#1
Posted: 10/27/04 at 12:52am
Just curious again...what does everyone think about doing "Sweeney Todd" present-day?!
#2
Posted: 10/27/04 at 12:55am
I would've killed to have seen the production with BSM and Christine Baranski.
A revival is past due.
A revival is past due.
"One no longer loves one's insight enough once one communicates it."
The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.
The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.
#3
Posted: 10/27/04 at 1:07am
"what does everyone think about doing "Sweeney Todd" present-day?!"
Why bother? I don't think it's a good idea.
Why bother? I don't think it's a good idea.
"Smart! And into all those exotic mystiques -- The Kama Sutra and Chinese techniques. I hear she knows more than seventy-five. Call me tomorrow if you're still alive!"
#4
Posted: 10/27/04 at 1:09am
NYU just did it. I missed it but it's Sondheim so I would'nt have liked it anyway.
#5
Posted: 10/27/04 at 1:31am
The D.C. production with BSM and C. Baranski must have been awesome! I wish for a Broadway production with those actors!
#6
Posted: 10/27/04 at 7:57am
I saw the NYU production. They didn't modernize it, but let's just say... I have never before thought of Sweeny Todd as an ensemble show, but that's what I thought of this cast. The ensemble was great--the leads were all miscast. But I don't know if any of them are on this board, I'm not gonna say any more.
They basically replicated the original production's set which to me felt so stupid. Why try to be like an original professional production? No matter how much money you can spend on sets and costumes, this is still a college production and you have college kids performing the roles, no matter how great they are in CAP. (parallel sentance structure, cool) If you're going to revive a show, you don't want to make a clone of the original, you want a reincarnation of it--and this production tried quite hard to be a clone. Boring. We've seen that done and we've seen it done with some of the finest actors on Broadway.
They basically replicated the original production's set which to me felt so stupid. Why try to be like an original professional production? No matter how much money you can spend on sets and costumes, this is still a college production and you have college kids performing the roles, no matter how great they are in CAP. (parallel sentance structure, cool) If you're going to revive a show, you don't want to make a clone of the original, you want a reincarnation of it--and this production tried quite hard to be a clone. Boring. We've seen that done and we've seen it done with some of the finest actors on Broadway.
#7
Posted: 10/27/04 at 9:29am
If you're talking about modernizing it, I think it'd be a great idea to try. Why not? I've never seen it done, but I think it'd be fun and interesting. Just don't try to take the Brit out of it... that's where productions of Sweeny go wrong...
#8
Posted: 10/27/04 at 9:37am
It's possible it could work, but there are too many period references that would be difficult to deal with. It would have to be a very stylized, almost camp, production that resembles something like Serial Mom, Psycho Beach Party, or Edward Scissorhands. After all, hardly anyone gets a shave from a barber any more. And when I was in London, I never once saw a meat pie shop.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#9
Posted: 10/27/04 at 9:40am
Yeah... that's very very true... okay, so dealing with the historical references could be a problem. I still don't think that that's a really huge reason not to modernize it... Get yourself a really good dramaturg :-P
#10
Posted: 10/27/04 at 10:00am
I wouldn't. As I wrote in the other thread, this is a Grand Guignol piece, and half the fun is treating it as such: big ol' mid 19th century melodrama with blood everywhere and incredible music. Modernizing it would be putting a layer of meaning on it that it neither needs nor supports.
"That duck was a sexual toy, and it was on display!" -- an unknown Nashville town leader
#11
Posted: 10/27/04 at 10:40am
Sean martin hit the nail on the head- listen to the voices, the music, the references, and you'll see that this is very much an Industrial Revolution-era period piece. I always found that Sweeney Todd gets pulled between being an all-out Grand Guignol piece of horror theater and a piece of social commentary on tyranny, injustice etc. I like the former influence better than the second, which sometimes feels forced. So I think that removing the historical references and trying to move it to some other oppressive time in history (or the present) moves it too far towards the "social commentary" end of the scale and too far from its fun Grand Guignol origins, which I'm pretty sure were Sondheim's reasons for taking on the piece in the first place. (Though not Harold Prince's, but that's another story...)
And in all seriousness, why mess with something so wonderful? I really don't see any need to impose some other artistic viewpoint over the original one, which hasn't grown the least bit stale or overdone. What's the compelling motivation for setting this story in the present day? Don't just do it because you want to see how it turns out, or because you can.
And in all seriousness, why mess with something so wonderful? I really don't see any need to impose some other artistic viewpoint over the original one, which hasn't grown the least bit stale or overdone. What's the compelling motivation for setting this story in the present day? Don't just do it because you want to see how it turns out, or because you can.
Updated On: 10/27/04 at 10:40 AM
#12
Posted: 10/27/04 at 5:44pm
The only reason why I asked was because they did it that way in London. I saw an ad, and it looked interesting. Johanna did NOT have blonde hair, Mrs. Lovett was in leather pants with a top hat, and Sweeney in a shirt and tie. And yes, it was a professional theater company doing it.
#13
Posted: 10/27/04 at 5:47pm
As universal as a lot of the themes of Sweeney are, it's still a period piece at heart and I don't think that it should be modernized. If it ain't broke, don't fix it....and Sweeney sure as heck ain't broke.
#14
Posted: 10/27/04 at 5:49pm
Sweeney would kill everybody by throwing Politically Correcting them to death!
BSoBW2: I punched Sondheim in the face after I saw Wicked and said, "Why couldn't you write like that!?"
#15
Posted: 10/27/04 at 6:25pm
And Judge Turpin would meet Johanna in a chat room.
Ah, the possibilities...
Ah, the possibilities...
#16
Posted: 10/27/04 at 6:26pm
Slaton, would Judge Turpin be played by R Kelly?
#17
Posted: 10/27/04 at 6:32pm
I have to agree with Mister Matt, et al--it probably wouldn't work. HOWEVER, you could try the Peter Brook style of directing, which is to make it "periodless," or "timeless," or "universal," or whatever word you want to use. Have it be kind of a blend.
This would be tricky though, and as another user posted, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
This would be tricky though, and as another user posted, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
#18
Posted: 10/27/04 at 6:32pm
No, but R. Kelly could play Anthony, and bring Sweeney (or, as he would be called, Swi-zeeny) back from prison.
Epiphany would end with, "SWI-ZEENY in the HIZZ-OUSE...!"
Epiphany would end with, "SWI-ZEENY in the HIZZ-OUSE...!"
#19
Posted: 10/27/04 at 6:57pm
That is such a scary thought Gov. No, I don't think that a "modern" production would be a good idea. The plot just centers on period-specific ideas, and to try to change those would result in loosing key qualities many fan enjoy in the musical.
By the way, I saw the DC version and it was amazing. BSM was perfect, he really gave me shivers in Epiphany.
By the way, I saw the DC version and it was amazing. BSM was perfect, he really gave me shivers in Epiphany.
Keep the peace, take care of each other, and may you find your promised land.
-TJST
#20
Posted: 10/28/04 at 10:01am
Update? No. As has been written, this is definitely a period piece. Also Mister Sondheim and the estate of Mister Wheeler might have something to say about any period references changed.
Directing it in the Peter Brook-timeless period that was referred to might work dramatically.
In both cases, the question begs, why?
Directing it in the Peter Brook-timeless period that was referred to might work dramatically.
In both cases, the question begs, why?
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true. And that would be unacceptable."
--Carrie Fisher
#21
Posted: 10/28/04 at 11:07am
>> In both cases, the question begs, why?
Well, first off: it's cheap. Coastuming is easy, because you tell your cast to wear whatever they wore to school that day.
Then the director can bask in the glow of his "successful handling of difficult material by placing it in a time that the students will associate with", or some other nonsense.
Well, first off: it's cheap. Coastuming is easy, because you tell your cast to wear whatever they wore to school that day.
Then the director can bask in the glow of his "successful handling of difficult material by placing it in a time that the students will associate with", or some other nonsense.
"That duck was a sexual toy, and it was on display!" -- an unknown Nashville town leader
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95