I think there's a certain amount of mugging that Mrs. Lovett should be expected to do; the interpretations of her I prefer (and that includes Thompson here as well as the incomparable Lansbury) are the battier, nuttier, more unhinged takes. The mugging is usually a strong counterpoint to Sweeney, who has a particularly extreme darkness to his humor and is unrelentingly bleak without her nuttiness. The audience needs her, but the story needs her too. She has, in my favorite interpretations, an element of the sad clown archetype. She's so twisted up in her loony business she's clownish, but it's rooted in a deep, all-consuming obsession. So for an actress to play her clownish is not a problem for me unless it's unmoored from her desperation.
This is why I don't think a diva like LuPone or Peters should play her. I thought Patti was dreadful in the Doyle revival, and watching Emma in this broadcast I realized that, in addition to all of what I've already said, I can never accept LuPone as anything but a diva: and Mrs. Lovett, in her "times is hard" rags and desperate lunacy, is far from a diva.
Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they're no good anymore…I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.
Updated On: 9/27/14 at 06:43 PM