The All-Sondheim Thread- Page 13

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 3:57pm

These restagings are really interesting to me.

For me, Doyle doesn't work. I admire his balls, mind you. But, he isn't revealing anything about the piece. He is not putting the piece first, he is putting art first. Which isn't an awful plan, but I just believe strongly that story should be before artistry (which should be before technicality). That is my belief as an actor and as a director.

Now, if we can restage something in a way that helps to comment on the show, then I admire it greatly. On face value, that makes me generally more interested in restagings of shows that didn't have the critical success of the ITW and SITPWG and Sweeney. I'd actually love to see what someone could do with Anyone Can Whistle, for instance. I think the book needs some major reworking, and if that could get done, i'd be very interested to see it.

But, for God's sake, please serve the text first.

[JonnyV]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:00pm

That's very interesting. I read an interview with Joss Whedon, and he said that while writing Buffy the Musical, he kept referring to Passions because it's his very favorite Sondheim Musical. I'm ashamed to say that I bought the box set of DVDs with the Sweeney concert version... and have watched all the films EXCEPT Passions (because the plot sounds so danged boring)... and I've owned the thing for a year (for shame, for shame)!

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:05pm

I believe a well done MWRA production could be great, even dare I say it "a hit."

For me personally the "Doyle Sweeney" does serve the story, it makes the entire experience intimate and surreal, enhancing the passions and demons. The instruments allow the characters, especially the underwritten roles, to "speak" in a new and distinct way.

To answer Lildogs question though, I am interested in both, looking for the freshest and most intimate manner in which the piece can "serve the text."

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:06pm

"I admire his balls,"


I bet you're not the only one...

[fiatlux]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:06pm

I do worry about the knee-jerk reaction there is to the reinterpretation of works. Since Prince's Sweeney did so badly in London - the original productions of Sondheim shows have tend to be quite different from the original Broadway incarnations - I relish seeing the different ideas that flow. My favourite was the difference between the Broadway and London productions of ITTW - both extremely valid, both very exciting and on different days I will prefer one to the other.

"He is not putting the piece first"

For me the story was placed centre and has been served well, without the clutter of unnecessary (and largely inaccurate) socio-political comment.


Updated On: 11/21/05 at 04:06 PM

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:18pm

I think it is Sondheims greatest strength that so many of his shows can be revised and given new direction that was previously unheard of. Although some consider it "gimmicky" I think that trying to do an Instrumentalist-Actor version of a show like Wicked wouldn't work with the show just because it isn't written to have that sort of level.

However, I think a show like Pippin might work marvelously if you incorporate Fosse, Instrumentalist-Actors and the fantastic score. It would be very balletic, I'd think.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:26pm

What is interesting is that people can be so easily lumped into groups. If one doesn't like this SWEENEY, then one must not like reimaginings or avant garde techniques.

Personally, I've spent a great deal of time doing very stylized theatre. I completely understand the inspiration that can come when you have a buck fifty to put on a show. It's thrilling...and terrifying. And, frankly, I don't mind some of that aesthetic coming to Broadway. But some of us felt that, though there were some striking stage pictures and an exceedingly talented cast, the whole didn't really work. Things were muddled and unclear. I think, for this piece, you do need to justify your cast as your orchestra, which could have been done easily (establish that you're in the mental hospital and all of the patients have been given instruments making terrible noise. Undo Toby, give him the violin and he begins to play and, creepily, the rest of the cast follows to perfection). Dispense with the final BALLAD OF SWEENEY TODD and leave us in that uncomfortable place of Toby being tied back up. Since there aren't any shocks because we know who's gonna get it ahead of time because of those lab coats and because the last scene is cut and Johanna doesn't reappear, go ahead and kill her. I would have been SHOCKED. And I still love my friend's idea that, after each killing, that person no longer plays an instrument and we're left with a thinner and thinner-sounding orchestra until just a cello accompanies at the very end.

Basically, though many find it daring for Broadway, I didn't find it daring enough.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:38pm

I didn't lump them (you, robbie) together, as I tried to make clear in my original post, knowing the reaction I'd get. And also as I said, I understand touchme and my ex's theory of "text first." But Passion isn't staged very well, and the lastest ITW was essentially a rehash of the Lapine version, with a less interesting cast. Doyle's version's strength is to me the very debate we're having right now--did the Prince version inspire such divisiveness? I wasn't there for the premiere, mostly because I was 5, but I can't imagine that it did. I think though since musical theatre ITSELF isn't a realistic form, that the suspension of disbelief can stretch a little further. I find it interesting that the musical punctuations in "The Worst Pies In London" don't have to be the killing of bugs or the kneading of dough--who says you have to have a literal barber chair? The Chicago revival doesn't occur in any time or place, yet I don't hear a chorus of disapproval over Reinking and Bobbie's concept. I think the actor-musician concept works great for Pippin, but that's no great leap either: the Fosse concept was one of traveling players telling a story, so it makes perfect and quite literal sense for them to play their own instruments. I suppose at the end of the day, to me, symbolism you immediately grasp isn't symbolism at all. But that's just me...

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:43pm

"I suppose at the end of the day, to me, symbolism you immediately grasp isn't symbolism at all. But that's just me... "

I guess that's my point exactly. I GOT everything he meant to say in this new restaging. In fact, I found it all distracting to the show. there were parts that I loved -- in fact, I preferred this subtler Lovett without all the isms that previous Lovett's have had. But, overall, the direction seemed self-conscious. That's the word: self-conscious. And, when art gets that way, for me...it is masturbating. Masturbation is fun, mind you. But, not as fun as some other things that people can do.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:47pm

Well, I didn't, touchme, and I think saying that it all takes place in Toby's mind is very obvious, but I don't think that's entirely what he meant to say--what did you think he meant? The direction is self-conscious, but so is musical theatre. I obviously have a different point of view on this one in particular. What did you think of the Woods revival?

Are you sure you're not Joel? You using the EXACT same phrases he did when he talked about the show.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:53pm

I didn't mean to say that you were lumping anyone, lildogs. In fact, yours is the first time I've encountered the question honestly being asked...which prompted my response.

Does the chair need to literally be a chair? No. I once died of AIDS standing up...I can go with something else being a chair. I just felt the use of the white coffin, which is fraught with metaphor and meaning, muddled its impact. Seemed like a cool idea, but didn't translate well in the execution.

CHICAGO, like many of the great K&E musicals, is a concept musical. SWEENEY isn't (though I'd be interested to hear arguments to the contrary). So when imposing a concept on a piece that doesn't have one built in, one must do it completely and with careful thought. That's where I thought this particular production of SWEENEY failed for me.

And I do agree with you about the debate this production has inspired. It's very healthy and good for our community. And I would never suggest to anyone not to see this production. It obviously inspires strong reactions in most who see it.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:54pm

Oh...and I wasn't a fan of the WOODS revival...though I thought the pacing of the second act was brilliant and what was needed in the original production.

[fiatlux]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 4:57pm

"So when imposing a concept on a piece that doesn't have one built in"

A concept is a unifying idea or theme. The unifying theme of Sweeney is obsession, according to SJS. I think that was pretty well served in the Doyle version.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 5:01pm

I agree with the assessment that Sweeney isn't a concept musical, though Prince might not...ha! I remember reading something (probably in the Zadan book) about him talking with the cast and told them to think of the Industrial Revolution, which is another tenuous association. I agree that Doyle's staging isn't the most "faithful"--is that the word I want to use?--to the source material, but I think it makes for a very interesting night in the theater, love it or hate it. It's a stretch as well, but I found it a very fascinating one and I was breathless for most of the evening.

The Woods revival I think was probably a better literary show in that the actors' personalities didn't add or detract to the piece, but I felt that a boatload of entertainment value was lost.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 5:04pm

I guess I like my musical theatre to not be self-conscious. I don't think all musical theatre needs to be that way. yes, people break into song, but that can be done without knowledge that what tey are doing is weird. I don't mind a little bit of self-consciousness, it just gets to bee too much sometimes.

The Toby's mind thing is the only coherent new thing he adds to the show. Everything else is thrown in for art's sake, and not for the story (i.e. he didn't "mean" anything by it, he just added it in). Even the basic premise of the Brechtian orchestra being added in does help encourage a trancing of the cast...which blurs their lines between one another and (again) doesn't add any cohesive statement to the story. I don't HATE it (I like to masturbate), but it just wasn't as good as other revivals have been. The problem is that his ideas started with "let's change this a bit" instead of "this part of the story hasn't been told".

And, nope, as you well know, I am not Joel. Although, I like his taste. Set us up. =)

I agree 100% with robbiej about the ITW revival. Pacing was generally good, some nice new line readings, but some problematic additions and a cast seriously subpar to the original cast.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 5:10pm

SWEENEY TODD serves itself very well in dilineating the obsession of a wronged man to mete out justice. Doyle's staging added nothing to the evening in regards to obsession that wasn't already there (at least for me). What could have been interesting (and what seemed to be set up) was exploring Toby's obsession with the story (whether he actually experienced it or it was all in his head). But the staging didn't allow the excellent actor playing Toby to fully explore that.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 5:26pm

The staging is by no means perfect, but for me it does actually add a great deal with regards to the theme of obsession.
Even if Doyle didn't "mean" for extra meaning to be added to specific interactions, if the audience "finds meaning" that is still a valid response. I "find meaning" in the characters of Joanna and Anthony that I have not seen before. The simple thrill of the minimal orchestrations makes every note ring much more clearly for me.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 5:32pm

Smart,

May I ask how, for you, the expoloration of obsession was achieved. What did you understand from this production that you hadn't seen before?

BTW, I, too, am a fan of the orchestrations.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 5:54pm

Okay, I really have to object to the definition of a "concept musical" being "any musical with a theme." Good literature, by its nature, is going to have a few themes. That doesn't mean it's built on a theme, to the point of putting plot by the wayside.

Company? Absolutely the epitome of a concept musical, since what passes for its "plot" is a bunch of sketches connected only through a main character and the common theme of love and marriage in the urban milieu.

Sweeney Todd? Not a theme musical, at least not in my opinion. Of course it has the vengeance theme running all the way through it, but that isn't the spine of the show; the plot is. And a fine plot it is, too.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 5:55pm

It is not that the ideas were never explored before, but to me this production enhanced and clarified them.

Mainly that the obsession extends beyond the main characters, Pirelli is obsessively controling of Toby, you can see this from the "asylum" angle and DLC is the one to interact with Toby, unbind him, etc.
Joanna is obsessed with freedom and will take the measures she needs to gain it.
Anthony, well honestly he is still a schmuck.

It is because of the orchestrations and the integration of instrument and character that allowed my mind to focus on Joanna when she was not actually "in a scene."
It is that they are all there, integrated seeking and obsessing that keeps them in my mind.

There is more to it, and the distinctions are subtle between this and the productions I have seen before.
Do I honestly think it is groundbreakingly different and Avant Garde, no not at all. Yet it is different enough, and meaningful enough to seem more than mere Masturbation... maybe it is "mutual."

[buffyactsing]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 5:58pm

I could be pulling this out of my butt, but I thought I heard awhile ago that he was writing something based on a Irish or Scottish Folk Tale? Anyone remember this?

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 6:03pm

By the way, I am afraid my post made no sense at all. I will try to come back later and explain what I meant.

buffyactsing, I have not heard that.

[buffyactsing]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 6:03pm

Johnnyv, do you remember where you saw that interview? I recall him saying in a interview that he liked every Sondheim except Passion (something about "what was that about??), but I couldn't tell if he was being his usual snarky self or not.

I love Joss...I cried little tears when I saw him and Sondheim on stage together at the Wall to Wall. I almost missed it...but was let in in the middle. What memories!

Give Passion a few chances. I can't say for sure you'll like it, but try it. If not for the show itself, for Donna Murphy's acting skills. Even I didn't love the show the first time I saw it, but it grows on you. Now it's in my top 3.

[buffyactsing]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 6:20pm

Erm, it may not be Irish or Scottish, but it's called the Mabinogion?

Here, I found the link to all that chat:

http://www.sondheim.com/community/index.php?topic=3232.msg182393;topicseen#msg182393

[LostLeander]

Posted: 11/21/05 at 7:46pm

I liked his Doyle's concept, though I am not particularly looking forward to Company, but I think what he does add to Sweeney is another character that's always been there, but is never as highlighted.

The music plays such a key role to the Sweeney Todd, and I think he's exploring how much the music is an active member of the ensemble, and that it is the impetus for all action.

Us, as Sondheim lovers, know how important, and how brilliantly written Sweeney (and the rest of his music) is, and so does Doyle, and he is making it a main character, and not just some music in which people sing over sometimes.

It didn't get in my way, in fact, I loved it, and a lot of the time, I watched the characters who weren't involved in the scene as they played, because they acted WHILE they played, specifically Tobias. And it added a lot for me, personally.

But I can understand how some think it's gimmicky, and I think it definately was on the border, but the concept worked for me.
Staging wise, I hope they cleaned it up a bit from when I saw it in previews, but otherwise I loved it.