Posted: 3/27/23 at 3:26pm
Theatrely: A Ravishingly Conducted SWEENEY TODD — Review
https://www.theatrely.com/post/a-ravishingly-conducted-sweeney-todd-review
Posted: 3/27/23 at 3:49pm
''I just checked, and Ken Jennings and Merle Louise won Drama Desk awards for the roles in 1979, but weren’t nominated for Tonys. Interesting.''
It also might be noted that in 1979, the Tonys had only 4 slots for Featured Actor and Actress. Miles and Matarazzo might be helped by the fact that nowadays there are 5 slots. (Felciano also was nominated when there were 5 slots.)
Speaking of Groban's 2-week vacation, what are the dates? Thanks!
Posted: 3/27/23 at 6:18pm
binau said: "My head scratches at how Jesse Green could say what he did about the Company revival and then apparently love Sweeney. But my heart is happy that he said what he did about Sweeney. Cannot wait to see how sales progress and whether the show starts to fly by itself without Groban and Gaten in future."
What frustrates me is not that I happen to disagree with that Company review it's that he's so arbitrary about what quibble matters to him. He had plenty of quibbles with this Sweeney but loved it. A couple quibbles with Company and he trashes it. It's hard to follow the logic of his criticism. Much less so than, say, Brantley.
Posted: 3/27/23 at 8:03pm
I know this is off-topic. But, I got to thinking about how this is sort of the first critical hit the Lunt-Fontanne has had in a while. They've had some financial successful shows at first, but all usually fizzle in a few months due to negative reviews.
Little Mermaid, Addams Family, Ghost, Motown, Finding Neverland, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Summer the Donna Summer Musical.
Tina had a pretty good run I guess.
Just interesting to think about. Sweeney Todd is maybe the first show that's played there since Titanic in 1997 that got positive reviews!
Posted: 3/27/23 at 8:44pm
I just fear this means we will get more Kail-led productions that seem “meh.”
Posted: 3/27/23 at 9:22pm
RippedMan said: "I just fear this means we will get more Kail-led productions that seem “meh.”"
Let's hope they are not "meh". He just needs to step away from doing the new Fiddler movie. I just don't think it is necessary.
Posted: 3/30/23 at 11:06am
Shaw in the New Yorker:
A Sonically Thrilling Revival of “Sweeney Todd” on Broadway
Posted: 3/30/23 at 11:21am
DAME said: "RippedMan said: "I just fear this means we will get more Kail-led productions that seem “meh.”"
Let's hope they are not "meh". He just needs to step away from doing the new Fiddler movie. I just don't think it is necessary."
Agreed. And as much as I enjoyed Spielberg's "take" on West Side Story it was really unnecessary as well.
Posted: 3/30/23 at 11:01pm
"A mixed bag becomes powerhouse....Ashford isn't as blowsy as the usual Lovett. Groban slays, as it were."
https://chelseacommunitynews.com/2023/03/30/michael-musto-reviews-life-of-pi-sweeney-todd-make-the-familiar-fresh/
Posted: 4/20/23 at 9:19am
We saw this Weds night, from the front row of the mezzanine, house right, no understudies. Is it perfect? Naw. Did we have a terrific time? You bet we did.
1. Don't understand the complaints about the set. It was inventive, and always changing.
2. Didn't miss the whistle - and I thought i might.
3. I also don't understand the criticism over Jordan Fisher. Was he spectacular? No, but Anthony is hardly a spectacular role.
4. Loved many of the performances, including Ashford, Gaten and (to a slightly lesser extent) Groban. I thought some thought provoking choices were made...esp concerning Johanna.
5. Damn that lighting was gorgeous, I will be rooting for this win Tony night.
6. I thought the audience a bit odd, not poorly behaved...just willing to laugh at ANYTHING Ashford said or did, regardless.
7. A big miss for me was a number of missed moments...like punctuation missing...at yhe end of a few numbers, and some key moments...like the slaying of Sweeney....a few scene ending.
Overall, we had a terrific time....not sure where to put my forecast on winner of Revival. (Exfept that Camelot won't get it.)
Posted: 4/20/23 at 10:02pm
Enjoyed this show quite a bit. Thought Annaleigh was inventive and funny, and I liked that Groban played Sweeney as a character who doesn't start at point Z in terms of madness--he becomes increasingly agitated as the show progresses. Could he have been scarier? Perhaps. But when he's disposing of victims in Act 2, Groban mixes elegant singing with startling intense sawing-like movements with the razor. It made for an interesting juxtaposition. Beauty and blood.
My only quibble is the impressive set blocked the view of many in my section (I was around D10). Some of the action on the upper level probably could have been seen by all if they moved Sweeney's chair over a few feet. Plus, the final moments with bodies on the floor, Sweeney hunched over and Tobias approaching, are a little lost. Perhaps if Sweeney had lifted the Beggar Woman and placed her on a table, it would have had had more impact.
Still, a beautifully performed and technically impressive production. Glad we saw it.
Posted: 4/21/23 at 4:20am
dramamama611 said: "We saw this Weds night, from the front row of the mezzanine, house right, no understudies. Is it perfect? Naw. Did we have a terrific time? You bet we did.
1. Don't understand the complaints about the set. It was inventive, and always changing.
2. Didn't miss the whistle - and I thought i might.
3. I also don't understand the criticism over Jordan Fisher. Was he spectacular? No, but Anthony is hardly a spectacular role.
4. Loved many of the performances, including Ashford, Gaten and (to a slightly lesser extent) Groban. I thought some thought provoking choices were made...esp concerning Johanna.
5. Damn that lighting was gorgeous, I will be rooting for this win Tony night.
6. I thought the audience a bit odd, not poorly behaved...just willing to laugh at ANYTHING Ashford said or did, regardless.
7. A big miss for me was a number of missed moments...like punctuation missing...at yhe end of a few numbers, and some key moments...like the slaying of Sweeney....a few scene ending.
Overall, we had a terrific time....not sure where to put my forecast on winner of Revival. (Exfept that Camelot won't get it.)"
1. I agree with most of this. I had my issues with the set, which felt too stylized and sterile to me, but they're really more quibbles than actual problems. It didn't interfere with my enjoyment of the show, and there are some interesting things happening with the set - especially in the second act.
2. Nope, didn't miss the whistle. Thought about it before the show, mentioned it to my wife afterward, didn't think about it during. It was a choice to include it in the original, and a perfectly legitimate decision to leave it out of a revival.
3. Jordan Fisher was fine. No, he's not as operatic and sounds more modern, but why is that a bad thing? You need Anthony to do a few things well, and he did those things.
4. Many of the performances have gotten a lot of praise, including Gaten Matarazzo, who I've never actually seen before. John Rapson and Nicholas Christopher were especially good as Beadle Bamford and Pirelli. I certainly had some issues with Ashford - there are times when she upstages the show and throws off its balance - but it's not a bonkers take on the character. It's just more amped up with more physical comedy. My biggest gripes were my occasional difficulty understanding her and the long pause in "A Little Priest," but the latter was director Thomas Kail's choice. At her best, Ashford is a lot of fun.
I will stop here to praise Josh Groban. He's been damned with faint praise, but I was listening to an audio recording of the show and was reminded of just how good he sang (and therefore acted) the role. It's a Sondheim show, so the acting goes with the singing. The power and clarity of his vocals struck me when I was at the musical, and that's no insignificant thing. Everyone is talking about how he'll be a good Sweeney on the cast recording, but he was awfully good in that cavernous theater too.
5. The lighting is terrific.
6. The atmosphere at your show sounds similar to mine. It was a revved up audience, and Ashford - from her spectacular first entrance - feeds off that but also is encouraging it. (One of my gripes is that Ashford is playing to the audience in the theater as much as her supposed audience of Sweeney.) Broadway audiences, I was reminded after almost four years, are wildly enthusiastic - especially for an eagerly awaited revival like Sweeney Todd.
7. That's a fair critique. It did feel like there were missed opportunities along the way.
In the end, my most telling post-show reaction is that when my daughter asked me about shows to see on her upcoming trip, this was the one I said she really shouldn't miss. I'm not saying it is the best thing on Broadway right now because I haven't seen several acclaimed productions. But Sweeney Todd is a big, entertaining Broadway revival of one of the greatest musicals of all time. I think she and her friend will enjoy it.
Updated On: 4/21/23 at 04:20 AM
Posted: 4/21/23 at 5:25am
This production would be even more special if everyone else in the cast mirrored Groban's crystal clear singing and impeccable diction. It really is virtuosic singing.
Posted: 4/21/23 at 1:17pm
Perhaps that’s why he has been an internationally known, multi platinum album vocalist who has been hugely famous since he was a teenager for his perfect voice. He’s one of the best singers in the world, expecting anyone to sound like him in this is beyond ridiculous.
Posted: 4/22/23 at 7:14am
You guys had warned me but I was unprepared for how truly stupid the choreography was. I do not know what on earth they were thinking. It was bad bad. Jarring, pointless, anachronistic, distracting...just terrible.
I think Sondheim's genius is partly why this show is landing as much as it is. Take Groban out and put a stronger actor in, and it would do just as well, maybe better.
Posted: 4/22/23 at 8:50am
"Take Groban out and put a stronger actor in, and it would do just as well, maybe better."
Well, having seen Groban's understudy who I think IS a better actor, I still think it works better with Groban's voice. The only way I can see Groban being one-upped in the role might be if someone like Raul Esparza or Mandy Patinkin (even a couple decades too old now) have a go.
Posted: 4/22/23 at 9:37am
I've wondered when we might get a Raul as Sweeney. It just seems too perfect. Well, except it's a baritone role and Raul is a rock bari-tenor. But still! He would kill it.
Posted: 4/22/23 at 6:25pm
Ooohhh...Mandy is a fantastic option!
But if he left a high-paying TV show because it was all about murder, I doubt he'd have done Sweeney.
Dangit, now why did you put that into my head? I can't stop picturing how perfect he would be!
Who is Groban's understudy and how did he sound? Was he scary at least?
Posted: 4/22/23 at 6:35pm
I just don't see Mandy playing Sweeney. Ever.
Posted: 4/22/23 at 6:38pm
Listener said: "Who is Groban's understudy and how did he sound? Was he scary at least?"
Groban’s standby is Nicholas Christopher, who normally plays Pirelli. Judging from an audio I stumbled upon online of his Sweeney, he sounds quite solid.
The Sweeney understudy, Timothy Hughes (the tall guy in the OBC Hadestown ensemble), has not gone on yet.
Posted: 4/22/23 at 9:26pm
I didnt mind the choreo at all, at times I really enjoyed it .
Posted: 4/22/23 at 10:23pm
dramamama611 said: "I didnt mind the choreo at all, at times I really enjoyed it ."
I liked it in the opening, a lot. Then for the balance of the show I found it intrusive and too 'on the nose.'
Posted: 4/23/23 at 1:00am
I thought the choreography was terrible as well. Then I saw that he choreographed Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, so it made sense.
I was anticipating the opening Ballad to be scary and thrilling. Once the ensemble started with the arm movements, it completely took me out of it. Truly some stupid, bizarre, half-baked interpretive movements that doesn't belong in this production.
Posted: 4/23/23 at 5:06am
I guess thats what I liked about it...it was weird, and not "normal". I thought it added to the mood. (Alhough there were a few times I thought it made no sense.)
