Sweeney Todd-10/26/2005 — Page 2

Well...it depends. Star turns have been around for a very long time. And I do love me a star turn. Lovett is such a role (as Lupone showed us in the terrific concert production).

But for this particular production, the concept rules. And if the concept is 'These are inmates at an insane asylum acting out this story', then we have to believe that these could be a bunch of nutjobs working it out through Sweeney Todd. Or that these people are re-enacting what Toby went through. Or these are the people and the images going through Toby's head which have led to his insanity. But it's hard to make the leap because we are enthralled by Patti's tuba or Michael's signature bald head. I remember thinking, 'Who knew Mark Jacoby could play the trumpet!' It pulled me out of the story. Had it been a complete cast of unknowns, I would have been able to go with it much more. I still would have had problems with some of the staging, but I would have been far less distracted by the stars playing instruments.

Concepts, particularly with well-known, well-loved shows are VERY tricky. The reasons CABARET and CHICAGO work so well in their most recent incarnations is because there is an element of show-biz in both, and that they are both concept musicals to begin with. SWEENEY TODD is not. So imposing a concept on it must be done with care. If you're going to do a radical rethinking, then every single moment must be rethought. I felt that it was really only halfway to what it could have been.

---

I just dont see this as a concept. I was not distracted by things onstage and I was riveted to the story. Actually I was distracted by Nettie's hair...I thought it was too long and annoying for LuPone.

Maybe I am dense, but I just had no problem with the instrument playing onstage and the cast as stagehands. It was so well done/directed, it never played an extra part in the piece for me. Once, the clairinet squeaked and I thought about the beggar woman during a scene she wasnt in, and at intermission I wondered who and looked for the keyboardist's name and realized it was Felciano, Gemignani and Champlin sharing this. That is when I went wow...what talent!

That said, I knew alot going in about this production. I may have been much more distracted if I wasnt fully expecting the leading lady to walk out with a tuba. I was able to just let everything happen.

---

It actually felt the same to me as Richard III as a nazi or Hamlet in modern dress, etc.
I thought the performers made the instruments quite organic and Doyle kept the focus where it needed to be.

---

It does kinda sound horrible...but something I would eat with a spoon! I think that is the reason there is such a divide on this production. It's alot more to do with what we bring to a show than what they do onstage.

---

fair enough...that was an overstatement on my part, but I think you know what I mean.

I actually do prefer Sweeney as a true period piece as was originally staged (Betsy Joslyn and all!) but find this new take amazing and, really, just a different Sweeney.

---

i saw the production this past wednesday, and i gotta say this production is textbook "concept." those who are decrying the use of "concept" to criticize this show need to read up a little on dramatic theory.

in theory i liked the idea. when i heard about it i was very excited to see it. ultimately, though, the thing just doesn't work. first off is the insane asylum conceit. why? how does this inform the story? by that, i mean the story of the show, not the story of sweeney todd. i don't see any connection. i don't see any reason. there are several unanswered questions, though. is it all in toby's head? i dunno. and that is a problem for me.

second, i don't see how someone who does not know the play can help but be confused by this production. i actually heard a snippet of conversation that ended with "... well, yes, but you know the story. i didn't get it."

most importantly, though, the production fails for me because it is far too intimate for the space, it's too remote. rarely - wait, make that never - have i wished a broadway production should be *louder*, but this one should be. this is overwhelming music. i imagine if this were in a small house. maybe cherry lane, or nytw, (or maybe if you watched it at ripley-grier during rehearsals) then the production would be more thrilling. i imagine when sweeney is asking "you sir! you sir! how about a shave?" it would be far creepier if he could actually reach us. we would be more in the play, in the story rather than watching from arms length. i imagine that the original production was this way, in some small theatre in london.

still, glad i saw it. there was much about it that i liked. i wish it worked better.

. . . but I always felt it would work better if it was less literal. making the story take place in Toby's mind makes it less literal. It becomes about the themes, the emotions, the trials of these characters... not about the time period, the setting, the specific circumstances.

so this story takes place in toby's head? did you read that somewhere, some program note i missed? is there something indicative of that, other than toby beginning and ending the piece? i don't disagree that that might have been the idea, but it should be clearer. not spoon fed to us, just clearer. since everyone was onstage (except todd) when the show began, and the "doctor" was accompanying him on her accordion, the idea that it come solely out of his brain is lost to me, and i think supposition on your part.

It strips away the social themes in order to focus on the human themes.

i have never seen a production of sweeney other than this one, but i have listened to the score and read the libretto. as far as i am concerned, there are only human themes here: love, revenge, lust, avarice, power, loss.

This concept also creates a flawed narrative. Do we trust Toby's mind? His memory? Did this really happen or is this just his crazed imagination? We really don't know. This ambiguity allows us to draw our own conclusions. It also, again, makes the story much less literal.

there's ambiguity, and then there's muddled and confused. to my taste, if a concept is going to be superimposed over an existing story, then it better be air tight. this one is not.

I definitely see your point about people having a hard time following the story. This is a complex plot and with the minimalist staging, you really have to listen to every word. That is just the expectation that this production places on the audience.

well a) if you expect the audience to hang on every word (and frankly, why wouldn't you expect that in any show) then the audience had better be able to understand every word, and from my seat - not too far from the sound guy, actually - i had a difficult time hearing the text, especially when the two lovers were singing together. b) yes it's a complex story and yes, it's ok to require your audience to be attentive and use their imaginations, but the theatre exists to tell stories. it's not too much to ask that the story be clear. the instances where the story was not clear were where the concept falls flat.

here's an example of when the concept worked to tell the story: beadle and turpin are upstage of the main action, discussing joanna. they are drinking (out of blood red goblets, nice touch) and they each have their trumpets. they sing, and then lay back in their chairs, and accompany the main action. the fact that they play the same instruments, as do anthony and johanna, adds to the story. although, it does occur to me know that i'd rather not be thinking "nice use of the concept" while i'm watching a show.

here's a part of the concept that doesn't add to the story: there's much mention made of how the deaths are handled. and while the first time the buckets were poured and the coat was put on it i thought "oh, neat," the concept dragged the production down in the end. as the bodies start piling up in the second act we have to stop the show while blood pours and someone puts their bloody coat on. the action should get faster, the killing feel more desperate, more out of control but wait . . . *whistle* . . . *poooooouuuuuuuurrrrr* . . . *put on coat* . . . and we're back. this is not adding to story. here's another: why the hell is ms. lovett shaking her ass while she marches around with her tuba?

I don't disagree that the show might have been even better in a smaller theater, but this show deserves to be on Broadway and deserves to be seen by a Broadway audience. The size didn't bother me.

pardon me for saying, but in a word, that's crap. "deserves to be seen by a broadway audience?" what do "broadway audiences" know that the rest of the theatre going public doesn't know? if this were an amazing off-broadway production in an appropriately sized space, and patti lupone was in it, you bet your ass people would go and they would get the harrowing experience this show has the potential to deliver.

do you seriously think that broadway represents the best that american theatre has to offer? i wish it did, considering one has to take out a loan to see a broadway play. when i think of the five best plays i have ever seen, maybe one was on broadway. when i think of the five most boring plays i have ever seen, most of them were on broadway. broadway is about one thing nowadays, my friend: money.

EDIT: Wanted to quote a piece of Ben Brantley's review that sums up the way I feel:

"Mr. Doyle has taken a page from Peter Brook's staging of Peter Weiss's "Marat/Sade," in which residents of a mental institution act out the terrors of the French Revolution. But to call this production "Marat/Todd" suggests a literal-mindedness that Mr. Doyle avoids. He draws on classic imagery of madhouses and body snatchers to create a more ambiguous world of lost and battered souls, united for a couple of hours in a ritualistic depiction of a perversely satisfying tall story. Empty-eyed and defeated-looking in their German Expressionist makeup and thrift-shop clothes, they nonetheless vibrate with the energetic anger of folks done wrong."

all due respect, but i'm pretty sure mr. brantley was sitting in excellent seats fairly close to the stage. i would bet if i had sat next to him, i'd have liked it more. i also bet if he had been sitting next to me, near the sound guy, he'd have liked it less.

i am not saying this was a bad show. it wasn't. i liked it, for the most part. i thought it was interesting and challenging. i just don't think, when the final curtain fell, the show worked. i'll give it this: it's trying to do something different.