The All-Sondheim Thread — Page 13

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.

---

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."

---

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

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.

---

"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.

---

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.

---

"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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---