Sweeney Todd Movie Review Thread — Page 2

No movie gets cross the board raves, and there are a couple of major reviews that have been filed for publication next week that aren't as favorable as these early ones, but its exciting that SWEENEY TODD is striking a chord and has the potential to find a wide audience! Whether or not the film is an Awards contender, I think, will really depend on its box office and its ability to become a "pop culture" phenom.

I personally don't really think its going to be a major contender for Best Picture at the Oscars (and as others have said, it hardly matters). I do think it will get a lot of nominations particularly in the tech catagories and I think Depp will be a real favorite for Best Actor. The man deserves an Oscar and has made many an executive filthy rich. This could definitely be his year!

Making executives rich got Helen Hunt her oscar, no?

---

"The fact that some people think John Doyle's production was the way Sweeney has always been staged isn't John Doyle's fault."

Dial it down, Reactionary Rhoda!

My problem is, of course, with the reviewer...not Doyle.

---

To the dude who said that films don't get great review across the board. I have to disagree, there were a couple films this year that got great reviews across the board. Away from Her and No Country for Old Man, pretty much got tremendous reviews from everyone.

I'm thinking there are very few people for whom Doyle's version is the be and all. Sweeney Todd was there before he ever laid hands on it and it will go down as a peculiar footnote in the history of the show people with special interests--there is, after all, a video document of the original production (almost) and apparently a very fine movie adaptation almost available.

I think Crash was a made to order Oscar movie. Sweeney Todd has potential to either be a snob hit or pick up a cult following, hopefully both. Add to that the fact the cast and that there aren't a whole lot of other high profile contenders (although Atonement looks awesome). I think it has every chance of at least being nominated, blood be damned. No Country for Old Men is gratuitous as well.

I think the real thing it has going against it is that it's a musical. After Dreamgirls I'm starting to feel as though musicals get nominated just for being made relatively well rather than for the actual quality of the material. I must not be the only person who felt that way.

---

The original taping of Sweeney has only been readily available for what, three years now? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it was the easiest VHS to aquire before it was recently released on DVD. I know I never saw it until it came out on DVD.

I don't think that would have worked as an initial interpretation at all. It would have been bewildering. The action was disengaged from what was being said. An original production of this nature would have been mostly useless.

The powerful drama of Sweeney Todd is what brings it to life. The internal logic of Doyle's production relies on redirecting the original energy and drama to try to cast the material in a new light. One thing has to mutate from something else, you can't begin with the mutation.

---

Doyle said something about how the original production was the right way for those people at that time to tell the story. And I agree. But I do think that Marat/Sade-esque (I know he wasn't aware of the Brook Marat/Sade, but that's not the point) interpretation could have been the way the story was told originally. I'm not talking about the instruments, because really, at the end of the day, that is NOT what Doyle's approach is about. It's just not. I'm saying that I think the original telling of the story could, in theory, have been very overtly taking place in an asylum, etc. That's an interpretation that could, in my opinion, come straight from the text -- it doesn't require something more traditionally musical theater coming before it. The internal logic of Doyle's direction relies on getting back to the basics and to the story before it does to redirecting what came before; if that means stripping down elements of previous incarnations, then so be it -- but he's done new work, too, and approached it with the same intention.

Anyway, I don't think the fact that the DVD hasn't been available for very long and that before that the VHS was scarce really excuses people who assert knowledgeability thinking that the Doyle production was how it's always been. If it is in fact only three years old, it had been readily available for what, a year, when the revival opened in New York? I mean, it's possible that people could think that if the revival was their first exposure to Sweeney Todd, but... is it so much to ask that people -- theater people especially -- pay attention to what they're saying and demonstrate just a tiny bit of awareness? I know it's nitpicky, but I think it's just irresponsible to be publishing opinions based on a completely false assumption, and since the DVD IS so readily available, there's no excuse for that.

---

I saw it tonight at a screening. Incredible! The darker it got, the more I loved it.
I'd *love* to see it at the Ziegfeld with the big, big screen and great sound. I'd go again tomorrow (or later this week to another screening) if I could, but I'll probably wait until it opens.

You have to keep in mind, though, that sometimes being as faithful as possible is not the way to go -- and that, I think, heavily depends on the show. People have been saying that the Sweeney movie is NOT just a film of the show. It is its own entity, an entirely different animal -- and to many of them, that is what makes it great. You must adapt, not just transfer. You do what's right for telling that story on film, as opposed to just transplanting it into another medium. And if that means making changes, then so be it.

---

Updated On: 12/5/07 at 01:13 AM

I must shamefully admit I've still never seen the Cabaret film in full. I've tried several times to watch parts of it, but... I guess I'm far, far too in love with the version I saw on stage. So that wasn't about Cabaret, it was just a general comment that faithfulness doesn't always denote success, and vice versa.

---

What is the story with the opening for this film?

In some places I'm seeing nationwide 12/21, others I am seeing limited 12/21 with nationwide 1/8.

Which is it?

---

Updated On: 12/5/07 at 08:00 AM

I think TomMonster (grar!) put it best. The original Sweeney Todd comes from a British penny dreadful, grand guignol theatrical tradition. It's supposed to pay homage to classic horror movies. For the show to have begun its life in that Marat/Sade style would be an entirely different show than what the authors set out to write.

Not to mention that Sweeney Todd is adapted from Christopher Bond's play. Also that in the time Sweeney Todd came out, it probably would have been sort of cliche and imitative to do it in the Marat/Sade style. Also puzzling to musical theater audiences of the era and maybe all around a bit pretentious.

Either way the movie looks awesome!

---

Isn't it opeing in NY & LA on 12/21 and then nationally Xmas Day?

And Emcee you need to see the film of CABARET. It works phenomenally well on its own terms. It is necessarily (and thankfully) different from the original Prince staging (which is brilliant in its own way, but wouldn't have made nearly as good a film). Even if you're used to and love the Mendes staging, it's remarkable how well this material adapts to so many different interpretations -- as the original Isherwood BERLIN STORIES, as the non-musical play and film I AM A CAMERA with Julie Harris, the Prince staging of the musical, the Mendes staging of the musical, the Fosse film of the musical -- all of which work terrifically well on one level or another.

---