I'll address your criticisms as best I can:
"All of the delicious black humor seems to have been sucked out"
I really disagree on this point. I find this production to be even more deliciously dark and funny. You didn't find Lupone and Cerveris' "A Little Priest" funny? Not even a little bit? I find that so surprising!! Could you give some specific examples of why you feel this way about the show? Maybe, specific contrasts with previous productions?
"many of the directorial decisions seem to be based more on goth-kid pretension than actually serving the story"
That's a good point, I think. Many of what's on display HAS more to do with achieveing a certain aesthetic sensibility, than to actually contribute to the story. However, I DO feel that the so-called "goth", or german expressionistic elements of this production DO serve to enhance the play's various themes of darkness, revenge, and the dark human condition. In any case, I certainly understand how it can seem pretentious (and I agree, to a point)
"The wandering metaphor of the coffin stikes me as silly, just an excuse to have a baby coffin onstage and shock people."
You're not alone on this one. Even the New York Times' lavish praise of the show mentioned that the white coffin was distracting. I agree to a point; I think the metaphor's a little heavy handed, and at times, it's too visually distracting. But I DO really like the idea of using a small white coffin to represent the infamous barber chair. It fits in with the aesthetic feel of the show, and nicely compliments the other coffin onstage.
"Having Pirelli played by a woman is a bold choice, so it should serve a bold purpose, but no one, including Ms. Champlin in a recent interview, seems to have a clue what purpose that is."
I disagree on this point. I really enjoy the gender reversal. I talked about my interpretation of the Pirelli as a woman choice on a different thread (and most people disagreed with me), but I'll summon it up here: In the traditional representations of the musical, Pirelli drops his fake Italian accent, and adopts his natural Irish tone. There's a comedic effect to this. However, in this production, once Pirelli unmasks, Donna Lynn uses her natural, feminine voice. There's something very seductive about the way she delivers her line after Pirelli has dropped the facade. To me, it suggests some sort of sexual past between she and Mr Todd- a sort of gender/sexual power struggle, if you will. Thus, Pirelli's "blackmailing" of Todd achieves a new level. It's not just malice and greed for its own sake, but strongly suggests revenge, and role reversal (which is even more pronounced given the gender reversal at play). It also suggests the notion that Todd is not simply a wronged man, a victim, looking for revenge. He has also been a victimizer in his past, even before he became a murderer. Also, I like the idea of the ward being a woman, given the different representations of "motherhood" and maternal issues in the play.
"From a practical standpoint, some of the direction made things confusing. The group I saw it with was not at all familiar with the plot, and there were scenes (The Contest, City On Fire) where they had no idea what was happening."
I agree. I know many people who had never seen "Sweeney Todd" before, and were able to understand everything with no problem. But there is some narrative cohesion that's lost in this production. It definitely works better for people who are familiar with the show. But I have no problem with this: How many Shakespearean plays have been done in conceptual ways that require a previous knowledge of the text in order to fully understand it? I think people who have never seen Sweeney Todd won't fully comprehend every element. But those who DO know the story are greatly rewarded.
"The primary thing that bothers me is thematic. In this production, Todd does not start out as a merely angry man who is gradually seduced into homicidal maniac. The second he comes on stage, it is clear he is already a madman. He physically assaults Lovett within moments of meeting her, and his pure joy in killing seems to be his motivation for slaughter from the start. As the show says regarding revenge, everyone does it. If we can identify and sympathize with Todd at the start, then watch him sink into the extremes that revenge can lead to, we are given a startling picture of out own natures. Now, with Todd a growling, charmless predator from the get go, "Sweeney Todd" regresses to what it started out as; a penny dreadful. "
I'm not sure how to respond, because I do see where you're coming from. I think in ANY version of "Sweeney Todd", there is the sense that Todd is in it more for the pleasure of killing, than of pure revenge. But I DO think Cerveris manages to portray his character in a sympathetic light. His Sweeney's a monster, yes. But he's also very vulnerable, very hurt, and very haunted. I don't see him as a growling, charmless predator at all. He's bitterly angry, yes. But like I stated, I DO see a lot of vulnerability. His facial expression when Anthony comes and tells him about Johanna, is simply heartbreaking. He's distraught. Cerveris plays Sweeney almost as a ghostly figure; he's had everything completely stripped away, and is completely hollow, and empty. He's almost like the living dead. Maybe it's just me, but I DO sympathize with his plight. And I think this production, more than any other, DOES show a startling picture of our dark human nature.
Updated On: 2/17/06 at 05:56 PM
I know this thread really helped clear a lot of questions I had after I saw the show...
