any show they didn't enjoy. It's the Ann Coulter style of writing.

I loved the show. No, I didn't see the Lansbury version (except the DVD). I'm not that old. However, I am quite familiar with Sweeney Todd. I even own the complete score and try to muddle through it on the piano to the best of my ability. So, I wasn't just some moron duped by a non-flashy gimmick.

And wasn't it butch of me to work Todd Bodine into a post?

I haven't posted any of my own comments.

I simply added a comment that was posted under the SWEENEY picture to give someone else's perspective.

Not as much as it addled mine, Plum.

It is interesting to me that both the clip from MB and Jose's clip display the two attitudes I detest the most in writing your opinions for public consumption.

As Calvin said the post of the anonimous reviewer Jose gave us is one that insists if you disagree with his opinion you are ignorant and your opinion invalid.
The other post given by MB is different but equally disturbing, that person uses highminded language and references to some elite experience that somehow is to make the audience believe that he/she is a master of the field, or just to show off.

"He emanated less presence than the title character in Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier's REBECCA." Although I know both book and film, this reference is useless and serves to diminish the review to me.

That type of tendencey to throw in references to obscure other forms leads me to enter the review with an innate distaste.

---