Sweeney Todd - Reviews from those of us who have seen it- Page 3

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 11:10am

"Emma Thompson is the first sexual Mrs. Lovett that I've seen."

Thank you, Gotham (I felt the same way Friday night that you did on Sat.)! This is exactly how I feel about her performance and it's been odd to me that no one else seems to be expressing it. For me hers is not only a sexual Mrs. Lovett, but a very sexy one. I've loved her for decades, her vulnerability and intelligence consistently astonish me. But I have never really thought of her as sexy. I have never seen her bring anything even approaching this kind of unabashed joy and heat to her work on screen. She seemed to be having the time of her life playing Lovett and watching her was infectious.

This is one of the sexiest, most playful, most erotically inspired performances I have ever seen. On top of which, she not only played Nellie hot, she looks fantastic and moved beautifully.

May I ask where you were sitting? Because not having heard the same kind of response from others, I wonder if it was a product of my having sat very close to the stage with the energy reading differently back into the house and not having the same impact?
Updated On: 3/9/14 at 11:10 AM

[Melissa25]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 11:20am

Thrilling indeed.
What an opening! I still see that raised hand holding the piano leg.

I attended the Saturday matinee performance. Initially it felt a little odd since we had Spring-like weather on Saturday afternoon compared to what we've been having. This sort of added to my excitement as I crossed Central Park on my way to Avery Fisher. I knew that for the next few hours as the sun was shining and West Siders finished their brunches, I'd be inside, in the dark with the Demon Barber. It reminded me of so many Saturday-afternoon escapes to the movie theater as a kid.

I chuckled out loud as I passed the guy qolbinau photographed for the "Who's Playing the Beggar Woman" thread. There he was again in front of Avery Fisher with his "I Need One Ticket" sign and his Jerry Lee Lewis-likeness.

I agree with what everyone has said about the performances. Bryn and Emma were brilliant.
I saw Jay Armstrong Johnson in "Hands on a Hardbody" and really loved his rendition of Johanna. I can't wait to see more of him on Broadway. I was seated Orchestra Right and I had a hard time hearing "Green Finch and Linnet Bird." Very disappointed about that. I also had trouble understanding the Beggar woman. So I am so happy that we get to see the recorded version of this later.

After the show, it was so much fun seeing all the members of the Philharmonic with their instruments and in street clothes crossing Broadway in the sun. Such a nice contrast. What an exciting memorable experience!

Just can't wait to see this again and with Audra!

[promisespromises2]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 11:25am

Emma did seem like she was having the time of her life!! And for me, I was in the second tier, but for me Emma seemed sexual because of all the touching on Terfel. She was extremely expressive.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 11:34am

Addy--this thread gets better and better. Now we have promisespromises2 (age 23) and your mom (age 23 + a year or two) having peak theatergoing experiences. For the younger one, the evening strengthened a love for the material that had progressed from the movie to the concert DVD to the OBCR. And for the older one, an initial dislike foir the material turned to respect and admiration.

I remember many people disliking the original production. The Brechtian staging, the environmental set, the celebration of murder and some loud sounds from the orchestra made it a challenging experience. And Sondheim's previous musical had been Pacific Overtures, which had also disappointed many theatergoers, which is why, when Frank Rich wrote his infamous bad review of Merrily We Roll Along, he wrote, "As we all should probably have learned by now, to be a Stephen Sondheim fan is to have one's heart broken at regular intervals."

So your mother has proven now that to be a Sondheim fan is to fall in love again, no matter what age.

And this thread also has Gothampc and several of us who have sparred over political differences uniting not only in our enjoyment, but also in our ability to share observations of and insights into details we might have missed.

But my favorite post of all is CoreyRyan3, who stood outside and heard the orchestra through the wall of the theater. CoreyRyan--if you don't know Pacific Overtures, you must! Because that night, outside Avery Fisher Hall, you were "Someone in a Tree":

http://youtu.be/cx6hhy2Dwzw

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 11:52am

Pal Joey here's a couple of things that might add to your joy at this lovefest.

Fri. night after the show I along with a slew of other very happy people poured down into the train station. A saxophonist was playing Nothing's Gonna Harm You on the platform. Great moment.

I also had the good fortune of sitting just a few seats away from Barbara Cook. During intermission she struck up a conversation with her neighbors. She loved the performance. She had also been there Thursday night and decided to see it twice. "This is why I love living in New New York" she said. She couldn't have been more delightful.

I don't want to put words in the great lady's mouth but let me paraphrase as best I can. She expressed admiration and awe for everyone involved in the concert. In particular, she was blown away by Terfel's powerful Sweeney and by Armstrong Johnson's beautiful singing as Anthony. I mentioned to her that I loved Kyle Brenn's (Tobias) performance, her face lit up warmly in agreement. When I added that he is in the tenth grade at Norwalk High, her famous jaw dropped, she looked at me with those famous eyes, smiled her famous smile, and took a moment before reflecting in disbelief with a "WHAT?" I will cherish forever.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 11:52 AM

[darquegk]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 12:51pm

Terfel, in his Sweeney getup, looks eerily like Meat Loaf.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 1:06pm

"May I ask where you were sitting? Because not having heard the same kind of response from others, I wonder if it was a product of my having sat very close to the stage with the energy reading differently back into the house and not having the same impact?"

I was sitting in the orchestra level about 2/3 back from the stage. Your point of energy reading is a valid point. I've sat in huge theaters where the experience has been very different for people and sometimes we experience performances differently according to where we are sitting.

But let's examine why Emma's interpretation was so great. We've never seen a "human" Mrs. Lovett.

The original had Lansbury who played the role as dotty and borderline crazy. That's a valid take on the role and I think it was necessary to bring comic relief to such a grisly work. Had Lansbury played it differently it would have closed like Carrie.

Unfortunately the first revival nobody seems to remember other than it was a very scaled down production, no doubt helped by Forbidden Broadway's hilarious spoof using puppets instead of actors. Poor Beth Fowler's performance gets lost in the mist of time.

Coming into the Patti LuPone era, LuPone is very much like Ethel Merman, a trumpet performer but asexual. Of course LuPone was saddled with the instrument concept, so there wasn't room within the concept to be sexual. But even if there was, LuPone was a trumpet where audiences wanted to see a violin.

I haven't seen the movie version so I can't comment.

Enter Emma Thompson. Physically, Emma is a plain Jane. She isn't Vivien Leigh beautiful and she doesn't have the bone structure of Meryl Streep. And therein lies the beauty of her performance. Suddenly this Atlas of a man enters her life and she submits to him. She doesn't have to be Lansbury kooky and she doesn't have to be LuPone bulldozer. She has the room to play the role as a woman with physical needs who is willing to go along with Todd's plan because she craves his attention. Emma brought a real truth to the character without losing the comic tics that are needed to keep the show from being a bloody mess. The brilliance of this performance is she made Mrs. Lovett a woman.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 01:06 PM

[Addison D.]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 1:18pm

It was quite a week Chez Addison-—in addition to this magnificent ‘Sweeney Todd’, I also saw the current production of ‘A Doll’s House’ at BAM.

What—beyond the accident of scheduling—do these two shows have to do with each other? How do they inform one another? How do I process so much emotional and artistic whallop???

One could argue that both tell the stories of two pairs of lovers—one that ends well (Anthony/Johanna & Kristine/Krogstad) and one that ends…less well…Sweeney/Mrs. Lovett & Torvald/Nora).

Both stories are set in motion by the arrival of someone from the past (Sweeney & Kristine). Both shows use blackmail as a deus ex machinae—Pirelli against Sweeney, Krogstad against Nora—and both shows are—at least in part—meditations on Hypocrisy and what happens when Love twists into something dark. Both shows employ the metaphor of a Woman as a captive bird.

Yes, well. Those are all true, but there are only so many plots, so many metaphors.

On another thread here, I was reminded of ‘A Doll’s Life’—a musical sequel to ‘A Doll’s House’, which seems, on the surface, such a mis-guided idea. Could ‘Sweeney Todd’ be that musical sequel? Could Nora Helmer end up—poor, desperate and a little (a lot) mad-—making meat pies on Fleet Street? “Eminently practical and yet appropriate, as always” surely describes Nora.

‘Sweeney Todd’ is so dark and so much larger than life, while ‘A Doll’s House’ is so domestic and, well, miniaturized. But audiences in 1879 were confronted with a woman willing to leave her children in order to find herself—surely as unspeakable an act of violence in their world-view as anything done by Sweeney Todd, 100 years later.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 01:18 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 1:21pm

With all of the praise for Thompson, I wonder if there's interest In building a full scale revival around her?

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 01:21 PM

[Brick]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 1:21pm

"Coming into the Patti LuPone era, LuPone is very much like Ethel Merman, a trumpet performer but asexual. Of course LuPone was saddled with the instrument concept, so there wasn't room within the concept to be sexual. But even if there was, LuPone was a trumpet where audiences wanted to see a violin. "

I disagree, wholeheartedly. Not to take a single thing away from Thompson, but I did find LuPone's Lovett to be VERY sexual. I remember the moment when Lovett recognizes Sweeney, and Cerveris' Sweeney attacked her. After a vocal cry when he released her, she fell away, and turned back to him, gently sliding the hair from her eyes, as she said, "Oh you poor poor thing". From that moment, I thought, "Wow, I have never seen that before! This is a Lovett who likes his danger, even gets off on it."

Brantley even described her the girl in a B-Movie Sci Fi film, in love with a killer.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 01:21 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 1:44pm

"With all of the praise for Thompson, I wonder if there's interest In building a full scale revival around her?"

I think it depends on what she wants to do with her career. Does she want to take a year off from making movies to do Broadway?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 1:55pm

"From that moment, I thought, "Wow, I have never seen that before! This is a Lovett who likes his danger, even gets off on it."

LuPone played Mrs. Lovett as Evita, in it for the power trip.

Thompson played Mrs. Lovett as a Jane Austen character. Craving for the love affair of a man who could take her away from her present circumstances.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 3:29pm

We disagree--fundamentally--about LuPone the way we disagree fundamentally about politics, but I am appreciative of your passion for the show as expressed in this thread.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 3:57pm

I also have to wholeheartedly disagree with those who are saying Patti LuPone's Mrs. Lovett wasn't sexual. Whether you personally find her sexy or not is a whole other matter, but her interpretation of the role was extremely sexual. Her desire for Michael Cerveris's Sweeney was palpable in pretty much every moment.

I'm still thinking about Emma Thompson's performance. I think the thing I loved the most about it was how intelligent she seemed. This wasn't a Mrs. Lovett whose madness allowed her to be swept up in Sweeney's plan, nor was this a Lovett whose love for Sweeney drove her mad. She was just so calculating, and in every moment you could see the wheels turning in her head. You knew immediately that she knew exactly who Sweeney was the moment he walked into her shop, and that was when the plan started forming. She is the most human and also the most evil Mrs. Lovett I've seen, because it's so obvious that she knows exactly what she's doing and that she's the one pulling the strings, and the end comes for her when she loses control and he discovers that she's been lying. I would love to see Emma Thompson do this role in a full production...I can't imagine how her performance could get any better, but I'm sure it would with a fuller rehearsal period.

And NYadgal, I brought my mom with me too. I'm so glad your mom loved the show. Mine sort of discovered Sondheim along with me when I was a teenager...she was around for the original productions of a lot of his shows, but didn't see most of them for whatever reason. Sweeney was one that she had been aware of but had refused to see because of the subject matter, but she went to see the Doyle revival with me and fell almost as much in love with it as I did. Getting to share this concert with her was so special.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 4:08pm

Pal Joey, I love reading your opinions on the original staging and reactions, so this is not meant to come across as antagonistic, but...

"I remember many people disliking the original production. The Brechtian staging, the environmental set, the celebration of murder and some loud sounds from the orchestra made it a challenging experience."

What exactly was Brechtian about Prince's staging?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 4:36pm

There was a brief moment on Saturday night where Christian Borle's mike went dead. So that bit will have to be spliced in from one of the other performances.

[darquegk]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 4:44pm

The original staging wasn't EXTREMELY Brechtian other than the constant fourth-wall breaking of the ensemble Ballad Singers. Rather, the staging EVOKED Brecht through its explicit Marxist overtones, the opening infographic about distribution of wealth and power among social classes, and extremely dingy and destitute chorus of "The Poor."

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 4:48pm

I was unaware of the opening info graphic. Interesting. Is that in the tour video and I've just forgotten?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 4:56pm

Wasn't that opening infographic on the front "curtain" that gets pulled down or am I thinking of another show?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 4:58pm

Yes, I believe the tour video even closes up on parts of that opening "curtain" in its credits?

Darque--thanks for your post and I agree with you. The thing is, though, while it evokes similar questions or themes as some Brecht it doesn't *whatsoever* (aside from, as you say, some fourth wall breaking) evoke ANY of his ideas about epic theatre. I think to refer to Prince's staging as Brechtian--unless I'm missing something--fails to understand Brecht at all. I suppose it's common though--the way I know Sondheim has commented against people calling Company Brechtian.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 4:59pm

Gotham--it was and you're not

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 5:10pm

Maybe someone can give us a definition of what Brechtian staging is?

And in the recent version, every time someone was killed and that red handprint was projected, what genre would that fall under, if any?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 5:29pm

I don't have the authority to give a definition but this Wiki sums up pretty much what I personally think of when something is called Brechtian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_theatre

To sum up, it is a distancing effect to cause audiences to not get too involved or wrapped up in the characters and their plight--or emotionally invested, but rather to be aware of the message being presented and to immediately see that in the greater sense of the individual audience member's own world.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 5:32pm

(And I feel like I should say that IMHO Brecht himself often failed at his own goal in terms of this aspect...)

[darquegk]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 5:50pm

The biggest example of Epic Theatre to hit the mainstream for a while has been (and it's a stretch, because pure Epic theatre is almost impossible) the broadway production of "Urinetown." Constant breaking of the fourth wall by narrator figures describing the action that is about to occur, signs and graphics that stand in for action and location, intentionally stilted dialogue among certain characters who stand for ideals and are not three-dimensional, and shoutouts to the fact that it is a musical. Plus, the final "Hail Malthus" is a pretty Brechtian moment- calling in a philosopher whose works impact the show and who the audience should educate themselves about.