I'd go with Lansbury because she created a unique character, something that went above and beyond what's in the script.
Having said that, I agree South Fl Marc that she was much better with Cariou than with Hearn. If you've only seen the video of the national tour, you're not seeing her at her best. Her performance there seems frozen and lacking in spontaneity. It wasn't like that was when she did it on Broadway.
I've liked most actresses I've seen in the role. Loudon was a bit uneven, tending to mug a bit at points and I didn't really like her "By the Sea" (though it might have played better in a smaller theatre), but her best parts were thrilling. She certainly was a more overtly emotional Mrs. Lovett than Lansbury had been and she had some brilliant and powerful moments.
And judging from the available evidence, Sheila Hancock was superb in the first London production.
I've also liked Judy Kaye, Joyce Castle, Elaine Paige, and Myrna Paris a great deal in the role. I thought LuPone was better in the Doyle production than in the concert performances, but I wouldn't put her on my list of favorites. Beth Fowler was very good but I didn't like that production much. Rosalind Elias brought some interesting qualities to the role but she was undone by her inability or unwillingness to belt at all.
And I've seen several other Mrs. Lovetts in productions at small theatres. Some have done very well, others less well.
Of the Mrs. Lovetts I've seen in major productions, the only one I didn't like at all was Christine Baranski. I thought she was playing totally for laughs in her Baranski style. Well, about halfway through the second act, she suddenly started playing a version of Mrs. Lovett instead of a laughs machine, but it was too late.
She was also hurt by being in that production, which I thought was not good at all. A different director might have pushed her more not to be Christine Baranski but to play Lovett.
Updated On: 10/14/08 at 02:27 PM
